Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Comparing the RIAA To "The Sopranos"

Posted by Zonk on from the riaa-would-make-terrible-television-though dept.

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "According to commentator Therese Polletti at Dow Jones MarketWatch, 'the RIAA's tactics are nearly as bad as the actions of mobsters, real or fictional. The analogy comes up easily and frequently in any discussion of the RIAA's maneuvers.' Among other things she cites the extortionate nature of their 'settlement negotiations' pointed out by Prof. Bob Talbot of the University of San Francisco School of Law IP Law Clinic. His student attorneys are helping private practitioners fight the RIAA, and the the illegality of the RIAA's use of unlicensed investigators. She goes on to cite the fact that the RIAA thinks nothing of jeopardizing a student's college education in order to make their point, as support for the MAFIAA/Mafia analogy."

52 of 193 comments (clear)

  1. Can we at least hope... by tgd · · Score: 4, Funny

    Can we at least hope the RIAA and MPAA will end the same way?

    1. Re:Can we at least hope... by hostyle · · Score: 5, Funny

      Um. Suddenly and unexpectedly at the last minute, with everyone left wondering what really happened, and secretly wondering if there will be an unannounced comeback at some non-fixed point in the future?

      --
      Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.
    2. Re:Can we at least hope... by imamac · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If everyone counter-sued the heck of them. And won. Maybe.

    3. Re:Can we at least hope... by tgd · · Score: 3, Funny

      Actually, no, I was thinking "slow-mo shot of Meadow, and a bullet to the head".

      Your version was not nearly as nice sounding.

    4. Re:Can we at least hope... by aurispector · · Score: 5, Insightful

      An interesting article on Ars Technica regarding copyrighted games:

      http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080320-pc-game-developer-has-radical-message-ignore-the-pirates.html

      Basically the message is that pirates were never customers and can therefore be ignored. I would take it one step further and say that piracy is a form of free advertising. More than once I've bought cd's based on mp3's I heard. The music and movie industry suits are a bunch of whining dinosaurs; all they need to do is make the disks worth buying by offering additional content liek posters, stickers, etc..

      --
      I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
    5. Re:Can we at least hope... by cromar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Exactly. If you pirate something, like it, and can afford to buy it, do it. It's the moral thing to do. Ergo, anything you pirate and don't buy should be something you wouldn't or couldn't pay for. Most "pirates" I know or have spoken with operate this way. And so yes, it is basically free advertising.

    6. Re:Can we at least hope... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Just imagine the amount of money they could save by not hiring people to astroturf, too!

      CAPTCHA: "funded". Figures.

    7. Re:Can we at least hope... by operagost · · Score: 2, Funny

      There won't be any Journey songs playing, however-- because the illegal pirate downloaders STOLE THEM ALL!

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    8. Re:Can we at least hope... by cromar · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's wouldn't OR couldn't. For example, I would love to have a copy of Photshop CS 3. It is $650. I could afford that but would never spend that much money on it (i.e. I wouldn't ever buy it at that price). So, if I pirate it they have not lost a sale to me.

      Another scenario: I would very much like to have the full version of Ableton Live 7 ($500). I can afford this comfortably after I save up for 6 months or so and then will probably buy it. Now... if I pirate it before then and buy it after I save up, they lose nothing.

      You see, intellectual "property" is really nothing like physical property. Physical property can be stolen, and then someone always loses something. With IP, making a copy does not always result in a loss of sale. Very, very different.

      P.S. Another example: I watched all four seasons of Peep Show on YouTube recently, and will definitely be buying the DVD. In this case, the BBC (or whoever) is actually gaining a sale because I pirated their show: I most likely never would have seen it if it wasn't on YouTube.

    9. Re:Can we at least hope... by aurispector · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's technically illegal but laws can be changed to reflect reality. The industries fantasy is that they should get paid for every time someone plays a song. The reality is that with unlimited supply with virtually zero production costs the value of an mp3 is basically zero. The fact is, you get more VALUE from a CD, but cd's have been massively overpriced for years.
      Additionally, the music industry existed for promotion and distribution. Now that distribution is basically free, their only function is promotions. This puts the artists in the curious postition of being popular not due to their hype but their talent. Artists were never the ones getting paid from album sales anyway; the labels made the bulk of the money. Cut out the middleman by having bands sell mps'3 directly from a website and the money goes where it should-to the artists.

