I'll admit, what I do know of the RIAA is they are extremely heavy handed, so much so that it's entirely possible that innocents are wrapped up in their vendetta. They are sloppy, thuggish, and an out right bully. What can they do? What would you do, just start giving away that which you make your living on? Is that the answer? Is that what everyone wants? I don't pirate music either - that's not the issue.
You've pretty much summed it up yourself. It's not just the fact they're going after music piracy - the problem is they're going after people with sketchy 'evidence', trying to manipulate the legal system to their advantage.
They use their legal might to bully people into settling out of court [who may not have even pirated anything!] This is extortion, plain and simple.
Even in cases where piracy is legitimately happening, the fine is often far higher than it should realistically be, given the transgression. To be sued nearly a quarter-million dollars for two dozen pirated songs is simply ludicrous.
I still don't think people should have to beg forgiveness in perpituity for a single crime, though. When the whole piracy thing began, Metallica was one of the bands who didn't just happen to be on a major label, but they were also on the front lines of the piracy witchhunt. Lars himself was among the first to condemn file-sharing.
Considering their roots, this was a pretty blasphemous act to their fans. Metallica was a band that really rose to the top without a great deal of assistance from the major label promotional machine. They had legions of followers early on with very little radio airplay, and no music videos at all.
After years of being one the primary voices of opposition to file-sharing, we're not just going to forgive them for their past transgressions. Especially considering I doubt they're changing their tune for the right reasons - they just see that self-distribution can be profitable. It's not about them 'seeing the light', and returning to some 'earlier innocence'.
I'm not asking them to beg for forgiveness, because personally - I WON'T FORGIVE THEM. They can save their breath.
While we do want to show a new system can work, we also want to show that if you step on people on the way up, they're probably going to hang you out to dry on the way down. I think in Metallica's case, that's the more important lesson that needs to be taught here.
We're under no obligation to financially support them. It's a free country, afterall.
At the same time, if you're trying to push that viewpoint to the masses as the way music should be, would it not be pragmatic to support them? There's still a major problem.
Assuming we can forgive them for their previous sins (which isn't happening, for me at least), there's also the issue that they haven't made a decent album in a long time.
Let me summarize their problem in two words ----> BOB ROCK.
Lets take the best case scenario and say this class action lawsuit ends up being 100% successful and destroys the RIAA. The record labels behind the organization will simply dissolve it, like a snake shedding old skin. The next day a new association will spring up, using new devious tactics for the next 10 years before they too are finally ousted, and so on. Until Sony, Universal, EMI and Warner are held accountable for the actions of the RIAA this won't change. Right, so you kill the snake. Starve it until it shrivels up and dies.
This means BOYCOTT their product. Don't buy it. Don't pirate it. Don't LISTEN to it.
Will people actually do this? No - because most people are wimps. The rebellious spirit that founded this country has been dead and buried for a long time.
There's also the matter of exposure. Think about it - how long can you go in any given day without hearing a song by a major record label artist? They're on television. They're in commercials. They're used in sporting events, video games, movie soundtracks. Heck - you can't even turn on the news without hearing about pop stars. You walk down the street, and the music is frequently played outside. It's pumped into stores you may be shopping at. Of course, there's also the pop-music-infested internet. (Take Last FM, for instance - I can't go thirty seconds there without seeing some inane banner advertisement for a pop star.)
I think the other half of the battle is somehow snuffing out this exposure, which is an uphill battle, to say the least. (It has to be done one television and radio at a time, I guess.)
Can you imagine the drain on their financial and manpower resources if the RIAA suddenly found itself on the receiving end of 15,000 suits in 20 countries? Another way to financially harm the RIAA is to stop purchasing music from the labels that comprise them. Sadly, for all the 'outrage' over the actions of groups like this, who actually gets off their butt and boycotts the parent labels?
Don't just stop there - do everything you can to reduce exposure for their artists. Shut off television sets playing music videos. Unplug radios playing their music. Flip over their CDs in music stores, or hide them behind other discs. Get your friends hooked on independent bands.... and last, but not least, MOD them to holy hell online!
Just think of all the spots on the internet where the big four try and promote their wares - many of those places have ratings systems. Take Youtube, for instance. Universal Music Group in particular posts a ton of music videos over there. Each of those videos you can rate between one star and five stars. Imagine if the entire Slashdot community were to descend upon Youtube and give all UMG videos the minimum rating.
