RIAA Wins Worst Company In America 2007

An anonymous reader writes "After 15 punishing rounds of combat involving 32 of America's most hated companies, 100,000 voters have spoken: More hated than Halliburton, more despised than Walmart, the RIAA has defeated all comers to become the Worst Company in America 2007."

Comments

I Demand a Recount

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, just in case RIAA demands a recount, I've selected the final 8, and added 2 from the final 16 that were "close calls."

This is a poll:
Worst Company In America - 2007

Verizon
U-Haul
Sony
Exxon
Clear Channel
Halliburton
RIAA
Walmart
Comcast
Best Buy

Re:I Demand a Recount

[CokeBear]

Exxon or Haliburton, tough call...

Re:I Demand a Recount

[Anonymous Coward]

It should be interesting to see slashdotters' take on this... so far it looks to be consistent with the other poll... but perhaps that will change with time.

If you have mod points, mod parent up so we can get more votes and see better results.

Re:I Demand a Recount

[Ethelred Unraed]

The truly funny bit was that this article came up with an ad for Sony's Blu-ray Disc Player.

Cheers,

Ethelred

Re:I Demand a Recount

[ViaD]

Every one in this list do probably not care about reputation anyways...

Re:I Demand a Recount

[Anonymous Coward]

Write-in: M$!

Re:I Demand a Recount

[Anonymous Coward]

ewww. that list made my blood boil just looking at it and thinking of all the terrible experiences I've had with so most of those companies.

Re:I Demand a Recount

[RegularFry]

Meh. I've added *sony* to my adblock rules. Didn't see it, don't miss it.

Re:I Demand a Recount

[duerra]

What about Ticketmaster?

Re:I Demand a Recount

[zero_offset]

If by "interesting" you mean "predictable" then I think you're on to something.

Re:I Demand a Recount

[boingo82]

Why do we hate U-Haul again? I think I know for the rest, but not that one.

Re:I Demand a Recount

[Saxerman]

Why do we hate U-Haul again? I think I know for the rest, but not that one.

The traditional method to discover such information is to Google the company name + 'sucks' which reveals the sort of websites you would expect. The typical complaints are about putting in a reservation for a truck and then not getting one (you don't actually 'reserve' a truck, you 'request' one, and they get to call you back the day of the 'reservation' telling you where to pick it up... or even telling you one is not available... or not calling you at all), or getting a truck and finding it defective. And then finding the usual run-around when attempting to get the issue resolved.

Re:I Demand a Recount

[boingo82]

Thanks...good to know as we'll be moving a state over in about a month. Guess we're going with Budget.

what about...

[Anonymous Coward]

Cowboy Neal Corp? That's always an option...

Re:what about...

[quadra23]

Cowboy Neal Corp? That's always an option...

coming to a poll near you?

Once we Get CowboyNeal out of the crawlspace (Slashdot Poll) I bet this will become an option in the very near future. CowboyNeal's life goal after becoming free from the crawlspace is to found his own corporation. Yes, this definitely sounds like an option!

Since when is the RIAA a company?

[phlegmofdiscontent]

I thought they were an anarcho-fascist commune....

Re:Since when is the RIAA a company?

[TheDreadSlashdotterD]

Yeah, a company.

Re:Since when is the RIAA a company?

[bigstrat2003]

No, they're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. They take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week. But all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting.

Re:Since when is the RIAA a company?

[John Hasler]

The RIAA isn't a company. It's a trade association.

Re:Since when is the RIAA a company?

[Dun Malg]

The RIAA isn't a company. It's a trade association. An arbitrary distinction. They are incorporated in New York, so they are as much a corporation as any other. The fact that their entire customer base consists of a small clique of recording industry companies is wholly irrelevant. They are merely the non-profit* collective "beard" of their members, allowing them to pawn off their dirty work on a faceless third party.

* their lobbying efforts alone make their non-profit status pretty hard to justify under 501(c)(3)

Re:Since when is the RIAA a company?

[seaniqua]

By god, if I had mod points, I'd find a way to mod this up to +5.

Re:Since when is the RIAA a company?

[Red Flayer]

* their lobbying efforts alone make their non-profit status pretty hard to justify under 501(c)(3)

But they are not registered as a 501(c)3.

501(c)3 is a designation for non-profits to whom personal donations are tax-deductible; there are many, many non-profits that do not fall under this category. Under federal tax law, a business may still deduct donations to a lobbying non-profit as business expenses, if the lobbying is in support of the business interests of the business -- personal contributions, however, aren't exempt.

Yet another way the corporations and their crony legislators have reinforced their domination of the legislative process.

Re:Since when is the RIAA a company?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. They take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week. But all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting.

Artists: Help help, I'm being repressed.

Lawsuit victims: Ah, now you see the violence inherent in the system!

Re:Since when is the RIAA a company?

[ThePengwin]

But by being a commune aren't they being also being hypocritical of there structure for suing people who they say don't own their music?

Re:Since when is the RIAA a company?

[lordofthechia]

Hey thanks, I was having some trouble with insomnia (hence why I'm reading slashdot at 3am) that really helped. Hmm.... law speak...

Night!

Re:Since when is the RIAA a company?

[mpe]

The RIAA isn't a company. It's a trade association

The two are not mutually exclusive. Anyway the RIAA would have a hard time suing people with out being a "legal person" in some sense or other.

Re:Since when is the RIAA a company?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Anarcho-fascist"? Come on. That doesn't even make sense.

Anarchy is defined as the absence of the special "right" to employ coercion which defines government. That's all it means -- nothing more, nothing less. It is NOT defined as chaos, violence, or injustice (as government teaches you); it simply means a lack of organized coercion (government). It doesn't say anything about justice, or peace, or economics. All of that is speculation.

Now, tell me how the RIAA could possibly exist in the absence of organized coercion. Indeed, their entire business model is based on exploiting the coercive power of government. Furthermore, the concept of fascism is ALSO founded on government. (How could a fascist power possibly exist if it didn't take the form of -- drum roll please -- organized coercion? "Anarcho-fascism" is clearly a contratiction in terms, a logical impossibility.)

With that said, I do agree that the RIAA and the mob (organized crime) have a lot in common.

Re:Since when is the RIAA a company?

[phoenixwade]

No, they're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. They take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week. But all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting.

Artists: Help help, I'm being repressed.

Lawsuit victims: Ah, now you see the violence inherent in the system! RIAA: Bloody Peasent!

Re:Since when is the RIAA a company?

[Anonymous Coward]

Watch Monty Python and the Holy Grail sometime.....

Re:Since when is the RIAA a company?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's right, I read at +2 and post at +1. Not even I care what I have to say. LMAO

Re:Since when is the RIAA a company?

[Copid]

The RIAA isn't a company. It's a trade association.

Which is essentially a company that acts as an abstraction to take on all of the worst traits of the companies it represents and concentrate them into a single evil entity.

comcast

[deopmix]

Why wasn't Comcast in the poll. I would have voted them all the way.

Re:comcast

[rayde]

um, sony beat them in the first round

Re:comcast

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummmmmmmmm

Round 3: Comcast vs Sony

Re:comcast

[deopmix]

Oh god, I looked at it 3 times and missed them every time.

Re:comcast

[Anonymous Coward]

They were, Sony eliminated them in the first round.

Re:comcast

[cyclopropene]

I can't understand why UHaul beat BestBuy...

Re:comcast

[Kristoph]

If it makes you feel better, Comcast was the second most hated company in round 1.

]{

Re:comcast

[MetalPhalanx]

When I went to move out of the previous apartment I lived in, I rented a Uhaul truck. We arranged the details two weeks in advance, and they promised it would be set up.

When my parents arrived at the uhaul rental place to pick up our large truck, they had none on the lot, and informed us that the nearest one was roughly 200km away, in the opposite direction from where I needed to go. They offered us a trailer that was 1/3rd the size as the best they could do.

So here I am on moving day, with nowhere to store my stuff, no truck to put it in, and no other options. By a strange fluke of luck I managed to get the landlord of my new apartment let me move in a day early, and we just ferried it over.

I'd say that's why Uhaul is worse. If Best Buy fucks up, you just have to wait a little while longer (I'm sure someone will have a story to prove me wrong, but whatever). But if Uhaul fucks you around on moving day, you're boned.

Re:comcast

[Idbar]

That's their business model: They make you believe you have a reservation, then you have to go around all the rental places trying to find one.

I had the same problem with them.

Re:comcast

[Loconut1389]

that- or they stick you with an 80's heap that guzzles down gas like beer and gets about 4MPG when you're making 3, 100 mile roundtrips (200 miles total per trip). My gas bill was terrible. In their defense, they did refund me most of the rental after showing my gas bills, but it still was not a pleasurable experience.

I got my revenge on moving day a few years later- I was renting a 26 foot monster and despite them promising me an automatic, I got a manual (never drive one). Being studious, I understand the mechanics of a manual and figured a few minutes in the parking lot (or perhaps an hour) and I'd have it down. I didn't know of course that when you start the thing, there's no park and they often leave it in gear to keep it from rolling in the lot- so when I tried to start it up to do a pre-trip (I leaned in from the side), as the engine started cranking, it shot back into the truck behind. It did minimal damage, so they let it go and sent me out of there with an automatic, albeit smaller. Things went well from there, but the bigger truck would have been helpful. Anyway, the point is, they pulled the same trick on me and it caused an accident.

Re:comcast

[Sledgy]

Or you do some planning, and have some overlap between moving out of one place and into another.

Re:comcast

[feepness]

When my parents arrived at the uhaul rental place to pick up our large truck, they had none on the lot, and informed us that the nearest one was roughly 200km away, in the opposite direction from where I needed to go. They offered us a trailer that was 1/3rd the size as the best they could do.

"I made a reservation? Do you have my reservation?"

"Yes, we do. Unfortunately, we ran out of cars."

"But the reservation keeps the car here. That's why you have the reservations."

"I know why we have the reservations,"

"I don't think you do. If you did, I'd have a car. See, you know how to take the reservation. You just don't know how to hold the reservation. And that's really the most important part of the reservation, the holding. Anyone can just take them."

Re:comcast

[BlueTrin]

I am looking for +1 revenge in the moderation combobox ...

Re:comcast

[MMC Monster]

I had an identical experience with Uhaul.

If you are persistent enough, you can talk to a manager who will actually somehow find you a truck.

I made the mistake of moving on June 30th, and didn't realize that all the schools were letting out then.

I used to old "You can take a reservation, but you don't know how to keep a reservation" bit, and added a little bit of playing dumb.

Re:comcast

[mrscorpio]

No doubt. When I moved from a small apt to a bigger one, I "made a reservation" for one of the smaller trucks (the 2nd smallest one I believe), but when I got there they were "out of those" so I got this behemoth that you would think one would need a CDL to drive and I could barely fit in my parking lot. I also clipped the barrier at the gas station a little bit but fortunately they didn't notice that on the inspection.

Re:comcast

[10Ghz]

"That's their business model: They make you believe you have a reservation, then you have to go around all the rental places trying to find one."

Jerry: I don't understand, I made a reservation, do you have my reservation?

Agent: Yes, we do, unfortunately we ran out of cars.

Jerry: But the reservation keeps the car here. That's why you have the reservation.

Agent: I know why we have reservations.

Jerry: I don't think you do. If you did, I'd have a car. See, you know how to take the reservation, you just don't know how to *hold* the reservation and that's really the most important part of the reservation, the holding. Anybody can just take them.

Re:comcast

[10Ghz]

D'oH! It seems I was beaten to the punchline by Feepness.

Re:comcast

[an.echte.trilingue]

A couple years ago my credit card got rejected. I was shocked and checked my statement, and found that 3,000 dollars had been charged to a UHAUL in Columbus, GA, where I had been stationed previously. Since I had been moved to Germany a month previously and had never set foot in a UHAUL store anywhere, it was pretty easy to prove that I had not made the charges (don't know how my credit card number got out... I'm guessing at a restaurant). Anyway, MasterCard agreed with me and decided that UHAUL would have to foot the fraud bill since they did not verify the card holder identity or even actually physically see the card.

So, there you have it, bad karma has a way of coming back at you, even if you're a company.

Re:comcast

[SamSim]

they often leave it in gear to keep it from rolling in the lot

Evidently they don't understand the mechanics of a manual transmission either. Or, indeed, any car. That's what the handbrake is for.

Re:comcast

[farmerj]

they often leave it in gear to keep it from rolling in the lot

Evidently they don't understand the mechanics of a manual transmission either. Or, indeed, any car. That's what the handbrake is for.

It's pretty standard practice to leave a larger vehicle in first or reverse, especially for older vehicles and hilly areas.

Cars this side of the world (Europe) normally have the hand-brake on the rear axle and are driven on the front axle.
If left parked in gear this means that both axles are braked.
Also means that the vehicle won't roll if the hand-brake fails.

Re:comcast

[ScrewMaster]

That's some of Seinfeld's best work.

Re:comcast

[mpe]

That's their business model: They make you believe you have a reservation, then you have to go around all the rental places trying to find one.

It isn't even an original one. IIRC airlines started with the idea of deliberatly overbooking flights some thirty odd years ago, turn up "too late" and you don't get a seat. More recently some hotel chains have been caught taking bookings for more rooms than they actually have. Even including sending people round to other hotels in the chain.
Same business model; the only difference is if you are hiring a seat on an aircraft, a room to sleep in or a truck/van.

Re:comcast

[Skater]

I saw an annoying, related trick from another company (Budget, I think): When we got there Saturday morning to pick up the truck, they wanted to charge us double the quoted price. Why? Because we didn't have proof that the insurance policy covered rentals. My brother (who actually was renting the truck) was furious - if they'd told him that in advance he could have easily had the proof with him when he went in.

They tried to call his insurance agent, who of course wasn't in (Saturday morning), and refused to do anything more. They conveniently "forget" to mention this little stipulation when you make the reservation, then expect that since you'll need the truck you'll pay the inflated rate.

We left without the truck and got one from U-Haul. They were helpful, though the truck wasn't in good shape. (I've had pretty good luck with U-Haul over the years, but I think it really depends on which locations you go to more than anything else - a few are good.)

Re:comcast

[Anonymous Coward]

There used to be a complaint website named U-hell.com (or uhell.com); as I remember it had a great graphic of a U-Haul truck with flames on the side. Unfortunately it appears to be gone, although the domains are registered. I found a post at http://www3.sympatico.ca/mike365/onthelist/uhallsu cks/ that says the domain now belongs to U-Haul (can't have the public complaining, now can we?).

Re:comcast

[hb253]

Bzzt. Absolutely completely wrong. When parking a manual transmission vehicle, you should ALWAYS engage the emergency/parking brake as well as leave the transmission in gear.