      Artist may have to resort to actually PERFORMING in order to make money. Damn shame.

      The industry ought to adjust to the reality on the ground: mp3's are advertising & thats all.

      --
      I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
    10. Re:Can we at least hope... by cp.tar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's wouldn't OR couldn't. For example, I would love to have a copy of Photshop CS 3. It is $650. I could afford that but would never spend that much money on it (i.e. I wouldn't ever buy it at that price). So, if I pirate it they have not lost a sale to me.

      Furthermore, if you pirate it, you become proficient with it. So you give them mindshare.
      So if you ever decide to use this software professionally, you will buy it. And you won't even consider purchasing anything else.

      The software industry, in part, understands this and therefore does little to suppress home piracy of professional software. And that is why Windows was easy to pirate until it got to nearly every computer: now that you depend on it, we'll make you buy it.
      Kind of like drug dealers — it's all free until you get hooked.

      Indeed, strict enforcement of anti-piracy measures would really benefit F/OSS development, not the big companies.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    11. Re:Can we at least hope... by apoc.famine · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Could" and "Would" are two very different things.

      I could listen to internet radio (well, that's now in debate, but I used to be able to) for weeks, for free, and not hear anything I would want to purchase. Likewise, I could download a few GBs of mp3 files, listen for a few weeks, and not hear anything I would want to purchase. In neither case has the artist "lost" a sale.

      The whole "1 download = 1 lost sale" argument is very, very flawed in this sense. Yes, if I pulled 3 albums over bittorrent, I "could" pay for them. But if I "would" pay for them, I...well...would. A sale is only lost when I find and download something that I would ordinarily purchase, but decide that the internet price of "free" is more appealing.

      I have downloaded a fair bit of music from the internet. Mostly pretty niche stuff, that not a lot of people are into. Not the stuff carried at my local music store, that's for sure. A lot of it I couldn't hear anywhere, yet WOULDN'T purchase without hearing. This was exploratory downloading. No sales were lost, as I wouldn't have purchased it. Yet I now own all 6-8 or so CDs of a particular band in that set, BECAUSE of that exposure. The rest of the bands? Don't listen to the mp3s, haven't bought any CDs. No sales lost due to that downloading, sales actually GAINED for one band because of it. Now I suppose you could tell me that it's somehow my duty to buy everything, THEN decide what I like, but I'm a weirdo who wants to spend my money only on things I want.

      Back in the day, before I was completely wise to the amount of malware infused warez in the world, I downloaded some cracked commercial games and played them. Generally, they would hold my interest for a couple of weeks, and then get deleted to free up space. Once in awhile, I'd find a good one, and without fail I'd purchase it. Would I have purchased any of them without the opportunity to try them first? Probably not. Spending $40 on a game is hard to justify after getting burned a couple of times in a row on shitty games. Trying first allowed me to spend my money on what was worth it, supporting the people who's efforts I appreciated. Once again, rather than losing sales, the free downloads gained sales, and that money went to people who produced something I appreciated.

      I've come to realize that companies being slimy is the reason I am this way. Companies who slipped me a turd covered with gold foil at the same price as a decent product are the reason I insist on trying first. Now I don't know if I'm somehow weird or unique in this regard, but giving me something to try for free is the best way to get money out of me. I'll pay for stuff that's worth it. But I don't trust companies to give me a product that's worth paying for 90% of the time.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    12. Re:Can we at least hope... by howdoesth · · Score: 3, Funny

      How will one go about securing the rights to Don't Stop Believing with the RIAA gone, though?

    13. Re:Can we at least hope... by Squirmy+McPhee · · Score: 2, Informative

      mp3 downloading almost certainly *could* kill CD sales in 5-10 years.

      So what? People don't exist to support business, people choose the businesses they wish to support on the basis of which ones provide what they want at a price they're willing to pay. Businesses that can't do that receive no support and, well, go out of business. After all, do you buy milk just to support the dairy industry? I doubt it. If bands still make music and people still have a means to access it then why should anybody care whether it's provided by a record company or by somebody else?

      So an illegal practice is threatening their business, and they should react by enhancing their product at much more cost to themselves?

      First off, the government cannot punish you for copyright infringement, it only greases the wheels for copyright holders to collect damages from infringers. That makes it unlawful, not illegal. It might seem like a quibble, but it's something that any business that bases its income on copyrighted material must be mindful of since it means the government won't foot the bill for pursuing infringers. It is a financial risk like any other. That doesn't excuse piracy, of course, but this has been a fact of life in the music business for literally hundreds of years. Thus far, the industry has always found ways to adapt to or account for changes in technology, and when it stops being able to do that it will die.

