DefectiveByDesign Supporters to Call on RIAA Execs

johnsu01 writes "DefectiveByDesign.org is organizing a call-in campaign for today. People around the country will be calling high-ranking RIAA officials to deliver the message that DRM is an unacceptable restriction on the freedom of consumers and citizens. DefectiveByDesign will provide the numbers to call when you sign up. This action should attract the people who thought that Apple was not a good target because it is the RIAA that requires DRM and those who think that wearing HazMat suits is obnoxious. Everyone can vote with their dollars, but that doesn't tell the RIAA why they aren't getting the dollars. With a few thousand people signed up already, they will undoubtedly know after today."

Comments

Ugh. Why can't they just post the damn numbers ..

[Entropy]

DefectiveByDesign will provide the numbers to call when you sign up.

Why should I have to sign up? Just post the damn numbers and then request I sign up, and explain why it's important. I mean, I know that requiring registration is by no means the equal of DRM, but on some philosophical levels it does present it's ironies ..

Good luck with that

[Professor_UNIX]

It sounds more like a bunch of people are going to be calling up and harassing people. If you don't like their policies, DON'T BUY THEIR MUSIC! It's that simple. You don't need to explain why you're not buying it since you're not doing business with them anymore. Go buy from Indie labels. You're acting like a kid who says he's not going to talk to you anymore and then spends the next 2 hours trying to get you to ask him why he's not talking to you anymore. You know what? They don't care!

Re:Good luck with that

[kjart]

If you don't like their policies, DON'T BUY THEIR MUSIC!

I couldn't agree more. Nobody is being forced to buy their stuff. Even if the big labels were the only outlet of music (and they're most certainly not) you _still_ wouldn't have to buy anything from them. You don't see me protesting McDonalds because the Big Mac is a piece of crap - I take my business elsewhere.

Re:Good luck with that

[famebait]

The problem with that is that the resulting sales drop will
be blamed on piracy, and used as lobbying ammo for keeping and
extending draconian DRM/copyright laws.

Re:Good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

Managers are usually happy when people call up and complain and explain why they're not getting peoples' money.

The RIAA might be very surprised to hear that they're actually losing money to DRM, and how DRM actually PROMOTES piracy.

If I have the choice between for-pay content, and pirated content, I'll take for pay, because it's neutral re functionality, and thus I make the moral choice. If I have the option between pirated and DRMed, I will select pirated, because pirated is superior (no restrictions).

Re:Good luck with that

[CowboyBob500]

Voting with your feet is a useful tool of protest, but why not attack them on two fronts? It should be any individuals right in a free country to protest peacefully. That includes phoning up perpetrators of stupid laws and harrassing them (work hours only, at their office - not at their homes). Make their lives uncomfortable both in their work lives AND in their pockets.

Bob

Re:Good luck with that

[burnetd]

If you do not explain why you're not buying their CD's then the following will happen...

• They won't know you are not buying them due to DRM.
• They will just put any reduction in sales down to 'piracy' and use more DRM.

Re:Good luck with that

[repvik]

It would help a bit to tell them why we're not buying the products. If they've lost a sale to me because of DRM, they don't automatically know, you see. If enough people tell them that "I won't buy your DRM'ed shit", they might even listen!

I'm no longer buying CD's, for two reasons:
1. I don't like having to check each CD I buy to see if they're DRM'ed
2. CD's are old-fashioned anyway.

I like buying music online, but I don't use stores that enforce DRM, simply because I want to be in control of my music collection. So, where does this leave me? I can buy from AllOfMP3, and hope that some money goes to the artist(s), or I can download for free using various filesharing apps. If I didn't have a credit card, I would have no option but to pirate.

The record companies/riaa need to know that their distribution methods are getting too old, and that DRM doesn't work the way they want it to. What they need to do is to make their music easier to access/buy (And screw prices that makes an album online cost the same as a jewel-case in a store!). And they should be told so. By enough people to be heard!

Re:Good luck with that

[91degrees]

The way in which something is deffective is irrelevant - if I don't like a product, I don't have to buy it.

True. However, usually they'd like to know why you're not buying a product. If you dislike McDonalds because they only serve fatty food, then they might consider some healthier options. But that will only happen if they know about it.

Re:Good luck with that

[Aim Here]

No, it's not that simple. The idea is to change their behaviour so that they stop trying to inflict DRM on consumers. For that, they need to know WHY you're not buying their music, because otherwise they might just carry on saying 'these people aren't buying our music because uhhh, they're a bunch of pirates who need to be policed'. If we can boycott the fuckers out of business, yeah, fine, wonderful, but it's hardly likely to happen, so other tactics might be necessary.

"It sounds more like a bunch of people are going to be calling up and harassing people."

Bingo, you've got it in one. The whole idea is to make it more trouble than it's worth for these fuckers to take away everyone's freedom. Whenever two groups of people disagree over something, the side that can harass the other past the point where it's not worth it to fight any more wins. That's how politics works. That's how war works. That's how all human conflict works.

Re:Good luck with that

[plasmacutter]

I couldn't agree more. Nobody is being forced to buy their stuff. Even if the big labels were the only outlet of music (and they're most certainly not) you _still_ wouldn't have to buy anything from them.

If the only supplier of housing was a monopoly who imposed DRM and high prices on all housing, would you suggest they not buy housing too? granted we can survive without shelter too.. exposure to the elements does not necessarily equal death after all.

of course.. you could live like an animal.. do nothing but eat, sleep, work, and crap.. without culture we are not human. I'm sorry but culture and cultural participation are essential to humanity, nearly as essential as food, we've had this argument before but since you've decided to post redundantly so have I, and damn the karma, i wont have this "just dont buy it" fallacy bandied about without rebuttal.

Re:Good luck with that

[migloo]

You don't see me protesting McDonalds because the Big Mac is a piece of crap - I take my business elsewhere.

Fallacious comparison:

If McDo had a DRM, your only choice would be either junk food or starve.

Re:Good luck with that

[paralaxcreations]

There is a large difference between what you can do with/to a celebrity (agencies, politicians, and public companies fall under this category) and what you can do with/to a private citizen.

Even if that weren't the case, the RIAA makes their number public (because they're a public company). Private citizens tend not to (because they want to remain private). It's called a customer service option.

Having said that, I think this is the lamest protest ever. "What are you doing to protest?" "Calling customer service." Riiiiight.

Re:Good luck with that

[parcel]

It wouldn't be a problem if the legislation bought on the way to their death would go away with them.

Re:Good luck with that

[Hrodvitnir]

If I didn't have a credit card, I would have no option but to pirate.

Or, simply not derive pleasure from someone's work without due compensation. Unless you think it's your 'right' to listen to good music. Something tells me those with the money, but not the card, to purchase the music aren't sending checks to the artist after they pirate their music.

Re:Good luck with that

[VoxCombo]

Our free market takes care of this. If "the only supplier of housing" became a bad deal for consumers, then the market would eventually even that out. It's the beauty of capitalism.

Nobody has a monopoly on housing, and nobody has a monopoly on music. Go forth and buy your house from whomever you want, and buy your music from the thousands of labels and artists who do not use DRM.

Re:Good luck with that

[Asphalt]

Something tells me those with the money, but not the card, to purchase the music aren't sending checks to the artist after they pirate their music.

Actually, you just roughly described the business model of a record label.

Re:Good luck with that

[dpilot]

It's not the music or the DRM, it's the legislation!

I can not-buy-music, too. In fact, I generally do - I buy very little music, largely because of this set of issues. There's also a pragmatic/economic issue lumped in with it. If CD prices were halved, I'd likely buy more than twice as many. If they were cut in thirds, I'd likely buy more than 3 times as many. But as the price declined further, taste and storage would become the limiting factors, so from their perspective, it wouldn't make sense to lower my price to that point. All of this for something that costs $0.10 to duplicate, about as much to package, and has a list price in the $18 range. There's enormous room to play with the supply/demand curve, and they're not doing it. They just pout and cry about piracy.

That's where the real damage is - their pouting and crying is to legislators, expressed along with $$$. They're striving to preserve their current business and pricing models through legislation. Aside from subverting the free market, there's a complete ignorance of and disregard for consequences of this legislation.

Imagine if McDonalds had similar clout at the FDA. Simply voting with your feet wouldn't be sufficient.

