Slashdot Mirror
EFF Calls RIAA Tactics 'Reign of Terror'
nanday writes "What happens when the RIAA prosecutes people for alleged illegal music downloads? In an article on Newsforge (also owned by OSTG), lawyer Ray Beckerman of the Electronic Frontier Foundation explains the RIAA's favorite tactics, and why they play fast and loose with the law. Beckerman also explains why two of these cases may stop the RIAA in its tracks - and what you can do for help." From the article: "In UMG vs. Lindor, the defendant 'is a home house-aid who's never even used a computer,' according to Beckerman. 'She's never operated a computer, she's never even turned on a computer. The only connection she has ever had to a computer is that she has on occasion dusted near the parts that she believes are a computer. And yet she is being pursued as an online distributor in peer-to-peer file sharing.' Since Beckerman became involved in the case after it had gone to federal court, he has tried to learn the details of the charges -- so far with little success. 'The RIAA is trying to conceal the information about how it conducts its investigation,' he says. 'They have stalled every discovery request we've made' -- presumably because to reveal this information would also reveal the weakness of all the similar cases."
This will obviously lead to anti-dusting legislation shortly.
Case in point from the article:
It would be nice to think the courts and the justice system (the jurists) would apply due diligence but for myriad reasons they don't or won't. Considering technology, the RIAA, and the gazillion combinations of playing with digital media it isn't clear a judge could ever be educated enough to understand the technical issues. Instead, the deepest pockets win because they can afford the biggest megaphone -- they've convinced the legal system via FUD that consumers are evil and piracy is rampant and must be stopped.
Problem is, customers aren't evil, piracy is not rampant (yeah, it exists, but it's not the monster the RIAA claims it is), and it doesn't need to be stopped.
My biggest fear is the momentum is too strong, the RIAA has gotten too far along and has won enough battles it's beginning to look like they may win the war. And, the prediction in the article:
is likely to be the outcome.Of course it seems obvious to me the ultimate result of all of this nonsense is the buying public either is so angry at their treatment, or confused by all of the rules and regulations, the promising landscape of new and great electronic gizmos will suffer its own (and hopefully temporary until all the goons leave town) recession. To quote the scathing Paul Thurrott's outrage against Microsoft's false positive to his "piracy", "Ah well". ;-)
Until one of their wrongly sued victims files a countersuit and wins big, they have no motivation to stop this. They don't care about losing a few cases. In most cases its enough to just scare people into paying their extortion fee.
I have faith in our ability to do the right thing... For ourselves! The greed and self-centeredness of the consumer will always win out, and DRMs are unbelieveably irking to many people. The dollar is more powerful than anything else in this country, and people are already buying less music because of the RIAA's tactics and methods of enforcements.
With regards to this: "Considering technology, the RIAA, and the gazillion combinations of playing with digital media it isn't clear a judge could ever be educated enough to understand the technical issues. Instead, the deepest pockets win because they can afford the biggest megaphone -- they've convinced the legal system via FUD that consumers are evil and piracy is rampant and must be stopped."
I disagree. I think that as the generation currently in power begins to phase out in the next five to ten years, and the one preceding mine begins to phase itself in, we'll see a dramatic shift in the technological savvy of our lawmakers and judges. They won't need to be educated, because they already know this stuff. All they'll have to do is keep on top of it.
Honestly, the idea of DRMs pisses so many people off that they simply can't stay around for long. The consumer hates not being trusted, and won't buy things that have DRMs. DRMs will be a thing of the past in the next decade, I have faith.
A man once asked the Prophet, "What is a sin?" The Prophet Muhammed replied, "When something pricks your conscience, gi
This is what happens when you have a government that can be purchased. Make no mistake about it, in the US laws/justice/rights/people/myself is for sale and the RIAA/MPAA is buying. As long as they have money they will be able to manipulate any system set up in the US to serve their needs.
[an error occurred while processing this sig]
MP what you say? Music comes on computers now??? WOW!!!
RIAA - "Because bringing civil charges against everyone on the internet is easier than moving with new technologies"
How come non-RIAA labels can't form an "anti-RIAA" coalition? Most labels not on the RIAA are pretty hip, they have tracks for download without DRM on their sites, they're real big on freebies and artist promotion, and they're generally more about the music itself than the big labels.
So why can't they generate some sort of composite publicity for their activities? Why can't they call themselves soemthing fun like "AWESOME" (Association of Wedding Evil SOBs Out of the Music Enterprise) and run press releases like the RIAA? Donate some money to the EFF? Have some benefit concerts to Kill the RIAA?
Get your acts together, people! Let's synergize our paradigms, or something! Go go go!
The RIAA is engaging in these tactics for a simple reason: they're fighting a losing battle. They want control of any and all media and will do whatever it takes to keep their decades-old model propped up.
Podcasting, Internet radio, and independent music are the new Davids fighting this Goliath and as each one becomes more and more popular in mainstream culture you can guarantee that the RIAA will look for ways to shut it all down (they're already trying with podcasts and streaming radio under the guise of royalties) or infilitrate these new forms of media with their commercial garbage. And yet again, they'll be unsuccessful just as they have been with cassette tapes and recordable CDs.
In the end, they'll be as irrelevant as an 8-track player.
Would you allow a technition to fix a photocopyer when he only knows about air conditioning?
"I may be full of crap about this game, and I may be wrong, and that's fine." -Jack Thompson
You fail to understand the enemy, and that is why you will lose.
The RIAA and MPAA are not fighthing this fight because they believe piracy is a problem now. They're not spending all this money fighting it because they want to get a couple extra bucks in sales.
They're fighting it because they recognize that p2p has the potential to completely decimate their supply channels by allowing every Tom, Dick, and Harry to interrupt their entire business plan with a mouse clicks.
This is a fact. Whether you believe it will actually happen or not is up for debate, but the RIAA and MPAA do believe that it will, or that it's likely enough that going on this campaign now is in their best interests.
Of course, like any other company that mistreats a cusomter, the simplest solution is to simply cease doing business with them. However, since the majority of people who are aware of this problem seem to be comprised of either theives or theif sympathizers who would rather just keep fueling the fire by stealing music, there's nobody really out there with any effective grassroots campaign to expose this disgraceful behavior.
If you want to put an end to this, the simple answer is to cease all activities involving consumption of the product. Don't steal it, don't buy it, don't listen to it on the radio, and make sure you let everyone know your position and explain why you're taking that position WITHOUT making it sound like you're just whining that you're coming under fire for wanting to steal things.
No income = dead cartel. Very simple equation.
If you haven't foed me yet, what are you waiting for?
> Of course it seems obvious to me the ultimate result of all of this nonsense is the buying public either is so angry at their treatment, or confused by all of the rules and regulations
Unfortunately I think you are wrong.
If you were right then people would have got rid of their crashing, malware prone MS desktops years ago. As it is they moan and groan, but still don't switch to anything better.
I think the same will be true about restrictions management. People will grumble but accept it as normal. It is only the activists who will attempt to do something about and they stand a good chance of being dismissed by the (bought) legislators who can point to the fact that most people accept and are therefore happy with the situation (yes, I do know there is a non seqitur there).
Nice use of the Oxford comma by the way.
Imagine if Linux had to go through something like this...