Re:comcast

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyway, the point is, they pulled the same trick on me and it caused an accident.

Uhhh, no. *You* caused an accident by trying to operate a vehicle you didn't know how to drive. Sure it sucks that UHaul screwed up your reservation and I've had poor expereinces with them as well, but do you think your insurance company would have "let it go" if UHaul had chosen to file a claim? No, it would be considered an at-fault accident.

Re:comcast

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you're wrong. I'm learning to drive at the moment (in the UK, if that matters) and you're supposed to leave the engine in neutral when parking on a level area. The Highway Code specifies that when parked on a hill and facing upwards you must select a forward gear; when facing downhill you must select reverse gear. The Highway Code doesn't actually mention what gear you need to choose when parking on a level (presumably it's up to you, just as long as you don't start the engine in gear like the GP did!) but my instructor assures me that neutral is best practice. Maybe the regulations are different in other countries, though... I dunno where you're from.

Re:comcast

[Eivind]

Actully, you do both. Apply the handbrake *and* leave the car in gear (preferably gear 1 or reverse). Some manual cars are even made so that it is physically impossible to remove the key from the ignition unless the car is in reverse. (SAAB comes to mind)

Handbrakes fail. Plus, on most cars the handbrake works on the rear wheels while leaving the car in gear will block the *front* wheels on a front-drive car. (which is 80-90% or so of european/japanese cars these days) Offcourse people that don't a) live somewhere hilly and b) where manual is the norm, wouldn't know this.

Re:comcast

[wozzinator]

I never thought i'd find a useful application to that quote, but I guess you've trumped me. ;)

Re:comcast

[Anonymous Coward]

Just parallel-park between two cars.

Anyhow, they forgot the best part about polls: what does the RIAA win?

Re:comcast

[Anonymous Coward]

arg-- if only I was up on my Seinfeld quotes. The funniest part of this exchange immediately follows, when the agent asks if he'd like the insurance option. I'm sure someone can indulge me...

Re:comcast

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoaa, hold on there. You can't just automatically have +1 revenge - you have to roll a D8 then divide by 3, rounding down.

Re:comcast

[rifter]

Actully, you do both. Apply the handbrake *and* leave the car in gear (preferably gear 1 or reverse). Some manual cars are even made so that it is physically impossible to remove the key from the ignition unless the car is in reverse. (SAAB comes to mind)

Handbrakes fail. Plus, on most cars the handbrake works on the rear wheels while leaving the car in gear will block the *front* wheels on a front-drive car. (which is 80-90% or so of european/japanese cars these days) Offcourse people that don't a) live somewhere hilly and b) where manual is the norm, wouldn't know this.

But they should anyway since cars with automatic transmissions have to be left in gear as well, and most will not release the key unless they are. It's just that they have a "park" setting for this that perhaps confuses people. But in park the gears are locked (achieving a similar effect to that of putting a standard transmission into first gear without the possibility of lurching forward) whereas in neutral the gears are disengaged which allows the wheels to turn on their own.

Leaving your car in neutral while using the handbrake is at best going to wear out your brakes quicker and at worst end up in an accident. as you suggest, on some grades your handbrake is almost sure to slip, and in any case it is going to be straining if there is any grade at all. There is no substitute for locking the gears, which not only is safer, but relieves the strain on the brake. You want both if you want the car to stay still.

Re:comcast

[rifter]

No doubt. When I moved from a small apt to a bigger one, I "made a reservation" for one of the smaller trucks (the 2nd smallest one I believe), but when I got there they were "out of those" so I got this behemoth that you would think one would need a CDL to drive and I could barely fit in my parking lot. I also clipped the barrier at the gas station a little bit but fortunately they didn't notice that on the inspection.

You were lucky they were only out of those trucks. I've had Uhaul send me to places that don't even carry the equipment or size of equipment that I was trying to reserve. In the end you end up having to just call individual lots until you get lucky, and even then its a crapshoot as to whether you will receive what you rented. Individual lots seem to have trouble figuring out what they have on hand, much less the Uhaul system, such as it is, being of any use in such determinations. It seems they just let anyone be a Uhaul dealer these days and there's no real inventory management. These two problems are the crux of most others.

I am surprised that no one has bitched about deposits here. I've had several Uhaul outfits just keep deposits because they feel like it and others who said they paid the deposit back when they clearly never did. After the deductions they are allowed, the deposit is often just around the threshhold of what it would cost to sue to get it back, and in the end less worth the time out of work to do it. It's probably another example of the problem that broken business models and poor customer service bordering on fraud (or even crossing the line) are rewarded therefore giving no incentive to improve these things.

Re:comcast

[Emetophobe]

I'd avoid U-haul if you care about your own health & safety. They had an investigation into U-haul last year in Ontario, turns out a large number of their trucks are in a bad state of disrepair and aren't fit to be driven.

See http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNew s/20051021/wfive_uhaul_051021/20051022?hub=WFive

A few choice quotes:

Last year Dan Donnelle rented a U-Haul truck to move some furniture from Woodbridge to Toronto. The two rear wheels came flying off on Highway 400.

U-Haul's safety inspection failure rate was four times the industry average.

W-FIVE rented four U-Haul trucks. Not a single one passed the provincial safety standard.

And here's another article, http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/200 51212/uhaul_051212/20051212?hub=TorontoHome. This one's about a person that actually died from a U-Haul truck flipping over in Ontario.

"It's bad enough to have the driveshaft drop out onto the road, but if the seatbelt had been working I am pretty sure he would still be alive," Annis said.

Re:comcast

[Eivind]

Yeah. I agree. But in practice, such things aren't taught in areas which are pancake-shaped (i.e. flat), regardless of the type of transmission that is common.

My wife is from Cottbus, somewhat south of Berlin. Everyone drives a manual there, just as in Norway, but the area is literally pancake-flat. I'd say the highest and lowest points in town are within 10 meters of heigth of oneanother, and you'd have to really search to find a spot to park with even 1% inclination.

Sure, in *principle* they should. In practice, nobody does. Took my wife a few weeks to get used to the fact that whenever I've been using the car, it *will* be parked in first, with the handbrake on.

Normally the handbrake works, when its reasonably flat it certainly works. It's just that there are zero drawbacks to using the gears too, plus it's a habit that can and will save your ass the day your handbrake goes, or you go vitis your relatives in Norway.

Re:comcast

[Guiness17]

Ya, they're horrible. My father had a U-Haul dealership for exactly one month. He had been a small businessman in a small town for years and added it as a sideline.

Between other dealers stealing the vehicles off his lot (they belong to corporate, any dealer can grab them) and vehicles that he was afraid to rent out, he got out, and fast.

He started fixing the ones that came up to bring them to minimum standards - y'know, working brakes at the least, and charging it back to them. They told him to cut his shop rate to about 1/3rd, or to cease and desist.

has anyone ever had a good shopping experience

[Anonymous Coward]

... at Best Buy?

Just wondering.

Re:has anyone ever had a good shopping experience

[lavid]

Yes, about 7 years ago, maybe more (years, not times). I got an open box printer there for $20, the thing still prints great and takes inkjet refills. This was before you could get printers FAR and such. This was also when you walked uphill both ways to wherever you were going.

Re:has anyone ever had a good shopping experience

[dheera]

yes, i have... when i got a bunch of stuff that had rebates equal to their cost. free stuff is always good.

Re:has anyone ever had a good shopping experience

[Anonymous Coward]

Best Buy never manufactured evidence to sue my dead grandfather, so yeah, by comparison, they're pretty decent.

Re:has anyone ever had a good shopping experience

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, the one near me isn't so bad. I like to do research ahead of time and then just go in, grab something off the shelf, pay cash for it, and leave. Doing that is easy at Best Buy and I've never been hassled about extended warranty plans or anything. They have a good selection of stuff right on the shelf, available to shoppers.

Our local Comp USA is a nightmare in comparison. Want to buy, I dunno, a simple thing like an LCD monitor? You have to fill out a form and practically hand over your first born child before they will even drag a box out for you from the innards of their storage area, and then they try to push the extended warranty on you incessantly. It's disgusting - no such thing as a quick anonymous cash and carry there.

Re:has anyone ever had a good shopping experience

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, all the time. But I have never purchased a big-ticket item; the most expensive thing I've bought is like a $100 router. I usually get all my tech stuff from Newegg, but sometimes either I can't wait for the it to ship or it's something simple like cabling that doesn't cost that much extra locally. Plus Best Buy is literally right down the block from me, so it's actually quite convenient. I will say that, just like every fucking grocery store I've ever been to in my entire fucking life, there are never enough registers open. Jesus Fucking Christ. Why in the motherfucking fuck would you install 16 fucking registers if you are only going to staff fucking 2 of them, you fucking fucks!

Re:has anyone ever had a good shopping experience

[Volante3192]

Yep. I go in, browse either the dvd section or nintendo section (or the rare occassion, the computer accessories section), get what I want, pay and leave.

Never bought a big ticket item there though, so that might be different.

Re:has anyone ever had a good shopping experience

[stratjakt]

I bought some stuff there at a decent price once.

No different than any other store.

Re:has anyone ever had a good shopping experience

[gregleimbeck]

Agreed, I really don't understand the gripe about Best Buy. I know anything that I buy at Best Buy I can get online cheaper, but sometimes I just like to go to a store, pick up some DVD's, and browse through a few other things.

For example, I bought my last TV from Newegg, but I wanted to see it in person before I made a purchase. No one really pushed me to make a sale at Best Buy, but they still answered any questions I had even though I told them I didn't want to buy it from Best Buy.

There is a Fry's right down the street, they have a lot more computer hardware and generally a much larger selection, but I really only go there if I want to see something in person. The DVD prices are crap and all of the "tech" salespeople sport an A+ certification (which ranks somewhere between tying your shoe laces and not choking to death on your drool in the universal spectrum of skills, but knowing that you are "1337")

Re:has anyone ever had a good shopping experience

[phlegmofdiscontent]

This appears to be a common theme. I have a good shopping experience at Best Buy (or anywhere) when I walk in, find the stuff I want right away, grab the stuff I want, pay for the stuff I want, and not
to talk to anyone (except for maybe flirting with the cute cashier).

Re:has anyone ever had a good shopping experience

[letxa2000]

I've never had a problem at Best Buy, either. To the contrary. Late last year I bought one of those iPod->Radio adapter things so my wife could listen to her iPod in her car. It was sketchy from the beginning but she wasn't too concerned. Eventually its little LCD screen (on the adapter) started going black and it just wasn't working. I always save boxes and receipts but that time my wife happened to throw away both. Anyway, one day--about a month later--we were close to the Best Buy where we bought it and my wife asked if I wouldn't go in and try to exchange it. I grinned and said I'd try, but I didn't have the receipt or the box, and wasn't even sure if it was still in the 30-day exchange period. So I walked in with this little adapter thing and went to the customer service desk and explained the situation. The guy looked it up in their computer and I was on day 34... but he said, no problem, go back and find another one. So I brought it up to the guy and he said I was good to go. I asked him if he wanted the box or anything since I hadn't given him one and he said, "Nope, no problem."

That was my most "amazing" experience with Best Buy, but I haven't had a single problem with Best Buy ever. I don't know why everyone says they're evil (but I'm sure people will tell me now).

Re:has anyone ever had a good shopping experience

[malkir]

I used to work at Best Buy about a year and a half ago, I started out in PCHO (computer/related sales) and moved up to Geek Squad (absolute joke). Best Buy is such a disorganized corporation, I have no idea why people shop there - untill recently they offered rebates that would either take 16+ weeks to send, or not send at all. Time and time again I would have to explain to customers that 'we were not responsible' for any rebates lost, and I'm pretty sure that the higher-ups knew about the shadyness of the companies we were purchasing from and didn't say anything. Most of Best Buy's revenue comes from printers, cartridges, printer cables ($30+ for a USB chord? HA!), and the warranties. We were told to push warranties as much as possible, because they could charge $50-$200 for something and come up with reasons how we could not have to honor them.

On Geek squad, a little old lady brought in her computer to be fixed - her grandson had loaded the thing with spyware, all it would take was a simple reformat (everything she needed was about 10 pictures and a text file), and I had to tell her it would be over $200. I offered to do the reformat myself off the clock, but my manager told me no. I slipped her my number and did the thing for a batch of chocolate chip cookies (worth it!).

Another shitty thing I experienced was people were bringing in their computers that one of my fellow technicians had 'fixed', (ie: ran Panda Active Scan and deleted a couple registry files), but there was still obvious problems with the thing. The customer complained and said that the product had not been fixed and the computer was still acting up, instead of honoring the 2-year warranty that she had paid $150 for, my manager told me just to tell the customer it had water damage to void the warranty and to send her on her way.

I blatantly told my manager he was a hack, to fuck off, and quit that very day.
Best Buy sucks.

Re:has anyone ever had a good shopping experience

[Dog-Cow]

I will not shop at CompUSA unless it's the only place I can get a part needed to get a system up and running. There is both a Best Buy and CompUSA near my office, and I always go to BB first. I know they may not have the best prices, but I'd rather pay a slightly higher mark-up than go to CompUSA.

Re:has anyone ever had a good shopping experience

[AeroIllini]

The customer complained and said that the product had not been fixed and the computer was still acting up, instead of honoring the 2-year warranty that she had paid $150 for, my manager told me just to tell the customer it had water damage to void the warranty and to send her on her way. If your manager was blatently lying to customers in order to not honor a warrantee, that's a breach of contract. You should have gathered some proof that this was happening, and then placed a call to the Better Business Bureau. If this is an endemic problem in the company, the fallout from a full investigation could be vast, and would give you much more satisfaction than a simple "fuck off" and storming out the door.

Re:has anyone ever had a good shopping experience

[malkir]

Ah, I wish I had known about that sooner.. I'll probably go back and see if any of the other employees are as fed up as I was and see if anything can come of it :)

Re:has anyone ever had a good shopping experience

[AeroIllini]

That's probably a good idea. This is whole reason the BBB exists: to police the business practices of companies in the US and protect the customers.

If you still know people working there and they have seen the same offenses you have, ask them to start documenting the incident: date, time, people present, short description, opinion of what was wrong about the encounter. When they have documented a sufficient number of incidents (I leave it to you do determine how many is enough) bring it to the BBB. They will investigate for you.

Another track would be to try and elevate the problem to people higher up the food chain than the manager. Talk to the branch manager/owner, or call corporate. Sometimes the higher ups are not aware of the abuses of their policies that go on, and since they are more directly responsible to the shareholders, they are more likely to do something about it.