Would it change the world? Probably not.
Could it potentially mess with their Youtube video ratings? You bet.
Here's a link to the Universal Music Group channel on Youtube:
I trust Comcast in coming up with a P2P bill of rights about as much as I trust the fox in coming up with stipulations for how close it can legally get to the henhouse.
LEGISLATE IT.
Do not trust these slimeballs to police themselves.
The correct way to fight the RIAA is to give them EXACTLY what they want. It's about time people really started hitting the big four where it hurts - in the wallet.
Boycott all of the big label music. ALL OF IT. Don't buy it nor listen to it.
The problem with society nowadays is people will complain about something, yet most won't get off their butts and do anything about it. As much as I hate to say this (and at risk of sounding trollish), I think modern civilization is largely comprised of a bunch of spineless wusses. (Before I get ripped to shreds, I don't think every last person fits this description, but more than enough do.)
Do you honestly think the RIAA would have gotten away with stunts like this decades ago? Centuries ago?
I think if they existed in medieval times, an angry mob would have burnt them all at the stake by now.
I don't think accessibility laws apply here, since we're not dealing with a physical space. I see it more like a print medium.
A magazine publisher has an option of what fonts/layouts it chooses with its magazine. They can choose to make versions of their magazine more friendly to people who are visually-impaired. (Readers Digest does this.)
However, they're not forced to do this. I think it should be the exact same way with websites. I could see a government site perhaps being required to offer substitute pages that are more easily navigable for the visually-impaired, but that's the exception, and not the rule, as far as I'm concerned.
(Before anybody thinks I'm somebody with 20/20 vision who is insensitive to people with visual limitations, I want to point out my vision is pretty horrid and getting worse. I've been stuck behind glasses since I was six and have retinal damage in one eye.)
They're not suing for a significant amount of money. I thought it was about $25,000.
I think the easy solution is to remove the images, and then try and talk the lawsuit value down.
The family is in the right to sue in this case, and I honestly think Google is going get more of these suits going forward. The pictures are very high resolution, and make the standard Google Earth resolution seem extremely tame in comparison.
Don't get me wrong - it's a really cool idea, and there's a certain charm in being able to 'walk down streets' in a virtual setting, but it's definitely going to rub some people the wrong way.
We still haven't even gotten to the OTHER kind of lawsuit that may stem from these high-resolution shots. (That would be the "I'm a guy walking out of a strip club and Google caught me on camera, and now my wife knows what a dirty pervert I am" lawsuit.)
You can do reverse phone lookups without google. I've done it several times. Strange number on my cellphone, look it up. Shows you the name and address. I'm aware of that, but this actually lets you do a phone lookup, pull up the address on Google Maps, and then get a panoramic hi-resolution view of the location.
The only thing Google can really say in its defense is it's not a current image - I know they had done it in my neighborhood last summer.
However, to a stalker, it might as well be a wet dream, for crying out loud. If you wanted to abduct somebody, this would allow you to do recon without even having to leave your chair.
If people can opt out of having their phone number listed in the phonebook, it would make sense that they should be able to opt out of having their house image viewable online for all to see.
I just love it when people grab any occasion to try to sue as much money as they can from large (and rich) companies, no matter how ridiculous it sounds. A chance these companies also have dozens of lawyers for whenever that happens. This is more than just a McDonalds 'hot coffee' sort of lawsuit.
I saw this one coming from a mile away.
The level of detail is incredible. A co-worker had mine had typed her phone number into Google, and from there it let her pull up an image of the front of her house. She could even read the license plate off her car. (It's also a full panoramic view - you can spin the mouse and see in all directions.)
It's a -fascinating- idea that Google has come up with, but there's definitely serious room for abuse here.
I'd contemplate spending $15 on a disc, but it better be the best damn disc I've ever heard.
Does that happen often with stuff on the RIAA-affiliated labels? NO. The majority of it is pretty crappy.
In fact, even if the RIAA labels managed to put out something high-quality, I still wouldn't buy it at this point. I'm pretty pissed with them right now over their blatant abuse of the court system. (I haven't bought a CD from a major record label in at least a year.)
