I bet they'd have to call off the hounds in a fast retreat, tails between the legs, if you were sued and fought back by picking and choosing from the list of names of artists they are accusing you of stealing from. Pick the top names, the ones they spend the most money on, and it becomes those artists personally attacking and suing you everybody under the sun.
Copy protection on CD's is just another way for the record companies to reduce an artists royalties further by passing the extra expense of licenceing and R&D of the copy protection,ect...as recoupable against the artists.
The record companies get more money because they already own huge stakes in these copy protection companies and will soon own them all outright.
It doesn't matter if the copy-protection fails or is cracked from day one, it is a hell of a lot more profitable for the record company to charge back the artists this useless expense,than the precentage reduction in royalites claus for "breakables" ever was.
Step 1. Create indie ogg super webstation Step 2. Set up paypal account to get donations from other indie artists ect...for the purpose of buying advertizment on a billboard promoting the super ogg webstation Step 3. Put in on a Clear Channel owned billboard, preferably next to a local radio station billboard,preferably next to the interstate. Step 4. make sure the billboard says something really simply clever and is fun to look at.
Once they name the "pirate",they will have to name exactly what was "stolen".
You can't prosecute someone without defining exactly what you are prosecuting them for.So they will have to declare the song names and artists the person is being accused of stealing from.
This is good because now any artist whose work is named in a prosecution or lawsuit, won't be able to get away from the question of how do they feel about filesharing.
Everyone will want to know,and a half-assed run around statement issued through thier press agent or attourney isn't going to cut it.
A point blank question will have to be faced courageously by an honest answer or their career is over.
I'm on msn, i cant get to the site...it gives me a 403 forbidden message.
Have isp's already blocked it...are they deciding for me what sites I can or cannot see?
It isn't about piracy or whether or not I am downloading music. I can't see the website period,and if following a link in a website or through an isp is illegal then why did yahoo news link to the site through thier newstory yesterday?
I can't understand that with all the money they have they couldn't find themselves instead a cool spokesperson,like Sheryl Crow...or some other cool person.
Who on earth thinks Hilary Rosen is cool besides Jack Valenti?
Tee-Shirts are great because you can go anywhere,inside stores,like Blockbuster and Suncoast and SamGoodies,and look like you are browsing for a title...but what you are really doing is carrying a fullsize poster on your back.
Would I be branded a criminal for putting the music and multi-media I personally write online, and if it required some form of java programming ect...to make the art work,even though my own work is free speech and freely distributed?
Would that bit of programming be a circumvention device?
Ultimately will distributing any form of free speech be a criminal offence?
If enough people munge data,with programming that spits out random urls and web searches while your machine is idle,making the information "worthless"to marketers then the incentive to sell our information will hopefully go away.
This will make recording and distributing music expensive again and only big corporate record companies will be able to afford the licences and equipment needed to implement the new security regulations.The result will be to lock out DIY indies from ever reaching an audience,they won't be able to afford to compete.
Universal's return policy is irrevelant to the consumer.They are not directly selling to customers, the store is. It is the store that has to take back the CD. Your local FYE, Sam Goodies,The Wall ect...should be reported to your states attorney general,if they do not issue you a prompt refund. In many states it is a felony to repackage defective merchandise as new.
CNN is IMO already biased. Last night they had a section on Digital Music and Copyright and only presented the view of one "Entertainment" Lawyer who said that all copying of CD's was against the law, as if it were fact,and He failed to mention Fair Use. When the bottom line of the newschannel is run by a record lable such as AOLTime Warner what can you expect?
As an independant artist I use P2P and FTP services to distribute my legitimate projects online.
It would be unfair for my competition (RIAA) to hack my machine or services and destroy my files,IP and or hardrive, just as it would be unfair for Coke to hack, search and destroy Pepsi.
It seems to me that they've brought out their low-life hired goon Mitch Glazier(the same guy who helped RIAA steal all the artists copyrights),to again be used for their dirtiest deeds.
Besides not buying RIAA products,there is even a more devious way to "defund" them. Over promote in the worse possible way the products they spend the most money on promoting, and burn that product (ie Backdoor Boys) out(through hype) before they can get a return on their money.Over hype, look what it did to Hootie and the Blowfish...Eventually they'll run out of money, and the lawyers will move on.
If artists banded together and built a non profit cooperative,with each artist having a vote,hydra-beast record companies would not be able to buy them out,or crush them with lawsuits.
As a non profit group, they could provide CD-R and other services at cost, with the artist setting the price for their work using the at cost materials and facilities of the co-op and there wouldn't be a damn thing any record company could do about it.It would also need to be scalable based on membership.
Even if SDMI is an utter failure,and they go to market with it anyway,they've tricked the artist into adding a licenced third party application to their music. An application seperate from copyright that is owned by the record company,and other parties.
They SDMI/RIAA can ransom the artist forever to maintain the licences,and the artist would not be able to remove expired licences without violating the DMCA, or being sued by the record company, just like GraceNote is suing Roxio.