If you're willing to be a whistle-blower, it will be good for the customers, the employees, and ultimately the shareholders, who will see a larger long-term return from an honest company than they will from a dishonest one. It probably won't be so good for your manager, but, as you so aptly said in your anecdote, fuck 'im. :-)

Re:has anyone ever had a good shopping experience

[malkir]

Haha thank you, that's awesome advice! I'm going to stop by tomorrow and see if he still works there :]

Re:has anyone ever had a good shopping experience

[Anonymous Coward]

What an unoriginal piece of garbage your post was. I'm sure you're an intellectual powerhouse with a MySpace page of crapbag96, at least an A+ certified technician can come up with something better than quoting Maddox from xmission.com and using it as his own. I hope you get hit by a bus sir. Douchebag.

Results may already be dated.

[niktemadur]

As much as the RIAA has stirred up resentment for attempting to keep the status quo at all costs, including alienating the record buyer, I pretty sure that this poll was done before Halliburton announced that they're moving their headquarters to Dubai.

Re:Results may already be dated.

[grommit]

It wasn't. If you bothered to click on the link in the summary and scanned down the page a bit, you would have seen the message about Halliburton moving it's HQ to Dubai just before Round 13.

Unrelated to your post but I'm too lazy to create another post of my own: It's funny how 100,000+ voteS in the actual article turns into 100,000+ voteRS in the Slashdot summary. It seems that the highest number of individual voters in any single round was around 23,000. That's a pretty small sample size but considering that the people who frequent The Consumerist seem to be at least a bit more educated about consumer issues than your regular joe perhaps these votes count for a bit more than a poll that reached more people and got more numbers.

Re:Results may already be dated.

[Khaed]

I don't know that the average American gives two shits about where Halliburton is HQed.

Re:Results may already be dated.

[LBArrettAnderson]

see this comment to get current results.

Re:Results may already be dated.

[wizzahd]

people who frequent The Consumerist seem to be at least a bit more educated about consumer issues than your regular joe perhaps these votes count for a bit more than a poll that reached more people and got more numbers

I completely agree. Many people I talk to don't even know what the RIAA is, much less that they're out to shaft every one of them.

Re:Results may already be dated.

[mh101]

I don't... For that matter, I don't even know what Halliburton is.

Re:Results may already be dated.

[Anonymous Coward]

"I don't know that the average American gives two shits about where Halliburton is HQed."

You would be surprised if you lived here (the US). It was quite the "water cooler" conversation piece when it was announced. It was one issue that seemed to unite conservatives and liberals. A government contractor (supposedly) vital to US security would move headquarters overseas? Thats not just business. Thats fucking traitorous.

Re:Results may already be dated.

[dbIII]

before Halliburton announced that they're moving their headquarters to Dubai.

Annoying - I use their software which has already slipped to a yearly patch cycle and support has recently been moved offshore to people who do not understand the software - two or three days of email ping pong before my question gets to Texas. Another disruption will make things worse.

Re:Results may already be dated.

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you should just run Microsoft software and only sell your soul to the devil.

I mean, there's the devil, and then there's Halliburton.

Re:Results may already be dated.

[Khaed]

Uh. I DO live in the US. And a lot of people I know don't care.

A lot of them don't even know who Halliburton is.

Re:Results may already be dated.

[dbIII]

Maybe you should just run Microsoft software and only sell your soul to the devil.

Yes, but Halliburton's software actually does something useful instead of being hobby software that you have to pay for or a typewriter substitute or a crap lotus 123 clone.

Re:Results may already be dated.

[asninn]

Twenty-three thousand people is not a small sample size at all; most actual (meaningful) surveys are conducted with considerably less people than that. If anything, the issue here is that the whole thing doesn't use probability sampling to achieve a meaningful result; FWIW, they didn't even give people a list of companies and ask "who do you think is worst", but rather did some sort of elimination-style tourmanent thing, a series of matches between two "contenders". It's still interesting, but I think the main idea here was to ensure as much traffic for the Consumerist as possible, not to really find out which company people REALLY dislike most.

Re:Results may already be dated.

[jZnat]

The "Average American" (or as we call them, Joe Sixpack and Grandma, although Grandma is politically active and horrible with computers, while Joe Sixpack owns far too much technology he doesn't know how to use) also doesn't give a shit about "consumer issues", and thus they won't be going to The Consumerist's website. The people who would care, however, were already there, so that news did affect the results.

Re:Results may already be dated.

[shark72]

"As much as the RIAA has stirred up resentment for attempting to keep the status quo at all costs, including alienating the record buyer, I pretty sure that this poll was done before Halliburton announced that they're moving their headquarters to Dubai."

Consumerist blogspam shows up on Digg all the time; with such a small sample size, the list of finalists is not suprising. The home page of digg has even more RIAA coverage then /. (and the RIAA articles are often humorously interleaved with articles about BitTorrent), and Best Buy and Wal-Mart have gotten lots of coverage on Digg lately, too. That's what the Digg populace cares about. Haliburton? Not so much.

Of course Haliburton is more evil than the RIAA and Best Buy -- jokes aside, Haliburton is actually responsible for deaths -- but they're a more abstract evil to the typical Digg reader. When Haliburton or Best Buy start shutting down torrent sites, that'll change.

Re:Results may already be dated.

[nuzak]

> Twenty-three thousand people is not a small sample size at all; most actual (meaningful) surveys are conducted with considerably less people than that.

Most meaningful surveys sample their population themselves, they don't post up polls and wait for the results to trickle in.

Much as I hate the RIAA, Halliburton and Monsanto are magnitudes more evil.

Re:Results may already be dated.

[niktemadur]

Why you haven't modded 5 Insightful is beyond me.

Haliburton is actually responsible for deaths.

Add to that palettes of tightly pressed american legal tender sent to the Middle East, to be divided amongst salivating suits (That's one for you, one for me, two for you, one-two for me, three for you, one-two-three for me).

During the six year monopoly of republican government, we found out a trickle of these things. With actual opposition and oversight, we're going to find out so much more. The Democrats may not be able to stop the fiascos in the Middle East yet, but the american people have regained the most powerful weapon they have against tyranny: subpoena power.

I, for one, do NOT welcome any fucking texan petroleum overlords, because they've always kept their intention hidden, they're always shortsighted, and they're always and only looking out for Number One.

stolen music vs corruption

[fowkswe]

if you think about it, the riaa is just trying to protect its intellectual property. isnt halliburton guilty of a far worse crime to humanity?

Re:stolen music vs corruption

[hax0r_this]

Haliburton = trying to make money with a successful business model (corruption). RIAA = trying to make money with an unsuccessful business model (a different variety of corruption). Who voted? Consumers. Which company is worse for consumers? Take a look at the results and find out.

Re:stolen music vs corruption

[wile_e_wonka]

Here's how I view it--these big corporations with lots of IP and money to spend traditionally have fought hard over seemingly small IP issues. It's much like a game it seems, with one company choosing to infringe a little bit on another company's IP knowing ahead of time how it's going to argue in court, and then the court irons things out. There are tons of example of this, and the reason is because it adds up to millions of dollars. And it really is much like a game to these companies--"let's see what I can get away with."

The problem is that the RIAA is now playing the game against regular people who don't have wads of cash to throw at this. They aren't playing the game fair.

I think this is why the RIAA is easily comparable to a bully--they aren't picking on someone their own size.

Re:stolen music vs corruption

[Dun Malg]

if you think about it, the riaa is just trying to protect its intellectual property. See, the problem here is that it isn't their "property". Songs, stories, movies--- once they're publicly released, they belong to all of us. Copyright is an artificial, government created, temporary, limited monopoly on the right to copy these artifacts of our common culture. The fact that the thieving bastards have greased the collective palm of congress to obtain perpetual extensions to the temporary monopoly on copying doesn't change the fact that all that stuff is ours. If you actually educate yourself on the long history of artistic creation and the short history of copyright, you'd understand what an absolute evil is being perpetrated upon us by the bastards claiming ownership of this stuff--- and you'd likely no longer parrot the their "intellectual property" fallacy.

Re:stolen music vs corruption

[WingedEarth]

Halliburton is guilty of war profiteering and possibly of acts that resulted in the deaths of many people in the Middle. This is horrible, it's true. But the RIAA is guilty of the far worse crime of suppressing culture, replacing art with marketing, and otherwise preventing real vision and inspiration from being communicated from artists to the public. The RIAA's business model ensures that most of the public will be economically and legally barred from gaining access to more than a small handful of artists, when mass distribution of all music would not add any costs to the RIAA.

Re:stolen music vs corruption

[Anthony Boyd]

Dun Malg, I love you. I basically created an entire Web site to say what you just said. People like you are VERY rare. My wife read the site and said, "but you're a writer, how can you want people to copy your stuff?" And I thought, wow, if my own wife totally misses the point -- a wife who is technology-friendly and talks with me about this stuff regularly -- then LOTS of people are out of touch with the ideas behind copyright. Here's to you, Dun Malg.

Re:stolen music vs corruption

[istewart]

I'd even go a bit farther than that. Throw out the idea of common "ownership," and instead consider the fact that the cost of communicating ideas and information is economically trivial, and getting lower all the time. Communication is a fundamental human activity, and creating artificial roadblocks to it for the benefit of a small minority makes no sense, no matter what's in the Constitution or the Berne Convention or whatever long-standing legal document you wish to throw down. Something that is not truly scarce cannot be considered property.

Re:stolen music vs corruption

[AnotherUsername]

I think that the RIAA, since it allowed 'artists' such as Britney Spears, Jessica Simpson, and n'Sync to be played on the radio, nay, to even getting a contract, is the far worse crime to humanity.

Re:stolen music vs corruption

[dbIII]

Who should we get more annoyed about - war profiteers that bribe elected officials or elected officials that take bribes and organise the war so that others can profit?

Re:stolen music vs corruption

[SamSim]

See, the problem here is that it isn't their "property".

Actually, it is. Most music contracts involve surrendering the copyright to the record label. Check the back of any CD and it'll be "Copyright Atlantic Records" not "Copyright U2" or whoever.

This may be unfair to the creator, sure. Nasty business practice, absolutely. But it's not actually illegal.

Songs, stories, movies--- once they're publicly released, they belong to all of us.

Even if the rest was true, this would STILL be incorrect. Songs, stories and movies don't intrinsically belong to all of us. They don't belong to you. They shouldn't belong to the **AA (but they do). They SHOULD belong to the CREATOR. As a writer, I should have the sole right to profit from my work, at least for a reasonable amount of time, does that make sense?

Copyright is not evil in and of itself. It has its place, but that place is protecting creators, not corporations, and THAT is the problem.

Re:stolen music vs corruption

[ScrewMaster]

Well, according to Thomas Jefferson, all copyright is a loan from the public domain. We do own all published creative works, it's just that the copyright holder is the only one allowed to profit by them for a while. Jefferson actually did not want copyrights (or patents, for that matter) because he felt that such would ultimately damage the public domain. As usual he was right.

We really should listen the Founders more often.

Re:stolen music vs corruption

[Maximum Prophet]

We really should listen the Founders more often.

Especially TJ, since he was one of the most prolific creators of his time. Not only was he a great writer, but a great inventor as well.

Gave me a fright

[biocute]

For a moment I thought RIAA actually won a lawsuit against Microsoft.

This isn't a win for us

[KKlaus]

It's not Sony BMG, Warner, etc at the top of the list, it's their front group the RIAA. People hate the RIAA? Guess what, that's exactly what it was created with in mind. Recording companies get to engage in strong-armed consumer-alienating behavior, but dodge the consequences because the "RIAA" is there to take the flak.

So don't call this a victory for us! This is a victory for the record companies, because it shows that they have successfully redirected your wrath to a "company" (I don't know why the summary uses that word) that doesn't have a product, and could care less that you don't like them.

Re:This isn't a win for us

[aldo.gs]

I agree that the people shouldn't call it a "victory". I guess it's better than nothing, though. Completely off-topic: What ever happened to the "could/couldn't care less" thread? Shall we start it now? :P

Re:This isn't a win for us

[honkycat]

Maybe he actually meant they "could care less." Just because they're running a despicable, heartless organization like the RIAA doesn't mean they don't have hopes, dreams, and feelings of their own! It hurts to be so hated! They sure could care less!

Re:This isn't a win for us

[yotto]

I don't agree that the RIAA makes for a great front for Warner, Sony BMG, et al to use as a shield. I personally (and many friends of mine) won't buy from *any* label under the RIAA umbrella, and we use the RIAA-Radar to help our purchasing decisions.

Being in the RIAA can't help more than it hurts.

Re:This isn't a win for us

[John Hasler]

> People hate the RIAA? Guess what, that's exactly what it was created with in mind.

Nonsense. The RIAA was formed in 1952 to do things like establishing standards for phonographs. Until recently the general public had never heard of it.

Re:This isn't a win for us

[Anonymous Coward]

I was just about to say something along these same lines. The RIAA is just a consortium of the recording companies. At any point they can kill it off and start a new consortium to keep the heat off them without much issue.

Re:This isn't a win for us

[Technician]

Recording companies get to engage in strong-armed consumer-alienating behavior, but dodge the consequences because the "RIAA" is there to take the flak.

Wanna bet? Seems there was this thing on Slashdot not too long ago about CD sales numbers..

Re:This isn't a win for us

[Voltageaav]

My problem is, every band I like is released by members of the RIAA. I searched for quite a while and none of my favorite bands released albums that don't light up on RIAA-RADAR. Is Sirius considered RIAA associated? DoI have to cancel that? Should I just give up on music?

Re:This isn't a win for us

[mpe]

The RIAA is just a consortium of the recording companies. At any point they can kill it off and start a new consortium to keep the heat off them without much issue.

The most obvious point would be when the RIAA starts accumulating court judgements. Presumably they go bankrupt to be replaced by the NRIAA...

Re:This isn't a win for us

[Alioth]

Find new bands, perhaps? You don't have to give up music - just broaden out a bit. Musical talent is extremely common in the human population - it's really just the cult of the personality and the record companies that try and maintain a fiction that it is not. There are probably thousands of bands you will like if you take the time to look. eMusic and Magnatune are probably good starting places (and they don't use DRM either).

Re:This isn't a win for us

[asninn]

That's an interesting site (bookmarked - thanks), but I'm quite appalled that they don't handle non-English characters at all. Just try searching for "Björk", for example; you won't get any results until you change the query to "Bjork" (ugh) instead, and that's despite the fact that most of the CDs that will come up then *do* have the correct name (i.e., "Björk") listed.

Re:This isn't a win for us

[Jaysyn]

If you like rock there are quite a few good bands on that list, most of which I didn't know were non RIAA affiliated. I'll probably be buying the Raconteurs album as soon as I see it in a store again.

No Brainer.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

RIAA produce nothing & sue consumers. Of course people hate them.

From TFA:

The message is clear. The internet cares deeply about being able to download music illegally.

