I really don't care that they're going with DRM-free music. I have no respect for Universal Music Group, and will never trust them with my hard-earned money again. I'll be happily dancing on their proverbial grave the day they go bankrupt.
.. that despite the stormy seas, the RIAA doesn't have enough sense to change their proverbial course. If they're foolhardy enough, they'll keep heading right into the thick of the storm, and maybe if we're lucky - it will destroy their boat.
I'd love to see the court cases that arise from this set precedents which make it more difficult for the RIAA to pull stunts like this going forward.
Thomas Jefferson said we should have a revolution every 20 years. Looking where all this is going, perhaps it's about time we took him up on his offer. I'm not really the firearms-carrying type, myself. But can we at least do old-fashioned "angry, torch-bearing mob" thing?
(I promise I would be more careful with the torch this time, and try not to light myself on fire like last time.)
We could burn some straw-filled figurines of the RIAA agents in effigy. It would be fun. (Do you need a fire permit to do that?) Not only would we be making a statement, but it would give the news agencies something to report. I'm sure they're all tired of the Paris Hilton thing by now.
I'm also tending to steer clear from the RIAA labels. While there are some bands I respect enough to overlook the fact they have the proverbial devil's mark, I really have a hard time giving money to corporate slimeballs who sue everybody frivolously.
However, I think I do understand what Elton John is saying. It sounds like his qualm about the internet is it separates musicians, leaving them 'disconnected', rather than co-existing in the same space to make music together.
With that said, I don't agree that this is a big problem - there are a lot of online musicians that probably would have never crossed paths if it weren't for the internet. (Try^d, for instance.)
To be completely fair, over-the-air radio deserves to disappear. It's pretty horrid nowadays. Most airwave radio is little more than a gear in the corporate machine which tries and take artists on large record labels, and turn them into hit-machines. The end result is a nauseatingly awful playlist that rotates through the same dozen or so artists over and over again.
I actually find I'm that way with music. Bands that do offer their music for free online I am quick to support when they have a legit album for sale. On the other hand, bands on those major record labels that are notorious for suing everything with a pulse - I'm very reluctant to support acts like this. (It seems like when you do, you're just giving the RIAA and like groups more money to do their litigation thing with.)
I work for an HMO, and I certainly don't feel evil.
I think HMOs have to make tough decisions, balancing the health needs of their members with the need to keep costs down.
If HMOs skimp too much on the healthcare, then they're seen as insensitive, penny-pinching slimeballs. Ironically enough, if HMOs let the healthcare costs get out of control, it translates into higher premium costs for their members, and HMOs often are considered 'evil' for that as well.
So, sometimes - HMOs can't win.
.. the more I feel they need to be eradicated as a corporate entity. An entity that behaves in this manner should not be allowed to continue to exist. Period.
I think they need to make some changes to the way court cases are handled. What concerns me is when theRIAA drops cases without prejudice, which usually will prevent the defendant from being able to recover court costs from the RIAA. This seems like a tactic the RIAA likes to use when it sues people with insufficient evidence. If they can't win the case, they seem hellbent on at least costing the individual as much money as possible during the suit. (A good example was a case they had against a mother - they dropped that case without prejudice, and then turned around and sued the kids, already having cost the mother a significant amount in legal fees.)
-
What they should do - in cases where the RIAA is trying to pull this stunt, the RIAA should be forced to pay the defendant's legal fees. There's no excuse for what they're doing - it's blatant extortion. Either they have a strong case or they don't. I'm sick of them manipulating the legal system like this.
Technology, ironically enough, creates as many problems with healthcare as it fixes. HMOs often want to be on the cutting edge as far as technology goes, but what often happens is the technology is applied poorly, and ends up taking processes and convoluting them in such a way that they're no longer workable.
Technology will not fix healthcare. What healthcare needs are leaders that know how to utilize technology wisely, rather than just getting the technology so they can say they have, yet having absolutely no idea how to make use of it.
>5. Well... independent music is cool. Why not just play independent music?