Slashdot Mirror
I bet they'd have to call off the hounds in a fast retreat, tails between the legs, if you were sued and fought back by picking and choosing from the list of names of artists they are accusing you of stealing from. Pick the top names, the ones they spend the most money on, and it becomes those artists personally attacking and suing you everybody under the sun.
Copy protection on CD's is just another way for the record companies to reduce an artists royalties further by passing the extra expense of licenceing and R&D of the copy protection,ect...as recoupable against the artists.
The record companies get more money because they already own huge stakes in these copy protection companies and will soon own them all outright.
It doesn't matter if the copy-protection fails or is cracked from day one, it is a hell of a lot more profitable for the record company to charge back the artists this useless expense,than the precentage reduction in royalites claus for "breakables" ever was.
Step 1. Create indie ogg super webstation
Step 2. Set up paypal account to get donations from other indie artists ect...for the purpose of buying advertizment on a billboard promoting the super ogg webstation
Step 3. Put in on a Clear Channel owned billboard, preferably next to a local radio station billboard,preferably next to the interstate.
Step 4. make sure the billboard says something really simply clever and is fun to look at.
Once they name the "pirate",they will have to name exactly what was "stolen".
You can't prosecute someone without defining exactly what you are prosecuting them for.So they will have to declare the song names and artists the person is being accused of stealing from.
This is good because now any artist whose work is named in a prosecution or lawsuit, won't be able to get away from the question of how do they feel about filesharing.
Everyone will want to know,and a half-assed run around statement issued through thier press agent or attourney isn't going to cut it.
A point blank question will have to be faced courageously by an honest answer or their career is over.
I'm on msn, i cant get to the site...it gives me a 403 forbidden message.
Have isp's already blocked it...are they deciding for me what sites I can or cannot see?
It isn't about piracy or whether or not I am downloading music. I can't see the website period,and if following a link in a website or through an isp is illegal then why did yahoo news link to the site through thier newstory yesterday?
Protest by driving extra slow,snarl traffic,ruin tourism ect...organize ,fight back
I can't understand that with all the money they have they couldn't find themselves instead a cool spokesperson,like Sheryl Crow...or some other cool person.
Who on earth thinks Hilary Rosen is cool besides Jack Valenti?
Tee-Shirts are great because you can go anywhere,inside stores,like Blockbuster and Suncoast and SamGoodies,and look like you are browsing for a title...but what you are really doing is carrying a fullsize poster on your back.
Would I be branded a criminal for putting the music and multi-media I personally write online, and if it required some form of java programming ect...to make the art work,even though my own work is free speech and freely distributed?
Would that bit of programming be a circumvention device?
Ultimately will distributing any form of free speech be a criminal offence?
If enough people munge data,with programming that spits out random urls and web searches while your machine is idle,making the information "worthless"to marketers then the incentive to sell our information will hopefully go away.
This will make recording and distributing music expensive again and only big corporate record companies will be able to afford the licences and equipment needed to implement the new security regulations.The result will be to lock out DIY indies from ever reaching an audience,they won't be able to afford to compete.
Universal's return policy is irrevelant to the consumer.They are not directly selling to customers, the store is. It is the store that has to take back the CD. Your local FYE, Sam Goodies,The Wall ect...should be reported to your states attorney general,if they do not issue you a prompt refund. In many states it is a felony to repackage defective merchandise as new.
CNN is IMO already biased. Last night they had a section on Digital Music and Copyright and only presented the view of one "Entertainment" Lawyer who said that all copying of CD's was against the law, as if it were fact,and He failed to mention Fair Use. When the bottom line of the newschannel is run by a record lable such as AOLTime Warner what can you expect?
As an independant artist I use P2P and FTP services to distribute my legitimate projects online.
It would be unfair for my competition (RIAA) to hack my machine or services and destroy my files,IP and or hardrive, just as it would be unfair for Coke to hack, search and destroy Pepsi.
It seems to me that they've brought out their low-life hired goon Mitch Glazier(the same guy who helped RIAA steal all the artists copyrights),to again be used for their dirtiest deeds.
Besides not buying RIAA products,there is even a more devious way to "defund" them. Over promote in the worse possible way the products they spend the most money on promoting, and burn that product (ie Backdoor Boys) out(through hype) before they can get a return on their money.Over hype, look what it did to Hootie and the Blowfish...Eventually they'll run out of money, and the lawyers will move on.
RIAA meet my new freind, Java!
The artists should have waited until now to sue mp3.com over mymp3...now that Universal-Vivendi is at the helm, the pockets are now infinately deep...
If artists banded together and built a non profit cooperative,with each artist having a vote,hydra-beast record companies would not be able to buy them out,or crush them with lawsuits. As a non profit group, they could provide CD-R and other services at cost, with the artist setting the price for their work using the at cost materials and facilities of the co-op and there wouldn't be a damn thing any record company could do about it.It would also need to be scalable based on membership.
Even if SDMI is an utter failure,and they go to market with it anyway,they've tricked the artist into adding a licenced third party application to their music. An application seperate from copyright that is owned by the record company,and other parties. They SDMI/RIAA can ransom the artist forever to maintain the licences,and the artist would not be able to remove expired licences without violating the DMCA, or being sued by the record company, just like GraceNote is suing Roxio.