      Second, it is not at all clear that this practice is hurting their business. Music sales are down, sure, and there are studies suggesting that piracy has played a role in that. However, there are also studies suggesting that piracy has not played a role in the decline, and there are a lot of other reasons that might explain it: the popularity of other activities like video gaming and the internet, lack of quality music, the poor economy, and the RIAA lawsuits, just to name a few. In addition, several record executives have worried publicly that the popularity of legal downloads is hurting their business, since a lot of people are now spending $0.99 to buy one track instead of $15 for the whole CD. Finally, there is also anecdotal evidence that piracy has actually increased sales, though I'm not aware of any published studies that make that claim.

      In the end, it all comes back to offering people a product they want at a price they're willing to pay. Period. Internet downloads, legal or otherwise, and a growing number of established and unknown musicians have reduced the price people are willing to pay for recorded music. Why should that be my problem?

      For the record, I've never knowingly downloaded music illegally, but thanks in large part to the RIAA's lawsuits and the prevalence of DRM I've pared my CD-buying habit down from about two per week to about 2 per year (new music has sucked in recent years, but there's a huge back catalog of stuff I want so that hasn't really been a factor). Now that legal, DRM-free downloads are becoming more widely available I might add a few singles to that total, but I alone have reduced the RIAA's sales by about 200 CDs per year without pirating a single thing. Data is not the plural of anecdote, I know, but still....

    14. Re:Can we at least hope... by aurispector · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, I didn't. You even quote me stating that "I would take it one step further...", i.e., *beyond* the points made in TFA.

      Anyone who listens to the mp3's are potential customers. Share it and another potential customer hears the song. Repeat several thousand times and you have bona fide "buzz". Someone will buy the disk, go to the show, whatever. Money is made.

      How about this: If I distribute mp3's over the internet, the record companies should pay ME for helping to advertise and distribute their content. How's that?

      --
      I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
    15. Re:Can we at least hope... by aurispector · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I just read an article about some author (I wish I could remember his name) who made his latest work available in its entirety for free from his website at the time of publication. Basically, the book sold better than expected because more people got to see it.

      You are making exactly the same arguments as the RIAA regarding "lost sales". By your argument borrowing a book from a library is theft. Copyright law as it is currently being interpreted by the RIAA and MPAA fails to recognize the intrinsic value of the propagation of culture. Besides, the "law of supply and demand" works regardless of legality. If YOU make your work available for free from your own website you could generate advertising revenue from traffic AND completely negate any need for piracy in the first place. If I liked your work I would probably purchase hard copies and have done exactly that in the past for books, films, music AND games. Personally I feel the purchased versions to be a better value.

      Equating piracy with theft on a one for one basis is bad business; all you do is piss people off and those people are your customers.

      --
      I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
    16. Re:Can we at least hope... by SpiderClan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We can't all be rock stars. The bands who can't create something that people are willing to pay for will either fade away, or do it because they want to, which is the way it should be, anyway.

    17. Re:Can we at least hope... by rohan972 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "Look, I understand your point, but you should reevaluate the copying = stealing line."
      I don't think so - not because you didn't raise a point - you raised a couple of good ones. The problem is that there are people who would use that as a justification for feeling entitled to rip off whatever they want, regardless of if they are putting somebody into bankruptcy in the process, and the counterpoint needs to be made.
      If that is "the problem" then yes, you should reevaluate it. Consider that rape is not theft, yet I have never heard anyone use that as a justification for rape.

      The idea that copyright infringement is theft is unnecessary to the concept of copyright infringement being wrong or undesirable. If you were to argue: "There are some benefits and costs to the various positions on copyright, but on balance, because of X, Y and Z, society will benefit more from strong copyright protection and infringement of those rights is wrong" it is much more difficult to refute. If you argue that copying = stealing it is very easy to refute and therefore weakens your arguement overall.

      Personally, I think there is a very good case to be made that copyright infringement costs society more than it provides benefits. "Copying = theft" is not a part of it. Essentially, trying to equate copying and theft is making an emotional appeal rather than a logical one. It is trying to use people's objection to theft to persuade them against something which is not theft. If you want the basis of a sound logical arguement, you could start by stating that we could:
      ... promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries

      Keeping in mind that the author of these words, Thomas Jefferson, also said:

      Books constitute capital. A library book lasts as long as a house, for hundreds of years. It is not, then, an article of mere consumption but fairly of capital, and often in the case of professional men, setting out in life, it is their only capital.