Re:Good luck with that

[SCHecklerX]

Or, simply not derive pleasure from someone's work without due compensation.

That is what live shows are for. CDs should not be the big moneymaker. Charge for them what it costs to make them, maybe a little more. Sell them for $5 a piece at a cd release party show. Etc.

I don't see any local bands freaking out because people enjoy their music and share it. They love it, b/c it gets people to their shows, and lets those people enjoy their art.

If you suck, you have no right for huge profit simply because you might have gotten just one good song on your CD of 15-20. That same song already having been played to death on the radio so that you don't want to listen to it anyway.

The CD should be the promotion of your work. You think the RIAA compensates their indentured servants...er...artists properly with CD sales?

Re:Good luck with that

[ajs318]

Actually, they do have a monopoly on popular music, since with any kind of art there is, by definition, no objective criterion for evaluation.

Industrial components are standardised. If I buy an M6 nut from one supplier, I can be sure that it will screw onto an M6 bolt from any other supplier. If I buy a length of 15mm. copper piping, I can similarly be sure it will fit any 15mm. compression or soldered elbow, tee, reducer or valve. If I need a 10K ohm resistor, or a diode which will handle 6 amperes with a maximum reverse voltage of 400V, I can buy ones which perform identically from any of several suppliers.

If, however, I want to listen to the song "Whenever, Wherever", I can only find this song sung by Shakira, and only on Epic Records -- a label owned by Sony Music. Everytime someone spends several pounds on a copy of the CD, Shakira herself -- the one truly indispensable person in the equation -- receives a few pence out of this money. Logically, anyone should be allowed to make their own copy and send Shakira the same sum of money as she would have received had they bought one from Sony. Yet, for some reason, this is not allowed. If this were allowed, then there would not be a monopoly situation, since various entities would be competing to supply the same music as though it were a standard industrial part, and the market would decide matters for itself.

{Note 1: anyone is free to make recordings of classical music which has entered the public domain.}

{Note 2: in some European countries, you used to be able to buy cheap and cheerful LPs and cassettes -- CDs weren't invented then -- containing poor-to-terrible cover versions of popular British and American chart hits. I suspect this is no longer the case. Any Continentals care to comment?}

Re:Good luck with that

[Chosen Reject]

Too true. In this case if people stop buying the RIAA/MPAA stuff, they automatically assume it is because of piracy. You can vote with your money, but if you don't tell them the reason your not buying is DRM, they will assume it's because piracy is on the rise, use extremely silly numbers as lost sales, and do some more tweaking to the law book. It is a good thing to tell them why in this case.

Re:Good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

Christ you're stupid.

He in fact HAS legal tender, known to the rest of us as "money". What he's refusing is to borrow tracked money at 15% because he, once again, already HAS said money. If you can't grasp something that simple, it's tempting to ask if you work for the RIAA, maybe in the loss estimation department?

Re:Good luck with that

[StarvingSE]

Something tells me those with the money, but not the card, to purchase the music aren't sending checks to the artist after they pirate their music.

Sounds like a good idea to me. Download an artist's music off of limewire or whatever for free, and send a check directly to the artists saying "hey, I downloaded 10 tracks, here's a check for $10.00. F*** the RIAA." That would get the RIAA's attention real quick, and show that people aren't against paying for stuff, they are against being treated like criminals.

Re:Good luck with that

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>You don't see me protesting McDonalds because the Big Mac is a piece of crap - I take my business elsewhere.

That would be a better analogy if McDonald's was trying to require that every plate and fork in the world refuse to work if the plates and forks thought you were eating McDonald's food in your car when the food was only licensed for home. McDonald's doesn't try to interfere with the plate and fork market. The RIAA and the Movie And Film Industry Association are, right this minute, trying to get an act of COngress to interfere with the consumer electronics market.

You don't have to buy their "music" but you may soon be forced to buy less functional toys because of them.

Re:Good luck with that

[Connie_Lingus]

Something tells me those with the money, but not the card, to purchase the music aren't sending checks to the artist after they pirate their music.

I've actually tried to do this at least 3-4 times, by going to the web sites of bands I've dl'ed, and each time they told me by contract with the label they are not able to accept money directly. Remember, CDs are made on borrowed money, and the label makes sure it gets paid back before the artists get anything.

Re:Good luck with that

[Em Adespoton]

In fact, for any of you who weren't alive in the 70's, this whole thing is what the Folk Music revolution was about -- people wrote songs and purposefully put them in the public domain so that MULTIPLE artists could perform them. Not only that, but the songs were DESIGNED so that anyone could sing the song around a campfire, in the shower, etc. and the song would be recognizable. Not only that, the songs generally contained lyrics that reflected the cultural values and issues of the times.

By this argument, if our society and culture is defined by what people are trading on p2p servers today, I think that shows that everyone who is musically or poetically inclined had best get to work producing something better. Otherwise, let me out of this society....

Re:Good luck with that

[shark72]

"The above situations would remove a tangible product from circulation thus preventing someone who wanted to pay for it from doing so and removing real property from a place of business. Downloading a file that you could not purchase even if you wanted to does no such thing."

Good point, but the fallacy of "I don't have the money to buy it" becomes really easy to rationalize. I'd wager that 9 times out of 10, the person given the "download the track for a buck or get it on P2P for free" does have the money to buy it (after all, they are likely paying for their broadband connection, and rent or mortgage on house that contains the PC with the broadband connection). If somebody really does not have one dollar to spare, they likely have much more grave issues to worry about than whether or not to get that new Gnarls Barkley single. Humans have a great ability to rationalize and fool themselves (for some reasons, it must have helped us along evolutionarily) and the 10th or 100th or 1000th time you happily think to yourself "it's OK, I don't have the money to buy it" it becomes meaningless.

Similarly, "I wouldn't have bought it anyway" is a tautology. Again, 9 times out of 10, pirate "wouldn't have bought it" because it's readily available for free.

Re:Good luck with that

[shark72]

"Logically, anyone should be allowed to make their own copy and send Shakira the same sum of money as she would have received had they bought one from Sony. Yet, for some reason, this is not allowed."

The reason is, of course, that it's Sony who funded the production, marketing, and distribution of the CD. In turn for investing a significant amount of money, their contract with Shakira states that they are the exclusive distributors of the recording. If Sony doesn't turn a profit, they're out of business. Maybe I misunderstood you -- when you wrote "for some reason" did you mean that you actually didn't understand the reason?

"If this were allowed, then there would not be a monopoly situation, since various entities would be competing to supply the same music as though it were a standard industrial part, and the market would decide matters for itself."

It is a monopoly in the sense that copyright provides a limited monopoly, but it is not a monopoly in the sense that the word is typically used. The danger of describing the record industry as a "monopoly" in these terms makes it meaningless, as many, many industries -- pretty much any industry that develops branded products or engages in exclusive contracts -- would also fall under this definition.

Calling the record industry a monopoly may be good for the soul, and if it makes people feel better about using P2P so they can be a "monopoly buster," then it's all good. But be careful about using the m-word around an economist or similar expert. It's a bit like creationists who deliberately misuse the word "theory" (as in evolutionary theory) to make their point. It might sound convincing, and it satisfies the people who want to believe, but it's still hogwash.

Re:Good luck with that

[thc69]

That's something that I'd like to do -- but it's fraught with difficulty.

  --I don't want to be anonymous to the artists, but I don't want to be identifiable to the RIAA, having just confessed about piracy (Legally, it still is piracy, since the RIAA owns those recordings)...

  --Some artists would probably share a percentage with the RIAA...

  --Having thought of that, it occurs to me that the RIAA still deserves a cut for the marketing that they did which resulted in me discovering the music in question. I am very much beginning to dislike this road! ;)

I'm morally against the way they use DRM. If I'm trying to vote against it with my dollars, then I fail above.

I'm practically against their enforcement against piracy -- because, practically speaking, I bought a whole lot more music when I was pirating a lot than I did when I only pirated a little, just because of my excitement about the music. The end result was that more piracy caused them to get more of my money.

These days, I've gone cold turkey; I've got too much to lose (house, etc) and they're enforcing too strongly. I also have gone cold turkey on buying RIAA-related music. The only revenue they get from me now is their cut of my satellite radio subscription (from which I have NO interest in going to the efford of recording, for the record).