WTF? I think many, many people who respect others' copyright have problems with RIAA's tactics of suing random (often innocent) people, attempts to scare govt & the public by linking terrorism & piracy, and basically ignoring the fact that they have to change (or at least adjust) business models.

Painting all enemies of RIAA as illegal downloaders is just stupid (or perhaps a troll?)

Bootnote: This is mildly amusing for me, 'cause last thread I commented in I was accused of being a RIAA Shill (presumably that poster believes anyone who criticises Apple is a RIAA shill).

Re:No Brainer.

[hereschenes]

Painting all enemies of RIAA as illegal downloaders is just stupid (or perhaps a troll?)

It's definitely a troll, dude. Turn up your sarcasmeter. ;)

Re:No Brainer.

[dreamchaser]

Painting all the enemies of the RIAA as illegal downloaders is just a form of attempted social engineering. If something is stated as fact often enough, the unwashed masses tend to embrace it as truth.

Re:No Brainer.

[Red Flayer]

Heh. I get called a shill pretty often, since I point out that those who do choose to pirate music are a tad hypocritical when they then accuse the RIAA of inflating losses due to piracy. If they had any conviction, they'd boycott those artists represented by the RIAA.

I'm pretty blunt in stating that many people who complain about the RIAA are primarily interested in getting things for free, and are upset that the well is running dry. Sure, some people are motivated by justifiable reasons (fair use, etc), and I relish the opportunity to discuss the issues with them.

But to me, the best action totake against the RIAA is simple:

If you don't what they are selling (listening & access licenses), don't use it. Don't pirate it, don't buy the physical media, don't buy the digital media. Make them irrelevant, and the artists you like will choose to sign with better labels, or self-publish.

Trade Group Not Company

[aldheorte]

The RIAA is a trade group, not a company, although I have long wondered why they do not run afoul of anti-trust laws since they essentially serve as a vehicle for price fixing, joint litigation, and other forms of collusion between the member companies, which, taken together, represent a de facto monopoly in the music industry.

Re:Trade Group Not Company

[Shadow Wrought]

Exactly. Plus, as much as the RIAA are vile, its not like they are providing substandard service to our troops for an enormous profit!

Re:Trade Group Not Company

[mamono]

The correct term for this is "cartel" which is exactly what the RIAA is.

Re:Trade Group Not Company

[Anonymous Coward]

I have long wondered why they do not run afoul of anti-trust laws

Surely you mean a-fowl?

Re:Trade Group Not Company

[ScrewMaster]

Or is it "oligopoly"?

And the prize is...

[lavid]

The RIAA will get a gift certificate for 100 song downloads at the iTunes store!

RIAA != company

[strangel]

Since when is the "Recording Industry Association of America" a company?
Last time I checked, it was a trade group, and the record companies themselves are members of this group.

Re:RIAA != company

[Anonymous Coward]

Its a cartel.

Re:RIAA != company

[Not The Real Me]

Since when is the "Recording Industry Association of America" a company?
Last time I checked, it was a trade group, and the record companies themselves are members of this group.

Most of the dorks and geeks that hate the RIAA are to stupid to understand this subtle point. The dweebs that voted the RIAA worst company are also the same group of people who would vote BSA (Business Software Alliance), IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers), and ISO (International Organization for Standardization) as terrible "companies" as well.

Re:RIAA != company

[NormalVisual]

It's actually "Recording Industry Association of America, Inc.". It's a privately held not-for-profit corporation based in New York. No way to tell for sure, but one would assume the vast majority of shares (if not all of them) are held by the member companies.

Re:RIAA != company

[Dun Malg]

Company: a corporation - or, less commonly, an association, partnership or union - that carries on industrial enterprise.
-Black's Law Dictionary

The RIAA is a company. It's even a corporation. Just because a bunch of people on slashdot have a different vague notion* of what constitutes a "company" doesn't mean it isn't.

* the fact that no one has articulated exactly why they think they don't constitute a company pretty well indicates that they don't know exactly what a company is.

Re:RIAA != company

[BillGatesLoveChild]

Check the other posts on this. They're incorporated. They have share holders.

Re:RIAA != company

[mpe]

It's actually "Recording Industry Association of America, Inc.". It's a privately held not-for-profit corporation based in New York.

Only a minority of corporate enties are publically traded. Whilst there may be some private trading going on the most likely way for shares to change hands is through inheritance. For both real and corporate people.

No way to tell for sure, but one would assume the vast majority of shares (if not all of them) are held by the member companies.

It's a fairly common situation with many sorts of clubs and associations that all members are shareholders (and that no non member can be a shareholder.)

How Sad

[djlurch]

How sad it is that the fight over music usage rights eclipses war profiteering by Haliburton.

Re:How Sad

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to forget that 51% of USians de-facto re-elected Haliburton to power in the last vice-presidential election. Half of the people love Haliburton and think they've done nothing wrong.

Re:How Sad

[Anonymous Coward]

because there will always be war and war profiteering. Hopefully, though, there's only one Britney Spears and by destroying organizations like the RIAA, maybe we can prevent the spread of such calamities.

Re:How Sad

[dlanod]

Because one affects us directly, while the other one is hidden on the other side of the world and through government secrecy.

Re:How Sad

[Anonymous Coward]

because it was probably an online vote and all the nerds flooded it with their vote.
Now lets get a street poll and I bet the RIAA would not even be on that list.

The nerds could give two shits about some starving kid in Africa when their precious 'digital music collection' must be tendered to.

Re:How Sad

[deblau]

Halliburton affects millions of Iraqis. RIAA affects millions of Americans. You are an American. Do the math.

Re:How Sad

[downhole]

How sad indeed... Is there anybody on this board that has any idea what Halliburton actually does? Or can at least spell their name right?

Re:How Sad

[Anonymous Coward]

Halliburton doesn't represent the company (SONY God damn SONY burn in fucking hell SONY die from aids and syphilis SONY CEO and board of directors Die horribly Bastard sons of biitches!!!!) that tricked their paying customer (my daughter) into installing a FUCKING ROOTKIT on my computer. God damn it, if I did that to them I'd be in prison getting assraped, as their CEO and board of directors would be if our facist government wasn't a wholly owned subsidiary of business.

Halliburton doesn't represent the companies that want to shove DRM down peoples' throats; DRM that does nothing against copyright infringement and does everything agaiinst fair use.

Halliburton dodn't lobby for the DMCA.

Halliburton didn't lobby Congress to subvert the Constitutuin (Article II section 8) with the God damned Bono act. Halliburton isn't killing the public domain.

Halliburton doesn't try to kill internet radio to keep themselves a music's gateway and indie music from my ears.

It doesn't try to eliminate its competetion (the indies, personal friends of mine) by destroying P2P. No, children, the RIAA doesn't care if you download Britney. They care if you download somebody they don't represent (perhaps by attempting to download one of their own so-called "artists") who you'll maybe BUY. They know you're not likely to be Bill Gates and that you have a limited amount of funds. If you download and subsequently BUY two indie CDs, that's an RIAA company CD you can no longer afford since you've already spent the money. Ironically, I discovered a band called "Thick Liquid" by inadvertantly downloading their parody of Metallica's "Master of Puppets" back in the bad old Napster days. They're not the only indie band I've accidentally found and liked on P2P. Do you know how many different songs there are named "Scatterbrain?" THAT is why this evil cartel wants P2P dead. They know full well that file sharers buy MORE music than those who don't - they've seen the stats, too.

And of course, Haliburton doesn't sue twelve year olds, grandmas, illiterates, and people without computers.

Now, if your daughet got her legs blown off because Halliburton stole the money earmarked for armor, YMMV. But my daughters are smart enough to NOT join the army when we're in a stupid, senseless war.

Sorry for the flaming rant but I only got 3 hours sleep last night.

(ironic MRC="honored")

Re:How Sad

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

The nerds could give two shits about some starving kid in Africa when their precious 'digital music collection' must be tendered to
Do you think this mysterious starving kid would like to trade some mp3? If you do please send me his contact information at you.need@bloodtransfusion.whineybleedingheartliber al.org

Re:How Sad

[the_wishbone]

Halliburton ALLEGEDLY committed fraud that resulted in them obtaining US government funds they didn't earn...so if, as an American, you pay taxes, that would be stealing YOUR money. So it does affect you in a way.

Re:How Sad

[Yusaku Godai]

I would say that Halliburton affects millions of Americans too--probably much moreso than it affects Iraqis. Who do you think is footing the bill on Halliburton's no-bid contracts to send mercenary armies with better equipment and training than US forces over to Iraq to fritter away billions of dollars on god knows what? Not the Iraqis I'll tell you that.

Re:How Sad

[Experiment 626]

While Haliburton wasn't able to topple the RIAA, notice that they were the only company to make the list whom the people voting in the poll have never personally done business with. Almost everyone has been personally screwed by at least one of the other companies, but the ire against Haliburton really only comes into play if you are a left-leaning political activist. Given the choice of whether "company moves its leadership to region where it does most of its business, but remains incorporated in the USA" or "trade association manipulates prices to rip ME off on CD's, while trying to infect MY computer with a DRM rootkit", I'd have to vote for what affects me.

What I'm wondering is why DeBeers didn't even make the list. They have both the "people have been ripped off by them personally" and "corporation does evil things to make profit" angles covered quite nicely.

Re:How Sad

[Myopic]

I don't blame Haliburton. I blame George W Bush. Even though it wasn't Bush's idea, and Bush himself didn't fuck up the war effort, he is, as he has so often said, "the decider". Even though the bad ideas originated with Rumsfeld and his ilk, the bullshit filter inside Bush's head should have filtered out those bad ideas -- but it didn't. Bush gets the blame. All evil that resulted from Bush's decisions, is Bush's fault. Haliburton did exactly what it should have done, which is do its best to make money in any situation. Bush gave them the money. Blame Bush.

Re:How Sad

[ScrewMaster]

No, what's really sad (and the root of much of our difficulty in so many areas) is that the public mass mind is simply incapable of dealing with more than a single "crisis" at any given time. Every time something comes up that sorely needs to be dealt with (as in "applying tourniquets to Congressional throats") that the government would rather we forgot about, they conveniently manufacture a new "crisis" to distract us. Alternatively, they find another existing "crisis" and publicize it heavily. Either way, we generally lose interest in the previous "crisis" and focus on the new one, which was carefully selected to cause the minimum damage to whatever political agenda is currently being threatened.

Re:How Sad

[Anonymous Coward]

RIAA probably affects 30 million Americans. Halliburton probably affects 10 million Iraqis. I'm still far more angry about the RIAA than the Iraq War, and unlike most Americans, I had to endanger my life in Iraq.

I would have voted for the US Government

[essence]

I think the US government counts as a company now, it's controlled by corporatist frontmen.

Re:I would have voted for the US Government

[Anonymous Coward]

Now? It's always been that way!

What a load of crock.

[descil]

Take a look at the votes on their "Big Board" and you'll quickly find that their methodology is a complete crock.

Comcast or Verizon or Microsoft could easily have won against the RIAA, given the appropriate competition on the big board. But, hahaha, to figure out who the "worst company" was they pitted the RIAA against United Airlines, U-Haul, Exxon, and Halliburton. Halliburton is the only one that was any challenge at all. Change the board around - make it RIAA against Microsoft, RIAA against Comcast, and you'll see different results.

Furthermore, the RIAA v. Halliburton... so funny... RIAA takes money away close to home, Halliburton kills everyone in the rest of the world - but who is hated more? America, you fail. Rot in hell. :)

Re:What a load of crock.

[Volante3192]

Comcast or Verizon or Microsoft could easily have won against the RIAA, given the appropriate competition on the big board.

That's why in any bracket they always put the #1 ranked team against the #16 ranked team. (and #2 against #15...and so on, so the only "real" competition happens in the middle.)

Check out your nearby Final Four bracket and check how they're grouped. I think you'll be pleasently disappointed. ...Although I'd say Comcast lost fair and square to Sony.

Re:What a load of crock.

[descil]

Is that actually considered a fair competition? I mean what's the point? There's no relevance that I can see.

And, "Final Four? What's that?" ;)

Re:What a load of crock.

[jZnat]

NCAA basketball, equivalent to playoffs. I don't know if there's a "Final Four" tournament in other NCAA sports, but the basketball one is going on currently.

Cheney Quoted

[Nutty_Irishman]

When asked about his opinion on Halliburton's ranking on the Worst company list, Cheney was quoted as saying: "Number two? This is bullshit!"

Totally stolen from http://www.theonion.com/content/node/48445

Re:They beat out Micro$oft??

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate you for using $ instead of S..

Nice try, but

[2Bits]

... does this mean anything? So I have a couple of questions:

1. Who is "consumerist" anyway? I can't find much information to that question on their web site, I saw only 3 names. So maybe they are a bunch of activist geeks, but that by no means represents the general populace. What could the result mean? Nothing much to the general public, I guess...

2. What's the method to get to that conclusion? Is it representative? How did they draw their sample? I don't think so, I can't even find any info on how the poll is made. If people really hate those bastards, how come they keep on sending their hard-earned money to those fuckheads?

3. Since when RIAA is a company? This already puts a question mark on their method.

It's "most hated" not "most evil"

[Xenographic]

> the riaa is just trying to protect its intellectual property.

No, they're not "just" trying to do that. They've manipulated the law to their own ends and complain whenever people decry that as unfair. They sue innocent people, attempting to ruin their lives. And if they do find out that someone's innocent, they use discovery to invade the innocent person's life, looking to find the real infringer. Which might well be them, after they have MediaSentry flood the P2P networks with bogus files and bogus search data (including the very searches they use to find "infringers"!) And if you insist upon corruption, just what do you call payola? Are bribes not considered corruption these days, or what?

Now, don't get me wrong--Halliburton isn't exactly some nice company, either. But this is "most hated" not "most evil" and the RIAA has gotten a lot more press lately.

But please, don't say they're "just" trying to protect their "property" because there's no way in hell I'll buy that lame excuse.

Re:It's "most hated" not "most evil"

[AeroIllini]

Napoleon was just trying to protect his property, too.

Of course, he considered most of Europe to be his property.

This is only because

[iminplaya]

Halliburton moved to Dubai, right?

Re:This is only because

[iminplaya]

Oops, I did it again.

So very sorry...

They should sue MS

[Nick Driver]

After all, MS software (Windows as the underlying operating system) is used to facilitate like probably 99% of all Internet music piracy.

100,000 votes = 275,000,000 americans?

[NokX]

just saying.... that's not a lot of votes to make the claim of worst companies in america. and how can you hate walmart?! nice old people greeting you and low prices. it's awesome.

Re:100,000 votes = 275,000,000 americans?

[pavera]

you seriously asked how you can hate walmart?