      If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it.

      Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from any body.

      Laws, moreover, abridging the natural right of the citizen, should be restrained by rigorous constructions within their narrowest limits.

      http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/t/thomas_jefferson.html
      http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl220.htm
      --
      http://marriedmansexlife.com/
  2. There is a difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the Mafia has morals and a culture of respect

  3. The biggest difference by kpainter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The RIAA doesn't have a cool theme song. And they wouldn't have to pay royalties if they did.

    1. Re:The biggest difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      The RIAA doesn't have a cool theme song.

      No surprise. Where are they gonna find good music?

  4. Wait a minute... by OldFish · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The RIAA has the law on their side so aren't they more like "The Untouchables" ???

    1. Re:Wait a minute... by OldFish · · Score: 4, Funny

      The Untouchables is out !?!?!?! I'm shocked... Would you believe "Serpico" ???? I'm afraid not Mr Smart. How about an angry Boy Scout?

    2. Re:Wait a minute... by UnknowingFool · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The RIAA is well within their rights to pursue people they think have infringed on their copyrights. But they have to follow court procedures and the law when pursuing their rights. They have to file separate lawsuits for each defendant. They have to make sure that the person they are suing is the correct person. When they make mistakes, they should be diligent about dismissing. It seems apparent that they don't care.

      That is why Tanya Andersen is seeking class action status. She was innocent. She tried reasoning with the and offered them her computer to inspect. Even when they inspected her computer and found nothing, they still tried to push her to pay and hinted that they might pursue her 9 year old daughter. It wasn't until 2 years after the start of the suit when they had to produce evidence to the judge did they finally dismiss:

      Copyright holders generally, and these plaintiffs specifically, should be deterred from prosecuting infringement claims as plaintiffs did in this case. Plaintiffs exerted a significant amount of control over the course of discovery, repeatedly and successfully seeking the court's assistance through an unusually extended and contentious period of discovery disputes. Nonetheless, after ample opportunity to develop their claims, they dismissed them at the point they were required to produce evidence for the court's consideration of the merits.
      --Hon. Donald C. Ashmanskas, Atlantic v. Andersen
      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  5. Any ordinary trust by Hojima · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Nearly as bad doesn't cut it. As much as I agree that they're bastards, these guys don't kill for profit (probably because it's not worth the hassle anyways), sell harmful products, torture people, etc. Handling mobsters and handling major trust figures have some differences and similarities. One thing they have in common is that you can fix the problem quite efficiently by catching them in some horrid act and successfully convict them. But given that they are a trust, treat them like Microsoft and split them. The government is one of the few forces powerful enough to take them on, and if normal civilians get together and make a campaign against them, there is a chance that you will have a fair fight in the courtrooms. The only trouble here is motivation, and these bastards simply have to piss more people off before anything like that has a chance of succeeding. But it looks like they're on their way.

    --
    Help fight spam
    1. Re:Any ordinary trust by rozthepimp · · Score: 5, Funny

      "these guys don't.... sell harmful products, torture people, etc." You forgot about Rap.

    2. Re:Any ordinary trust by RulerOf · · Score: 3, Informative

      these guys don't kill for profit (probably because it's not worth the hassle anyways), sell harmful products, torture people, etc.
      No, they don't. RIAA is much less forgiving. Rather than shooting you in the back of the head for something you probably knew you had coming to you, they'd rather hit you with a life-destroying $222,000 settlement for something you were capable of doing, and watch your life fall apart around you.

      At least the classic mafia deserves respect.
      --
      Boot Windows, Linux, and ESX over the network for free.
    3. Re:Any ordinary trust by Bombula · · Score: 4, Insightful
      these guys don't kill for profit

      Well it depends on how you define "kill for profit." If you mean kill with a GLOC or a piano wire, then no, most monopolized industries don't kill for profit. But if you account for deaths that the company (or group of companies) could have prevented either through action or inaction but didn't expressly for the purpose of profit then I think you're actually out on very thin ice here. The monolithic pharmaceutical and health insurance companies knowingly "kill" thousands of people each year for profit. The manufacturers of cigarettes knowingly "kill" millions of people each year for profit. If you brought these charges up in court, it'd be 'wrongful death' instead of 'murder', but killing is killing and dead is dead as far as most people are concerned.