Perhaps I should find a way to let them know all of this, else they may think they lost the sales because of increased piracy.

DRM is the new Vietnam?

[kjart]

Call me cynical, but does anyone else find it sad that this is promoted as such a "cause" to fight for? Has consumerism come so far that we are now protesting the things we buy? This isn't really the context that I think of when I think of a 'freedom fighter' (their label, not mine).

Though, I suppose, it's not like there are any wars or civil liberty issues to protest nowadays.....

All that being said, DRM sucks.

Re:DRM is the new Vietnam?

[plasmacutter]

in this age of globalism and a world where international borders become less and less meaningful the elite can no longer subjugate people through conquering other lands and calling them "colonies".

Despite this the elite long for those days long ago when serfs were forced to work without pay and without the right to property for the enrichment of their masters receiving only "security" in return. (that was the case.. after all the "lords" were there to protect them from raiding hordes after the fall of the roman empire)

As such, they have now found a new way of stripping away our right to own and govern property using technology and the great constitutional end-run known as contract law.

Make no mistake, this is a fight for freedom. It may not be as glorious, as roudy, or as conventional as you remember, but then again the american revolution was unlike any war since as well.. no grand columns of soldiers, but guerrilla attacks which the british considered "cowardly" and "childish". (see the original lyrics to yankee doodle for references)

Re:DRM is the new Vietnam?

[kjart]

As such, they have now found a new way of stripping away our right to own and govern property using technology and the great constitutional end-run known as contract law.

I'll say it again - DRM sucks. But I really dont see how it is stripping away your right to own and govern property. It may be restricting your ability to use the property they are trying to sell you - but guess what? You don't have to buy it. Nobody is forcing you to buy music from major record labels. Even if they were the only show in town (which they aren't) you still wouldn't have to buy a single CD from them.

That's where your analogy colapses. Whereas the British had soldiers with guns that actually did force you to do something (i.e. pay taxes) the only one you have to blame for buying a Britney Spears (or whatever) CD with DRM is yourself.

Re:DRM is the new Vietnam?

[plasmacutter]

I'll say it again - DRM sucks. But I really dont see how it is stripping away your right to own and govern property.

Part of the term "property" involves the owner's right to fully govern it, not some corporation or elitist slobs.

It may be restricting your ability to use the property they are trying to sell you - but guess what? You don't have to buy it. Nobody is forcing you to buy music from major record label

And nobody is forcing you to breathe air.

I think its about time this straw man was debunked. Culture is as essential to humanity as air, food, shelter and water, and like it or not the RIAA and their related organizations have a near monopoly control over the most popular and dominant expressions of our culture. If we do not own our culture and have a right to participate in it I say our "sentience" is highly overrated, and we need to go back to the trees where we belong.

Re:DRM is the new Vietnam?

[kjart]

Culture is as essential to humanity as air, food, shelter and water, and like it or not the RIAA and their related organizations have a near monopoly control over the most popular and dominant expressions of our culture. If we do not own our culture and have a right to participate in it I say our "sentience" is highly overrated, and we need to go back to the trees where we belong.

Holy hyperbole batman. Culture is not as essential as air, food, shelter or water. Try not buying a CD or DVD for a month and then try not breathing, eating or drinking anything for a month. Why in that order? Because the second will kill you whereas the first will - what? Make you a little bored? I wouldn't even go that far. There is far more to culture then what the major music and movie companies offer - and that's not going to change anytime soon.

Why not? Because people _are_ free to participate in culture. If what exists sucks (or at least does in your opinion) you can go out and create your own works or, if your talents don't lay in that area, can support someone who does make something to your liking. Modern technology has even made this (arguably) easier to do nowadays then ever before.

Seriously, you need to stop over-dramatising DRM - sure, it sucks, but you dont have to deal with it.

Re:DRM is the new Vietnam?

[damburger]

Given that the underlying issue is freedom of speech vs. property rights, this issue is FAR from trivial.

We live in a society that worships at the alter of the free market. The invisible hand can do no wrong and anyone who claims otherwise is a dirty commie. The abundant nature of data on an open network is heresy to this new religion though - the market requires scarcity to function. A scarcity must be introduced so that the glorious march of capitalism can continue.

On the other hand, any IP law is a law that can be used to restrict what information is held on and communicated between computers is a restriction on free speech. Call me crazy, but governments shouldn't be adding more of those.

I'm not sure if harassing certain people will have any effect on this struggle, but it might be worth a shot.

Re:DRM is the new Vietnam?

[ionpro]

eMusic. $0.25 per song (or less!), over a million songs to choose from in many different genres. And what they send you is unencumbered MP3s. No DRM, universal compatibility. Try it out for free by downloading a recent Winamp -- 50 free songs are included. (or sign up for a 14-day, 25 song trial via their website). Support good non-RIAA music!

Note: I have no affiliation with eMusic, other then being a satisfied customer.

Re:DRM is the new Vietnam?

[plasmacutter]

Why in that order? Because the second will kill you whereas the first will - what? Make you a little bored? I wouldn't even go that far. There is far more to culture then what the major music and movie companies offer - and that's not going to change anytime soon.

Why not? Because people _are_ free to participate in culture. If what exists sucks (or at least does in your opinion) you can go out and create your own works or, if your talents don't lay in that area, can support someone who does make something to your liking. Modern technology has even made this (arguably) easier to do nowadays then ever before.

look.. participation does not mean simply "consumption".. it means remixing, sharing, communication, etc. DRM prevents that, so no, we _are not_ free to participate in culture.. thanks to DRM we are only free to _consume_ what they dispense.

Further, youre right there is far more to culture than what the music and movie industries offer, just like there is far more to the world than what major industrialized nations have to offer, that doesnt change the fact that what these music and movie industries have to offer makes up the _majority_ of our culture and we deserve the right to participate in it rather than simply _consume_ it.

Finally, we are not human if we do not participate in culture.. we are no better than the animals we claim differ from us..

why not extend that argument from culture to food.. we can go much longer without food than we can air and water.. why not cut out food.

would you tolerate it if the government mandated we eat nothing but kibble for food? dog food is more nutritious than our food but would you tolerate it?

Re:DRM is the new Vietnam?

[plasmacutter]

They've only got the slings and arrows of the law -- we've got the b-52s of technological inevitability on our side...

this is the problem though.. through the law they are steering the "inevitability" of technology away from consumer empowerment.

DRM is a technology.. people often forget that when they talk about the inevitability of technological advancement... there is no guarantee any longer that that advancement will not lead to stronger shackles with which the general public will be chained.

it is a double edged sword, and the law is far more powerful in sharpening an edge than competitive pressure is at sharpening the other.

Re:DRM is the new Vietnam?

[GundamFan]

Hold on... Since when is the homoginized, processed, bleached and dary free material produced by the record companies culture?

The tail is waging the dog here... the entertanment producers have figured out how to tell us what to like, our "culture" does not reflect a greater truth about our humanity other than how it has been diminished.

Having said that, I am a hypocrite, I have a modes music collection, I watch some TV and I enjoy movies. I at least try to form my own opinions about what to like and not like.

Re:DRM is the new Vietnam?

[kjart]

Further, youre right there is far more to culture than what the music and movie industries offer, just like there is far more to the world than what major industrialized nations have to offer, that doesnt change the fact that what these music and movie industries have to offer makes up the _majority_ of our culture and we deserve the right to participate in it rather than simply _consume_ it.

So you are suggesting that all cultural work should be free to everyone to do with as they wish? I respectfully disagree - I am quite content in a world in which the artist is able to choose what they do with their work (and going with a label that believes in DRM is a choice) - whether that be selling it, giving it away for free or doing nothing.

If I sing a song or write a play or paint a picture and I don't share it with you, am I violating your rights? I find that notion absurd. Creators should have the right to do as they will with their creations.

why not extend that argument from culture to food.. we can go much longer without food than we can air and water.. why not cut out food.

Again, doing without culture is not literally going to kill you. Regardless, we aren't even talking about doing without culture - we are talking about not consuming specific pieces of culture or, in choosing to consume, not being able to do everything we'd care to do with them (at least legally).

would you tolerate it if the government mandated we eat nothing but kibble for food? dog food is more nutritious than our food but would you tolerate it?