Excuse my speling.
Making The Bar Project
So where was the RIAA in 1982 when I taped Rush's 'Signals' album from my friend?
Should I be worried?
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Honestly, the idea of DRMs pisses so many people off that they simply can't stay around for long. The consumer hates not being trusted, and won't buy things that have DRMs.
Most people, when they installed the Sony rootkit, did not even know that they had installed DRM on their machine, what it's purpose was, how to remove it, or even why they should care.
DRMs will be a thing of the past in the next decade, I have faith.
My prediction: DRM will be even more common next decade. CD sales will continue to fall and DRM'd content sales will continue to rise. The difference between you and me, is that I will be trying to raise people's awareness rather than just sitting back and letting it happen.
I'll probably be modded down for this...
I'm wondering if the blame doesn't lie with the clerks. Let's face it, federal judges have enormous case loads. I'm not sure if the 2004 case reference was at the district level, but it's especially busy there.
So I'll ask, where were the clerks, if this account is correct? Federal clerkships are fairly prestigious, and many clerks are young enough to have direct exposure to this technology. Are they not doing the research? I'm fairly certain any due diligence by the judge would be carried out by the clerks on these matters.
The piracy that costs the companies that the RIAA represents are the undocumented pressings that appear from CD factories throughout the world. Compared to that, the kids sharing a few files is inconcequential.
For goodness sake stop distributing their music! Find the legitimate free music out there and start a grassroots movement!
If they don't want people illegially distributing their music, that's fine with me. That's what the law says, and changing the law is going to be tough. Is there response extreme given the crime? Of course, but you have to admit it's hard to deter people from downloading music - the odds of being caught and punished are still extremely low. We think they shouldn't be doing this, but remember from their point of view they want to stop this behavior. The only question then becomes what it will take to stop it. Secondary damage to sales (if any) doesn't seem to phase them much.
The only way we'll EVER win this is to cut the RIAA out of the picture. There are folks doing free music out there - let's get organized and promote the good ones! Just like open source software - don't pirate commercial software, do it right and create free alternatives. In the end, everyone's happier.
Admittedly, the creative/artistic community seems to function differently than the software folks - look at how many game engines there are, vs. high quality maps/data for said engines. I expect high quality free music might also be a bit unusual, but that's no reason not to try and start a new social trend.
We don't like Microsoft because of their software and business practices - all right, we're doing something about that. Not pirating Windows, but creating alternatives and using them. Let's do the same with music - if we're correct about the low quality of product being promoted by the large commercial groups (debatable - I personally don't think there are any useful univeral quality metrics that will decide what is enjoyable to all people, but I'll go with it here for the sake of argument) it shouldn't be impossible for folks with the time and hobby interest out there to put something together.
Let's establish a non-commercial Americal Idol type phenomena - people can compete for rating on the internet, and the most successful of those might be able to start playing live concerts, selling professional quality CDs with covers/etc. and other things that actually generate revenue. (I can't say I care for the way Americal Idol works, but we should pay attention to the techniques they are using to identify people that America wants to hear sing).
iRate radio has some good ideas, but I think they should utilize bittorrent technology and start building more of a community structure than just scraping free music websites. Lets do this right - don't fight the RIAA on their own turf. They can use the legal system to beat us over the head - they've got the $$ to do it. So let's not let them dictate the terms of engagement - let's take both the long term solution and the moral high ground. THAT's the way to fight, and the only real hope I see for success.
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
She's a "home house aid". Not quite sure what this means but it probably involves cleaning.
...that if the RIAA is sponsoring a "Reign of Terror" that everyone at the RIAA can be arrested, send to GITMO and tried under the Patriot Act? Would would a military tribunal say about the RIAA? Hmmm.. :-P
This is the truth of the DRM war.
Today geeks are pissed, mostly because we see a dark future if trends continue, and consumers aren't upset by this. However, consumers *will* be upset if trends continue! If DRM moves to a place where consumers choke on it, it will be as dead as Divx, and all technology assoiciated with whatever consumers hated will be dead as well, as fast a a boy-band becomes no longer cool.
I work with engineers who are working on the TCG standards, and there is a lot of awareness of this problem. If, as many Slashdotters fear, Trusted Computing gets used to lock down consumer DRM, then Trusted Computing is dead, and years of work are wasted.
This doesn't mean that DRM is going away, however. There's plenty of room for less intrusive DRM that won't annoy the average customer, but will still seem restrictive to geeks. iTunes is there, more or less, for example.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Besides the nasty tactics outlined in the article, the RIAA et al. are a serious menace in at least two other ways.
First, they are a prime mover behind laws mandating a long audit trail (e.g., two years) recording who accesses which web sites. (Child porn is the other common motivation.) To date, this has been more of an issue in Europe than the US.
Second, there's a huge threat going forward as Layer 7 inspection by ISPs becomes commonplace. At that point, it will be at least theoretically possible to harass somebody for ANYTHING they download, upload, whatever, because intermediaries such as ISPs will have complete access to that information.
To err is human. To forgive is good system design.
Gee, I hope my " Today's music sucks teh Sh!t " bumper sticker get's the word out.
You won't hear the trunk welds breaking in my car from overcranked trash pop.
RIAA "Doctor doctor! It hurts when I do this!" Doctor "Well don't do that stupid."
As a working musician, it is my opinion that filesharing spreading to a large percentage of the general public is a direct reason that independant record labels and independant cd stores are increasingly becoming invisible and/or dieing.
This, in turn, helps the major labels strengthen their grip on the market and control this medium of mainstream media. I would say that it is a small monster now, but when it grows up it could become a godzilla.
Send in S.W.A.T. after these pirates.
how many copies are made without going online. My music collection is backed up on DVDs, on the average about 600 songs per DVD, and all a lot better quality than you find on any P2P network or iTMS, and all DRM-free. Just good that I don't let anyone get their hands on those DVDs, it would be RIAAs nightmare and completely untracable.
However, since the majority of people who are aware of this problem seem to be comprised of either theives or theif sympathizers who would rather just keep fueling the fire by stealing music
Is that what the RIAA told you? That people weren't buying their music therefore they must be stealing it? Because thats what they shout every time their sales numbers slip just a little bit. If everyone stopped buying the music, they'd just wave their little spreadsheets around and scream about piracy some more. They did this all through the dotcom bust and the following recession, they do this every time their sales increase is below the rate they expected ("This quarter we only sold 1% more CDs than last quarter! ZOMG PIRATES!!!1!"), and if there's a widescale boycott, they'll continue to scream about piracy cutting into their profits. And at this rate the government will give them the power (or at least continue to look the other way while they take it) to bust down your door and shake you down for cash if you haven't met your quota of CD purchases this month, since if you haven't bought it you must be pirating it.
I agree that there is a problem with judges not compeltely understanding technology, but they are taught to be open minded. Remember that a lot of the people dues by the RIAA are guilty. Just because many of us feel things should be different does not change the fact that some of these people are violating the law. However I do not believe that the legal actions of the RIAA are in the spirit of American jurisprudence, nor do they meet the required burden of proof.
Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
"The only connection she has ever had to a computer is that she has on occasion dusted near the parts that she believes are a computer."