Lets see... Largest private employer in the world. Lowest percentage of health care coverage of any company in the world.
Those old people don't even make enough to cover 1 minor hospital visit, and they aren't covered by any insurance.

Those low prices come at a cost. We all are paying taxes which walmart employees use up every day on medicaid. Walmart is a horrid evil corporation. I wouldn't be suprised if Sergey and Larry were thinking exactly of walmart when they coined "Do No Evil".

Obviously the polls aren't statistically valid. But, in general polls have much lower samples than that. Any political poll will have a sample size of 1-2000. Yet MSNBC will get up and say "75% of Americans disagree with the war in Iraq" well... do you really think they called 275 million americans?

Re:100,000 votes = 275,000,000 americans?

[holywar]

How can anybody be enslaved, if he is already the slave of God? Bow as deep as you can for Allah, so that you cannot bow deeper for anybody else. Besides the few things that Allah has forbidden, you are free to do as you please. Join the Holy War. Allah demands that we exterminate anybody who tries to take away the freedom that Allah, the Most Beneficient, the Most Compassionate, has endowed us with. The Almighty Allah expects every man to do his duty. Allah Akbar!

Re:100,000 votes = 275,000,000 americans?

[dbIII]

Personally I think governments should handle health care for this and many other reasons.

Re:100,000 votes = 275,000,000 americans?

[RightSaidFred99]

Pretty much only simple minded dolts hate Wal-mart. The alternative to Wal-mart is more expensive products, which dirt poor people can't afford, and fewer jobs.

So please explain to me how giving someone a low paying job with no benefits is somehow, in some magical fairy tale land you've concocted, worse than giving them no job? If Wal-Mart behaved like a socialist utopia and effectively implemented private enterprise socialism (paying more than the market requires), they would be nowhere near as large as they are, and the net effect would be less people with jobs in the US.

Or, more simply, who else is hiring those worthless old farts and giving them huge health insurance plans and paying them $12 an hour? Give me a fucking break.

Re:100,000 votes = 275,000,000 americans?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because there have to be retailers, there does not have to be Walmart. It's false to say that if Walmart wasn't there, people wouldn't be employed. If businesses are locally owned, the profits are generally spent locally (except, say, when the business owners go on holiday). The money stays in the local economy.

When Walmart strong-arms its way into an area, it uses economies of scale and Chinese import prices to undercut all local retailers and send them out of business. Then, with the profits generated through Chinese and Mexican sweatshop labour and every possible trick in the book to reduce its local staff costs, it takes those profits out of the local economy and puts it into the pockets of one family of very rich people. That's parasitic, and not how a local economy should ever be run.

Re:100,000 votes = 275,000,000 americans?

[Anonymous Coward]

The alternative to Wal-mart is more expensive products, which dirt poor people can't afford, and fewer jobs.

You see, that's where your logic falls apart. If Wal-mart weren't there, and those people were working for another store that actually treated its employees properly, they wouldn't be dirt poor.

Of course, that's really a misnomer. In America, if you have a job, you're not dirt poor. Even if you only make minimum wage, you should buy able to buy a tiny apartment and food for yourself. Compare this to many other countries.

Re:100,000 votes = 275,000,000 americans?

[pavera]

There are alot of studies which show that when walmart opens a store there is not a net gain in jobs. After 1 year, the loss in jobs from local retailers at least offsets and normally is greater than the jobs walmart provides.

Combine this with the fact that 90% of walmart jobs are part time (they will hire 2 people for 20 hours per week count it as 2 jobs created, when both of those people were available and want 40 hour per week jobs). So instead of creating 1 full time job with benefits they create 2 part time jobs without benefits. Which is better? Now you have 2 people who don't make enough to get by and if either of them gets sick, the tax payers pick up the bill or no one does and they die. Or you have 1 person who can live reasonably and is protected.

Re:This is so amazing

[Anonymous Coward]

Why the hell would you get modded down? It seems to be pretty standard among /.ers that the RIAA == Satan.

In search of the Golden Poop

[Bushcat]

Wondering (as one does) how much of a market there could possibly be for golden poop, I noted the Japanese writing on the screen and followed the trail to http://www.rakuten.co.jp/bif-shop/448445/156668/: so that award cost somewhere between $18 and $35. I see the little one doubles up as a rubber stamp, too.

Yeah, really, no kidding

[kiwimate]

I have no idea who or what Consumerist is, but the story I looked at had this in the first three paragraphs.

We predicted an RIAA landlslide, but they only managed a 53.8% majority over Halliburton's 46.2%

The message is clear. The internet cares deeply about being able to download music illegally.


Mmm-hmm...not too sure who Consumerist polled, but I'm fairly confident that a truly representative poll of mainstream America would not provide that sort of skewed data.

And then according to another post...

they pitted the RIAA against United Airlines, U-Haul, Exxon, and Halliburton

So you're not exactly talking a scientific survey here.

In short, this is mildly amusing and vindicative for puerile geeks to salivate over, but as far as having any integrity or usefulness whatsoever? Oh please...

Re:Yeah, really, no kidding

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think "puerile" means what you think it does...

Whatever

[Anonymous Coward]

At least they deliver a (shitty, overpriced) product. Every military contractor does that. The RIAA abuses the system worse than any content provider.

Or maybe...

[eddy]

Or people are smart enough to realize that getting a group vote for the Sony-BMG-Warner-FOX-Columbia-and-hundreds-more is a great deal, even if it's not technically ONE company.

nice

[Anonymous Coward]

More hated than Halliburton, more despised than Walmart, the RIAA has defeated all comers to become the Worst Company in America 2007."

RIAA worse than Halliburton? Worse than Bechtel?

Goes to show how truly fooking stupid we are.

What about SCO?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where does SCO fit in with all of this hate?

Re:What about SCO?

[Technician]

Where does SCO fit in with all of this hate?

They are quite down on the list because now they are seen as mostly harmless where the RIAA is doubling the lawsuits. If you weren't a SCO target yet, you can pretty much rest at ease. Even a couple of the SCO targets are sitting on the sideline waiting for a final rulling whether SCO has valid ownership on the code. If you aren't an RIAA target yet, you soon may be. They are still dangerous, active and getting worse.

MPAA more loved

[BillGatesLoveChild]

I was originally going to vote MPAA the worst corporation ahead of the RIAA, but then I thought about the charming Jack Valenti and all the pornography he brings us. That couldn't help but make smile.

Re:MPAA more loved

[reub2000]

You mean all of the pornography that he's kept from ever hitting theaters. Go watch This Film Is Not Yet Rated.

good news

[packslash]

Even I'll post on this one it makes me happy and I never post

Where is SCO?

[mdsolar]

Come on Slashdot, don't you love polls? SCO should have made the prelims.

They beat U-Haul

[MrCawfee]

The RIAA Beat U-Haul? I'd take a lawsuit over running across the freeway to pickup my belongings that fell out because of the broken lift gate.

Then again I did need new furniture...

Ever had a car fall off on of their trailers because they hooked it up wrong?

Then again I did need a new car...

The hypocrisy of the MPAA/RIAA

[BillGatesLoveChild]

> the riaa is just trying to protect its intellectual property.

The problem is that IP laws have been so twisted by lobbyists and big business. They seek to profit by taking away our rights. We are supposed to have rights to fair use, fair pricing, and things entering the public domain in a reasonable period, and the artists receiving a fair deal.

But when Mickey Mouse was supposed to enter the public domain, Disney went to the politicans so firmly in their pocket and got them to change the way. Same for the public domain period which congress just keeps setting back and back and back. And the DMCA which was a rights grab and now I can't even watch a DVD I purchased in another country without breaking the law. Some anime series are overpriced: the maker puts 5 episodes on the first DVD, whittling it down to 2 episodes (on a $30 DVD) on the last. Yet this is legal. And while the MPAA and the RIAA hiss and spit about how they're only protecting the authors' rights, they use Hollywood Accounting to rob those very same artists blind. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting And look a the tactics the RIAA shareholders have used to steal royalties off music artists. Recently when someone submitting a movie to the MPAA for ratings, the MPAA made and distributed copies against their wishes, and the court found the MPAA could do what it wants. Their hypocrisy is staggering. We have the absurdity of Adobe, who engineered an incompetant encryption scheme, using the DMCA to throw the guy who exposed them into jail. The DMCA means Macrovision is now by law built into every video device, with the result that my old color TV can't watch new videos. In Australia Channel 9 was fiddling with their digital feed to stop people from copying shows, with the results digital TV sets across the country kept locking up. http://www.smh.com.au/news/home-theatre/case-of-th e-csi-lg-tv-freeze-cracked/2007/03/21/117415312601 5.html
The pendulum has clearly swung too far.

Orson Scott Card (Author of "Ender's Game") wrote an excellent essay on this:

http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2003-09-07-1 .html
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2003-09-14-1 .html

With today's Internet in place, the RIAA and MPAA and their moneyed up masters would have never come into existence. They're a cartel living off an old business model, with duplicitous congressmen with bulging pockets changing the law at their beckoned call. If you want to know which congressmen have supported it and which ones have fought it, start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCA

Re:The hypocrisy of the MPAA/RIAA

[AndyboyH]

> Some anime series are overpriced: the maker puts 5 episodes on the first DVD, whittling it down to 2 episodes (on a $30 DVD) on the last.

Recently they've stopped doing that. Iirc the last disk that did that was Chobits. But most series now are 6 disks long, rather than 7 and average 4 episodes per DVD.

Re:The hypocrisy of the MPAA/RIAA

[BillGatesLoveChild]

Hmm... Did their sales take a dive? (The company is www.advfilms.com)

I stopped halfway through the Evangelion Platinum Collection when I realized this. Being willingly screwed is for $180 is one thing. Being unwillingly screwed for $210 is another. And they wonder why people use Bit Torrent?

I've seen Anime series (Slayers) compress nicely into 3-4 DVDs. They can do it when they want to! But even going back down to 6 disks, they may find once they drive customers to Bit Torrent they don't come back. Bad, ADV! Bad! How many swimming pools does ADV's Mr. Greenberg need? It's not like he makes the series. He just buys the rights, puts an english audio track on that nobody listens to, then sits back and reaps the profits. Well he did anyway... :-)

Re:The hypocrisy of the MPAA/RIAA

[BoberFett]

"beckoned call"

Beck and call.

And yes, I'm a grammar nazi. Sorry.

Re:The hypocrisy of the MPAA/RIAA

[BillGatesLoveChild]

Hey my own manservant grammar checker. Cool!

http://bitingtongue.blogspot.com/2004_06_01_biting tongue_archive.html
Google Hits:
"Beck and Call" = 716,000
"Beckoned Call" = 73,400
"Beckonned Call" = 32
'Beckoned Call' = 1 :-)

Re:The hypocrisy of the MPAA/RIAA

[BoberFett]

Other than that, I agree with your post 100%. It's the only reason I bothered to correct you. :)

Re:The hypocrisy of the MPAA/RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to ask what this has to do with purchasing anime DVDs in another country, though. Japanese anime DVDs (and I own quite a few, so I do know) usually cost a lot more and have a lot fewer episodes on. It's typical for a disc with 2 or 3 episodes to retail around $40 bucks. Quite a few series release one episode per disc (FLCL was an instance of this).

So, while I do agree that the whole region coding, especially in combination with DMCA, is flat out stupid, this isn't a good argument to use about it.

Re:The hypocrisy of the MPAA/RIAA

[Workaphobia]

> "Recently when someone submitting a movie to the MPAA for ratings, the MPAA made and distributed copies against their wishes, and the court found the MPAA could do what it wants."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Film_Is_Not_Yet_ Rated

That was "This Film Has Not Yet Been Rated". It was a publicity grab, it's doubtful that the guy didn't know exactly what was going to happen. This isn't to say that the MPAA wasn't being hypocritical.

Re:The hypocrisy of the MPAA/RIAA

[AndyboyH]

> Hmm... Did their sales take a dive? (The company is www.advfilms.com)

Iirc they experimented with Gantz releasing the DVDs very cheaply ($15 iirc - I'm from the UK but import so I'm not sure exactly what it was) but with two episodes per disk. Now the recent ADV releases have been 4-5 episodes per disk, but then a lot of the series recently are only half seasons (13 eps) and Funimation is making a big land grab towards what were formerly 'safe' ADV prospects for licencing.

I've always felt that Geneon were the best though. They at least push out a very cheap thinpak once standard sales dry up :)

RE: your Bootnote

[Toby_Tyke]

This is mildly amusing for me, 'cause last thread I commented in I was accused of being a RIAA Shill (presumably that poster believes anyone who criticises Apple is a RIAA shill).

[offtopic rant] I sympathize . I have noticed a growing trend to amongst the more excitable element on slashdot to scream "shill" at anyone with whom they disagree. I was accused of being on the Microsoft payroll twice last week. Presumably I must have taken up a position with them after leaving Nintendo, because I was apparently posting on their behalf around the time of the Wii launch.

The whole thing's just stupid beyond words. If MS or the RIAA were going to hire people to astroturf on their behalf, why in gods name would they waste time posting on slashdot? I could see them paying people to shill on, say, a BBC news discussion forum, but Slashdot? Owing to how the moderation system works, it would take multiple people months to have any success in penetrating the group think, and even if they did manage to earn get their stuff modded up, so what? Preaching pro-RIAA or pro-MS stuff on Slashdot is unlikely to change anyones mind.
[/offtopic rant]

Sorry. Had to get that off my chest

The power of publicity.

[jcr]

As nasty as the RIAA is, they don't hold a candle to the tobacco companies: the only industry whose product, used as recommended, causes cancer, emphysema, and heart disease.

-jcr

Re:The power of publicity.

[Anonymous Coward]

Their product also, when used as recommended, keeps me from killing people.

Re:The power of publicity.

[AeroIllini]

As nasty as the RIAA is, they don't hold a candle to the tobacco companies: the only industry whose product, used as recommended, causes cancer, emphysema, and heart disease. That's not even close to an accurate comparison.

All the tobacco companies do is sell a product that people still want to buy even though it kills them. Their lobbying efforts are mainly to stem the tide of governmental oversight and restrictions on the sale and advertisement of their product. Imagine if the government passed a law saying it was illegal for McDonalds to advertise the Big Mac on television or radio because it contained trans fats. Do you think McDonalds would not immediately start lobbying heavily to get this restriction removed? The tobacco lobby is simply trying to protect their revenue stream, and stop the government from legislating them out of business.