However, what I said above still applies for the independent labels.
It's similar to independent comic books. They often have higher price tags due to smaller print runs. If it's a very high quality comic book, I'm still willing to pay the higher price in some cases. (Unfortunately, you also have cases where they'll try and sell you the sixteen page BW 'preview' book for $3.99, which is highway robbery.)
Another possibility - you could bury landmines near your cubicle to thwart any potential thieves. How? By digging through concrete with a spade? ------
Nah, that would just be silly.
I would just covertly hide it under the office carpeting..
One suggestion they often make at my office for laptop users who work in cubicles is to take the laptop home with them.
Of course, this depends on your security at home - you have to ask yourself if your home is more secure than your cubicle, and could the laptop possibly get lost in transit?
Another possibility - you could bury landmines near your cubicle to thwart any potential thieves. (You want the sort of landmine that you can deactivate during the day, though - I think you can purchase them on eBay.)
I have not locked the door to my office in years. People leave their child's fund raising goodies out on tables and you just put the money you're supposed to in the envelope if you take something.
Where do you work that people are stealing stuff all the time?
Or are you just mega-paranoid?
It's not paranoia - for many industries, it's a legal requirement.
Even when it's not legally required, it's often still good business sense. While the likelihood of robbery is low, in some industries, the ramifications of losing a laptop are so great, that the excessive security is still needed. (It's not always the laptop itself, but what is contained on it.)
Many corporations that have sensitive data tell their employees point-blank: DO NOT SAVE IT TO THE LOCAL DRIVE OF THE LAPTOP. However, it's not foolproof - sometimes the information can end up on the laptop whether employees realize it or not. (Those lousy cache files, for instance..)
I think the artists who are 'getting it' are beginning to see the albums as a promotional tool for revenue elsewhere, rather than the source of the revenue stream.
The artists who are 'getting it' realize there are other routes to song exposure than merely radio. Allowing your music to be used sans royalties opens up an entire spectrum of possible forms of exposure. Podcasts, video games, independent movie soundtracks, low budget Youtube videos, etc..
At this point, the impeachment is primarily symbolic. This is the best time to do it, since if Bush gets kicked out of office, we're not stuck with Cheney for a long period of time.
Bush -definitely- needs the scar on his record. You figure - Clinton got an impeachment over much less.
Slashdot Mirror
You've pretty much summed it up yourself. It's not just the fact they're going after music piracy - the problem is they're going after people with sketchy 'evidence', trying to manipulate the legal system to their advantage.
They use their legal might to bully people into settling out of court [who may not have even pirated anything!] This is extortion, plain and simple.
Even in cases where piracy is legitimately happening, the fine is often far higher than it should realistically be, given the transgression. To be sued nearly a quarter-million dollars for two dozen pirated songs is simply ludicrous.
Considering their roots, this was a pretty blasphemous act to their fans. Metallica was a band that really rose to the top without a great deal of assistance from the major label promotional machine. They had legions of followers early on with very little radio airplay, and no music videos at all.
After years of being one the primary voices of opposition to file-sharing, we're not just going to forgive them for their past transgressions. Especially considering I doubt they're changing their tune for the right reasons - they just see that self-distribution can be profitable. It's not about them 'seeing the light', and returning to some 'earlier innocence'.
I'm not asking them to beg for forgiveness, because personally - I WON'T FORGIVE THEM. They can save their breath.
While we do want to show a new system can work, we also want to show that if you step on people on the way up, they're probably going to hang you out to dry on the way down. I think in Metallica's case, that's the more important lesson that needs to be taught here.
We're under no obligation to financially support them. It's a free country, afterall.
Assuming we can forgive them for their previous sins (which isn't happening, for me at least), there's also the issue that they haven't made a decent album in a long time.
Let me summarize their problem in two words ----> BOB ROCK.
No way.
They were one of the first bands to bellyache about pirated music. Lars cried a river over the issue.
They fell from grace, and kept right on falling.
They can rot in hell for all I care. I'll never buy, download, or listen to another Metallica album again.
This means BOYCOTT their product. Don't buy it. Don't pirate it. Don't LISTEN to it.
Will people actually do this? No - because most people are wimps. The rebellious spirit that founded this country has been dead and buried for a long time.