Ok, maybe she hasn't used a computer before.. Thats fine, but unless this person is uncontrollably stupid "dusted near the parts that she believes are a computer." How many people in a normal society would even be able to recongnize a computer! I think this person is playing extra stupid as part of her defense.
Bad news: RIAA/MPAA are making even simple file sharing a legal liability. No more testing out songs before I buy CDs
Good news: Songs suck now a days. No need to buy CDs, nor even test them out.
It's a win win for me; I don't spend more money on music, AND I don't have to worry about liability given that I have no interest in that music anyway.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Except for the RIAA hasn't been battling a whole lot. They just bully certain people into either paying a certain extortion fee or they can go to court and spend double that amount on lawyers, court costs and others. The consumer will get their rights, eventually, and they will get their lawyers fees etc. back, eventually, but in the mean time they get bankrupted or give up because they need to eat and their lawyers need to eat.
Now some people are standing up against the RIAA, saying: bring it on, and see what happens... all of a sudden RIAA doesn't have a case, they can't give any information, they stall the case as long as possible with excuses and threats yelling: pirates, pirates, protect your music by making sure you can't play it where you want.
It's just like the American government with Saddam. They bully every nation in the Middle East: all your oil is belong to us and hide those nuclear weapons we gave you a few years ago. Then there are some like Iraq and Iran that say: bring it on. They go in, do some havoc in Iraq and then they are just standing there: oops, we don't have a case, no WMD, no terrorist training camps, not enough troops, troops want to go home... shit..: terrorists, terrorists, protect freedom by taking it away.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
> would have got rid of their crashing, malware prone MS desktops years ago
I don't think thats a good analogy. The typical highschool/college students of today have figured out how to share music,etc because the results only affect them. They don't deal with chaging the PC operating system, because they are not allowed to, and understand (correctly or incorrectly) that for a job they have to learn to deal with windows. They won't need to learn to deal with DRM in the workplace unless they are a disc jockey of some sort.
It might help if people realized that when they download files with a p2p app that it usually ends up sharing them too and that US copyright law lets the RIAA come take their money. Any time I fix a computer, I usually find p2p apps or someone asks me about "downloading free music". I always tell them to a) remove the p2p software or b) do not download music through p2p or otherwise. For one, I don't want my name coming up in association with the machine if the RIAA comes calling and the owner wants to cover their ass.
The development is not a good one, neither for the efficiency nor the reputation of our courts. The tactics are always the same. First, accusations are peppered all over the net to people who might have something to do with it. Now, the average person is no lawyer and can't afford one, so one of two happens:
1. They pay, because the accusation says "Pay or it gets more expensive", even if they didn't do anything.
2. They go to court where the case is immediately dropped by the RIAA unless they REALLY hold some evidence.
Now mix in that the average judge knows jack about internet or the way it works (I only say "tubes". Ok, no judge but a politicians, but similar species and cranium). To make matters worse, many judges refuse to hire experts to get an informed input about it and instead rely on hearsay or what accuser and defender claim would be true. It's stunning that the judges don't even bother considering that either of them could be lying to win his case (again an example where in the presence of computers usually intelligent people turn into gullible morons).
This makes trials more gambling than anything resembling justice. Justice has the problem, like many parts of the legal branch, that the advent of the internet and computers in law and crime changed a lot of parameters. Most of all they changed that a lot of the things happening in and around computers cannot be grasped with "common sense" (not that it was all that common in court rooms... but I ramble).
In "normal" cases where everyday things are happening, judges can cast a sound and sensible verdict even if they don't know too much about the underlying matter. If a customer and a mechanic are going to court over breaks that should've been fixed and weren't, a judge can make a fair decision based on looking for parallels that he can understand.
Those parallels don't exist in a world that is very artificial and virtual, where property can be multiplied without any quality loss, immediately and inifinitly.
That's why judges are out of their league when dealing with the 'net, computers and IP. And that's why we get unjust and unsensible court orders. And that's why companies who can afford pepperspray sueing do it.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Drivers *must be* pirating-making illegal clone copies-of GM vehicles!
The weird thing, it probably is happening-in china.
L@@k! A new yuqawhn!
1) Steal the identity of the heads of the RIAA.
2) Using those identities, set up bank accounts, rent a cheap apartment or office somewhere, get broadband, hook up a computer with P2P software and loaded with songs. Use the identities to set up websites where people can download songs. Infringe on those copyrights!!!!!!
3) Watch the ensuing hilarity as the RIAA sues it's own heads for infringement.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
I had a conversation not long ago with someone who was clearly a very bright state Supreme Court justice. It was scary. On the one hand, at least when one gets high enough in the system, the judges are, for the most part anyway, pretty bright. The problem is that (from my single data point) they think they are bright enough that they understand technical detail -- when in fact they are more or less clueless. It's kind of like watching "Nova" or "Horizon" and thinking that by dint of having done that one really understands a scientific subject. This judge told me she realized that judges need technical training for some cases, but the lawyers are very good at making sure they receive it in the briefs and during argument, and she was convinced that the system works just fine.
And of course lower down in the system, the lack of technical competence is utterly appalling.
Personally, I think they should have technical cases judged by a 3-judge panel in which one of the judges is a technical expert, not a normal judge. But of course you can imagine what she thought of that idea.
What you don't seem to understand is that it's irrelevant whether or not theives are hurting their bottom line. What is relevant is that they're correct: people ARE stealing their music. Regardless of the impact it has (or doesn't), that is what gives them traction to press for insane anti-consumer laws and technologies.
Furthermore, it gives them a scapegoat. If CD prices go up and legit consumers complain, they can just blame the theives to silence detractors. No regular consumer has the time to delve into balance sheets and such to discern the truth, so they just say "oh okay" and then when people like me go around and say "I don't buy CDs here's why", they just say "oh, you're one of the dirty theives who makes my CD prices go up".
What the p2p theives just don't get, or don't care about maybe, is that by continuing to steal music, whether it hurts the industry or not, they just provide this enormous amount of fuel that makes it next to impossible to actually stop the RIAA. People using legit means get looked at just like the pirates so they get no support from common consumers. Furthermore, they give the RIAA a reason to keep pressing for new laws and restrictions.
P2P does nothing but harm any chances of ever reversing this tide. The best friend the RIAA has in all this is the people who keep stealing music.
If you haven't foed me yet, what are you waiting for?
Songs suck now a days. No need to buy CDs, nor even test them out.
Oh come on man! You just...(strike up the chords)
had a bad day
You're taking one down
You sing a sad song just to turn it around
You say you don't know
You tell me don't lie
You work up a smile and you go for a ride
You had a bad day
The camera don't lie
You're coming back down and you really don't mind
You had a bad day
You had a bad day
Sorry, I just wanted to remind you of how bad music is these days.
You're beautiful-it's true.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
If one considers this quote:
...So what if everyone using p2p simply fills in the information of their local congress-critter or favorite lawyer? It looks like the RIAA is doing only cursory checks to see if their information is accurate before letting the lawsuits fly. It'd be amusing to see what would happen if a boat-load of intellectual property lawyers and politicians were targetted by the association. Or, to fly under the radar, use the names of the secretaries of all the lawyers and politicians in your area for your p2p programs...