>This is very important to understand, as lots of people see this as a solution. The statutory webcast license covers ANY >copyright music, from the biggest labels, down to the smallest, and even independently-released music. Again, the license >covers ANY copyright music. The copyright owner need NOT be part of SoundExchange or the RIAA. The ONLY exceptions to >this are (A) direct deals with each and every sound recording copyright owner, (B) copyright owners that are willing to >make a blanket "waive" of fees, or (C) non-copyright, public domain music.
Speaking as an independent musician, this is grounds for a lawsuit. If they attempt to collect royalties on my behalf without my express permission, I will sue the holy hell out of them. They do NOT represent me. I do not WANT them representing me. I encourage other independent musicians to threaten the same.
I honestly think all net radio stations should move their servers elsewhere. If they move to a server outside of the United States, could they safely flip the Copyright Advisory Board off?
I also think independent artists that want to allow internet radio to use their music with no royalties attached should have some sort of identifying marker indicating this. Now, here's my question: Should the copyright advisory board attempt to collect on behalf of independent artists, would they make themselves open to a potential lawsuit?
I'm thinking, perhaps if artists can make this new collection method as difficult to administer as possible by the Copyright Advisory Board, perhaps it will flounder.
We can support their stand in a very general way by stopping any purchase of music from the record labels who are responsible for stunts like this. This doesn't mean download the music illegally. Rather, we should totally ignore the existence of the musicians. If I hear any commercial music on a media device that I have control over, I normally will shut that media device off for the duration the song is playing. It's kind of like depriving something of oxygen - the less 'air' you give it, the faster it dies.
I think he was attempting to spoof the dialogue that you typically hear from black rap musicians. While I did think his comment was a little out of place, he apologized for it, and I don't he was purposely trying to offend anybody.
Sadly, rap musicians use language that makes this seem very tame in comparison, so it does seem to lead one to think there's a serious double-standard here. (Furthermore, what about Ann Coulter? I thought her comment regarding John Edwards was far worse, and she seems to have gotten through things less damaged than Imus did.)
On a sidenote, I wouldn't feel that bad for Imus. This buzz that he's getting will ensure he gets a new source of employment. One of the other companies will wait for the heat to die down, and then quietly snatch up his services.
I refuse to get Vista until I begin hearing more favorable comments about it from the higher-level IT people where I work. A lot of the comments I've been hearing about Vista have been horrid (everything from 'buggy' to 'memory vampire'). If you can't even convince the techies to switch to a newer operating system, then you're in deep fecal matter.
If they stop supporting XP, and Vista is still a mess, then I obviously have a big decision to make. I wouldn't rule out switching to some other operating system.
.. it's admittedly enjoyable to see the US copyright interests encountering a force that doesn't give in to their demands easily. Considering how quick they are to bully everything smaller than them, it's good to see them outgunned by a more powerful entity for a change. I really have little sympathy for them at this point, whether their criticisms are valid or not.
.. in order for this to work, they need a clear, concise definition of what Spyware is. As somebody else already said, it gets kind of murky when they have end user agreements which trick the user into agreeing to accept the spyware as a stipulation for using the program. Realistically, 3/4 of people don't sit there and read all the fine print in the end user agreement. If I wanted to legally get spyware onto somebody's computer, all I would have to do is make the end user agreement longer than a War and Peace novel, and then put the 'spyware clause' somewhere in the middle.
One final note: I don't agree with the prison time part - this seems too kind to me. Why can't we bring back cruel and unusual punishments? If you were to threaten to flog the people responsible for spyware, that would be an even bigger deterrent.
It's a little too late for the largest labels to win me back. I hope they all crumble and rot, to be perfectly honest.
Other record labels will take their place, and maybe these labels will learn from their predecessor's mistakes.
As far as the RIAA goes, it deserves nothing less than complete disassembly as an entity. If I weren't a civilized person, I'd probably be in favor of an angry mob doing the 'disassembling'. But that's obviously barbaric(as tempting as it might be.)