No, but you are again comparing apples to oranges. See previous comment regarding people with guns vs buying a CD.

Re:DRM is the new Vietnam?

[plasmacutter]

I am quite content in a world in which the artist is able to choose what they do with their work (and going with a label that believes in DRM is a choice)

I agree fully.. they should be able to do what they choose with their work, but consumers and electronics firms should have full right to do what they choose with DRM'ed formats.. including circumvention.

Further, consumers should have a right to do what they want with their bought items after artists have sold them, including stripping DRM.

I see nothing wrong with what you said.. I see everything wrong with the DMCA interrupting the free market's ability to correct abuses.

No, but you are again comparing apples to oranges.
no, it's not comparing apples to oranges. there are laws mandating that the free market cannot correct for DRM by building DRM free players capable of playing DRMed product.. granted it's not expressly put that way, but that is the end result.
If the government were to do this indirectly it would amount to the same thing.

Granted not having culture will not "kill" you.. but i've spent time doing nothing but eat, sleep, work, and crap.. i have had very demanding times in my life.. and i will tell you i've felt the difference.. your mind becomes numb and you lose pieces of yourself. it is definitely not healthy.

Re:DRM is the new Vietnam?

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>Also, the free speech mention is weak at best. Please clarfiy how it is a free speech issue if I use a CD precisely how I want to.

To use a CD precisely the way you want it, you may need to hold down the shift key when you load it into your computer. The person who spoke freely about that received legal threats.

To use a DVD precisely how you want to, for example putting it on a hard disk for easier access or for legally authorized backups, you need a magic 40-bit number. Someone who merely *linked* to a site with that number got slapped with an injunction requiring them to stop speaking (this happened under your southern neighbor's "DMCA" law).

DRM can't be enforced if there is free speech, because free speech could be used for sharing workarounds.

DRM can be used directly to inhibit spreading information for political debate. If the Pentagon had put DRM on their history of the Vietnam War, Daniel Ellsberg couldn't have leaked it.

Mr. Asshole isn't in right now...

[davmoo]

And precisely how do these people expect to get past the front switchboard or the secretary to actually talk to Mr. Powerfull RIAA Person?

Re:Mr. Asshole isn't in right now...

[__aaclcg7560]

They don't. They want to pull a Denial of Service attack on the switchboards to force the Mr. Powerful RIAA Person to use their own personal cell phone minutes to make outgoing phone calls and hopefully get them to "feel the pain" of paying through the nose to talk. Unfortunately, Mr. Powerful RIAA Person can use that as an excuse to jack up retail prices and blame the "pirates" for the need to do so.

Re:Mr. Asshole isn't in right now...

[rickardl]

One clever DefectiveByDesign volunteer called in, got bumped to a voicemail system by the secretary, then used the last four digits of the number he had called to dial directly back to the exec's mailbox. It was a sweet trick -- guessing that the mailbox numbers are the same as the phone numbers. I've been reading through the reports on the site, and it's pretty funny to read the responses they get.

And in response to the gist of the original comment: If enough people call in, I think this type of campaign can have a visible impact on an organization's daily productivity. If even 500 people call in, the RIAA won't accomplish much today. (Especially since we know that secretaries and other office staff are the ones who actually get things done.)

Drunk Dialing the RIAA

[eldavojohn]

I think I'll sign up for this and store a few of these numbers on my phone. I hope they remain active, that way I'll always be able to call the RIAA about the DRM on my sister's iPod or even just to remind them that their invited to accompany me and a certain politician on a "hunting trip."

Something that I do when I'm drinking at 2 or 3 am is drunk dial people. This is pretty much a curse as I proceed to leave indiscernible/garbled phone messages for my victims.

Thanks to this website, I'll now be able to leave those messages on RIAA answering machines. If I get an RIAA representative on the phone, it will be perfect because:

• I've never lost an argument when drunk. At least, nobody's ever not conceded to me.
• I'm twice as opinionated and polarized when I'm drunk compared to when I'm sober.
• I constantly like to give people a "piece of my mind" and/or "settle their hash" when wrecked.
• I love to sing when I'm drunk. This is bad because it usually comes out in an a-melodic fashion.
• Phone conversations with me can last an hour or more. Sometimes taking as much as 10 minutes to figure out who I am, what I'm doing, where I am & (the hardest one) why I'm calling you.

So, as you can see, there are so many good reasons for me to put the RIAA on the top of my drunk dialing list. Not because I want to call them and tell them how much I'm going to miss after everyone graduates and moves away ... but instead to let them know my true inner feelings about DRM, who they are and what they do.

Re:Drunk Dialing the RIAA

[phaxkolumbo]

I love to sing when I'm drunk.

Careful there, if you do that RIAA might actually get back to you...

Real-world DDOS

[quokkapox]

I think it's inevitable that we'll see this technique used more and more frequently. Even a small group of people can use the internet to organize and even mediocre marketing/writing skills can be used to gather a large (overwhelming) group of people who will do something that annoys a company (calls to complain about something, buy a CD with DRM and immediately return it unopened, etc.)

Imagine if every Wal*Mart in a given city had a swarm of "customers" walk in, fill up a cart with goods and then abandon it. You can bet it would make the local news if it were done right. Even the national news. Look how that guy who recorded his "cancel my account" AOL experience. He managed to get digg and slashdot to cover it, and then it spiralled out onto the cable news networks. That one story could have profound effects on the entire AOL customer service staff.

Old School

[cloudkiller]

I'm up for the old-school phone-a-thon, but can't someone just track down the blue frog killers and send the RIAA a message that way? 1000 or so calls just means a $5.15 an hour receptionist has a really bad day.

Better still

[GroeFaZ]

Return to them, via email, all .mp3s you ever obtained without paying.

I know, old hat, but still funny :)

Re:Better still

[Eideewt]

If only there were some way to make copies....

DefectiveByDesign ???

[gedeco]

Looks like a evaluation of the campaign itself.

Here Are the Numbers!

[Anonymous Coward]

Chairman Ted Stevens (AK), (202) 224-3004
John McCain (AZ), (202) 224-2235
Conrad Burns (MT), Main: 202-224-2644
Trent Lott (MS), (202) 224-6253
Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX), (202) 224-5922
Gordon H. Smith (OR), (202) 224 3753
John Ensign (NV), (202) 224-6244
George Allen (VA), (202) 224-4024
John E. Sununu (NH), (202) 224-2841
Jim DeMint (SC), (202) 224-6121
David Vitter (LA),(202) 224-4623
Co-Chairman Daniel K. Inouye (HI), (202) 224-3934
John D. Rockefeller (WV), (202) 224-6472
John F. Kerry (MA), (202) 224-2742
Barbara Boxer (CA), (202) 224-3553
Bill Nelson (FL), (202) 224-5274
Maria Cantwell (WA), (202) 224-3441
Frank R. Lautenberg (NJ), (202) 224-3224
E. Benjamin Nelson (NE), (202) 224-6551
Mark Pryor (AR), (202) 224-2353

Re:Here Are the Numbers!

[papskier]

and here's the "official" list from defective by design...

Brad Buckles RIAA USA (202) 857-9607
Mitch Bainwol RIAA USA (202) 857-9651
Cary Sherman RIAA USA (202) 857-9632
Mitch Glazier (202) 857-9673 USA RIAA
Neil Turkowitz RIAA USA (202) 857-9647
Steve Redmond BPI UK +44 (0)20 7803 1324
Peter Jamieson BPI UK +44 (0) 20 7803 1311
Matt Phillips BPI UK 44 (0) 77 3951 4963
Michael Haentjes IFPI Germany +49 (30) 59 00 38-0
Peter Zombik IFPI Germany +49 (30) 59 00 38-0
Jean never Foitzik IFPI Germany +49 (30) 59 00 38-23
Herve Rony SNEP France +33 (1) 44 13 66 66
Graham Henderson CRIA Canada 1 (416) 967-7272 ext. 102

a good email address was sacrificed to spam to get this information... use it wisely.

Re:Here Are the Numbers!

[Rob T Firefly]

a good email address was sacrificed to spam to get this information... use it wisely.

But how many Bothans died? No sacrifice can be understood unless converted to the universal measurement of Bothan deaths.