This is the point where Beckerman and the EFF prefer to intervene in a case. They try to point out that "any real pirate would never leave the meta-data [and] would be using someone else's Internet access account," Beckerman says. "Even seeing the shared file folder doesn't tell you which computer it resided on, because you're seeing files from a group of computers that are connected."
One very compelling reason is that almost no one has been willing to actually go to court over this issue. The RIAA has been settling for a few thousand dollars, far less than what actually defending the case would cost someone with a real lawyer, so the risk reward of settling is ultra-compelling. Folks are rushing to condemn the courts when all they have done is issue paperwork at the request of somebody, unfortunately almost any idiot can do this for a nominal charge. It is unreasonable to ask the courts to judge the merits of a case at this point.
If you dissosciate yourself completely from the RIAA's music, you deliver the message loud and clear that it is the music, not the company that you object to. Sure you can "make sure you let everyone know your position and explain why you're taking that position", but that level of detail doesn't reach the sales figures of the RIAA. Show demand for the music (if there is any demand for it), just not the company's "Reign of Terror". So called piracy boycotts the business model thrusted upon us every time we want to listen to music, but still retains the demand for the music. I know everyone has said it, but give me a good-quality, DRM-free system (read: the system allofmp3.com uses), and I will be generous with my hard-earned cash.
Please note also that boycotting music (or movies for that matter) is not easy for everyone. I love my music, and I couldn't imagine my life without it. Right now, the RIAA could boycott me and I'd come crawling back, humble and submissive, within weeks.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Sorry, I just wanted to remind you of how bad music is these days.
This is the first decade without a strong defining genre. The 90's had grunge, the late 80's had hair rock, the 80's had pop, the 70's had disco and the 60's had rock.
In the 2000's we had Bananas - B-A-N-A-N-A-S
Yeah, it's friggin' bad. Still some gems out there though like Pearl Jam and Tool...
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
The memes of justice are build with cases, not lawbooks.
If an organisation can successfully win 1000's of cases then these memes of justice are changed towards their favour.
Then justice thinks that these organisations are right.
I wonder why people need many words to explain simple facts of life.
Nice use of the Oxford comma by the way.
I had to look it up to realize that it was something I do all the time... but now that I know there's a cool phrase for it, I'll be sure to point it out!
[Mods: Note that this is labeled OT in the subject. Are you really gonna waste a point modding it that way?]
"since the majority of people who are aware of this problem seem to be comprised of either theives...by stealing music...wanting to steal things."
This topic involves copyright infringment, and does not involve theft or stealing. It's important to get the distinctions straight. None of the RIAA actions in the discussion "Reign of Terror" have been directed at thieves, nor are they related to stealing, so this should be mentioned.
"You fail to understand the enemy, and that is why you will lose"
You entirely missed the boat on what the issue is.
Where were you when the voynix came?
Dear Mr. Digitaldc,
You have illegally distributed the lyrics to Daniel Powter's song entitled "Bad Day", to an estimated 50,000 Slashdot users. As you must be aware, Warner Brothers owns the exclusive publishing rights to a plethora of popular music, including "Bad Day". The law entitles us to collect damages of $100,000 per illegally-distributed copy. Your bill comes to $5,000,000,000. Will that be cash or charge?
Sincerely,
Warner Brothers
If you want to put an end to this, the simple answer is to cease all activities involving consumption of the product. Don't steal it, don't buy it, don't listen to it on the radio, and make sure you let everyone know your position and explain why you're taking that position WITHOUT making it sound like you're just whining that you're coming under fire for wanting to steal things.
No income = dead cartel. Very simple equation.
Then the RIAA would point to declining record sales as proof of further harm by piracy. Doesn't matter if P2P went dark tomorrow; they would find a new scapegoat and continue abusing the legal system to ensure their profits. These people don't deal in facts or logic, only in what will scam them more dollars for their member companies by any means necessary.
Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
Please, cite a source. Any source.
I'm in full agreement with you on the theory that this is the RIAA and MPAA's motivation (though I think it goes deeper than that, and gets a bit darker as they don't merely wish to preseve, but expand their control over distribution), but this is still just what we think the RIAA and MPAA think. It harms our case when we say that this is "a fact".
Lovely. We have a new music label coalition of corporations whose entire purpose (like any corporation) are to make money for shareholders.
The truth of the matter is that music is affected very little by the free market. Have you wondered why the RIAA coalition has survived so effectively, despite all the companies offering equivilent services? It's because we choose music (or hype) over price more often than not. If we like both albums, but we're not sure which to get, we buy both. If we can only afford one, we buy the other later. The RIAA has no intention of internal feuding because no-one is stealing anybody's lunch.
Look out for AWESOME over-charging, manipulating distribution channels, merging with the RIAA, stonewalling the EFF, etc.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is waging a "reign of terror" against "defenseless people" in its efforts to prosecute people for illegal music downloads.
Over a hundred years ago Marx wrote, "What party in the opposition has not been called communistic?" or words to that effect (quoting from memory--dunno where my copy of the Communist Manifesto has got to.) For most of the century that followed it was safe in some circles to paint anything you didn't like--union organization, civil rights protests, anti-war activity, to name but a few--as "communist."
Today, we see the same trend with "terrorist". I have seen and heard accusations of "terrorism" against patent trolls, aggressive commercial competitors, angry former spouses...you name it. Terrorism is the trendy term-of-the-day for anyone you don't much like.
I'm tempted to put in some fairly obvious but sure-to-be-modded-flamebait links to stories on current events that might accurately be described as a "reign of terror" against "defenseless people", just to contrast these with the legal manueverings of the RIAA. I'm sure readers can think up their own links, which will vary depending on political persausion, but in every case they will involve stories where innocent people are living in fear of being killed by bombs, rockets, swords and guns. THAT is a "reign of terror", and I'm damned sure that most of those people would change places with the folks being sued by the RIAA in a moment.
So please, could we stop the hysteria and quit calling everything we don't like "terrorism"?
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
What's happening in the Middle East as I type is a reign of terror. The RIAA are simply abusing their power. There's a pretty big difference between the two and overexagerting the problem can have the effect of making otherwise fair minded people stop listening to what you're saying.
"Honestly, the idea of DRMs pisses so many people off that they simply can't stay around for long. The consumer hates not being trusted, and won't buy things that have DRMs. DRMs will be a thing of the past in the next decade, I have faith."
Yet the iTMS is a phenomenal success, while emusic and Maganatune are virtually unknown by the public.
For what it's worth, the iTMS DRM has never bothered me. I can burn as many copies of a playlist as I want to, burn stuff for my car, and listen to it on as many computers as I want to. I couldn't start burning unlimited copies and selling them on the street corner, or drop the files into a P2P share directory, without jumping through a few hoops... but that's sort of the point of DRM. When you refer to "the consumer," you don't speak for me.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
"people ARE stealing their music"
I do not doubt they are. CD's are shoplifted from Wal-Mart, and music stores are broken into and robbed. However, this discussion item (guess what?) has nothing to do with theft. As you ponder that fact, I challenge you to find one Slashdot discussion item that actually discusses music theft. After you find none, look in Google for an news item involving theft of music.
"What the p2p theives just don't get..."
p2p thieves is an oxymoron. You just can't steal using p2p. You can infringe copyright, etc: but you apparently do not understand how p2p technology works. Everything it does involves duplication of files, not taking. You can't have theft if you don't have taking.