I'm starting to think perhaps all the extortion attempts by the RIAA are starting to take to their toll on the public reputation of large record labels. Obviously if the record labels are going to continually bite the hands that feed them, they're going to stop getting 'meals' from those hands.
To many people, the RIAA might as well be a four-letter word nowadays.
I agree - I think it's the radio station doing a favor to the musical acts it plays, and not vice-versa like the RIAA wants you to think. If I'm a musical act, the primary gain I get from being played on any kind of radio is exposure. If they hear my song, then they may go out and purchase my album. That's how musicians will be 'compensated' for the airplay or netplay. I always thought the per-play royalty thing was kind of ludicrous for that reason.
I agree. We shouldn't be surprised when the RIAA pulls stunts like this. They ruin everything that they touch. If innovation is like a garden, the RIAA is like toxic waste dumped in the garden.
The big question we should be asking ourselves is what should music consumers be doing about this? We sit here, and let the RIAA kick us in the proverbial groin over and over again, yet there doesn't seem to be a strong, united response from consumers towards the RIAA, telling them what we really think of them. (It would probably involve a lot of four letter words, so you have to use your imagination.)
I think part of the problem is a lot of these issues are so complex, that your average music listener just doesn't understand that they're being screwed over. If one doesn't understand what is going on, it's a lot more difficult to be enraged over it. (Perhaps music consumers need to be better educated over exactly what the RIAA is doing in cases like this?)
When you consider all the frivolous lawsuits coming from the RIAA, hitting them for the defendant's attorney fees seems more than reasonable, IMHO.
Perhaps if they knew paying the attorney fees was a possible outcome, they wouldn't be suing everything with two legs half as much.
They want to both have their cake and eat it too. If this passed, the recording industry interests would double-dip. They'd both reap the benefits of the tax on portable music players, while still trying to sue anything with two legs that had pirated songs on their player. (Heck, if your dog had pirated songs on his player, they'd probably try and sue him too. So, more than just anything with two legs.)
Slashdot Mirror
Homer Simpson had theorized the universe was donut-shaped. Maybe we just found the donut hole.
I really don't care that they're going with DRM-free music. I have no respect for Universal Music Group, and will never trust them with my hard-earned money again. I'll be happily dancing on their proverbial grave the day they go bankrupt.
.. that despite the stormy seas, the RIAA doesn't have enough sense to change their proverbial course. If they're foolhardy enough, they'll keep heading right into the thick of the storm, and maybe if we're lucky - it will destroy their boat.
I'd love to see the court cases that arise from this set precedents which make it more difficult for the RIAA to pull stunts like this going forward.
Thomas Jefferson said we should have a revolution every 20 years. Looking where all this is going, perhaps it's about time we took him up on his offer. I'm not really the firearms-carrying type, myself. But can we at least do old-fashioned "angry, torch-bearing mob" thing? (I promise I would be more careful with the torch this time, and try not to light myself on fire like last time.) We could burn some straw-filled figurines of the RIAA agents in effigy. It would be fun. (Do you need a fire permit to do that?) Not only would we be making a statement, but it would give the news agencies something to report. I'm sure they're all tired of the Paris Hilton thing by now.
I'm also tending to steer clear from the RIAA labels. While there are some bands I respect enough to overlook the fact they have the proverbial devil's mark, I really have a hard time giving money to corporate slimeballs who sue everybody frivolously. However, I think I do understand what Elton John is saying. It sounds like his qualm about the internet is it separates musicians, leaving them 'disconnected', rather than co-existing in the same space to make music together. With that said, I don't agree that this is a big problem - there are a lot of online musicians that probably would have never crossed paths if it weren't for the internet. (Try^d, for instance.)
To be completely fair, over-the-air radio deserves to disappear. It's pretty horrid nowadays. Most airwave radio is little more than a gear in the corporate machine which tries and take artists on large record labels, and turn them into hit-machines. The end result is a nauseatingly awful playlist that rotates through the same dozen or so artists over and over again.