On the other hand, the RIAA is actively changing laws to create new revenue streams, because it's not the government that's putting them out of business, it's the market. No one wants to buy their product because it sucks. The record companies see that their old way of doing things doesn't work anymore, so instead of adapting and changing like normal businesses should, they buy ridiculous laws that force people to buy their product even when they're *not* buying their product; they force blank media levies and tie up tax-supported courts with their lawsuit extortion schemes designed only to squeeze money out of the little guy and strike fear into the hearts of their market segments. They push for higher royalty payments based on a difference without distinction (analog vs. digital), all in the name of protecting their status as media gatekeepers so they can continue to sell us a product we don't want.

Tobacco companies do none of these things. They do not force people to smoke, nor do they try to illicit money from tangential sources to support a dying business model. The tobacco business model (selling a product people want to buy) works-- they are simply fighting government oversight.*

-----

* Before you start flaming about addictiveness of the product: smoking is a choice. I choose not to smoke. I do not presume the right to make that choice for others.

Now flame away.

Re:The power of publicity.

[Myopic]

I hate to burst your bubble, but lots of industries produce products which cause cancer and other health ills. (So, it's not the "only" industry.) Tobacco has a bad rap because non-smokers don't like how it smells, heck a lot of smokers don't like how it smells, and the product gets a lot of recognition and attention.

The thing that makes tobacco companies evil is their demonstrated willingness to use addiction as a business model. I would have less contempt for them if they just sold good high-quality nice-tasting enjoyable natural unadulterated tobacco. It would still cause maladies, but fewer of them, and it would still be addictive, but less so; and the blame would go more squarely onto the consumers and not the producers.

Re:The power of publicity.

[RexRhino]

As nasty as the RIAA is, they don't hold a candle to the tobacco companies: the only industry whose product, used as recommended, causes cancer, emphysema, and heart disease. Except that people freely choose to smoke, knowing the risks. The dangerous of smoking have been common knowledge for the last 30-40 years. There is nothing more nasty about the tobacco companies than their are the companies that manufacture mountain climbing equipment.

Re:The power of publicity.

[AnalogDiehard]

As nasty as the RIAA is, they don't hold a candle to the tobacco companies: the only industry whose product, used as recommended, causes cancer, emphysema, and heart disease.

Ah, but the tobacco companies don't buy legislators to pass the MAFIAA-eccentric DMCA, they don't infiltrate government to push copyright extension, they don't skip the judicial review process of obtaining subpeonas in the name of reducing their own legal costs, and they do not engage in "Hollywood accounting" or endentured slavery contracts with their product growers.

Sad poll

[edwardpickman]

It's depressing to see where peoples priorities are. Haliburton steals tens of billions and New Orleans gets thrown to the wolves to make way for rich people's condos. Oil companies control the government and manage to surpress information about global warming that will affect the lives of everyone on the planet. What people are really concerned with is the free exchange of music, movies and software. People really do need to get their priorities screwed on straight. Anna Nichol Smith and Brittany Spears get more press than global warming and Haliburton. If music and movies are more important that corporations stealing billions from every american with the governments help we're in serious trouble. If you want to get upset get upset about something important. Music and movies could disappear overnight and we wouldn't loose a single life. Global warming is threatening millions and our grandkids will be paying for the eight year term of our current administration. Those are important things. Get angry at the companies behind that not the ones that are trying to restrict downloads.

Re:Sad poll

[blind biker]

What people are really concerned with is the free exchange of music, movies and software.

First of all, let me be perfectly clear: I think the issues you listed are critical, expecially global warming, and I am dismayed at how efficiently the various interest groups managed to obfuscate this critical emergency.

I would like to bring to your attention that the problem with RIAA is that they have sued, using their almost infinite warchest of money and lawyers, people that have very little means, and have been often completely innocent, but had to settle out of court, because of RIAAs judicial muscle. Basically, RIAA just picked random people and twisted their arms. I think there is something very viscerally hateful in that.

Again, I don't disagree that there are more important issues, but what fired up people is not only their inability to copy music.

Re:Sad poll

[bmgoau]

Bread and Circuses my good friend.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses

Abundant, cheap entertainment and poor quality food is all that is needed to control a population. Give them that, and you can do anything to them.

Im all for the spread of technology and golbalisation (you only need to look at chinas living standards), but it seems that as we become more and more dependant on the "world" economy, the importance of policies and politics at home become less important.

Re:Sad poll

[Wylfing]

Good luck fighting the Halliburtons of the world when you aren't allowed to learn about them anymore because all information is locked down on a "need to know" basis via nth-gen DRM, and even if you do manage to learn something, you aren't allowed to discuss it without facing felony charges because the other party didn't pay for a license. How about getting your priorities straight?

Re:Sad poll

[Dave Walker]

What's REALLY depressing is that you really seem to believe this.

Re:Sad poll

[malevolentjelly]

The KBR, part of Halliburton, are well-known war profiteers.

Let me put this into more direct terms-

THEY PROFIT OFF OF WAR. People DIE... for MONEY. Your heads are up your asses. The RIAA sues people for stealing music. Whoop-de-fucking-shit. Every now and then they sue the wrong person. So what? Your music needs to be played on a certain platform? What the Hell does that matter. You are not DEAD.

And to think that people would consider Microsoft worst than both of these. Outside of fanboyism-based hatred... they don't even sue old ladies. They're not the worst when dealing with Chinese censorship. You may dislike their business practices... but most hated? You spend too much time on Slashdot. Apple has worse business practices. They're not even close to the RIAA.

Peoples' priorities are all backwards. You bunch of selfish jackasses are complaining about where you can play your music or what operating system you can use to view your documents while a massive corporation that hires mercenaries to wipe people out on a daily basis is 'not as bad'?. And then they took all their shit and moved to DUBAI to live like gods. DRM is obviously not the greatest ill in this country... rampant stupidity is. Don't get your BS causes mixed up with the reality of LIFE and DEATH.

Bunch of pricks. Go ahead and mod me down, just don't forget this when you're voting.

Re:Sad poll

[kabocox]

Haliburton steals tens of billions and New Orleans gets thrown to the wolves to make way for rich people's condos. Oil companies control the government and manage to surpress information about global warming that will affect the lives of everyone on the planet. What people are really concerned with is the free exchange of music, movies and software. People really do need to get their priorities screwed on straight. Anna Nichol Smith and Brittany Spears get more press than global warming and Haliburton.

Energy companies and others need to buy up the RIAA/MPAA and use their content as Bread and Ciruses for the US public. The truth? We don't care about global warming. We figure that we have alot of internal land area, and don't care if Asia (China) gets flooded. It won't happen to US. ;) We also are used to bending over and taking it from rich/powerful folks. If the rich/powerful folks really thought about it though, they'd try to get rid of media copyrights so the US public would be to busy listening vast music resources or watching tons of TV/movies, or playing around on the internet to notice getting reamed by the rich and powerful. The key trick though is that one group of rich/powerful folks needs to win against another group of rich/powerful before that media distraction occurs. The average US citizen won't even notice anything politics related for 8-12 years after media copyrights are removed. They'd be too drugged up on various content to notice anything else happening.

Re:Sad poll

[AeroIllini]

If you want to get upset get upset about something important. Music and movies could disappear overnight and we wouldn't loose a single life. But... but... what about that dude in the commercial who worked as 2nd assistant backup grip for Gigli? How will he feed his family?

Won't someone think of his children?!

This is good news for the RIAA

[merc]

The RIAA is not a company, their job is to maximize damages on behest of the record labels againts infringers, violators and whomever (the trade labels deem elligible targets. Their goal is not corporate karma, international love or good faith. They maximize damages. This means an all out assault against ALL infrigers.

Mothers, innocent parties, mentally handicapped, children, nuns, Kim Jong Il, it doesn't MATTER. They want you all to know that there is no international border that they will not cross, no corporate entity that will shield you, no means they will not pursue to attack their file infringers.

Without a scorched earth policy there would be no fear (not that there is now), but that IS their goal.

Re:This is good news for the RIAA

[freedom_india]

Kim Jong II, oye mama !
I wish RIAA would sue, win a default judgement against Kim and then to collect it, they proceed to Pyongyang, where they "suddenly" end up in Kim's version of Gitmo for enemy combatant.
Man, that is one court battle i wish to see.!

Re:What exactly is forbidden?

[Anonymous Coward]

Be your own prophet.

Then maybe you can lose your hate for people who think differently than you do, and stop waging wars.

If your religion leads you to create war and hate, hmmmm, maybe something is amiss somewhere in the description of that religion that you have been accepting?

A religion is not truly a religion unless it has the capacity to love, even love that which it rejects.

Be your own prophet.

RIAA also most damaging company

[a1mint]

Thanks to the RIAA, new 100% anonymous network development is spearing ahead.
Highly encrypted and scattered underground network carry through ordinary internet. Information is stored in encrypted form.
Thanks to these networks, our 8 year old neighbor will freely get access to bomb making, child porn, nazi files, people getting killed, raped, mutilated in full glory gory detail.
With bittorrent and limewire type sharing, the line isn't really crossed by the average citizen, but with these new 100% anonymous networks, people will do strange scary things.
Personally I don't want to see and I don't want others to have access to this crap, but with RIAA throwing their weight around, people are being driven to these underground environments - it's only a matter of time.

Thank you RIAA, thank you very much you idiots.

Re:They beat out Micro$oft??

[Anonymous Coward]

Good thing is you can congratulate either of them, by burning a copy of their products and sending it as a gift! ;)

Personal experience and a suggestion at the end.

[Nemus]

My school (MTSU) has one of the few Recording Industry Majors in the country; it's actually its own department here. It's a completely BS major (as in the cow product, not Bachelor of Science): in fact, they tell everyone who signs up that only 1% of them are likely to get a job in the recording industry. All of the musicians and sound techs who sign up typically drop out or go to a specialized technical school, so essentially the only people who make it all the business types: i.e. people who typically have no interest in music.

I've met a few of the professors in the dept., all of whom have industry backgrounds, and let me tell you, meeting these guys and the graduates from these departments explains alot. You see, the the RIM college offers three basic majors: one for artists, one for techs, and one for business and pre-law in the recording industry. The most common? You guessed it, business and pre-law. These are the same asshats who, at any other school, would be learning how to ask for TPS reports and iguring out the best way to make partner in the shortest amount of time. Further still, I live in Murfreesboro, 30 min. away from Music Row in Nashville (or as we like to call it, Crackhead Alley), and I used to live in Nashville. When I lived there, I hung out in West End alot, and met alot of people in this business.

So let me say this: some of these people are cool, and I mean no disparagement towards them. But, in my time dealing with alot of these clowns, I have met a higher concentration of assholes than in any other sector (including advertising sales, the Devil's Piggy Bank). Most of these guys could give a flaming crap less about the actual music they produce: the techs normally do, and the artists, of course, but the lawyers and admin. people are so incredibly full of themselves that it's ridiculous. What was always great was hanging out at Cafe Coco, still kind of a hotspot, but mostly Vandy kids now, and seeing one of these jackasses walk in and expect to be treated like the Lords of All. Please understand though, that when I pick on these guys, I'm doing it because, even in a world full of jerks, these guys oftentimes stick out.

So, back to here at MTSU and our RIM dept. Quite literally, contempt of artists, techs, and fans is quite literally indoctrinated into these guys. I've sat in on some lectures, and my God. One of the classes was for artists contracts. I've always known how shady these things are, but to see completely unethical and illegal tricks being taught ina college course absolutely dropped my jaw.

Essentially, what I'm saying is that the reason the RIAA is so friggin bad is because it is expected of them. MTSU got it's RIM dept. up and running before Napster hit, so you have to understand, some of the people involved in the RIAA's modern tactics almost certainly came from this dept., where, as mentioned, these kinds of illegal and unethical behavior are correct answers on practical test questions. Further still, there is a culture on the admin side of the business that expects people, even demands, that they act this way. You want to fix the problem? It's not about fixing the laws, or methods of distribution. These people will just find new ways to screw artists, fans, and techs over. To change the problem, you have to change the education and the culture: nothing else will do. How we do that though, I have no idea.

Re:This is so amazing

[rockypg]

Why does saying "I know I will get modded down" get you modded up? Some kind of reverse psychology?

yes now you can mod me down :)

Just hoping

[gmuslera]

... that they get soon the Darwin Award, Company Edition.

Article text

[updog]

In case the original article is slashdotted, here's the original article:

What is the Worst Company in America 2007?

• Halliburton
• Walmart
• Microsoft
• RIAA
• CowboyNeal Inc

I agree with that

[Travoltus]

Halliburton has cost lives, harmed our troops, and gave us Dick Cheney.

The RIAA has cost us money, and inflicted DRM on us.

If I had to pick one to destroy off the face of the earth and one to let go unharmed, I'd nail Haliburton. The RIAA can be rendered irrelevant by the movement of technology. Dead US troops can never be gotten back.

RIAA is, in fact, worse then the tobacco companies

[Zergwyn]

I must respectfully disagree with you jcr. I think RIAA is worse, because the tobacco companies aren't trying to force me to deal with tobacco. They have had no material effect on the march of anti-secondhand smoke laws, and there have never been requirements to smoke tobacco. I personally feel that people should be free to engage in risky behavior, so long as they are at no point lied to about it, coerced in any way, and so long as it does not risk anyone else. Tobacco failed on the truthfulness point back before the major lawsuits, but at this point I don't feel anyone who does even a cursory check, or even who has paid remote attention to society, can genuinely not have any notion of the dangers of smoking.

Meanwhile, RIAA et al are successfully destroying basic parts of our nation's laws, undermining society in general and the tech and media industries in particular. They really do have a claim on being one of the most purely destructive corporate forces ever.

Re:This is so amazing

[Workaphobia]

Forget reverse psychology, if it were me I would try to work some variation of the Liar's Paradox into it. If I'm going to get modded down I'd at least like to cause someone's head to expload.

stupid

[flushingmemos]

Quite the victory for navel-gazing morons of the web. A recording industry lobbying group worse then a bunch of war profiteers? Are people really that selfish and stupid nowadays? Gaah! *head explodes*

Where's Microsoft?

[nermaljcat]

I wonder where the Evil Empire ranked? I did not see them in the polls.

It would be nice to have a top 10 or top 20. That'd be funny.

Re:Where's Microsoft?

[RightSaidFred99]

Nobody thinks Microsoft is evil but their competitors and a few thousand filthy, angry geeky dweeb nerds. I doubt they're even in the top 20 - nobody cares what a small number of dweebs think.

Re:Personal experience and a suggestion at the end

[Animats]

But, in my time dealing with alot of these clowns, I have met a higher concentration of assholes than in any other sector...

That's a classic comment in LA. Movie executives are smart. Music execs are dumb. Making a movie is complicated; bringing a big production together is a huge management and organization job. It's easy to screw up, and the industry's tolerance for expensive screwups is low. Making a musical recording is a few guys in a room. "Music management" is sales, promotion, and bullying; it's not about production.