Where were you when the voynix came?
Really? You want unelected, unappointed clerks heavily influencing findings of fact?
Do you think that the artists aren't aware of what their "label" and the RIAA are doing? Of course they're aware, and they're hoping that they'll get paid as a result! Do you think that the artist doesn't wish you would just buy the stupid album? No matter what they say, if they're producing through RIAA-associated labels then they are hoping to reap RIAA-associated benefits.
That should not matter. What they should do is file a complaints and then the COURT should do the investigation. The fact that they even know who the person is, is a bad thing. What is happening is:
RIAA to ISP: Give us all the details of IP XYZ:
ISP: OK, there you are:
RIAA to ISP: Sue this basterd, he must die.
COURT: Sure, whatever you say.
Here is how it SHOULD go:
RIAA: We want to report a copyright crime:
Court: Ok, please specify
RIAA: IP adress 127.192.168.172 at GMT 23:12 shared song "Some_music by Some_person_or_band" wich is in violation of
Court: Ok, we will see what is going on.
Court to ISP: Give us the data of the person who connected with IP on
ISP: There you are
COURT: Ok. Now let us proceed.
What happens in Belgium is that the court says: Fuck off if they don't ask money for it. We ain't got no time to do that. Come back when we have nothing to do or if you have people who are SELLING the stuff for profit.
Also if the local RIAA would come with the adress of the person, a serious investigation into the ISP will be done because of violation of the privacy laws AND the evidence (the name of the accused) will be dropped as evidence, making them loose the case almost immediatly.
America: Home of the give-your-privacy-away-for-free.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
This is about the hard cold math of economics. Econ. theory states that if a product is overpriced, then theft will ensue. Theivery of music, in this case, seems less of an indication that people are "bad" or don't "get it" but more of an indication that the gigs up for the real theives and crooks at the *AA. Don't get sucked into their simplistic and incorrect assesment of the socio-economic landscape. They have been screwing us for decades and now the've been caught with their pants down.
I hope they get reemed.
Kind Regards
"A few great minds are enough to endow humanity with monstrous power, but a few great hearts are not enough to make us w
These issues have been around for a while and nobody in the mainstream seems to pick it up. If it's something you care about maybe you should support work like this: http://alternativefreedom.org/
Ugh, Yes, EFF hates the RIAA, RIAA is bad, EFF is good to neutral. Let's get real news instead of restating the same old same old.
On a side note, when is the article title writer coming back? The last couple days have been pretty sub par and most of the time missed a crucial piece of data, or changed a word to a non synonym.
And that would be a fantastic assumption, if it weren't for the fact that her job description includes dusting in someone else's house.
> I don't think thats a good analogy.
;-)
Reasoning by analogy is always tricky
I think it is a matter of expectation. With a car or a washing machine people expect it to just work for a very large amount of time and they accept occasional breakages due to wear and tear.
With anything to do with computers the expectation is that very much lower, breakage is the normal state of affairs. So anything that prevents you playing media on your PC will just be accepted.
The only place I can see people become angry with the likes of the RIAA and MPAA is if there is breakage in something that is in the first class, e.g. a DVD will not work in DVD player. However, I think rather than becoming angry people will accept the argument that it is "out of date" and just buy one that actually implements the restrictions management.
Unfortunately, most would see it as hard work and hold it in total disdain; as the effort spent in learning a musical instrument does not result in instant gratification. Those who play music are aware that you find gratification in each step of progress they attain.
Not a process for the impatient. To those impatient folks, I say: Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time!
Friends don't let friends line-dance.
Come on, where's the guillotines? I want to see some heads chopped off!
This is missing in the article, if you want more information about EFF check out their website at:
http://www.eff.org
Or to sign a petition to stop some of the RIAA madness goto:
http://www.eff.org/share/petition/
"If you were right then people would have got rid of their crashing, malware prone MS desktops years ago."
See, for most people, this version of Windows simply does not exist. You really have to step out of the Windows ME world and visit reality some day.
To defeat the RIAA all you have to do is purchase music at sites that don't support DRM or the RIAA such as:
http://www.audiolunchbox.com/AudioLunchbox
or
http://www.dreamfreeze.com/DreamFreeze
Does that mean that I dust? Or that I'm anti-dusting? If so, why all the dust?
Man, you really need that seminar!
I say that we no longer donate to the EFF for lawsuits, we donate to the EFF for stock purchases. Make the EFF a major shareholder, and let them govern accordingly. Law and Lawyers only go so far, but stock goes farther, faster.
Minor quibble with your argument, but I'm simply trying to clarify things. If "no income" is the point, then pirating while complaining about laws is accomplishing the same thing. I believe the point of YOUR method is "no demand".
;-)
Not to say your methods are wrong, they're actually dead right. They fall within the established laws AND they say "no, we won't tolerate this treatment." Just nitpicking what signal you're actually sending with them.
While the EFF has offered assistance in some filesharing cases, the lawyer described here is not an EFF lawyer or affilate.
Do not write off the intelligence of a judge or the judge's willingness to learn about the impact of a case simply because we do so with legislators and most of the Exectutive. Judges are very capable of reading amicus briefs. It a judge's business to learn about the relevant facets of their case before a ruling is issued. You aren't implying that all judges know about everything except DRM/technology are you? Judges are expected to learn during their cases.
I am much more worried about legislators with precious little understanding of technology that is affected by the laws they create. A law is expensive and time-consuming to turn-over (the process of which is undesirable for most any individual/special interest).
The *IAAs' tactics sound eerily similar to what I know about the SCO case... unwilling to reveal key tidbits of evidence. Perhaps they are just trying to stall long enough to drive the defendant into the poorhouse (or use that image as leverage to settle). I hope someone makes a massive countersuit.
"If God had wanted us to vote, he would have given us candidates." - Jay Leno
They probably weren't even supposed to be here today.
I don't think DRM is going anywhere. Now that every computer is on the internet almost all the time, companies can start demanding that you remotely validate your software every time you run it.
I hate Steam. I just hate everything about it - clumsy interface, annoying ads, whining message boxes when it can't find the intenet. guess what Steam, I know when I'm connected and when I'm not, but thanks.
Yet I tolerated it so I could play Halflife 2. I have even purchased half-life add-ons that I might not have purchased otherwise. As odious as it is, it worked on me.
I also think the argument could be made that people will tolerate technology that annoys them if that technology seems to provide an indispensible convenience. how many blood pressure raising dropped calls have you had this month? going to get rid of your cell phone? yeah, me neither.
not everything is a science experiment!
the majority of people who are aware of this problem seem to be comprised of either theives or theif sympathizers. . .
.the artists.
.
Like. .
If you want to put an end to this. .
Become their worst nightmare; produce free content.
KFG
"He's just using "copyright infringement" because that sounds somehow less menacing and evil than "theft" even though the end result is ultimately the same for both actions."
No, I'm just using "copyright infringement" because it is wrong to use words that don't apply. I don't care whether or not something is less or more evil in meaning. If you want, you can call copyright infringers "criminals". You will at least be correct, even if you are less precise. However, don't call copyright infringers rapists, arsonists, thieves, murderers, or counterfeiters. Even if all of these are crimes, you are entirely in error to jumble up specific crimes without regard to meaning by saying that one is the same crime as the other.