I actually find I'm that way with music. Bands that do offer their music for free online I am quick to support when they have a legit album for sale. On the other hand, bands on those major record labels that are notorious for suing everything with a pulse - I'm very reluctant to support acts like this. (It seems like when you do, you're just giving the RIAA and like groups more money to do their litigation thing with.)
I work for an HMO, and I certainly don't feel evil. I think HMOs have to make tough decisions, balancing the health needs of their members with the need to keep costs down. If HMOs skimp too much on the healthcare, then they're seen as insensitive, penny-pinching slimeballs. Ironically enough, if HMOs let the healthcare costs get out of control, it translates into higher premium costs for their members, and HMOs often are considered 'evil' for that as well. So, sometimes - HMOs can't win.
.. the more I feel they need to be eradicated as a corporate entity. An entity that behaves in this manner should not be allowed to continue to exist. Period.
I think they need to make some changes to the way court cases are handled. What concerns me is when theRIAA drops cases without prejudice, which usually will prevent the defendant from being able to recover court costs from the RIAA. This seems like a tactic the RIAA likes to use when it sues people with insufficient evidence. If they can't win the case, they seem hellbent on at least costing the individual as much money as possible during the suit. (A good example was a case they had against a mother - they dropped that case without prejudice, and then turned around and sued the kids, already having cost the mother a significant amount in legal fees.) - What they should do - in cases where the RIAA is trying to pull this stunt, the RIAA should be forced to pay the defendant's legal fees. There's no excuse for what they're doing - it's blatant extortion. Either they have a strong case or they don't. I'm sick of them manipulating the legal system like this.
Technology, ironically enough, creates as many problems with healthcare as it fixes. HMOs often want to be on the cutting edge as far as technology goes, but what often happens is the technology is applied poorly, and ends up taking processes and convoluting them in such a way that they're no longer workable. Technology will not fix healthcare. What healthcare needs are leaders that know how to utilize technology wisely, rather than just getting the technology so they can say they have, yet having absolutely no idea how to make use of it.
>5. Well... independent music is cool. Why not just play independent music? >This is very important to understand, as lots of people see this as a solution. The statutory webcast license covers ANY >copyright music, from the biggest labels, down to the smallest, and even independently-released music. Again, the license >covers ANY copyright music. The copyright owner need NOT be part of SoundExchange or the RIAA. The ONLY exceptions to >this are (A) direct deals with each and every sound recording copyright owner, (B) copyright owners that are willing to >make a blanket "waive" of fees, or (C) non-copyright, public domain music. Speaking as an independent musician, this is grounds for a lawsuit. If they attempt to collect royalties on my behalf without my express permission, I will sue the holy hell out of them. They do NOT represent me. I do not WANT them representing me. I encourage other independent musicians to threaten the same.
I honestly think all net radio stations should move their servers elsewhere. If they move to a server outside of the United States, could they safely flip the Copyright Advisory Board off? I also think independent artists that want to allow internet radio to use their music with no royalties attached should have some sort of identifying marker indicating this. Now, here's my question: Should the copyright advisory board attempt to collect on behalf of independent artists, would they make themselves open to a potential lawsuit? I'm thinking, perhaps if artists can make this new collection method as difficult to administer as possible by the Copyright Advisory Board, perhaps it will flounder.
We can support their stand in a very general way by stopping any purchase of music from the record labels who are responsible for stunts like this. This doesn't mean download the music illegally. Rather, we should totally ignore the existence of the musicians. If I hear any commercial music on a media device that I have control over, I normally will shut that media device off for the duration the song is playing. It's kind of like depriving something of oxygen - the less 'air' you give it, the faster it dies.
I think he was attempting to spoof the dialogue that you typically hear from black rap musicians. While I did think his comment was a little out of place, he apologized for it, and I don't he was purposely trying to offend anybody. Sadly, rap musicians use language that makes this seem very tame in comparison, so it does seem to lead one to think there's a serious double-standard here. (Furthermore, what about Ann Coulter? I thought her comment regarding John Edwards was far worse, and she seems to have gotten through things less damaged than Imus did.) On a sidenote, I wouldn't feel that bad for Imus. This buzz that he's getting will ensure he gets a new source of employment. One of the other companies will wait for the heat to die down, and then quietly snatch up his services.