      --
      A-Bomb
    4. Re:Any ordinary trust by Atlantis-Rising · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'll point out it was a jury who returned that verdict, and jurors in the case have repeatedly pointed out that the reason they ruled the way they did was because they felt the defendant was lying to them and the Court in her own defense.

      --
      "It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
    5. Re:Any ordinary trust by owlnation · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As much as I agree that they're bastards, these guys don't kill for profit (probably because it's not worth the hassle anyways)
      Not so sure that's exactly true:
      1. Rock and roll is full of suicides and accidental deaths -- the Record companies have an indirect role in some of those.
      2. The sweatshops where CDs are made, or where tapes were once made, or where records were once made - ill health and poverty surely killed a few in those.
      3. Sony BMG. BMG is Bertelsmann. Bertelsmann were Nazis. They banned unGerman music, they used death camp labor in Auschwitz and other camps. BMG tried to cover this up for DECADES. It was only in the past few years or so that it came out.
      4. The whole Godfather/Sinatra thing.
      5. Finally, the music business is big money. They have proven time and time again to have no morals whatsoever. Do you really, honestly, doubt that a few people haven't been "disappeared" who got in their way?
    6. Re:Any ordinary trust by bzipitidoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually, they do torture people. Mental torture. It's harsh having your dream of graduating from college being held hostage over allegations of what is really a petty infraction-- allegations that don't need to be substantiated to a high standard because the crime is too petty. The punishments are what's totally out of whack, and opened the door for all this. I'm not talking just being forced to drop out for lack of money after having to pay some exorbitant fine, I'm talking punitive expulsion for allegedly violating the law. Being railroaded. I don't know for sure but this is what I'm guessing expulsion means: You're finished at the university level. You lose all credit for all coursework you've completed. If you can get back in at all, which is doubtful with a black mark like that on your record, you'll be starting over. Colleges don't like to admit or keep the sort of people who've been caught at things such as plagiarism, cheating on exams, and the like. If you decide to try to get on with life, you'll have a rough time getting jobs with only a high school diploma, and a record that is effectively criminal. Employers don't want to hire dishonest people. The MAFIAA wants its victims to be sweating over all those possibilities. Mental torture. Paying a $3000 settlement, even if the money has to be borrowed from a loan shark, begins to look like a real good idea when faced with all those alternatives. None of this is in the cards over a speeding ticket, which is arguably a more serious crime as that can put people in danger.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
  6. Laws by Wowsers · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The difference between the mafia and RIAA is that the RIAA (and MPAA) have had laws passed for their benefit to screw the public (for example, you're not supposed to reverse engineer / break DRM etc.).

    --
    Take Nobody's Word For It.
    1. Re:Laws by Scrameustache · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The difference between the mafia and RIAA is that the RIAA (and MPAA) have had laws passed for their benefit to screw the public (for example, you're not supposed to reverse engineer / break DRM etc.). A black market needs laws to keep stuff illegal so it can run...
      Gambling, prostitution, drugs, those profitable activities are controlled by organized crime.
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

  7. Ooooohh ... by gstoddart · · Score: 2, Funny

    They're so gonna bust his knee-caps over this. Maybe send Pauly Walnuts to knock him around. :-P

    Cheers

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  8. you could compare the riaa to sharia law by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Interesting

    that is, that punishing a crime, real or perceived, with a punishment that is worse than the crime is not actually justice or morality

    upload a song, owe thousands may not be as awful as steal some bread, have your hand chopped off, or commit adultery, get stoned to death, but the riaa's tactics shares with religious fundamentalist notions of justice this same disproportionate massive punishment for comparatively mild crimes

    it's very simple: you don't teach anyone to respect morality with fear and terror. you just teach them that fear and terror are more important than morality

    they need to learn that lesson in rural yemen as much as they do in riaa headquarters

    a truly just society is one that metes out punishments that are milder than the actual crimes being punished (but not too mild, just milder). in such a way does a society provide stability and a respect for justice. if the punishments are too severe or too mild in comparison to the crimes, then justice is disrespected, not served, and society is destabilized and impoverished as a result

    the impoverishments under religious fundamentalism are apparent. the impoverishments unde rriaa tactics are simply less cultural riches for us all

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  9. I don't know by pembo13 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Soprano family seemed pretty human to me. Aside from the greed factor, I don't see that much humanity seeping from the RIAA.