Re:Here Are the Numbers!

[$RANDOMLUSER]

At the US numbers, they're jerking people around pretty good, on hold forever, disconnected, routed to voicemail with bad extension numbers, etc.
Try dialing (202) 857-9600, which is the root of their voicemail system, then use the person's extension to get to their direct voicemail.

(202) 857-9600
Brad Buckles 9607
Mitch Bainwol 9651
Cary Sherman 9632
Mitch Glazier 9673
Neil Turkowitz 9647

Try to be polite and professional.

Re:Ugh. Why can't they just post the damn numbers

[Kaitiff]

While I can understand your point on 'some philosophical level', it shows a level of dedication to stand up and be counted. In this day and age, marches and protests are superseded by our ability to bitch and whine on message boards and blogs. Anonymity is something we need to protect on the 'net, but stepping into the limelight makes a much bolder statement. It takes a lot more courage and dedication to a cause to have your name be listed than using a pseudonym. Please take note of my hypocrisy; I do believe this will be posted as an anonymous coward because I can't recall my nick on here. :)

Will this be effective?

[William Robinson]

Though, I would love to see RIAA disappear as much as the next person, I serously doubt what this canpaign would achieve. RIAA (and all almighty power they have) would not have existed in first place if there were no need of them.

If they can be convinced not to make too much fuss about everything on this earth, maybe things will be OK.

my 2 cents

How to get people to sign up

[Nicodemus101]

Spread the word about this call-in by asking your friends to register today! When you log in on Friday we'll give you a special number to call. After you've made your call, you can let us know how it went.

I think the email would go something like this:

Dear defectivebydesign Team
I called that fantastic number you supplied me with. I was confronted with a recorded message stating "Welcome to RIAA, DRM department, the person you are looking for is not available at the moment. Please leave a message and he'll/she'll get back to you as soon as possible. Your call is important to us. Have nice day"

How to get a lot of people to sing up to your page:
1) Find a lot of people on the internet
2) Find a cause they all hate
3) Give them a little hope by signing up to your page
4) Sell thier details to the highest bidder for spam production
5) Profit profit profit

Voting with Dollars

[professionalfurryele]

"Everyone can vote with their dollars, but that doesn't tell the RIAA why they aren't getting the dollars."

I do love this idea. Has any one else noticed that if we reduce ourselves to voting with our dollars, then ordinary people get about 37,000 votes a year if they are lucky, while Corporations and the super rich get millions or billions of votes?

Boycotts may or may not work, but they should not be the primary means of collective bargaining for the people. The collective bargaining agency supposed to stand up for the rights of the people is called the government. Or at least, that was the impression I got.

Re:Voting with Dollars

[professionalfurryele]

I don't know what you mean by the government is the people. The government is China is very much not the people. The government in Iran as well.

The government should be a manifestation of the peoples collective will to protect their rights, and ensure compliance with their responsibilities. The government is responsible for protecting peoples rights. When they fail it is the responsibility of the people to protect their rights by changing the government. Your government does not protect the rights of the people.

"And really, I'm not sure I like a world were you have the "right" to content that I produce."

So you believe that people do not have a right to the cultural heritage of humanity? Knowledge and information are not property. I would claim that considering them as such is an odd position to take. Here is the deal. You produce content, society agrees to give you certain, limited temporary rights as an incentive. Don't like it? Don't create. At least that used to be the deal.

Re:Voting with Dollars

[professionalfurryele]

I think you missed the point. If we are going to rely solely on economics to prevent our rights being taken away, then those labels attached to the RIAA have far more clout than an individual American citizen. Given that those labels are not people, they should have zero say on rights issues. To suggest boycott is the solution is like suggesting not making tea is the solution to taxation without represntation. The solution is a change of government, to one which is concerned primarily with peoples rights. People have a right to acess the cultural heritage of humanity.

Re:Voting with Dollars

[ajs]

Actually, if poor people stopped buying music, I think the music companies would be terribly, terribly screwed.

Purchasing power is not always proportional to purchasing, especially with respect to entertainment.

Re:Voting with Dollars

[professionalfurryele]

I think you missed the point. The parent suggested we use a boycott to protect ourselves from DRM. However DRM is an infringement of citizens right to access the cultural heritage of humanity. I was pointing out that if we decide to fight this one using dollars as votes then the RIAA, who as a collective organisation and not an individual should have precisely no say on a rights issue has billions of dollars (votes), while the average Armerican has a few tens of thousands of dollars (votes). That system is highly unfair since as this is a rights issue the people should be the ones to decide, given suitable moderation by a constrained government which errs on the side of protecting rights over following the will of the people.

Re:Ugh. Why can't they just post the damn numbers

[Eideewt]

My guess would be that they want to balance the number of calls to each phone number, and they want to know how many people participated. Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

Re:Ugh. Why can't they just post the damn numbers

[Entropy]

My guess would be that they want to balance the number of calls to each phone number, and they want to know how many people participated. Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

Those goals are reasonable - but can be attained without forcing a signup to get the numbers.

You can ASK people "if you participate, please let us know".

And you can ask them to choose a number by rolling a die.

I'm not saying that the registration is evil, it's just counter intuitive in this context, not to mention annoying.

Re:Alternatives!

[Eideewt]

Just selling shit to us on the level is the alternative. People will still buy music. Do you know how I know that? Because they do it now, even though they don't have to.

Nearly any song you might want is available on the Internet, for free. You might think that everyone would just go and download music for free when they want it (the RIAA seems to hold that opinion) like the amoral consumers they are. Well, obviously not. Many people buy music both from online stores and on CD, even though they don't have to. When I ask people why they do that, the answer I usually get is that they want to support the artists. So, if people buy music anyway, what exactly is the problem with selling it in a non-defective form? There's only one problem: when a person (not a *consumer*) can use the music they buy on all their devices, and don't have to re-buy with every format change (both of which I think we all agree should be legal), the music publishers lose the oppurtunity to milk fans for every cent they can. What a shame.

Re:Ugh. Why can't they just post the damn numbers

[McWilde]

"I can't recall my nick on here"

It's "Kaitiff".

"Plays for sure" = "Plays for now"

[yeremein]

I blogged about why I won't purchase any "Plays for sure" music. The DRM is practically guaranteed to make your music collection disappear.

Any system that restricts copying the music you paid for will eventually lock out the paying customer. I refuse to spend real money on a disappearing product.

Re:Ugh. Why can't they just post the damn numbers

[Lumpy]

Why should I have to sign up? Just post the damn numbers and then request I sign up,

simple.

Trolls. They are trying to limit the number of trolls. for every one moron spewing profanity and "1 0wn J00!" at them that destroys the credibility of 20 honest and professional calls.

So limiting the idiots and morons that screw things up helps make the ration of intilligent to idiot much higher.

Re:Ugh. Why can't they just post the damn numbers

[Lurker187]

Why should I have to sign up? Just post the damn numbers and then request I sign up, and explain why it's important. I mean, I know that requiring registration is by no means the equal of DRM, but on some philosophical levels it does present it's ironies ..

My guess is they want people to register for the same reason that internet petitions aren't worth crap -- anonymity is ultimately a form of obfuscation, and when you're trying to tell someone something they don't want to hear, they'll jump on any excuse to devalue the legitimacy of your position.

But yes, it's a perfectly valid point, there is certainly some irony there.

Re:Alternatives!

[Lumpy]

Yes there is a very VERY effictive alternative they refuse to use.

I pirate music like a maniac, I have 2 300 gig drives full of mp3's from friends, relatives and friends of friends as well as the rarer stuff I need to pirate bay for.

I will happily buy CD's when they are at a value I am willing to buy at and that number is $10.00.

I have been looking for good CD's of TUBES music for nearly a decade, the completetion backward principah has not been released on CD. I found a "best of" that contained almost all of that album at a local store for $9.99 and I snatched it up. I also troll the Used CD stores as they typically sell for $6.00 to $8.00 and I will happily buy a used CD at that price (it also keeps cash out of the RIAA hands.

The ONLY time I buy a CD above the $10.00 mark is at a concert. as I know all the cash is going to the band. If you are so famous you can have 10,000,000 cd's pressed then you are saving so much on pressing that you can easily make insane cash at $10.00 a disc retail.