Copyright infringement is different from theft, that is all there is too it. It is not a defense of copyright infringement or a "justification" to point out this fact. A good comparison would be if liars keep saying OJ Simpson was an arsonist (just like the liars who call copyright infringment "theft" or "stealing"). I'd be perfectly correct in pointing out that OJ was a murderer, not an arsonist (even if the liars say that pointing out this fact of distinction of crimes was a justification for what OJ did).
The accusations that fly at those who merely point out the facts of meanings of different words are disingenous and have no logic. It is just like this sort of conversation: Person A says that Stalin killed 100,000 Tibetans. Person B corrects person A, saying that it was Mao who ordered this instead. Person A then accuses Person B of trying to make Stalin look good. Yes, calling someone a thief when they don't steal is bad, even if the supposed thief did something else wrong instead.
"It's sort of like arguing over whether to call a murder a "murder" or "taking a life". "
That's a bad example. Both mean pretty much the same crime, while copyright infringement and theft are two different crimes. A better example would be arguing over whether to call a murder a "rape": whether or not to use a word that just does not apply at all to describe a situation. Also, the common logic by the liars who call copyright infringement "theft" by claiming "Well, it is as BAD as theft!" are really mangling words.
Where were you when the voynix came?
Then I don't get it. Why don't we form a tech union and have a public goal for members of the union that we will not work on DRM? Of course, non-members of the union can work on it, but it would raise awareness quickly. Also, if you recruit some of the best into the union, the DRM may not be implemented correctly.
The same technology that can be used for realy intrusive DRM can be used for very helpful things as well, much like any powerful tool. The only difference between good security and painful DRM is who has the key.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Absolutely correct. I have both a computer science degree, and a law degree. In my graduating class, there were 1 CS guy (me) and 2 engineers. That's it. I'd say 75% of everyone else was English, Poly Sci, Psych, History, or Criminal Justice. Tech people just don't go into the law, and the kind of people that go into the law tend to not care nearly as much about technology.
Well, in Soviet Russia, the dust control the computers. So. they have a precedent.
Your ad could be here!
It's just like the American government with Saddam. They bully every nation in the Middle East: all your oil is belong to us and hide those nuclear weapons we gave you a few years ago. Then there are some like Iraq and Iran that say: bring it on. They go in, do some havoc in Iraq and then they are just standing there: oops, we don't have a case, no WMD, no terrorist training camps, not enough troops, troops want to go home... shit..: terrorists, terrorists, protect freedom by taking it away.
:)
If you're going to rant by dragging unrelated political crap into things, it helps to not undercut your own arguments.
Really, you should have learned that in "Internet Ranting 101"
If this rule applied then most judges would be excluded from presiding over most cases. Judges are not required nor expected to know all aspects of the suits they preside over. Apply your rule to nearly any sufficiently complex subject and there could never be a judge deemed competent to sit on the case. Oh, and the arguments over just what amount of knowledge qualified a judge to sit on a case would be legend.
I say we no longer donate to the EFF, period. They're EVERY bit as guilty about spreading FUD as the RIAA, or MS.
Go look at the stupid essay about being charged with a crime for reading a book. PURE FUD.
Yeah, more sharing of your music could really help with that problem of "becoming invisible".
One trouble with P2P is you have to know something exists before you can search for it. I never had much luck with random searching. Could be there's a heap of good music out there that I don't even know exists. I must admit I am totally incapable of determining whether I'll like some music if I've never heard it or heard of it or the artists and have only an album cover to look at. 'Tis a little pricey to buy before trying, even used. Maybe if public libraries would expand their music collections they'd be worth checking out. Libraries often accept donations. P2P has a lot of advantages, but the old library is worth considering if you've got a few extra CDs to distribute.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
Boycotts are never easy. They are usually a last resort when something happens that a large enough group of people object to, and they aren't beeing listened to by those who have control. I can garauntee that boycotting the bussing system and walking for miles every day in your business clothes was a heck of a lot more inconvenient than having to listen to your current music library instead of picking up that next great CD with 1 or 2 songs on it you want.
The problem with boycotting something as large as the music or movie industries is three fold. First is apathy. It's not nearly as important an issue as segregation was. Not being so fundamental an issue, is it worth it trying to convince all your friends not to purchase that new CD, or not to go see that latest and greatest new movie, and if you can't convince them, is it worth staying at home while they all go out and have a good time at the movies without you?
Second is scope. This is a national problem, not a local one. It's a much more difficult thing to organize a boycott on a national level than it is to organize it within one metropolis.
Finally there's education. Most people don't realize the extent the "content" industries, entertainment and software both, would like to lock down the purchases we make, and how many times they'd like us to pay for the privledge of watching or listening to a single piece of music, show, or a single piece of software. What makes this even more frustrating to convey is similar to trying to convey environmental issues. "Where's the evidence it'll get that bad? It's certainly not that bad now. And didn't you say the world would end in 50 years if we didn't repent our ways...50 years ago?" If you paint worst case cenarios while it's still really easy to share CDs, and download just about anything you want, and DVDs are playable pretty much anywhere you want to play them, then it's easy to come of sounding like the preacher on the corner yelling "Repent, the end is nigh!" And the arguments about not being able to legally play your DVDs on Linux isn't going to sway the mass public either. They all use PCs or Macs, as a rule.
Does that mean I'm against a boycott? No, I'm not. For a while I refused to go to the movies. But if it's just me doing it, by myself, the movie industry won't notice. It's still an admirable thing to do if I object to their practices. I really don't want to fund the next DMCA pumped up on hormones and steroids, and even if my friends don't know the issues, I certainly do. So what does it say about me if I throw my principles out the door and purchase things from companies I know are working to undermine any rights that I have as a person, not just a consumer?
But my acting alone isn't going to get the RIAA's or the MPAA's notice. If I want a boycott to be successful, I have to put out the effort to get a true movement going, and that's HARD. Even networking with those who are like minded about this would be difficult. Once networked, getting the word out to enough people to make a difference in the RIAA/MPAA's bottom line to get noticed is a truly monumental task.
Finally, getting most those people to boycott the RIAA and MPAA LEGALLY, without resorting to illegal file sharing for their next hit of entertainment would be a truly herculean task. And I think that, in large part, the protest would have to be legal to be taken seriously by the RIAA/MPAA, and congress. If there was suddenly a spike in file trading while legal purchases dropped down, I think that would simply encourage a bigger witch hunt. (It probably will anyway, but HOPEFULLy at least the congresspeople would listen if enough people stopped purchasing.)
"Sure you can "make sure you let everyone know your position and explain why you're taking that position", but that level of detail doesn't reach the sales figures of the RIAA. Show demand for the music (if there is any demand for it), just not the company's "Reign of Terror". So called piracy boycotts the business model thrusted upon us every time we want to listen to music, but still retains the demand for the music."
That's one of the more interesting rationales for piracy I've heard. If I understand you, pirating music is helpful to the cause because it indicates demand for the product, without compensating the people who made the product possible. I suppose this will motivate record companies in the same way that a high shrinkage rate will motivate a retail store to lower their prices -- after all, it shows that prospective customers want the product, but they're not willing to pay for the product and are instead using illegal means to get it. 5, Insightful to the first person who points out that shoplifting is not the same as piracy.