    --
    "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
  10. RIAA... by xtracto · · Score: 4, Funny

    Since 1999, making you an offer you can't refuse.

    --
    Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
  11. MAFIAA Acronym by ndrw · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So it's the Music and Film Industry Asociation of America?

    While I agree that their tactics are ridiculous, to compare them to a criminal organization whose actions include murder, drug dealing, burglary, kidnapping, arson, and other felonious crimes is ridiculous - it doesn't advance the debate, it distracts from it!

    1. Re:MAFIAA Acronym by zappepcs · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nice thought, but you missed the turn off back in the alphabet somewhere around CIA/FBI. The MaFIAA might have the law on their side as opposed to the real mafia not having the law on their side, but the law (represented here today by the FBI/CIA) are no better than the mafia you describe. Can you say drugs for guns Contra scandal? Can you say hyperlink entrapment http://pedowar.com/view/755#1, swat team arrests for non-violent criminals, tasers, and plenty of other examples of the 'good guys' acting like bad guys 'because they can' and because the MaFIAA need/want them to. Why are federal agents involved in civil lawsuit arrests? http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&output=googleabout&btnG=Search+our+site&q=federal%20agents%20RIAA%20arrests There are those here that can say "oh, the **AA are not doing anything illegal" and I will reply back "show me how they are doing anything legal or moral with regard to copyright infringement?"

      You make fine distinctions about what is good/right and what is not. Technically, you might be right. Morally, you are wrong. They use non-criminal organizations to do their dirty work and ruin plenty of lives. They use organizations that support and partake in the crimes you condemn. Guilt by association? Yes. Bad laws are worse than no laws, and those that enforce bad laws are worse than those who break them. Long before "We the people" stand up together and say NO more, there will have to be those of us who say it first.

      War criminals are told that 'following orders' is not an excuse for doing bad things. The grueling financial and moral beating that defendants are taking from the good guys on behalf of the **AA is immoral. Following orders is not an excuse. The bad guys have always taken advantage of the legal system whenever possible. Someone mentioned the Untouchables earlier. They made their name by nabbing gangsters for things like tax evasion rather than the crimes they were really wanted for. Yes, the bad guys DO abuse the system and use it against good people. It is not ridiculous to think of the **AA's tactics as mafia like or to liken them to the mafia. The mafia does not kill everyone they come in contact with, nor do they sell drugs to everyone that they see. Extortion is one of their businesses, they are famous for it. So it **IS** a fair comparison and your statements otherwise are what distracts from the debate.

      You might have a stronger case if the **AA had disbursed some of the money they won through extortion like pre-litigation back to the artists. It's been 6 years plus and not a dime has gone to any artist. Even the artists are shouting they want to sue the **AA. [google it]

      There is at this point, not one reason to feel sorry for the **AA or support them. They have already spent all their good will and continue to use mafia like tactics to push the law onto their side so they can oppressively enforce their business model on the population of the world, not just one country. It takes government collusion to force it on such a large part of the world. With the obviousness of that, how you can think of the **AA as anything different from the real mafia is beyond me. Different tactics don't make them better, just slightly different.

      --
      Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
    2. Re:MAFIAA Acronym by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 2, Informative

      The MaFIAA might have the law on their side as opposed to the real mafia not having the law on their side..... I wouldn't be so sure about that. See, e.g., Elektra v. O'Brien, Atlantic v. Brennan, Interscope v. Rodriguez, and other decisions listed in my sidebar.
      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
  12. The reason they seem the same, is because they are by ahabswhale · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I have an uncle who has a sizable fortune and decided after he retired that he might want to get into producing music. To his dismay, he found the industry laden with actual mob men. He ended up quitting the business and this is a guy who doesn't quit anything when it comes to business stuff unless he's damn good and ready. Granted, this was 15 years ago but I doubt those people all just packed up their bags and left such a lucrative industry. So, it's no surprise to me that the RIAA uses the exact same tactics the mob uses because the industry is littered with those people.

    --
    Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
  13. Business is Business by Rary · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The mob is just a business like any other. Every business-person makes their own decision regarding how immoral/illegal they're willing to act in order to make a profit. Some stop just past shady insider trading practices, others go all the way past fraudulent accounting, while others still go all the way to violent crimes, either explicitly or implicitly.