"This is the music industry. We're all wiseguys." - Get Shorty 2

Re:This is so amazing

[BlueTrin]

At your orders sir ...

Re:This is so amazing

[BlueTrin]

Reverse psychology on Slashdot has a bias toward negative: it goes double reverse when people would think that you are trying to use reverse psychology to your benefit !

Re:welcome to slashdot, home of RIAA whining

[SharpFang]

Grow up, AC. Sign your posts.

But the RIAA is just a "front" for other corps

[Anonymous Coward]

It's an (industry the 'I') organization. It doesn't have a purpose other than promoting the interests of its members.

So what this is really saying is the the Recording industy corps are themost despised corps.

Eh

[Anonymous Coward]

Thya all still paying congress so who cares.......till congress stops taking thier money it doesn't matter what the people think.

MoD...

[Kadin2048]

And used as recommended, McDonalds causes heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes, and stroke.

What's your point? They're all selling assisted suicide.

Re:MoD...

[freedom_india]

McDonalds foods satisfy hunger and the probability of you dying from their food is as low as dying from your mama's home cooked greasy food than 3% unless you already weigh 120 kilos.
However the probability of dying from cigarattes is over 90%.
Atleast you can burn off Big Mac's calories by jogging or cycling. Cigars? Nope.

Re:MoD...

[Kadin2048]

What do you mean the "probability of dying from cigarattes is over 90%"? That's an utterly meaningless statement.

If I smoke one cigarette, I doubt I have a 9/10 chance of dropping dead. That's worse odds than Russian Roulette.

In order to approach that level of mortality, you have to be talking about chronic use.

But if that's going to be the basis, then you have to compare apples to apples, and talk about the chronic use of McDonalds food. If you went and ate 3 (or more) meals a day at McDonalds, that stuff would kill you eventually, too. Might take somewhat longer than cigarettes, and most people who do themselves in that way don't just stick to one restaurant chain, or even just food, they combine it with a lot of other unhealthy stuff, but it's still not good for you, and everyone knows it.

And just going for a jog doesn't "undo" the damage you get from eating food that contains a lot of trans and saturated fats; it certainly helps, but do it long enough, and you can still clog your arteries and drop dead of an M.I. even if you spend all your time between Big Macs on the treadmill.

The GGP said that cigarettes when used in their recommended fashion will kill you, but I think you could say the same thing about Krispy Kreme donuts (insofar as neither of them really say how many you should consume). On the side of a box of Krispys it says "Eat Krispy Kreme Donuts." If I take that literally, as an order, and just start chowing down, eating donuts with the same regularity that some people smoke cigarettes, I'd end up looking like Jabba the Hutt and probably dying in a few short, morbidly obese years.

My point is that it's idiotic to blindly follow the advisement of someone who's trying to sell you something. If the cigarette companies say "Smoke Marlboros!" and I do, and I end up dead, that's really no different than if I listen to the writing on the Krispy Kreme box and eat 3 or 4 dozen of them a day until I have a heart attack. I'm an idiot either way, for having just taken someone who's clearly biased at face value.

Cigarettes and other tobacco products only have two things that should draw special consideration: first, is that they're rather physically addictive, and people should be warned of that, and two, that they produce fumes which can be harmful to people who didn't decide to smoke them. (My solution to the latter problem is simple: just hold restaurants to the same standards for air quality and particulate matter contamination and appropriate safety equipment that any other industry has to.) Aside from that, they're just another one of many toxic substances which you can choose to ingest if you want -- just like saturated fat or ethanol.

I'm not saying that tobacco isn't harmful, it obviously is, but there's really no reason to put it on a pedestal by itself.

Grammar Nazi

[Anonymous Coward]

voteS ... voteRS

Man, capitals only happen at the beginning of words, and those aren't even proper nouns. Come on, slashdot, standards!

Pirates

[ernesto99]

Damn those lazy Pirates, stealing our opening paragraph for a Slashdot submission.

Their New Mission Statement

[briggsb]

The RIAA changed their mission statement to reflect their priority to stay the most hated company in America. I think it's a good strategy.

Look:

[Mateo_LeFou]

Strange women standing on the steps of the Supreme Court distributing BS is no basis for a system of artist compensation.

oh yeah?

[commodoresloat]

Unrelated to your post but I'm too lazy to create another post of my own

I'm too lazy to even read your post. Can you just tell me what it says?

Find new bands?

[interactive_civilian]

Should I just give up on music?

How about finding new artists that aren't associated with the RIAA? There are a LOT of them out there, some of them are quite good, and a good number of them are just giving their music away.

I don't know what kind of music you like, but I'll give you a few links to get you started:
Archive.org's Music Section - There's a lot of good stuff under NetLabels
Archive.org's Live Music Archive - Concert recordings from bands that allow it, including a good number of artists under RIAA labels
LegalTorrents - download entire archives of NetLabel music
Creative Commons Audio - more music under CC licenses


There are a lot more places out there, including the much-hated MySpace. I haven't payed a single bit of money to an RIAA member company in almost 2 years, and almost all of the music I've gotten since then has been legal.

They won't - the RIAA won

[Alioth]

The RIAA doesn't care if they are voted the 'worst company' - they have succeeded. Since they don't sell anything to the public, the fact that all the hatred has stuck to the RIAA _instead_ of the companies they represent, they have succeeded entirely in this goal - and I predict most people are too blind to this fact to see that this is anything other than an extremely hollow victory. The RIAA doesn't care if they are unpopular with the general public - because the general public is not their customer. So long as the hate and bile sticks to them, instead of the record companies they represent - they are winning.

Re:They won't - the RIAA won

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

An interesting theory, but I don't think it's right. For one, not that many people care about copyright or the entertainment industry's effect on technology. If anything, people I know seem to be in favour of copyright and feel genuine guilt when they burn their friend's CDs. I know it's easy to forget that here on slashdot, but it's true. There are simply too many people out there who are more concerned with their children's future, or the environment, or their business's future, or whatever else they care about. The RIAA, to them, isn't the company suing old women and young children, but the organisation responsible for all that annoying music on the radio.

This is the way they want it. The friendly music industry going hardline, for the benefit of those poor artists, against the scum on that Internet-thingy stealing their work. If the RIAA were to look bad to the public in general, it would just look bad for the music industry in general. People wouldn't trust the RIAA, the members, and probably even independent labels. i.e. anyone connected with the music industry.

Re:They won't - the RIAA won

[jZnat]

Sony is a major member of the RIAA (Sony BMG), and they were hated on pretty badly. The other main publishers, EMI, Universal, and Warner, are also pretty hated in their own respects as well. Perhaps not EMI as much since they don't also publish movies and aren't associated with Hollywood, but the others are hated in their own respects.

Also, the fact that a generally well-liked (at least in the past) electronics company like Sony can be hated and boycotted so much due to a sibling company like Sony BMG just shows that nobody (not even Google) is safe when you associate with the MAFIAA.

Re:They won't - the RIAA won

[Koiu Lpoi]

"The obvious threat hid the insidious one."
-Emperor Sun, Jade Empire

Re:They won't - the RIAA won

[Anonymous Coward]

RIAA is like North Korea, they have nuclear lawsuits and they will use it against anyone to defend their dictatorship. They don't care if they are popular or not since when is a dictatorship a popularity contest. If you don't like it they can send you the lawsuit hell which similar to some labor camp in North Korea.

Re:Personal experience and a suggestion at the end

[Anonymous Coward]

> To change the problem, you have to change the education and the culture: nothing else will do. How we do that though, I have no idea.

Guns. Lots of guns.

Re:What exactly is forbidden?

[holywar]

>>> Be your own prophet. That is not feasible, because Mohammed is the LAST prophet. >>> Then maybe you can lose your hate for people who think differently than you do, and stop waging wars. Come on, Lordist. "Lord, they are not praying to the Lord!". Who is trying to enslave everybody? Even Chavez and the other South Americans will have to join forces with us. Actually, Islam will eventually unite all your enemies, including your own lower classes. You're gonna lose, slaver. >>> If your religion leads you to create war and hate, hmmmm, maybe something is amiss somewhere in the description of that religion that you have been accepting? We are the slaves of Allah, and therefore, we cannot be the slaves of anybody else. Freedom is the most precious gift from the Almighty, and we will fight till the end against the lordists. >>> A religion is not truly a religion unless it has the capacity to love, even love that which it rejects. There is only one God, and He has no family: no aunts, no uncles, no wife, no brothers, no sisters, no daughters, and certainly no sons. And I don't like that Jesus, the bastard son of that Jewish whore, that you are referring to. Who the hell is his father anyway?

...And the 300 Pirates

[Anonymous Coward]

Stood up to the mighty army of the RIAA...

Fluoride/fluoridation is at least as bad.

[Anonymous Coward]

Fluoride/fluoridation is at least as bad.

This shows just how evil the RIAA is...

[Eradicator2k3]

... we're not even three full months into 2007 and already the RIAA has collected this award for all of 2007. Microsoft, the runner up, just threw in the towel (or chair) stating, "These guys are way out of our league. We just can't compete with their level of wickedness."

My latest Best Buy story

[justthinkit]

I needed a stack of blank DVDs badly enough to drop in there on the way somewhere else. All blank DVD prices are outrageous. I spy two spindles (of their cheapest 'house' brand) where the outer packaging is mutilated, to the point where the clear plastic casing itself is damaged. I grab them and go see the manager. "Any discount for these?" He paws over them before intoning "There is no damage to the discs so there is no discount".

Postscript: I go home, browse a bit, settle on cdrdvdrmedia.com and purchase blank DVDs for one-third (no exaggeration) the price. All have burned perfectly so far.

Side note: I find that the cheapest, most no-name blank DVDs burn the fastest (with the least coasters). Based on 5 different brands to date and an external less-than-year-old Lite-On drive.

Re:My latest Best Buy story

[Dogtanian]

He paws over them before intoning "There is no damage to the discs so there is no discount". Sounds a bit stingy, but not unreasonable; after all, it's the discs themselves that you're buying, and it's probably not worth his time arguing if he thinks someone else will buy them.

I'm not defending their practices, just looking at it from their cynical point-of-view.

I needed a stack of blank DVDs badly enough to drop in there on the way somewhere else. You evidently didn't need them that badly if you ended getting them on mail order anyway. And if that were the case, I wouldn't settle on some overpriced rebranded low-end DVDs.

Side note: I find that the cheapest, most no-name blank DVDs burn the fastest (with the least coasters). Yes, but do they last? Personally, I'd try to buy Taiyo Yuden (if available) or Mitsubishi/Verbatim. Or at least some decently-reputable company such as Ricoh that produce their own. With many other companies, they play silly buggers rebranding other people's stuff (often mediocre) and change suppliers so you don't know what you're going to get. If you're buying a lot of discs you might be able to save a bit of money by researching which brand/case-style/phase-of-the-moon gets you a particular manufacturer, but I don't use enough disks to make playing such silly buggers worth my while; I just buy the good stuff where possible.

Re:My latest Best Buy story

[justthinkit]

Sounds a bit stingy, but not unreasonable; after all, it's the discs themselves that you're buying, and it's probably not worth his time arguing if he thinks someone else will buy them. I'm not defending their practices, just looking at it from their cynical point-of-view.

At a minimum, what bothers me is (1) they are quite happy passing off damaged goods as new -- this is just bad business, (2) the DVD holder is needed after one burns DVDs -- this was damaged and so there was damage to the package/product as a whole yet he was saying there was not.

I have no idea how long any of these DVDs last. I don't know if my no label discs are really very high end ones, or if they are timebombs. I can only really measure the short-term symptoms, and these point towards "cheaper is better". I think it is very strange that "16x" Verbatim, or whatever they were, burned VERY slowly (2.4x or something) and produced numerous coasters, but the Staples ones and this latest no name el-cheapo batch burn at full speed and zero coasters.

Re:My latest Best Buy story

[Dogtanian]

At a minimum, what bothers me is (1) they are quite happy passing off damaged goods as new No, you said that the discs themselves were unharmed, and the damage to the case was (we can assume) clearly visible. Anyone buying them knew what they were getting.

(2) the DVD holder is needed after one burns DVDs -- this was damaged and so there was damage to the package/product as a whole yet he was saying there was not. Not necessarily; I keep many of mine in wallets.

and these point towards "cheaper is better". You assume that "burns faster" means "better". I wouldn't, personally.

I think it is very strange that "16x" Verbatim, or whatever they were, You're vague on whether you meant that they were probably Verbatim, or whether you meant that they were just "some major brand like Verbatim".

Most "major" companies, including Memorex, Fuji, Emtec and even (IIRC) TDK just rebrand other companies' stuff, which can often be quite mediocre. Verbatim (owned by Mitsubishi) at least make their own stuff (except for one brief period during which they got a lot of criticism). They have a generally high reputation.

burned VERY slowly (2.4x or something) and produced numerous coasters, but the Staples ones and this latest no name el-cheapo batch burn at full speed and zero coasters. Maybe Staples got some good discs, maybe the firmware in your drive was just designed with them in mind. And maybe the "big-brand" discs you had were just some rebranded mediocrities. The problem is that next week Staples may change their supplier, and you could end up with totally different discs.

Grouping the evil

[flaknugget]

Does anyone else feel that the first rounders in that play-off of evil was a little unbalanced.

Personally I think NewsCorp and Monsanto could have made it to the second round, even the final four, if only they they weren't paired with super-mega-evil like Walmart and Halliburton right off the bat.

Meanwhile you got U-Haul and Best Buy on the list, who should really be moved down to the farm-league, at least until they get their evil up-to-snuff.

No Microsoft? McDonald's? Philip Morris? How about Enron, which is both dated, but still hated, am I wrong?

Re: your Bootnote

[Macthorpe]

Sorry. Had to get that off my chest

With good reason. I generally get accused of being an MS shill because I actually like using Windows (nobody faint), and I don't like pointless lies about Vista functionality and other minor grievances. I've also been accused of being a government shill (because I don't care about CCTV cameras at all), and even of using sockpuppet accounts to harrass people I don't like.

It seems to be very difficult for people on this site to realise that somebody will disagree with you of their own accord. Hell, I would love it if I got paid to write this stuff - but strangely enough, in the real world, that happens less often than I have been lead to believe.

Re:What exactly is forbidden?

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't your God teach you how to structure a paragraph properly?

What :(

[eMbry00s]

The RIAA aren't a company, they're an organisation put up by the recording industry companies. I believe they're even non-profit.

Hades frost warning

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a CPA, regular /. reader (posting AC from work) and I just learned something new in the Tax Code reading /.

WTF people? I read /. to get away from that stuff!

Throw me a bone, wontcha?

You think that's bad?