That is the answer. the RIAA and record labels dont want it because that means they have to work a tiny bit harder to make the same obscene profits while raping the artists as hard as they ever do.

at $10.00 it's not worth my effort to find the CD on a torrent or elsewhere online.

PLEASE MOD PARENT UP

[spyrochaete]

This should be at the top of the page!!

Re:Freedom?

[ettlz]

What about the freedom of citizens to not be spammed by (potentially abusive) phone calls?

You're confusing a private citizen with their position as a leading figure in the RIAA. Yes, phoning them at home would be objectionable, but I don't see how ringing the office is an affront to freedom. They're not compelled to be in that job, and can always hang up.

People really can't seem to be able to fight an intellectual battle in an honest and clean way.

Well when the industry itself resorts to dirty tricks (e.g., Sony rootkit), what do you expect?

Sadly, it won't help

[dbmasters]

The RIAA is just like labor unions, they were a decent idea, but they have gotten too big and too powerful and have grown themselves into a counterproductive entity that is hurting those that they profess to help and profit from them a great deal, which is also the exact reason they will never go away.

Lose lose situation

[broothal]

Everyone can vote with their dollars, but that doesn't tell the RIAA why they aren't getting the dollars.

Yes it does. If you stop buying RIAA music because you are against DRM they will blame it on pirates and make even worse DRM initiatives. Either way - we lose.

Congress/Senate?

[maillemaker]

These don't look like RIAA executive numbers to me...these look like the numbers of elected officials in washington?

Steve

Re:Congress/Senate?

[vertinox]

These don't look like RIAA executive numbers to me...these look like the numbers of elected officials in washington?

Oh... Our bad. We thought you were looking for RIAA Executive lackies? Not the Exceutives themselves.

IMHO.

[DoctorDyna]

The RIAA is a business. Their customers are record label execs. As has happened in the past, business are most hurt by robbing them of customers. People calling the RIAA isn't going to discourage anybody from conducting business, especially not record label execs.

If you want to hurt them, we need to convince record labels that they don't need to employ what is basically a "task force posse" to protect their interests. Striking at the heart of the beast would be most productive. What we need to do as good, strong minded, mostly intelligent people is start some new record labels that are specifically designed with low profit margins and realistic salaries, and start campaigning to get major artists moved over to our labels that pass on more profit to them. We need to rob the RIAA supporting labels in the good old fasioned american way, which is build a better alternative.

Re:IMHO.

[ZachPruckowski]

The main problem is money. Studio time is very expensive, and you'd either have to replicate it cheaply or fork over the rental cash (I'd favor a build-a-mini-studio option). CD songs might be a mix of upwards of 50 recordings per song - requiring good computers and lot of work to clean up each part.

That said, I'm in: zachary.pruckowski@gmail.com Let me know if I can help. I've done a lot of work at concerts in college (still there).

Re:IMHO.

[DoctorDyna]

Speaking from an audiophile point of view, some of the best recordings you can get now are from labels that use minimalistic techniques, IE single blumlein mic techniques, direct-to-disc recording and so forth. I think using some of these techniques could probably same a considerable amount of money and time when talking about studio time, as well as save folks like me alot of time when designing and building speakers. It's more difficult to do with bands that sound horrible when they "really" play (The White Stripes live anybody? Don't mean to offend.), but then again, what better way to convince them to spend more time practising together and developing a good sound.

If you want to see what I'm talking about, check out http://www.chesky.com/ David Chesky has been doing minimalist recording and producing fantastic sounding albums for, I want to say, probably decades.

It's always great to watch the lightbulb come on..

[maillemaker]

>Has any one else noticed that if we reduce ourselves to
>voting with our dollars, then ordinary people get about 37,000 votes a year if
>they are lucky, while Corporations and the super rich get millions or billions of votes?

Ah, at last you see the light. This is precisely the way the world works.

Steve

Caller ID logs?

[Lost Penguin]

The RIAA will simply forward the caller ID logs to the lawyers for future lawsuit prospects.
If you call, you must be a pirate!

This will only validate the RIAA's position

[thunderpaws]

A telephone harrasment campaign will be viewed by executives as coming from a bunch of crack pots who want something for nothing. They can easily plug in the numbers into their arguments about piracy. The reality is they do have the right and responsibility to protect the products they represent. The problems exist because current copy right laws apparently do not adequately address digital content. The vacum that exists is allowing the RIAA to abuse consumers under the banner of anti-piracy. Whether or not we agree that Apple's 'FairPlay' is a good thing, it is an example of a very resonable implementation of DRM. What is really needed is educating the multitudes of consumers about the issues. All too often consumers just accept things as they exist. I wonder how many consumers have computers that are hobbled by Sony's rootkit fiasco without a clue. These are people who would blame 'pirates' and 'hackers' for problems they might experience with their computers rather than the true villans, because they just don't know.

Chicken Meet Egg

[delire]

This action should attract the people who thought that Apple was not a good target because it is the RIAA that requires DRM..

While Apple may not be the primary target, they most certainly shouldn't be delisted from those considered responsible; Apple is proving that DRM business is big business, and so indirectly affirming the RIAA's idiotic war. Despite the fact it is trivial to bypass the AAC copy restrictions/'lock-in', users are still disallowed the legitimate rights to use the stuff they bought the way they want to use it. Apple is making this work in their favour, not ours.

Futhermore no one forced Apple to adopt support for DRM, and so we should be wary of the notion that Economic Rationalism somehow renders them inadvertent victims of these lobbyists and would-be legislators. Apple are actively supporting the reduction of use-rights and will no doubt continue to develop technologies to these ends.

Re:Chicken Meet Egg

[SoulRider]

Futhermore no one forced Apple to adopt support for DRM

Your wrong, the RIAA told Apple that they must support DRM or they couldnt sell their music. Since Apple cannot legally promote and distribute their own bands (through agreements with Apple Music Inc) their choices became support DRM or give up on iTunes. The decision to allow conversion to non-DRM'd formats (the RIAA is still pissed about this) was made for their customers while still pacifying the RIAA so they could implement iTunes in a timely manner. I can play the DRM'd music I download off of iTunes on my iPod (the real reason iTunes exists), and I can rip my own cds to my iPod using Apples DRM format, what exactly is Apples economic gain by allowing users to convert files to non DRM'd formats? Yet it still costs them real money to support this feature.

they won't care

[livingdeadline]

The music industry won't care about some users protesting about DRM, since their only goal is to turn the whole market into a standardless pay per view system, and they will succeed sooner or later when people get used to the idea of using only specific software and hardware for managing music. With comments like these (original story in finnish mirrored here), it's pretty clear that not only the 'merican music industry seriously wants to assure those responsible for various judicial systems that increasing incompability is the only way to go in the digital age.

CDs

[EvilIdler]

This is as good a place as any to post this link:

http://foamyhost.com.nyud.net:8080/swf/cds.swf

Funny, and too true.

More alike than unalike?

[Kev_Stewart]

We all think that when music is bought it should STAY bought.

The RIAA thinks exactly the same thing...

...about their politicians.

Not the RIAA...

[Jzor]

These numbers have nothing to do with the RIAA.... They are all Senators, some on the Senate Appropriations Committee and some are on the Commerce Committee and others.

Re:Not the RIAA...

[Jzor]

And... The article is about calling RIAA execs, not Senators... "The RIAA is lead by Mitch Bainwol, who is Chairman and CEO since 2003. He is assisted by Cary Sherman, the President of the Board of Directors. There are 27 members of the board, who are drawn from a number of record companies." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recording_Industry_As sociation_of_America

Re:Wrong People To Attack

[user no. 590291]

While it's obvious you're attempting sarcasm here, it is the sheep that willingly follow who bear the ultimate responsibility for the erosion of all kinds of freedoms--the people who willing submit to searches when leaving retail stores, the lambs who show ID without question to anyone, and, yes, the people who rent (not purchase--purchasing a digital restrictions-encumbered product is impossible by definition) DRM products because it's "fast, convenient, and cheap."

Re:Vigilanteism

[user no. 590291]

No, "vigilanteism" would be stopping one of the execs in their Benz limo, dragging him out of the car, beating him to death in the street and setting his mutilated body on fire as an example to the others. A phone campaign is a legitimate form of protest, and the right of every American.