    The RIAA and MPAA fall somewhere between Enron (and their ilk) and the diamond industry (probably leaning closer to the Enron side), but certainly with a number of mob-style tactics thrown in, without going all the way to actual violence.

    --

    "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein

  14. Re:hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    You're right they don't kill people, they just bankrupt them, destroy their chances of a good education, ruin their standing in the community and show total lack of respect for the person/persons they're going after and THEY ENJOY EVERY BIT OF IT, MORON.

  15. P2P growth going underground by Skapare · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Lamy of the RIAA said peer-to-peer traffic is "essentially flat."

    That's because so much of the traffic is moving to methods that evade the ability for the RIAA to see what is going on. More and more P2P is taking place within smaller groups that are harder to join (you have to be nominated and voted in to get access). That traffic is also encrypted, so no one along the sidelines can even see what it is. One group I heard of has rented a dedicated server of their own (so I guess they have dues to be a member to pay for it) and they access it via SSH and store files in a big "world" writable directory. If I were going to do that, I'd also keep the files therein encrypted just to be safe from the ISP. It wouldn't take more than about 20 people to get a big server at $5 a month each. They don't even need a domain name. What they do need is a few people that are also members of other such groups to provide a linkage. There have been porn trading groups like this for years. So I guess the P2P crowd is finally catching on to what the porn people learned a long time ago.

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  16. Protection money paid.... by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    by Ohio University. Ohio University in Athens, Ohio, was the number one target of the RIAA. Until, that is, it paid $60,000 plus $16,000 a year for the 'filtering' software its expert witness's company was peddling -- then suddenly the subpoenas stopped. Not a single subpoena since Ohio University started paying off the mob.

    --
    Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
  17. Re:hmmm by AngryUndead · · Score: 2, Informative

    Actually, if you look at some of the episodes of The Sopranos, they talk about the music industry pre-RIAA and a lot of the strong arming and other tactics that went on.

    The difference is that at some point these organizations came together and found that they got less flak if they didn't kill people and just took them to court and ruined their lives. It also turned out to be better for business.

    Its just business, if it was less trouble for the Mafia to take people to court, they would. They (as an organization) don't like or want to kill. Dead people don't pay debts very well (see paragraph above).

    So, in closing (and to be clear): The only reason the RIAA does not kill people is because it would not make them more money, not because it is morally wrong.

    --
    I wear the ring.
  18. Re:hmmm by croddy · · Score: 4, Funny

    And if you think doing all that stuff to their musicians is bad -- man, wait until you see what they do to their P2P lawsuit victims.

  19. Re:Relativism by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The RIAA are EXACTLY like the mafia! Because they assault and kill people! Except they, uh...don't.

    Nope. They send the Sheriff to do it for them.

    Sue you.
    Bankrupt you.
    Send the law to seize your assets.
    You get evicted.
    If you try to stay the sheriff's men will throw you out.
    If you try to resist them they'll use as much force as necessary - including deadly force if your resistance appears to be a threat to them.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  20. Solves one mystery by LittleGuy · · Score: 3, Funny

    Last shot of the series finale had Tony looking up before it went to black.

    Happens to be an RIAA enforcer handing a summons for unauthorized downloads of Journey songs.

    --
    Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
  21. is there anybody else? by mapkinase · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I am still seeing people seriously discussing "mafiaa" association skymodded. I guess I am in the minority then.

    Why is this association (RIAA - organized crime, criminals, etc.) stupid? I feel really stupid seriously considering this myself, but I guess I have to:

    1. Organized crime deals mostly with illegitimate business, RIAA deals with a legit business.
    2. Organized crime kills and maimes people, RIAA sues them for vast sums of money.
    3. This association with its stupid accent on emotionality drives away from the real problems with RIAA. It is bloody not working!

    The real problem is:

    Why are you keep buying and listening to the stuff written by the people who are enslaved by RIAA? It is like buying sweatshop sweaters, except that in this case it's not sweatshops, but sweetshops - every artists dreams of being signed by the major label.

    Why are you so addicted to this stuff anyway? Why do you have to listen every day to a new single or watch new movie? Have a life! The real reason why this thing is so bloated is stupid inability of recent consumer generation to act creatively and to entertain themselves. Buy a Guitar Hero and play yourself. Make music yourself, make videos yourself, make movies yourself. Listen and watch what other people like you did on youtube or in any other free, unlimited way... Why do you have to go down to the rock bottom of coach-potato entertainment where you do absolutely nothing and only consume entertaining stuff? This is not good for you, do you realize it?