There's also the matter of exposure. Think about it - how long can you go in any given day without hearing a song by a major record label artist? They're on television. They're in commercials. They're used in sporting events, video games, movie soundtracks. Heck - you can't even turn on the news without hearing about pop stars. You walk down the street, and the music is frequently played outside. It's pumped into stores you may be shopping at. Of course, there's also the pop-music-infested internet. (Take Last FM, for instance - I can't go thirty seconds there without seeing some inane banner advertisement for a pop star.)
I think the other half of the battle is somehow snuffing out this exposure, which is an uphill battle, to say the least. (It has to be done one television and radio at a time, I guess.)
Don't just stop there - do everything you can to reduce exposure for their artists. Shut off television sets playing music videos. Unplug radios playing their music. Flip over their CDs in music stores, or hide them behind other discs. Get your friends hooked on independent bands..
Just think of all the spots on the internet where the big four try and promote their wares - many of those places have ratings systems. Take Youtube, for instance. Universal Music Group in particular posts a ton of music videos over there. Each of those videos you can rate between one star and five stars. Imagine if the entire Slashdot community were to descend upon Youtube and give all UMG videos the minimum rating.
Would it change the world? Probably not.
Could it potentially mess with their Youtube video ratings? You bet.
Here's a link to the Universal Music Group channel on Youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/user/universalmusicgroup
That's just one of many major record label channels there.
I trust Comcast in coming up with a P2P bill of rights about as much as I trust the fox in coming up with stipulations for how close it can legally get to the henhouse.
LEGISLATE IT.
Do not trust these slimeballs to police themselves.
The correct way to fight the RIAA is to give them EXACTLY what they want. It's about time people really started hitting the big four where it hurts - in the wallet.
Boycott all of the big label music. ALL OF IT. Don't buy it nor listen to it.
The problem with society nowadays is people will complain about something, yet most won't get off their butts and do anything about it. As much as I hate to say this (and at risk of sounding trollish), I think modern civilization is largely comprised of a bunch of spineless wusses. (Before I get ripped to shreds, I don't think every last person fits this description, but more than enough do.)
Do you honestly think the RIAA would have gotten away with stunts like this decades ago? Centuries ago?
I think if they existed in medieval times, an angry mob would have burnt them all at the stake by now.
I don't think accessibility laws apply here, since we're not dealing with a physical space. I see it more like a print medium.
A magazine publisher has an option of what fonts/layouts it chooses with its magazine. They can choose to make versions of their magazine more friendly to people who are visually-impaired. (Readers Digest does this.)
However, they're not forced to do this. I think it should be the exact same way with websites. I could see a government site perhaps being required to offer substitute pages that are more easily navigable for the visually-impaired, but that's the exception, and not the rule, as far as I'm concerned.
(Before anybody thinks I'm somebody with 20/20 vision who is insensitive to people with visual limitations, I want to point out my vision is pretty horrid and getting worse. I've been stuck behind glasses since I was six and have retinal damage in one eye.)
Easy solution - remove the sticker before selling on eBay.
They're not suing for a significant amount of money. I thought it was about $25,000.
I think the easy solution is to remove the images, and then try and talk the lawsuit value down.
The family is in the right to sue in this case, and I honestly think Google is going get more of these suits going forward. The pictures are very high resolution, and make the standard Google Earth resolution seem extremely tame in comparison.
Don't get me wrong - it's a really cool idea, and there's a certain charm in being able to 'walk down streets' in a virtual setting, but it's definitely going to rub some people the wrong way.
We still haven't even gotten to the OTHER kind of lawsuit that may stem from these high-resolution shots. (That would be the "I'm a guy walking out of a strip club and Google caught me on camera, and now my wife knows what a dirty pervert I am" lawsuit.)
I agree. When possible, don't choose Comcast as an ISP.
Most computer geeks are sick of their antics by now - I generally warn my friends and relatives to steer clear of them.
That's the only way you're going to get these companies to change - you have to hit them in the wallet.
The only thing Google can really say in its defense is it's not a current image - I know they had done it in my neighborhood last summer.
However, to a stalker, it might as well be a wet dream, for crying out loud. If you wanted to abduct somebody, this would allow you to do recon without even having to leave your chair.