Re:Ugh. Why can't they just post the damn numbers

[IAmTheDave]

So limiting the idiots and morons that screw things up helps make the ration of intilligent to idiot much higher.

BugMeNot has basically destroyed that mold. I wonder if the "sign-up" thing is like, a DefectiveByDesign is actually an RIAA shill that's trying to collect the names of people who call in who are likely pirates...

Sorry, what with the NSA and State Secrets and such, these days, anything that requires me to give personal information has me second-guessing motives (as implausable as this one probably is.)

Re:Ugh. Why can't they just post the damn numbers

[Asphalt]

My guess is they want people to register for the same reason that internet petitions aren't worth crap -- anonymity is ultimately a form of obfuscation, and when you're trying to tell someone something they don't want to hear, they'll jump on any excuse to devalue the legitimacy of your position.

I just don't understand whatsoever how "registration" is supposed to make anything more credible by making people use "real" information.

Name: Joe Blow
Email Address: joeblow123456@yahoo.com
Postal Code: 12345

It's a ilttle silly to assume or even expect people to give real information on "registration" forms these days.

BTW, my real name isn't Asphalt.

Why not use snail mail?

[lcde]

It seems to me that the poor secretary will be the one having to handle these 1000 calls.

Wouldn't it be much better to write a letter, put it in a manila envelope and send it directly to the RIAA exec. The key is to pay the extra dollar or so and get the Signature Confirmation service that the USPS offers. I think when an executive gets 1000 letters on his/her desk that ALL need signatures you tend to notice.

They should include the politicians

[arrgster]

that support DRM in that list as well. Politicians react to pressure a lot faster than big wigs in a company.

Re:Ugh. Why can't they just post the damn numbers

[Ryan Amos]

Oh come on. Your name, address and telephone number are not private information. In fact, rumor has it that there is a book somewhere that has the name, address and number of every person in the entire city. Imagine if someone with nefarious purposes were to get ahold of that -- we would all be in trouble!

Re:Ugh. Why can't they just post the damn numbers

[IAmTheDave]

In fact, rumor has it that there is a book somewhere that has the name, address and number of every person in the entire city.

Really? Because my land-line is unlisted, and my cell phone doesn't appear in there either. So, how exactly does this "magical book" include me?

There is no arguement here

[Anonymous Coward]

They are launching a campaign to help deter DRM. It's a good thing that people are approaching the problem in cheap and creative ways. Suggestion it's a bad thing for them to protest sounds pretty communist to me.

The question is how effective will it be. Most of them probably screen the majority of their calls and will just start blocking calls. They don't care about the users. They are corporate evangalists trying to push morals on the consumers based on unrealistic claims of profit loss. This is something that companies controlling copyrighted works have dreamed of for years. I think DRM will prove to defeat itself or become ineffective as most media controlling standards have. If it does then Americans will sadly be exposed to even less of the arts.

The real trick isn't making people pay for art in whatever form you imagine. It's motivating them to really want it. I think with less free music on the market fewer people have the chance to experience a variety of music. This effectively makes music less popular to the cultures of the world by limiting it's availability. Perhaps the real solution is to remove record companies from the picture alltogether. Artists themselves should control their works and not let record companies control the industry because they provide a music distribution company. It really never made any sense to sign yourself over to a company like this, but record companies have the money to launch an artist where an independant artists has to truly have a loyal fanbase. With the combinition of greatly reduced recording and video production costs record companies are becoming less and less necessary. Ultimately it will be artists and consumers who are both hurt by DRM. If you sell your song on a media that then steals your song from you. You as the consumer may lose faith in the artists you bought from or in buying music in general. In few industries are limiting factors on distribution of a media product going to be an effective or even good idea.

These companies need to focus on new ways to sell ideas not on locking ideas away for less people to experience.

Re:Ugh. Why can't they just post the damn numbers

[ProfFalcon]

Yeah, but the phone book doesn't contain a correlation with "likely to be a pirate".

According to the RIAA numbers on the losses due to pirating, I would have to disagree with your assumption. Based on their numbers, if you're listed in the phone book, you're likely a pirate.

RIAA: A boycott that works?

[teamhasnoi]

Boycotting the RIAA will only result in more cries of, "Pirates! Pirates!". I think a different boycott is in order.

On the RIAA page, there is a list of labels that associate themselves with the RIAA - remember, the RIAA is a group of labels, and other music related 'entities' that like the lobbying power that the RIAA gives them.

Not buying CDs, videos or DRMd files is not going to hurt the RIAA - they make their money from 'dues' from the individual labels. Not buying CDs will only help the RIAA make a case that it's due to piracy, and make that case to those who make the laws.

However, if a boycott was organized that picked, let's say five, (smaller) labels from that list, and let them know that no CDs from them will be purchased that month or year by the organized boycott, calls of piracy hurting sales could be refuted on that smaller scale,(Not that they can't be refuted now...)

Labels who think that calling their customers thieves, handing out lawsuits, restricting fair use, and lobbying for the demise of independent music is ok will get a message that their customers will not stand for it.

Issues with this:

In order to work this boycott has to be big, organized, and educated. Big, so the set of music the particular few labels include intersect with the boycotting group. The boycott doesn't work if no one was going to buy that music anyway. Those sales 'lost' to apathy will be blamed on piracy, and used to lobby for more restrictions and copyrightholder power.

Oraganized, so that the chosen labels (picked by size and choice of music: see above) get an actual message : "You are being boycotted by x number of people who have agreed that they will not buy your labels offerings until: (insert ultimatum here - hell freezes over, a year passes, or my favorite, disassociation with the RIAA) This notice should be sent anywhere that would reproduce it, and those not 'signed up' should be ...

Educated, so that they know what the RIAA is (not a company per se, but a collection of companies), why the boycott is happening, and how they can help.

There are certainly other things to take into account, such as the 'list' is by design, not accurate. There have been cases where the RIAA has claimed membership by some small (and suddenly successful) lables, in order to present a 'united front' and spread the message that RIAA=success/no RIAA=obscurity.

I'm convinced that the only way to kill the RIAA is to go after the legs - small and medium labels that support it. Once these smaller labels have severed their connection with the RIAA, the RIAA will have less money to lobby for DRM and the extention of copyrights, less money to pay lawyers to sue your dead grandma, less money to push their skewed facts, figures and arguments to an uneducated public.

Remember, the RIAA's money comes from labels and manufacturing, whose money comes from you. Small, focused strikes by a large educated group are the only way to win.

Re:Ugh. Why can't they just post the damn numbers

[jamiesan]

It's an inclusion by exclusion. The RIAA is in cahoots with the NSA and the FBI and any other TLA I can think of. According to this government, since you are not in the phone book, you must have something to hide (besides your phone number). Pirate... Terrorist... What is it?!?

Re: What if the Big Mac had DRM

[ElysianAudio]

Actually, I just got the strangest mental image. Let's work on that analogy a little. (Slightly OT)

If McDonalds fell under the DMCA, you can choose to buy a Big Mac or not (see exceptions below). Regardless, you still have the option of finding food elsewhere. However, if you purchase the Big Mac, you will be bound by a very specific set of rules found on the inside of the wrapper: You are the only person authorized to consume the Big Mac, you may not sell it or offer it to others. You may not examine, disassemble or modify the Big Mac (e.g. you cannot take the pickles off, or add more mustard, cut the burger in half). You may not tell others how to perform these actions, or possess or traffic in tools to assist with these actions (e.g. a knife). You must consume the Big Mac from the original wrapper; it may not be placed on a plate, in a lunchbox, or in a fridge. The Big Mac must be purchased and consumed within the US, and the right to consume may be revoked at any time without warning. Violation of any of these conditions will make you subject to civil fines (upwards of $150,000US per instance) and possibly criminal penalties.

Re:The problem looks a lot different in their shoe

[DoctorDyna]

You (as well as others) still seem to be confusing "fair use" with "theft". Stop that. That is the single most annoying thing that people keep doing, that in fact is the root cause of all these problems with DRM incumberment. You and your thinking, and people that think like you are the reason that no matter how much I pay for a cd, I still don't own it. Fuck you. When I buy something, I would like to be able to use it however I want. If that includes copying it to my hard drive and archiving the disc in case anything ever happens to my drive, then that should be my right.