I refuse to get Vista until I begin hearing more favorable comments about it from the higher-level IT people where I work. A lot of the comments I've been hearing about Vista have been horrid (everything from 'buggy' to 'memory vampire'). If you can't even convince the techies to switch to a newer operating system, then you're in deep fecal matter. If they stop supporting XP, and Vista is still a mess, then I obviously have a big decision to make. I wouldn't rule out switching to some other operating system.
.. it's admittedly enjoyable to see the US copyright interests encountering a force that doesn't give in to their demands easily. Considering how quick they are to bully everything smaller than them, it's good to see them outgunned by a more powerful entity for a change. I really have little sympathy for them at this point, whether their criticisms are valid or not.
.. in order for this to work, they need a clear, concise definition of what Spyware is. As somebody else already said, it gets kind of murky when they have end user agreements which trick the user into agreeing to accept the spyware as a stipulation for using the program. Realistically, 3/4 of people don't sit there and read all the fine print in the end user agreement. If I wanted to legally get spyware onto somebody's computer, all I would have to do is make the end user agreement longer than a War and Peace novel, and then put the 'spyware clause' somewhere in the middle. One final note: I don't agree with the prison time part - this seems too kind to me. Why can't we bring back cruel and unusual punishments? If you were to threaten to flog the people responsible for spyware, that would be an even bigger deterrent.
It's a little too late for the largest labels to win me back. I hope they all crumble and rot, to be perfectly honest. Other record labels will take their place, and maybe these labels will learn from their predecessor's mistakes. As far as the RIAA goes, it deserves nothing less than complete disassembly as an entity. If I weren't a civilized person, I'd probably be in favor of an angry mob doing the 'disassembling'. But that's obviously barbaric(as tempting as it might be.)
I'm starting to think perhaps all the extortion attempts by the RIAA are starting to take to their toll on the public reputation of large record labels. Obviously if the record labels are going to continually bite the hands that feed them, they're going to stop getting 'meals' from those hands. To many people, the RIAA might as well be a four-letter word nowadays.
I agree - I think it's the radio station doing a favor to the musical acts it plays, and not vice-versa like the RIAA wants you to think. If I'm a musical act, the primary gain I get from being played on any kind of radio is exposure. If they hear my song, then they may go out and purchase my album. That's how musicians will be 'compensated' for the airplay or netplay. I always thought the per-play royalty thing was kind of ludicrous for that reason.
I agree. We shouldn't be surprised when the RIAA pulls stunts like this. They ruin everything that they touch. If innovation is like a garden, the RIAA is like toxic waste dumped in the garden. The big question we should be asking ourselves is what should music consumers be doing about this? We sit here, and let the RIAA kick us in the proverbial groin over and over again, yet there doesn't seem to be a strong, united response from consumers towards the RIAA, telling them what we really think of them. (It would probably involve a lot of four letter words, so you have to use your imagination.) I think part of the problem is a lot of these issues are so complex, that your average music listener just doesn't understand that they're being screwed over. If one doesn't understand what is going on, it's a lot more difficult to be enraged over it. (Perhaps music consumers need to be better educated over exactly what the RIAA is doing in cases like this?)
When you consider all the frivolous lawsuits coming from the RIAA, hitting them for the defendant's attorney fees seems more than reasonable, IMHO. Perhaps if they knew paying the attorney fees was a possible outcome, they wouldn't be suing everything with two legs half as much.
They want to both have their cake and eat it too. If this passed, the recording industry interests would double-dip. They'd both reap the benefits of the tax on portable music players, while still trying to sue anything with two legs that had pirated songs on their player. (Heck, if your dog had pirated songs on his player, they'd probably try and sue him too. So, more than just anything with two legs.)
I'm not kidding. If they actually did this, you watch how quickly spam would drop. Is it overkill? Yes. Would it work? You bet.