[Garwulf]

"This is mildly amusing for me, 'cause last thread I commented in I was accused of being a RIAA Shill (presumably that poster believes anyone who criticises Apple is a RIAA shill)."

Hey, if you think that's bad, you should try being a creative artist. I'm a published author, and I certainly believe that copyright should be respected - and that pretty much goes against every single action of the RIAA that has made it into the news. They abuse copyright on both sides, suing their customers, and stripping away the rights of the artists (http://cdbaby.net/courtney). But, while they're doing this, they're claiming to be doing it on behalf of the artists (http://www.riaa.com/about/default.asp). And, so who also gets smeared with the bad PR these jackals are generating?

Authors, actors, people like me.

Almost every time I get into a discussion on here, I, and my entire profession, end up being accused of something. Most of the time, it's something along the lines of "greedy evil artist," and a lot of the time it has nothing whatsoever to do with reality. Here's my list of favorites (and I am not making any of these up):

1. Being a lazy bum who writes a single book and lives off it for the rest of his life.

(Um, no - seeing as the average first book will bring an author around $3-5,000 over its entire publication lifetime, this is pretty much fiscally impossible - and it's both sad and laughable when you're struggling under the poverty line to be told that if you lose your intellectual rights to your writing that you're going to have to start working at being a writer for a change.)

2. Using copyright to keep my creative work from the public.

(Sort of goes against the entire idea of publishing, doesn't it?)

3. Holding an evil monopoly over my writing so that nobody can create a derivative work.

(Well, sorry folks, but copyright doesn't work that way. You cannot copyright an idea - only an exact implementation of an idea. If my story inspires somebody to write something similar, unless they're using my exact characters, there is absolutely nothing I can, or would want to, do about it. Nor can I put a hit out on somebody using a similar plot or theme.)

4. Being guaranteed an income because of the evil copyright laws.

(Yes, there are some people who honestly seem to believe that somewhere in copyright law is a clause that says that if I write something, everybody is required to buy it. Perhaps that explains those armed guards around the bookstores..."Buy the book or ELSE!")

5. Lobbying for unreasonable copyright extensions.

(You know what? I'll freely admit that like anybody, I'd like to leave something to my children and grandchildren, when I have them. But seriously, that whole Sonny Bono thing - I had nothing to do with it. And neither did most of the creative artists out there. We just want to create, and have our wishes in regards to our work respected.)

And my personal favourite...

6. Being part of a copyright conspiracy (I'm not making this up) to create an underclass of people who have no access to any content.

(Seriously, I'm not making this one up. I find it amazing that when our society is drowning in content, there are people out there who honestly think that not only is there a shortage, but that creative artists are behind it. I mean, come on - the creative artist is the artistic version of an exhibitionist - we like to keep a roof over our heads, but we also want as many people to see and enjoy our work as possible.)

The big problem, I think, is that there really isn't a whole lot of education about what copyright law is, and when I try to inform people about it, they don't believe me. They seem to figure that I'm some sort of RIAA shill, and lying through my teeth. They see copyright in terms of what the RIAA is doing, and the RIAA is abusing both the letter and the spirit of the law. And frankly, this is the sort of place where the grass roots movements start. We creative artists didn't ask for the RIAA to be doing what it's doing. Most of us (myself included) find the organization reprehensible. But we're getting demonized by it through association all the same.

What's wrong with CompUSA then?

[SysKoll]

I will not shop at CompUSA unless it's the only place I can get a part needed to get a system up and running.

Wow, considering some of the BB tales here, that's a pretty strong statement. Can you please tell us why you feel so strongly against CompUSA? If you have horror stories, please share them: you might save other /.ers a painful experience.

Arrrrggghhh!!!

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

You idiot! I just opened all those links in Firefox! Couldn't you have warned me before I voted Verizon!!?

The probability of dying is 100% - period.

[cyborg_zx]

Not to imply that it is unnecessarily wise to engage in these activities but if someone wants to take that risk I say clog those arteries, harden that liver and phlegm those lungs. Fuck it - you're only going to live once.

Re:The probability of dying is 100% - period.

[An ominous Cow art]

Someone else eating at McDonalds doesn't make me obese through second-hand fat.

The weather here finally turned Spring, and I'm dreading being stuck driving behind assholes who don't realize or care that their goddamned smoke is flowing directly into my car...

Re:The probability of dying is 100% - period.

[cyborg_zx]

Frankly you are more likely to be killed by poor driving, drunk driving and such than from random smoke.
People place disproportionate emphasis on the risks in their lives.

Re:The probability of dying is 100% - period.

[An ominous Cow art]

Oh, I know that very well. My complaint was that the stuff annoys me.

Yes.

[Phreakiture]

...of course, I knew exactly what I wanted before I went in, and had already selected brand, make, model, and had found what competitors were carrying it (ammunition and "plan B" in case of problems). I went in, I asked for it, I took it to the checkout, I refused the extended warranty, I checked out, and I left. No problems.

I have done this three times to great success. Two of the purchases were large (a sound system and a digital camera).

Huh?

[ibm1130]

Funny I would have thought Rambutt would have been in there somewhere.
Not sure I understand why U-Haul is on the list. Anytime I've used them
I've been realtively satisfied.

Re: your Bootnote

[jZnat]

A lot of people who read Slashdot and post here have a lot of influence in what people buy related to IT, and that includes operating systems, database software, mail servers, web servers, and even videogame consoles. If Microsoft can get people here to think that Microsoft products are worth renting, they win new customers.

wtf

[Lurker2288]

So, to clarify, your tale of woe is that you went in to buy something knowing it would cost more than ordering it. When you found the item at an extravagant price, you tried to get a discount on the basis of the damaged paackage (which probably means the plastic shrink wrap around the spindle in this case) despite no evidence of damage to the item itself. When the manager quite reasonably refused to let you have it for less, you decided to buy them cheaper somewhere else. You then wrote a post about it. Man, I guess you got pretty boned, huh? Those capitalist running dogs.

Re:wtf

[justthinkit]

I don't understand your point(s), if you made any.

As I just clarified in another reply, the hard plastic "housing" was damaged -- a big fat hole in it. There could be junk in there already, etc. And once one has burned discs, or even over time as one stores the new stack on a shelf, dust will get in because of the hole in the container. Dust will hinder burning, and reduce reading accuracy. Not good, not desirable, and not was a new product would do.

Try this simple test. Think back over your buying career. Have you ever seen something offered on a store shelf that was ripped open, __damaged__ and otherwise not new and pristine, yet wasn't offered at a reduced price? Neither have I.

The real message of this story is: Best Buy is struggling. They have junk, literally, sitting on their shelves that is not moving. People are finding the same stuff elsewhere at 200 and 300% less money. I think Best Buy could be the next CompUSA and have to close stores, etc.

Re:wtf

[Dogtanian]

As I just clarified in another reply, the hard plastic "housing" was damaged -- a big fat hole in it. There could be junk in there already, etc. And once one has burned discs, or even over time as one stores the new stack on a shelf, dust will get in because of the hole in the container. Dust will hinder burning, and reduce reading accuracy. Not good, not desirable, and not was a new product would do. Jesus, did you go on about all this stuff to the manager? He probably didn't want to spend half his afternoon in a pointless discussion over bits of ******* fluff getting inside a DVD cake box just to sell some DVDs at half price when he knew that some sod would probably buy them next Friday when they were short of stock anyway.

Have you ever seen something offered on a store shelf that was ripped open, __damaged__ and otherwise not new and pristine, yet wasn't offered at a reduced price? Yep; personally if it was something I wasn't too bothered about, and it was the last one in stock, I'd probably buy it anyway.

At any rate, I'd personally have discounted the undamaged (as you said yourself) discs 10%, and figured that someone who wasn't bothered about the case would snap them up. But you're still making a mountain out of a molehill of this situation. And if the case is so crucially important, why did you want them anyway?!!

Big Surprise...

[Rycross]

Thats the whole point of the RIAA. Its a cover organization for its member labels. It can go around being all sue happy, and it gets the blame instead of the member corporations.

Yeah there's NO biased in that site.

[kinglink]

Seriously, when the top 4 are Halliburton, Exxon, RIAA, and walmart, it sounds like a liberal hitlist + The RIAA.

Why is it that I first hear about this after it's done. and only 10,000 votes? This sounds like a good competition.

Btw I find it odd they have Verizon and AT&T going up against clear channel and Halliburton. Why not make a better bracket system (all consumer stores in one bracket, all media outlets in another, all of faceless corps (halliburton, riaa) in another. and so on?) So we get the "worst" of each and those compete.

Besides about the only reason we are even hearing about this is that the RIAA won. If it was Halliburton, Exxon or Walmart the news would have been "Riaa number 2 worst company ever." or "RIAA not the worst company ever", if it was even posted here.

"Worst Hated," that is...

[Illbay]

...by Liberal pansies.

Ugg

[Anonymous Coward]

Its "awesome" how the RIAA beats out organizations that have a regular + historically negative impact on the environment and the rest of the world. And by awesome I mean sad.

Sure they wrecked the economy and environment of 10+ other countries, but what about my mp3s!!!!!!!

Does it matter?

[pavon]

What are the actions of people who hate the RIAA? If they do anything, it will be to stop listening to the radio, and stop buying CD's, choosing to pirate and/or buy independant music instead. If they do nothing then it will be out of appathy, or lack of backbone, not misdirection over the name of the company. The fact is that people are pissed off at the music industry as it exists now, and their actions are directed towards that industry. Whether they call it by the right name or not is largly irrelevant.

I think the biggest form of misdirection that you will be seeing in the future isn't confusing RIAA with EMI/Sony/Warner but "independant" artists and labels that really aren't. For example, half of the people I talked to at the last Modest Mouse concert brought up how cool it was that they were supporting independant musicians, clueless to the fact that MM had signed with EMI (Sony/BMG).

Neutral?

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean you no disrespect, but if you would forward this quote verbatim to your instructor, I would be grateful.

"That's the *dumbest* thing I've ever heard!"

Actually...

[abb3w]

FTFA, the real prize is a Golden Piece of Shit. It's actually quite attractive looking. =)

UHaul

[Anonymous Coward]

So, I was helping a friend move to her new apartment, and we rented a truck. We hopped in, with me in the driver's seat, and I stepped on the brake pedal. It went "bonk... swingy, swingy, swingy..." as the pedal arm came free and just sat there swinging back and forth like a pendulum.

Well, as we'd already been to or called every UHaul in town looking for a truck, my friend was quite visibly bummed. Without a truck, we'd never be able to move all her furniture. Being the chivalrous geek I am, I quickly told her not to be so bummed as I ducked under the dash to see what had broken.

It turned out, there was a *missing piece* of the brake linkage! It wasn't broken; it just plain wasn't there. Natually, I did what any self-respecting geek-of-all-trades would do -- I hopped over to my car, grabbed an old Compaq mouse, sliced the cable off it, and used it to lash the parts together (the pin was intact, after all; only the retaining bits were missing).

We successfully completed the move (with the brakes lashed together with old computer parts), and when we finished, I brought the truck back, unlashed the brake pedal, and shook my head at the slowly swinging pedal. They didn't even give me a discount. (Someday, we'll tell the story to her parents, but we mutually decided that it would be best if we waited another decade or two.)

Monsanto

[pauljlucas]

I find it disturbing that Monsanto didn't make the list. There's companies that screw their employees (e.g., Walmart), companies that screw their customers (e.g., Best Buy), companies that screw all Americans (e.g., Haliburton), and then there's companies that screw all people on the entire planet. Monsanto falls into the last category.

We the people...

[Anonymous Coward]

The RIAA can be toppled, you just need to pull away all the artists from the record companies. How?

Make some sort of peer based record company, with a fixed rate of $.90 on the dollar profits return to the artist, and strict internal policeis which prevent the formation of such a thing as the RIAA, and such practices as suing little girls.

Artists aren't stupid. If you give them the profits from their work, they'll sign up.

Re: your Bootnote

[terrymr]

But unlike the others you are very obviously a Microsoft Shill.

U Haul

[Riptide1884]

U-Haul gets my vote...Their trucks all have 2" hitch, right?

The truck we rented had a 2 and 1/8 because someone somewhere had welded one on. I did not discover the problem till the truck was loaded and the boat trailer with the real 2" hitch would not fit.

Took it back and they would not cut off the bad one even when I proved the hitch was wrong with one of their trailers! All they would offer was another truck...right. I took the truck back to the house and borrowed a grinder from the helpful neighbor next door. It may not have been completely round when I was done, but it was small enough that I could get the boat trailer on it.

Arr!

[Lavi Dave]

http://lavidavegas.blogspot.com/2007/02/ipirate.ht ml :)

Re:RIAA is, in fact, worse then the tobacco compan

[jcr]

I think RIAA is worse, because the tobacco companies aren't trying to force me to deal with tobacco.

Not force per se, but they did lie for decades about the effects of their product.

-jcr

Re: your Bootnote

[Toby_Tyke]

A lot of people who read Slashdot and post here have a lot of influence in what people buy related to IT

Yes, but even assuming this is true, Slasdot is still a terrible place to shill, for several resaons. There's a huge anti-MS bias, and the mod system re-enforces that bias. A pro-MS/RIAA comment is unlikely to get moderrated up, meaning lots of people won't even see it. You would be better shilling on a standard forum, where every reply has equal visibility.

But even more importantly, the slashdot crowd is out and out hostile to MS/RIAA. Now if you're looking to get your moneys woth out of your shill, why waste time shouting at people who think you're the anti-christ? No, you would be better off posting on a forum where a large section of the readers have no strong ingrained views. Those are the kind of people who might be actually be persuaded one way or the other. Say, a BBC discusion on file sharing. That's going to be read by a lot of "average joe" type people. A bit if FUD on there might influence some readers. The same thing posted on slashdot will be flamed and modded into oblivion.

I'm not saying it never happens, I'm sure people have "shilled" on slashdot. I just think it's probably fairly rare. In any case, I think calling someone a shill is pathetic, and I have stopped reading peoples posts beyond that point. Unless people have hard evidence someone is a shill, (and no, holding a given view is not proof) then all they are doing is throwing around baseless insults. If you think someone is a shill, refute their arguments, but don't accuse them of it unless you think you can prove it.

Re:What exactly is forbidden?

[Anonymous Coward]

What a shame your religion is so hateful. So, all you have to sell to the world is the dirty names you call Jesus, your wars, and the spreading of your religion?

Cancer spreads, too. That doesn't make it good.

I don't like Jesus either (how could I? Like Mohammed, he is dust for thousands of years. Dust is dust).

If there is a God, he certainly does not support war, or jihad, or whatever word you want to append to what, at its essence, is your ugly fetish for violent hate.

God is love. God doesn't encourage war. Only demented humans do that.