I think the theft argument is tired. People have been using it for decades now, and when it comes to media usage, it really, honestly doesn't apply. If I buy a car from a car dealership, and then turn it around and give it away to a friend, does the car company sue me? But! they didn't get a profit from my giving that car away! Perhaps, they should sue me! I know, your saying to yourself right now "but that's not the same because if you give the car away you don't have it anymore for yourself." Exactly. We've been applying the term "theft" to something that can't be stolen. Sure, it can be traded. It can be given to sombody without charging them. You might eeevvvven be able to stretch it into "unfair trading", but to call it theft is lunacy. It's a word thats applied simply to generate sensationalism. "But! They're stealing my music!" sounds alot more we-need-protection-ish than "But! They're trading my music!"

Right now, in the US, there are alot of states that make it legal to shoot sombody who comes into your house who you beleive might be there to steal something.

Now, imagine for a second, if trading a couple of music files could really be bundled into "theft", then, should it be legal for a performer to open fire on sombody in the crowd he sees with a microphone? How about bursting into your house and shooting you dead?

You are absolutely right my friend, the problem does look alot different in their shoes. It looks alot like this: How, oh how do we convince the legislature and governing bodies that something that is less of a crime than "copyright infringment without monetary gain" can be publicised, and then treated as if its grand larceny?

Here are the phone numbers for RIAA execs

[KWTm]

I just phoned one of the execs (no answer after 12 rings) and will keep trying. I will post the phone numbers here, but I do encourage people to stand up and be counted by still signing up at the DefectiveByDesign.org website.

We need to take actions like this as a community, because it's our best (and possibly only) tool. We don't have lobbyists cozying up to government officials, and we don't have the money to pay to Learjet the politicians to a nice dinner on a private island. But we do have strength in numbers, and if only we have the backbone to stand up and make our views known, we can make a difference. Because I'm not sure the MAFIAA has backbone; their backs are stiff just because they're so stuffed with money.

By the way, the DefectiveByDesign.org web site only shows ten call reports from people having made phone calls. When I tried to submit my report, I got an error message. So maybe the site isn't working properly. I hope in the end we do get a tally of how many people responded.

Brad Buckles RIAA USA (202) 857-9607
Mitch Bainwol RIAA USA (202) 857-9651
Cary Sherman RIAA USA (202) 857-9632
Mitch Glazier USA RIAA (202) 857-9673
Neil Turkowitz RIAA USA (202) 857-9647
Steve Redmond BPI UK +44 (0)20 7803 1324
Peter Jamieson BPI UK +44 (0) 20 7803 1311
Matt Phillips BPI UK 44 (0) 77 3951 4963
Michael Haentjes IFPI Germany +49 (30) 59 00 38-0
Peter Zombik IFPI Germany +49 (30) 59 00 38-0
Jean never Foitzik IFPI Germany +49 (30) 59 00 38-23
Herve Rony SNEP France +33 (1) 44 13 66 66
Graham Henderson CRIA Canada 1 (416) 967-7272 ext. 102

Re:Here are the phone numbers for RIAA execs

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like those are all work phone numbers.
Since it is now after 5 on a Friday, you may want to try reaching them at home.

Mitch Bainwol, RIAA USA, lives close by in Fairfax Station, VA at:
8400 Crosslake Dr, Fairfax Station, VA 22039.
Phone is (703) 690-1678.

Thank him and his wife Susan for their campaign donations to George W Bush. Or ask him about his other $29,800 worth of campaign donations.

Maybe you want to talk to him about his three kids: Emily Rose, Brent and Garrett. I hear Emily has a very good voice and does well in sports. She is also on the honor roll, but sadly Brent and Garrett aren't.

You might want to tell him to water that lawn and clean his pool.

Cheers!

Re:Not a matter of not buying...

[Yez70]

Not buying their stuff IS NOT the solution. That is doing nothing. If it was a solution, we would have had an effect long ago. There are BILLIONS of consumers on this planet - how many know what DRM is and what it does?

99.9% of consumers have no idea or care less about DRM and what it does. This is the exact opposite of the feelings of those who do care. They do not yet realize the implications or the restrictions. They buy a CD and listen to it on their CD player. Their DVDs work in their DVD player. They buy an MP3 and listen to it on their iPod. End of story.

In a few years they may realize that MP3 isn't going to be playable on their new fancy phone with a zillion features and won't transfer to their new googlePod (gPod) or their new PC or laptop. The new HD/Blu-Ray player won't even play CDs and it's possible some DVDs or HD-DVDs may not work if they've already been used in another piece of equipment. Their Windows Media Center Vista2 won't play it either, due to it's DRM. You won't be able to rent video games anymore at blockbuster, because games will be locked to a single game console.

But by then the RIAA/MPAA or whatnot has their money and they've legislated their DRM to be a part of life and law.... Is this what you want? Go ahead, don't buy their stuff - let everyone else suffer.

If something is not done now, by those who do understand the implications, nothing will ever be done.

Having the attitude that nobody is forcing them to buy their stuff is asinine. You have to stand up and make yourself HEARD!

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

Re:Good Idea

[Yez70]

It would be interseting to a torrent site start listing where to mail compensation directly to the artist/creator, maybe include a public rating system where the users determine what they consider is a fair value too.

Add in an anonymous way to pay, to protect them from the **AA's attorneys/spies, and someone will notice...

Imagine if AllofMP3.com started mailing checks directly to the artists, bypassing the labels. I bet the checks would still get cashed, with a big smile on their faces too. :D

Re:The problem looks a lot different in their shoe

[johnsu01]

DRM is a solution to piracy. It isn't a great solution, but if music is free to redistribute, then very few will be original distributors. Scarcity is an essential concept in economics.

That doesn't seem to be true. There are businesses selling DRM-free music. They have been mentioned in the "Alternatives" thread, and elsewhere. As an example, eMusic is listed as the #2 retailer of downloadable music. There are many artists giving away their music or selling it directly to fans in order to get people to come to their shows. It is only a small conglomerate of labels that feels they need DRM in order to stay alive. They might be right, but do not equate the continued profits of those few businesses with the success of music and culture in general. I would be interested to see any articles or statements from non-RIAA labels in support of DRM. I honestly haven't heard any. Isn't competition also an essential concept in free market economics?

Consider for a moment that you produce an electronic product (e.g., music, movies, video games, etc). How will you get paid for your efforts? If the cost of production (and reproduction) is zero, and you have no way to limit it, you will have a hard road ahead.

You mean, how will you get paid more than 7 cents per song for your efforts? Eliminating the massive overhead that goes into distributing music via the current monopoly model will likely enable artists to be better off. Plus, it's not like all artists made a living before. Your question should actually be, "How will our few multimillion-dollar pop stars continue to get paid for their efforts?" Because an incredible number of talented musicians are already making no money under the current model. Artists will get paid because people like their music. People will pay to be the first to receive the new music, even if it can be freely distributed after that. People will pay for shows, for signed editions, and to encourage the production of more stuff they like.

It amuzes me that kids think free music is a right. It takes a lot of effort to produce a quality product (of any kind). Demanding that it be free is insane.

I'm unfortunately not much of a kid anymore, but let's not forget that DRM applies to a lot more than music. It's being used by libraries on their audio books. It is applied to eBooks, including literature and educational materials. It's applied to the software that runs, well, just about everything these days. We are letting the companies who own this DRM technology dictate under what terms we can educate ourselves (and our kids) in ways that we have never allowed before. What are the ramifications of this?

Even if it's true that we need to provide a greater incentive to people to create useful works, that would only point to a need to find a better way to do it than restricting access to those works, since such restrictions have wide-ranging impacts (like bringing down entire incredibly useful infrastructures like P2P). Copyright was conceived to be exactly such a device; something artificial to promote useful works. So we have room to come up with other such devices if need be.

It isn't "your" music.

No, but the benefit of exclusive ownership of copyrighted works to the rights-holder does need to be balanced against the benefit to society. That's what it says in the Constitution, anyway. Copyright has a limited term of ownership (even though that keeps getting longer) and is not like physical property in ways that others around here have already explained. Creation should be rewarded, but the kind of exclusive control required to justify DRM is an attempt to turn this into a kind of property it was never intended to be.

I agree that we need to have a society that supports artists and musicians. It's a littl