    Get on with your lives. Entertain yourself actively. Create yourself. You do not have to watch latest terminator movie ahead of time on torrents in order to create your own stuff.

    It is more difficult but much more rewarding when you get appreciation of your family, of your friends, of your peers, of your social network, when you see your 5-digit number of views on youtube.com /rant

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  22. You Are Forgetting Front Companies. by Hypewise · · Score: 2, Interesting

    An RIAA/IFPI agent (iMesh) is actually pirating a GPL'd project on their behalf by threats and extortion.
    Check the ongoing Shareaza P2P travesty, http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/08/02/26/102239.shtml

    iMesh represents the record companies' interests in P2P and has been building a 'marketplace' monopoly using RIAA lawsuits to 'kill' the competition. The chairman Robet Summer was RIAA president, IFPI board member for 'piracy,' and head of Sony 'Rootkit' Records. He got $30 million (and a convenient RIAA suit) to buy out Bearshare before, and is going after Shareaza now. Using friends at the French RIAA (SPPF) and the new custom "Vivendi-Universal Amendment" to sue some American kid $2.5 million for the domain name.

    And then use their copyrighted material, file for their trademark, delete their software, and have lawyers riteously threaten them for being in the way.
    Oh, but the money laundering goes from an empty Cyprus front company through several continents on the way to the RIAA.

  23. Re:Change is needed by Technician · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's wouldn't OR couldn't. For example, I would love to have a copy of Photshop CS 3. It is $650 [adobe.com]. I could afford that but would never spend that much money on it (i.e. I wouldn't ever buy it at that price). So, if I pirate it they have not lost a sale to me.

    I used to think that way when it was either PC DOS or MS DOS. I have since changed my ways for the better. There are several advantages. This supports monopolistic providers. It eliminates market competition and produces a monoculture.

    I was faced with the Photoshop issue and resolved to find an alternative when the BSA started making noise. When they started getting really nasty, I knew it was time to comply with their demands while at the same time not supporting them in a free market. I bought a digital camera which came bundled with ArcSoft's photo editor. It did the touch-up stuff I needed to do including cropping, red eye removal, and changing the resolution for a web page. It was legal and did the job. Now I am an avid Gimp user.

    My photo editing has been followed by OS choice, Office suite choice and other choices. The end result is now instead of insanely priced monopoly products, the market is filled with viable alternatives with few exceptions. As the alternatives grow, the high priced stuff retires or is repriced into more attractive price points. For example, have you seen the price for PhotoShop Elements? They are still trying to hold on to the cash cow, but it is being eroded, not by piracy, but by the competition. MS is having the same problem with buggy Vista, OSX and Ubuntu. MS Office and Open Office, etc.

    Don't pirate and support the monopoly vendor's products. Use the alternatives and make a rich field of usable products.

    When I first got into stage lighting, I loved the demo of Martin's Procenieum. At $2500 a copy, it was out of the question. It is now NLA for good reason. Instead I use FreeStyler with a $60 USB interface.

    http://www.digimedia-mls.com/dmxplus/ This died with Windows 95. At a good price point, this could have grown into a great product. The clones ate it for lunch.

    http://users.pandora.be/freestylerdmx/ Freestyler Rocks and is free.

    http://www.dmxcontrol.de/joomla/?lang=en DMX control another freeware console rocks, but has some language translation problems.

    Manolator is a pared down version of Procenium that also rocks. A lightshow on a DMX lighting system instead of buying the Lights-o-Rama package is possible if you already have DMX dimmers. Load up your song in Winamp, set the events to time to the music and rock on. This also uses inexpensive interfaces or you can build your own.

    http://www.freedmx.com/

    An here is a free drop-in replacement for the $2500 software. Nice easy to use console. Free....
    http://www.chromakinetics.com/DMX/StageConsole.html#screenshot Screenshot.. Requires giving an email address to receive.
    http://www.chromakinetics.com/DMX/StageConsole.html

    Avoiding piracy and shopping for good alternatives is legal and sticks the high prices right where it counts.
    Overpriced simple software quickly becomes surrounded by clones.
    If you want a full featured DMX software desk, there are many packages from about $200 to several grand. Only spend the money if the competition won't do the job. Don't pirate it.

    --
    The truth shall set you free!