"I know everyone has said it, but give me a good-quality, DRM-free system (read: the system allofmp3.com uses), and I will be generous with my hard-earned cash."
The Russian sites don't need to worry about DRM because they don't have permission to sell the music in the first place. They are pirates who are exploiting a loophole in Russian law by paying for a broadcast license while allowing people to download the music. Web broadcast licenses are typically on the order of a couple of hundred bucks a month; if you and others download a collective million tracks a month from allofmp3, that's two thousanths of a cent per track for the artists, assuming ROMS manages to distribute the money.
As you know, there are sites like emusic and Magnatune which also distribute DRM-free music. The prices are higher than the Russian sites because they actually pay the artists. Out of curiosity, have you been generous with your hard-earned cash on these sites as well, or does it largely go to allofmp3?
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
Will that be cash or charge?
If I can't pay, do you guys have a debter's prison I can attend?
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
If you don't feel strongly enough about the RIAA's policy to make any sacrifices in order to change them, then it's really not as important as you're making it out to be.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
"They're fighting it because they recognize that p2p has the potential to completely decimate their supply channels by allowing every Tom, Dick, and Harry to interrupt their entire business plan with a mouse clicks."
Nay... For every tom dick and harry, you can garentee atleast 1 of the 3 (id guess more like 2 of 3) simply a) dont know how to find new releases and dont want to waste hours/days looking. b) dont want to wait for a new release when theres 1 seed for 10k leeches. c) dont want to put up with an inferior 'copy' or possibly fake copy. d) dont have the brains to install/use/crack a pirated copy.
The average tom would rather see a movie in theatres, or buy the game so he can play online, or the cd so he can be 'cool' and add it to his collection of 3000 cds. Tom buys a new computer every couple years so he can keep using the new software he buys. Tom even subscribes to NetFlix. Tom is scared of the MPAA and thinks that downloading movies funds anti-zionist terrorists and the mp3s give them the ammunition to use against American soliders in Iraq.
As for the average harry, he'd pirate, but his torrent is taking a week to finish and it turns out it wasnt the new johnny depp movie, it was some 80s action movie staring steven sagel or worse, porn staring his mom. So SOMETIMES Harry goes to the movies or rents them. Other than the simple, small, mp3s, harry has problems downloading cause he doesnt know what hes doing asside from using the websites that the RIAA and MPAA flame on tv, or that his 'leet' friend suggested he used just to get rid of him. But harry is the kind of person that if he didnt know how to download MP3s he'd just record them off his radio onto cassette, cause any monkey can do that. Harry is probably the same person that goes to his mothers house and raids teh fridge/cupboards so he doesnt have to go shopping...
And lastly, Dick. Dicks the dick that doesnt pay for anything. Dick steals every movie/game/song he can stuff into his harddrive. Dick belives that a movie that you get to see once in an overcrowded, smelly, expensive theatre is the real theif. Dick belives he shouldnt pay 50$ for W.O.W just to find out his vid card doesnt have pixel shading, or that he needed a cc to start playing. Dick belives that he should get to try before he buys. Would dick buy a car without tring it out? Hell no! But if dick likes something enough, like the L.O.T.R trilogy, Dick just might shell out the cash for it. But when dick is done with his 'pirated' whatever, he usually decides that its just not worth paying for. And usually hes right (i still want my money back from MI:3).
So yea, every tom dick and harry dont pirate. Small percentage of people actually pirate enough to do damge against the big wigs. For every one Dick, theres 10,000 white bread/red neck/paris hilton/gunit wannabe toms out there that will drop green on everything thats 'in' and prolly a good 1-5k 'im always the newb' Harrys out there that dont spend as much.
I fervently hope that Trusted Computing dies a horrible death. As far as "years of work being wasted", the work shouldn't have been done in the first place. I don't care if my computer or any software that I have legally obtained trusts me. Remote attestation and sealed storage are especially treacherous features of Trusted Computing. I should be the one controlling my computer, not the computer manufacturers, software publishers, and content providers who wish to control my computer using the friendly little name "Trusting Computing".
You feel this way because you're sure it will be used against you, via some sort of DRM nonsense. Who would ever buy a PC made like that?
If you have the master keys, however, Trusted Computing is a good thing. Not a big advantage for the home user, though I'm sure someone will cook up a good security product around it, but for the corporate IT guy it will allow far more powerful security policies, and perhaps a final solution to the BritneySpearsNaked.jpg.scr problem.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
I think that the *AA is far more concerned about independent artists having an equal shot. Sure P2P is a thorn in their side, but at the end of the day even pirated music gets played for family and friends and ultimately supports the band. I don't know how many times someone has given me a "pirated" CD that I liked so much that I went out and bought it. Granted there are a lot of people who just leach, and don't give back, but those are typically people who would have never bought the CD in the first place. If independent artists that are not affiliated to the RIAA are just as likely to succeed as the artists that pay for the *AA protection the *AA will die. It's inevitable. DRM is a sneaky way to act like they are trying to join the digital age, but they have to know it's going to ultimately fail. They would very much like to keep their current business model, but consider this: What does it cost to run a web site, compared to press, distribute, warehouse, ship CDs? No wonder they're scared. I give 'em a couple more years, and their time is up.
I don't believe in karma, I just call it like I see it.
National Security.
Speaking of access to legal talent, isn't it interesting out of twenty thousand or more lawsuits not a single attorney has been sued?
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
I use a bumper sticker. It's not much but it's a start.
Get The Sticker
"The ferrets, they're every where I tell you!"
They both have tubes, right? So whats the problem?
I'm not not licking toads.
How's that saying go?
Fight fire with fire?
I've never seen a battle where someone who fought fairly won over someone who cheated every whichway from Sunday.
It sucks but that's the world we live in.
We are the fire that lights our world.. and we are the fire that consumes it.
"You won't break me You won't take me I'll fight you under blood red skies You'll never take me alive I'm telling you Hands of justice I will stand, I will fight As the sun goes down I won't give in to fear"
Just want to clarify something. The post suggests I was speaking for the EFF. I love the EFF, I'm a member, I got into defending RIAA defendants through the EFF, I applaud their efforts in everything I've seen them do... but I'm not an employee or leader of the organization and I am certainly not an authorized spokesman for it. I'm just an ordinary "country" lawyer (in Manhattan) trying to fight for my clients.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
... it will be as dead as Divx ...
Isn't is kind of funny that divix is heavily used to pirate movies after it was orginally meant as DRM?
Its time we stop the advance of the RIAA. If we don't other companies /industries will be trying to follow suit. Here's an unlikely and extreme but maybe not impossible circumstance: The company that makes your OS claims that any image displayed on the monitor the was directly or indirectly created by the OS is copyright by them. Think of the implications.
And that's the least of what they steal; they feel perfectly free to use our public domain cultural resources - like Disney's use of fairy tales. Then they turn round and claim that it's unfair for their stuff to eventually become public domain in turn. Greedy little turds, they make me sick.