If people can opt out of having their phone number listed in the phonebook, it would make sense that they should be able to opt out of having their house image viewable online for all to see.
I saw this one coming from a mile away.
The level of detail is incredible. A co-worker had mine had typed her phone number into Google, and from there it let her pull up an image of the front of her house. She could even read the license plate off her car. (It's also a full panoramic view - you can spin the mouse and see in all directions.)
It's a -fascinating- idea that Google has come up with, but there's definitely serious room for abuse here.
When they get smug about it, it just reminds me why I was boycotting the RIAA-affiliated labels in the first place.
Look at this way:
Each time you purchase a CD from an RIAA label, you're paying the salaries of the jerks who say this sort of thing.
Boycott them all - let their album sales atropy to nothing.
It couldn't happen to a more deserving bunch of corporate slimeballs.
EMI is the closest of the Big Four to 'getting it'.
Unlike Warner, their 'apology' didn't seem like spin-doctored crap.
However, EMI needs to take this to the next level, IMHO.
Yes, their current rhetoric is what we want to hear, but they need to make a bold statement before I stop boycotting their music.
I want to see them remove themselves from the RIAA.
As long as they remain affiliated with those slimeballs, it's going to sabotage everything they say.
Hm - they banned nerf guns, but is there also a ban on chainsaws?
You figure, those work well on zombies too.
I'd contemplate spending $15 on a disc, but it better be the best damn disc I've ever heard.
Does that happen often with stuff on the RIAA-affiliated labels? NO. The majority of it is pretty crappy.
In fact, even if the RIAA labels managed to put out something high-quality, I still wouldn't buy it at this point. I'm pretty pissed with them right now over their blatant abuse of the court system. (I haven't bought a CD from a major record label in at least a year.)
However, what I said above still applies for the independent labels.
It's similar to independent comic books. They often have higher price tags due to smaller print runs. If it's a very high quality comic book, I'm still willing to pay the higher price in some cases. (Unfortunately, you also have cases where they'll try and sell you the sixteen page BW 'preview' book for $3.99, which is highway robbery.)
Nah, that would just be silly.
I would just covertly hide it under the office carpeting..
One suggestion they often make at my office for laptop users who work in cubicles is to take the laptop home with them.
Of course, this depends on your security at home - you have to ask yourself if your home is more secure than your cubicle, and could the laptop possibly get lost in transit?
Another possibility - you could bury landmines near your cubicle to thwart any potential thieves. (You want the sort of landmine that you can deactivate during the day, though - I think you can purchase them on eBay.)
It's not paranoia - for many industries, it's a legal requirement.
Even when it's not legally required, it's often still good business sense. While the likelihood of robbery is low, in some industries, the ramifications of losing a laptop are so great, that the excessive security is still needed. (It's not always the laptop itself, but what is contained on it.)
Many corporations that have sensitive data tell their employees point-blank: DO NOT SAVE IT TO THE LOCAL DRIVE OF THE LAPTOP. However, it's not foolproof - sometimes the information can end up on the laptop whether employees realize it or not. (Those lousy cache files, for instance..)
We already know that the RIAA is an agency filled to the brim with evil bastards.
---
Now that it's been established umpteen times here, the question still remains:
What are you going to do about it?
This isn't 'getting it', IMHO.
I think the artists who are 'getting it' are beginning to see the albums as a promotional tool for revenue elsewhere, rather than the source of the revenue stream.
The artists who are 'getting it' realize there are other routes to song exposure than merely radio. Allowing your music to be used sans royalties opens up an entire spectrum of possible forms of exposure. Podcasts, video games, independent movie soundtracks, low budget Youtube videos, etc..
The article says he's going to be releasing the album through a Sony BMG label later.
The big question is - is it merely a distribution deal, or does Sony own a piece of the proverbial pie?
If it's the latter, what's to stop the RIAA from turning around and suing anybody that had downloaded the album prior to the conventional release?
Is it a despicable thing to do? Yes - but this is the RIAA we're talking about.
Every time we think we've seen them stoop as low as they possibly can, they find some way to limbo even lower.
At this point, the impeachment is primarily symbolic. This is the best time to do it, since if Bush gets kicked out of office, we're not stuck with Cheney for a long period of time.
Bush -definitely- needs the scar on his record. You figure - Clinton got an impeachment over much less.