The content providers haven't done anything that makes me believe that they won't do all they can to exploit the DRM enabling features of Trusted Computing. Two good examples is the mentality behind software and content providers are the Sony/BMG rootkit DRM and Microsoft Genuine Advantage. I suspect that lots of induhviduals would be clueless enough to buy a computer like that. People who had the Sony/BMG rootkit installed on their computer held the master keys to their computer -- and the DRM installation program exploited that fact. I feel that Trusted Computing will be a very bad thing for the average computer user and that content providers will endeavor to fully exploit the DRM possibilities of Trusted Computing.
FUCK OFF!!!!
Oh, people would buy the computers for a while - people bought Divx players after all. But DRM that actually inconveniences the average user in any significat way can't last. Non-geeks have a very low frustration threshhold for a computer not doing what they expect it to, after all. Public reaction to Sony's rootkit wasn't exactly positive, either.
I could certainly see Microsoft putting a TPM chip in some future X-Box to prevent people from chipping it, for example, as thaty wouldn't interfere with normal use, but trying to keep the keys to a general purpose computer?
Remember, as long as you have the master key, nothing that a content provider wants to do will matter, at least to a sophisticated user, and Trusted Computing can actually *stop* Sony from secretly installing rootkits (if someone cooks up the obvious security solution).
Of course, who knows - we'll see what these guys try, and Sony and Microsoft are exactly trustworthy, but the storage vendors won't cooperate unless they think consumers will want their DRM drive, and Dell sure as hell won't risk a penny of profit to make content providers happy, that track record is pretty solid.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Are you freakin' serious? It's in these peoples blood to poach another industry. I know business marketing grads who try to run technology groups (happens all the time). Does their utter lack of knowledge stop them? HELL NO! Do they fuck up most of the time? Well yeah! Judges are no different. Rough around the edges information with the details papered over is the world they live in. There is precision in law in various places. Not when it deals with technology. In tech. the devil is in the details, and that is what they run roughshod over. You can expect them to get it 99% wrong, 99% of the time. Like our marketer, they don't really care and move from screwup to screwup with reckless abandon. Hell I've even seen elected public officials yapping ignorantly about getting their internets through tubes (you know, like toothpaste). Gross ignorance at best, willful stupidity on average, obtuce idiocy at worst. In a world where vague, rough, and 'skimming the details' fails 100% of the time, they still try.
None would want to pirate, after watching Nighttrap(tm). *shivers*
Um, is Occam's Razor a good enough "source" for you? Seriously though, when I look at all the theories of why the MPAA and RIAA are doing this, they all boil down to one thing: control.
Copyright law is already on the side of those who hold copyrights. That is why it exists. However, having a law does not stop behavior that breaks said law. This is obvious.
Now when we look at the actions of these cartels, what are all their actions designed to do? The answer is simple: stopping behavior that infringes on their copyrights (as well as many behaviors that do not). In other words, they are attempting to control what people do with media, beyond a reasonable definition of copyright.
The difference, at least in my mind is that although Steam is good for the publisher, it's ALSO good for ME. Because of the online validation, I never have to put in a CD. Don't have to hunt for one. Don't have to worry about one. I can install all my Steam games at home, at work, at the library -- anywhere I trust my login information. Don't have to worry about dragging a CD around with me everywhere in order to play.
I also don't have to worry about whether the small stores here will have Steam games in stock. (They never do until weeks after release.)
I don't have to worry about backing up my CD/DVD because there isn't one.
In short, I'm willing to make a compromise. You give me something, I give you something. DRM on the other hand takes from me and gives to the publisher. I get nothing in return--and in many cases (online movies fex) I actually end up paying MORE for the restrictions.
I think was he saying is first they make up evidence which then turned out to be false.
I'll have a look at these sites. But honestly, I can't imagine that they pay the artist without paying the RIAA. Why would they? They'd be already illegal, so why pay the artists a fair amount? Either it pays the copyright holder, or it's no better than allofmp3.com (with higher prices to boot). It sounds like waste of time, but I'll probably check it out.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Here, let me clarify. These are my priorities:
1. Music
2. No RIAA "Reign of Terror"
3. Pay artists
It's not everyone's order, but it's not hard to understand. I stand by my statement you so conveniently quoted.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Magnatune is their own label and the DRM-free route is a pillar of their business. My understanding about emusic (somebody please correct me if I'm wrong) is that the selection is a mix of stuff from bands without a label, and from labels who are willing to give the DRM-free model a try.
I heartily encourage you to give both services a try. If Magnatune and emusic succeed, we can show the major labels that there's a legitimate demand for DRM-free music. If only allofmp3 succeeds, then we show the major labels that we're a bunch of cheap pirates.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
The RIAA's sue-en-masse tactics are obviously intended to frighten -- terrorize -- P2Pers into falling into line; therefore I don't believe you could call it anything but terrorism.
Seems pretty clear to me. Did my reasoning go wrong somewhere?
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
That's interesting. You've really caught my interest now. I've been looking for online independent labels like these recently.
Thanks.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Gee, I hope my " Today's music sucks teh Sh!t " bumper sticker get's the word out.
Are you implying that the word out belongs to get, or that get is the word out?
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
I agree I made a grammatical error. But who knows anymore with today's slang.
Thanks for providing an excellent example of the non-sequitur attack where one person points out the fact that two different things are two different things, and the next person says "oh! You are trying to justify one of them!"
Where were you when the voynix came?
I did not use the term "terrorism"; I used the term "reign of terror", which I think has a different meaning.
The people I have spoken to are heartsick at being subjected to federal court lawsuits. They have no good choices. They either have to (a) pay $3750 or $4250 as extortion money for something they didn't do, or to defend a vague, shadowy, ambiguous case that is not based on any evidence; or (b) they have to spend tens of thousands of dollars to defend themselves; or (c) they have to have a default judgment against them. Most of them don't have the money for either (a) or (b), but those who do have the money don't find either to be a very comforting alternative.
Once they start defending themselves, and it becomes clear they didn't do anything, the RIAA doesn't drop the case... then the RIAA starts looking for depositions of their children, their neighbors' children, their relatives, anyone the RIAA can thinks they can rope into the case, and then tries to sue those people, too, children included. And it will spend what appears to be an endless stream of dollars in order to do it. In fact their strategy seems to be to do everything in the most expensive possible way, to make it impossible for defendants to defend themselves.
If it turns out a 13-year old kid did it, then the RIAA goes after the 13-year old kid.
The people I talk to are full of anxiety, and are in a dilemma they can't solve. One lady called me asking if this means her daughter will go to jail. Another wanted to know how to stop the RIAA from suing her disabled daughter.
Lately, the RIAA has taken to sending out press releases, for each crummy $6000 to $9000 case, to the local newspapers where the defendants live, just to publicly embarrass them.
They are clearly in a state of "terror".
Believe me, "radtea", even though you are more knowledgeable and sophisticated than most of the people who are being sued, you too would be full of anxiety were you in their position; you would find it to be a nightmare, unless of course you opted to pay the settlement money even though you hadn't committed any copyright infringement.
If the judges go along with this faked campaign, and don't put an end to it, it is a "reign" of terror.
I am hopeful they will shut it down, and it will have been a short lived "reign".
But the harm already done to the people who have been sued is incalculable. I hope you never have to go through what they are going through.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful