You are ignoring the advantage that every current label has - back catalog. As a startup, I have no abillity to offer tens of years of music that has already made its money back hundreds of times over. Or do you think that Elvis, The Beatles, The Who, The Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan, Frank Sinatra, The Allman Brothers, Nirvana, The Sex Pistols, Michael Jackson, Pink Floyd, Led Zepplin, Hootie & the Blowfish, Prince, Bon Jovi, Guns 'n Roses, Bruce Springsteen and the zillion others I haven't mentioned haven't paid off the cost of production and distribution of their records?
And yes, I have insight into why Magnatunes isn't more popular. Selection. Sadly, the marketing and distribution of the RIAA is a juggernaut that excludes by design. It's easy to start a Magnatunes-type site, but if you don't have the artists & manufactured hits that are in every commercial, TV show, and movie, you're not going to get the massive traffic that an iTunes.com is going to have. So no, Magnatunes can't sell those for a buck, they don't have loss leaders, they don't have a demanded back catalog, and they don't have a wide enough selection to make it up with economies of scale.
IWBRV (I won't be running Vista), but just like the DRM on iTunes, YOU don't get the 'benefits' of DRM (restricting access), you just get the shaft if you buy something with DRM 'attached', as the deal you agreed to via EULA (I know, that's hilarious! Agree to something after I've bought it! HA!)
In any case, if you're serious about music on computers, you get your dedicated system set up (mine is XP sp2 with an Aardvark q10 (outta biz a few years ago) and Vegas - remove everything that isn't audio related, and call that an appliance. Don't change it, minus a few plugins (they don't usually mess it all up:)
If you want to mess with Vista, save up 400 bucks and buy some off the shelf deal with it preinstalled. I saw it in the flesh for the first time today, and thought, 'Wow. I've had all that since Tiger came out.' ha.
XP works great for music, as long as you don't do anything else. OS X is for everything else.
A C&D letter clearly does not alienate anyone. And this is negative publicity. I had actually seriously considered getting a Mac, but clearly it's homegrown for the win.
What, did you miss all the other Apple lawsuits? Or was this the one that finally put you over the edge?
Or is this an old chestnut you pull out when you want to show people you're 'voting with your wallet'?
You really could not have been serious about buying a Mac, if this throws you.
A note I sent to Mike Hatch, who's currently running for Govenor of Minnesota (where I live), and was one of the very few who didn't sign this letter. There are some edited slashdot comments in there, as some posters sum things up better than I. You can send comments to attorney.general@state.mn.us
Dear Attorney General Hatch,
I'd like to thank you for not adding your name to this letter:
(From AP) "Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Tuesday that Congress should require Internet service providers to preserve customer records, asserting that prosecutors need them to fight child pornography.
"This is a problem that requires federal legislation," Gonzales told the Senate Banking Committee. "We need information. Information helps us makes cases."
"We respect civil liberties but we have to harmonize this so we can get more information," he said. " "
Child porn is just an excuse. If protecting children was really the point, the letter proposing legislation would limit all subpoenas of data retained under this law to child porn cases. This proposition doesn't do that, so Mr. Gonzales obviously wants to 'legitimize' the domestic spying program, gain unlimited access to private info with no oversight, and should be condemned for his co-opting a 'hot button' issue to garner support for a lie.
I appreciate the rather singular gesture you have made by not signing this letter, and showing Minnesotans and Americans that privacy and the fourth amendment are as important to you as they are to us.
Abusing children is a horrible crime, abusing them for more political power is worse.
Thanks, and good luck in November; you will have my vote.
Sweet. We can bring Gonzalez up on charges under 2252C, for misleading words on the Internet, as he is lying - he wants every bit of info on everyone, child porn is just the excuse.
I think that all these crappy laws and regulations that break the consititution, violate privacy, and presume guilt should be passed in to law.
The catch? They only apply to government workers for the first three years, and there is no FOIA exemption. If there are any of these people that haven't been killed, put in prison, or impeached after three years, then the law can go into effect for the citizenry.
Unfortunately, for the remainder of government workers, and the ones replacing the 'displaced' ones, penalties are doubled.
If the law is repealed, or declared unconstitutional, the sponsors of the bill must pay fines equal to double the cost of enacting the bill. Those who voted for it are fined for the cost.
Fines are paid directly to paying down the national debt.
If they don't have anything to hide, what do they have to fear?
So, how does it feel to have lost control of your party and the ideals that it used to stand for?
You have the biggest government in the world, that is the most in debt, and violating more of the constitution than ever before.
How's that 'conservative', or Republican?
It sounds like you're hiding your head in the sand, blaming the problems of your party on anything that disagrees with what's actually happening in your effort to deny that Republicans in office have completly lost their ideals.
In regards to the liberties I've lost personally? None. My life is exactly the way it was before. I don't fly, protest, haven't been subject to 4th amendment violating nonsense (that I know of -ha!;), haven't been tortured etc.
It's not the fact that none of *my* liberties have been infringed. It's the fact that many others have - free speech zones are not free, airport security unlawfully detains people, phones are being tapped with no warrants, the Patriot act is being abused to go after anyone. I'd link to sources but you won't read them - it's all the liberal media who's reporting it.
As you're conservative, any liberties lost by any American should be paining you greatly. Have you examined your beliefs to see where they've changed?
I've been modded troll for this already in the last thread on FB, so give it a rest already.
There is a difference between information broadcast, and information available. You don't even have to be a overly-pedantic/. reader to know this.
This is the difference between the small town bar fight recorded in the small town paper, and it getting the leading position on every station in the country.
Yes, they're both public, though in the first example you have to look at the small town paper to get the info - which for 99% of people not in that small town - represents too much trouble.
Compare to disinterested parties getting their shotgun news - they didn't care, but now they know that Billy and Bobby were in a fight in 'small town'. Maybe they do something with the info, maybe not, but thousands & thousands of people now know as opposed to the hundred or so that read the paper.
There you have it. If you can't see the diff, maybe you need this.
Thank you. It's painful to read 'well, don't use the internet' 400 times. I can't believe this guy has gotten modded up over 10 times for saying the same fucking thing.
And guess what 'MankyD'? You would have earned no call-out from me if/. didn't have a feature where I can see the last 24 of your posts, all of which say the same thing.
Which may just prove the point at long last. Having a list of your seven posts all in one spot made it truly easy for me to become annoyed with you, whereas if that feature did not exist, you could've gone to bed thinking you were right, as chances are good I wouldn't have gone to the trouble of 'investigating'.
Of course, you could have NOT PUT THE INFORMATION ON A PUBLIC WEBSITE too.
As other posters have commented, there is *no* venue that requires sheet music. In fact, they could give a rats ass if you know how to read it, learned it from a yeti in the mountains or was given the knowledge divinely.
Most venues would be overjoyed if they could play the radio, have bands, and have a jukebox without paying ASCAP or BMI. It's an expense, and I've seen a few venues that don't pay it. When pressed, they say, "Why should I have to pay to play the radio? It's free in my car and in my home!"
So, you're wrong. So wrong in fact, that you could be right - if you were talking about 60 years ago, or an orchestra, but we're talking about TAB and chords, guitar and popular songs.
Single note playing intruments in orchestras use music written for the instrument they play - and are not required to own, purchase, or otherwise HAVE sheet music by any! venue. (Maybe a bandleader who's a copyright nazi or a published composer whose music is being played might require it, but those days are fading fast - if not gone already!)
So, please. Either get back in your time machine and join us in the present, pick up a manual on what the hell is going on in the real world, or shutty.
Steve isn't going to waste exciting things on Developers for pete's sake - he's saving the insta-boner stuff for the Consumers. Excite Developers too much and you end up with a music video of a sweaty fat guy, or Kai's Power Tools.
That android looks pissed in *every* photo. You know, if it started a rampage, the only way to disable it is to crush it in a hydraulic press, or melt it down. I'd guess they haven't prepared a bubbling pool of molten slag - just in case.
And those grad students need to take better care of themselves - look at the acne on the guy in the last picture! He's giving even the most ardent mom's basement-dwelling/.ers a run for their money!
Sarcasm aside, the RIAA is calling everyone a pirate. And let's not rehash the 'if they didn't pirate it, they would have bought it, and that equals lost sales, blah blah blah' argument. It's just not true. The reality is that most songs, apps, games and anything else in the digital domain are copied because:
It's easier
Faster
Cheaper
and in many cases with copy protection, Better
than what is available legally. Just because someone uses their next-to-free bandwidth to grab something off the net is absolutely NO guarantee that it would have been purchased otherwise - regardless if the original price was 99 cents or 9 thousand dollars.
Rather than organizing boycots, why don't you just buy the music you want on CD (ie the format that isn't DRM'd), and not rip it and redistribute the rips? If the music's not available in a non-DRM'd format, don't buy it (or in any other way obtain it, treat it as if it never existed.) If it is, buy it. That's not a boycott, because it's not refusing to buy a product you'd otherwise buy, it's merely refusing to buy a product you don't actually want. And, well, that makes a hell of a lot more sense.
I think you miss the point I was originally making. I'm saying that the music buying public should be educated as to where their money is going, and if the public does not like what they are funding, stop supporting the organizations that do these things.
Whether or not that is possible in an instant gratification, not my problem society is certainly an issue, but people have been known to do something selfless (like deny themselves the latest crap major label release) in the past.
So? What are they going to do, put even stricter DRM on their CDs and downloads? Since I'm boycotting them I couldn't care less.
Do you honestly think that it will stop with downloads and CDs? Already, hardware is being made that respects DRM, laws are being drafted and passed that make it a crime to circumvent this hardware, and market forces may not be enough to continue to offer products that don't support it.
So, if you're happy with your current setup, continue dismissing the RIAA's lobbying powers. Don't be surprised when the world marches on without you, adding DRM, restricting rights, and criminalizing fair use. Perhaps you can volunteer to backport everything in jail, instead of fighting the causes of diminished freedom. Really.
I agree that teens are the center of 'the plan'. Your ideas of commercials are good - the same tactics as used by the RIAA would be more pervasive and perhaps less effective. Pervasive, as they would blanket airwaves, cable, and the net with their message. Less effective, because people like to believe the worst, especially when the message comes from a corporation.
I'd love a commercial where pop music 'superstar' lookalikes (which wouldn't be hard to find - the RIAA has made every act the same:P ) looked into the camera, and said, "Today, I'm going to sue you. I'm going to take your car, your stereo, and your house. I'm going to take your college education, and make you work at a fast food resturant for years. I'm going to do all these things to you because you buy my CDs."
Crossfade to title:
"Support the RIAA, and you're only hurting yourself."
"Buy independent music."
Flash an informative URL...and scene.
As things are going, releasing something like that on YouTube would create more buzz - (and be incredibly cheaper) than spending money on TV ads.
Ha. This is a repost, but I thought it good enough to give another chance - I really think someone should run with it.
Boycotting the RIAA will only result in more cries of, "Pirates! Pirates!". I think a different boycott is in order.
On the RIAA page, there is a list of labels that associate themselves with the RIAA - remember, the RIAA is a group of labels, and other music related 'entities' that like the lobbying power that the RIAA gives them.
Not buying CDs, videos or DRMd files is not going to hurt the RIAA - they make their money from 'dues' from the individual labels. Not buying CDs will only help the RIAA make a case that it's due to piracy, and make that case to those who make the laws.
However, if a boycott was organized that picked, let's say five, (smaller) labels from that list, and let them know that no CDs from them will be purchased that month or year by the organized boycott, calls of piracy hurting sales could be refuted on that smaller scale,(Not that they can't be refuted now...)
Labels who think that calling their customers thieves, handing out lawsuits, restricting fair use, and lobbying for the demise of independent music is ok will get a message that their customers will not stand for it.
Issues with this:
In order to work this boycott has to be big, organized, and educated. Big, so the set of music the particular few labels include intersect with the boycotting group. The boycott doesn't work if no one was going to buy that music anyway. Those sales 'lost' to apathy will be blamed on piracy, and used to lobby for more restrictions and copyrightholder power.
Oraganized, so that the chosen labels (picked by size and choice of music: see above) get an actual message : "You are being boycotted by x number of people who have agreed that they will not buy your labels offerings until: (insert ultimatum here - hell freezes over, a year passes, or my favorite, disassociation with the RIAA) This notice should be sent anywhere that would reproduce it, and those not 'signed up' should be...
Educated, so that they know what the RIAA is (not a company per se, but a collection of companies), why the boycott is happening, and how they can help.
There are certainly other things to take into account, such as the 'list' is by design, not accurate. There have been cases where the RIAA has claimed membership by some small (and suddenly successful) lables, in order to present a 'united front' and spread the message that RIAA=success/no RIAA=obscurity.
I'm convinced that the only way to kill the RIAA is to go after the legs - small and medium labels that support it. Once these smaller labels have severed their connection with the RIAA, the RIAA will have less money to lobby for DRM and the extention of copyrights, less money to pay lawyers to sue your dead grandma, less money to push their skewed facts, figures and arguments to an uneducated public.
Remember, the RIAA's money comes from labels and manufacturing, whose money comes from you. Small, focused strikes by a large educated group are the only way to win.
Boycotting the RIAA will only result in more cries of, "Pirates! Pirates!". I think a different boycott is in order.
On the RIAA page, there is a list of labels that associate themselves with the RIAA - remember, the RIAA is a group of labels, and other music related 'entities' that like the lobbying power that the RIAA gives them.
Not buying CDs, videos or DRMd files is not going to hurt the RIAA - they make their money from 'dues' from the individual labels. Not buying CDs will only help the RIAA make a case that it's due to piracy, and make that case to those who make the laws.
However, if a boycott was organized that picked, let's say five, (smaller) labels from that list, and let them know that no CDs from them will be purchased that month or year by the organized boycott, calls of piracy hurting sales could be refuted on that smaller scale,(Not that they can't be refuted now...)
Labels who think that calling their customers thieves, handing out lawsuits, restricting fair use, and lobbying for the demise of independent music is ok will get a message that their customers will not stand for it.
Issues with this:
In order to work this boycott has to be big, organized, and educated. Big, so the set of music the particular few labels include intersect with the boycotting group. The boycott doesn't work if no one was going to buy that music anyway. Those sales 'lost' to apathy will be blamed on piracy, and used to lobby for more restrictions and copyrightholder power.
Oraganized, so that the chosen labels (picked by size and choice of music: see above) get an actual message : "You are being boycotted by x number of people who have agreed that they will not buy your labels offerings until: (insert ultimatum here - hell freezes over, a year passes, or my favorite, disassociation with the RIAA) This notice should be sent anywhere that would reproduce it, and those not 'signed up' should be...
Educated, so that they know what the RIAA is (not a company per se, but a collection of companies), why the boycott is happening, and how they can help.
There are certainly other things to take into account, such as the 'list' is by design, not accurate. There have been cases where the RIAA has claimed membership by some small (and suddenly successful) lables, in order to present a 'united front' and spread the message that RIAA=success/no RIAA=obscurity.
I'm convinced that the only way to kill the RIAA is to go after the legs - small and medium labels that support it. Once these smaller labels have severed their connection with the RIAA, the RIAA will have less money to lobby for DRM and the extention of copyrights, less money to pay lawyers to sue your dead grandma, less money to push their skewed facts, figures and arguments to an uneducated public.
Remember, the RIAA's money comes from labels and manufacturing, whose money comes from you. Small, focused strikes by a large educated group are the only way to win.
Ironically, one of the books I had to read for high school was "All Quiet on the Western Front". The drill sergeant in the book was a postman prior to the war so he felt the need to abuse the recruits. He knew that outside of his position in the heirarchy, no one respected him as a person so he abused his powers as a drill sergeant to make himself feel better. Reminds me of some school administrators... Sad bastards.
Right now, your English teacher has a silent tear of joy running down her cheek, and she doesn't know why.
Slashdot Mirror
Never underestimate the stamina, wherewithal, and sheer terrifying focus of horny nerds.
hereyou go, sans pics - there is also this at Archive.org, but you may be waiting forever for the pics to load.... :)
And yes, I have insight into why Magnatunes isn't more popular. Selection. Sadly, the marketing and distribution of the RIAA is a juggernaut that excludes by design. It's easy to start a Magnatunes-type site, but if you don't have the artists & manufactured hits that are in every commercial, TV show, and movie, you're not going to get the massive traffic that an iTunes.com is going to have. So no, Magnatunes can't sell those for a buck, they don't have loss leaders, they don't have a demanded back catalog, and they don't have a wide enough selection to make it up with economies of scale.
In any case, if you're serious about music on computers, you get your dedicated system set up (mine is XP sp2 with an Aardvark q10 (outta biz a few years ago) and Vegas - remove everything that isn't audio related, and call that an appliance. Don't change it, minus a few plugins (they don't usually mess it all up
If you want to mess with Vista, save up 400 bucks and buy some off the shelf deal with it preinstalled. I saw it in the flesh for the first time today, and thought, 'Wow. I've had all that since Tiger came out.' ha.
XP works great for music, as long as you don't do anything else. OS X is for everything else.
And music. :)
What, did you miss all the other Apple lawsuits? Or was this the one that finally put you over the edge?
Or is this an old chestnut you pull out when you want to show people you're 'voting with your wallet'?
You really could not have been serious about buying a Mac, if this throws you.
I'd like to thank you for not adding your name to this letter:
Pesky Plain Old Text.
A note I sent to Mike Hatch, who's currently running for Govenor of Minnesota (where I live), and was one of the very few who didn't sign this letter. There are some edited slashdot comments in there, as some posters sum things up better than I. You can send comments to attorney.general@state.mn.us
Dear Attorney General Hatch,
I'd like to thank you for not adding your name to this letter:
(From AP) "Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Tuesday that Congress should require Internet service providers to preserve customer records, asserting that prosecutors need them to fight child pornography.
"This is a problem that requires federal legislation," Gonzales told the Senate Banking Committee. "We need information. Information helps us makes cases."
"We respect civil liberties but we have to harmonize this so we can get more information," he said. " "
Child porn is just an excuse. If protecting children was really the point, the letter proposing legislation would limit all subpoenas of data retained under this law to child porn cases. This proposition doesn't do that, so Mr. Gonzales obviously wants to 'legitimize' the domestic spying program, gain unlimited access to private info with no oversight, and should be condemned for his co-opting a 'hot button' issue to garner support for a lie.
I appreciate the rather singular gesture you have made by not signing this letter, and showing Minnesotans and Americans that privacy and the fourth amendment are as important to you as they are to us.
Abusing children is a horrible crime, abusing them for more political power is worse.
Thanks, and good luck in November; you will have my vote.
I think that all these crappy laws and regulations that break the consititution, violate privacy, and presume guilt should be passed in to law.
The catch? They only apply to government workers for the first three years, and there is no FOIA exemption. If there are any of these people that haven't been killed, put in prison, or impeached after three years, then the law can go into effect for the citizenry.
Unfortunately, for the remainder of government workers, and the ones replacing the 'displaced' ones, penalties are doubled.
If the law is repealed, or declared unconstitutional, the sponsors of the bill must pay fines equal to double the cost of enacting the bill. Those who voted for it are fined for the cost.
Fines are paid directly to paying down the national debt.
If they don't have anything to hide, what do they have to fear?
You have the biggest government in the world, that is the most in debt, and violating more of the constitution than ever before.
How's that 'conservative', or Republican?
It sounds like you're hiding your head in the sand, blaming the problems of your party on anything that disagrees with what's actually happening in your effort to deny that Republicans in office have completly lost their ideals.
In regards to the liberties I've lost personally? None. My life is exactly the way it was before. I don't fly, protest, haven't been subject to 4th amendment violating nonsense (that I know of -ha! ;), haven't been tortured etc.
It's not the fact that none of *my* liberties have been infringed. It's the fact that many others have - free speech zones are not free, airport security unlawfully detains people, phones are being tapped with no warrants, the Patriot act is being abused to go after anyone. I'd link to sources but you won't read them - it's all the liberal media who's reporting it.
As you're conservative, any liberties lost by any American should be paining you greatly. Have you examined your beliefs to see where they've changed?
There is a difference between information broadcast, and information available. You don't even have to be a overly-pedantic
This is the difference between the small town bar fight recorded in the small town paper, and it getting the leading position on every station in the country.
Yes, they're both public, though in the first example you have to look at the small town paper to get the info - which for 99% of people not in that small town - represents too much trouble.
Compare to disinterested parties getting their shotgun news - they didn't care, but now they know that Billy and Bobby were in a fight in 'small town'. Maybe they do something with the info, maybe not, but thousands & thousands of people now know as opposed to the hundred or so that read the paper.
There you have it. If you can't see the diff, maybe you need this.
And guess what 'MankyD'? You would have earned no call-out from me if /. didn't have a feature where I can see the last 24 of your posts, all of which say the same thing.
Which may just prove the point at long last. Having a list of your seven posts all in one spot made it truly easy for me to become annoyed with you, whereas if that feature did not exist, you could've gone to bed thinking you were right, as chances are good I wouldn't have gone to the trouble of 'investigating'.
Of course, you could have NOT PUT THE INFORMATION ON A PUBLIC WEBSITE too.
sigh.
All the privacy concerns are all probably moot anyway.
Most venues would be overjoyed if they could play the radio, have bands, and have a jukebox without paying ASCAP or BMI. It's an expense, and I've seen a few venues that don't pay it. When pressed, they say, "Why should I have to pay to play the radio? It's free in my car and in my home!"
So, you're wrong. So wrong in fact, that you could be right - if you were talking about 60 years ago, or an orchestra, but we're talking about TAB and chords, guitar and popular songs. Single note playing intruments in orchestras use music written for the instrument they play - and are not required to own, purchase, or otherwise HAVE sheet music by any! venue. (Maybe a bandleader who's a copyright nazi or a published composer whose music is being played might require it, but those days are fading fast - if not gone already!)
So, please. Either get back in your time machine and join us in the present, pick up a manual on what the hell is going on in the real world, or shutty.
I think we can all agree we don't want either.
Dammit! I just blew a paycheck on lottery nubers!
And those grad students need to take better care of themselves - look at the acne on the guy in the last picture! He's giving even the most ardent mom's basement-dwelling
I want my million dollars in small bills.
I'm totally gonna go emo!
At least one smell will suffice for Microsoft, the Bush Administration, the RIAA/MPAA, and AT&T.
I think I'll call it 'Brown'.
It's easier
Faster
Cheaper
and in many cases with copy protection, Better
than what is available legally. Just because someone uses their next-to-free bandwidth to grab something off the net is absolutely NO guarantee that it would have been purchased otherwise - regardless if the original price was 99 cents or 9 thousand dollars.
I think you miss the point I was originally making. I'm saying that the music buying public should be educated as to where their money is going, and if the public does not like what they are funding, stop supporting the organizations that do these things.
Whether or not that is possible in an instant gratification, not my problem society is certainly an issue, but people have been known to do something selfless (like deny themselves the latest crap major label release) in the past.
http://news.dmusic.com/article/6724
Or I can do what every artist is finding they must - perform live for money. (In fact, that's one way to get on ASCAP's 'radar')
I agree - corruption & politics certainly reign supreme, even at the local small town level.
Do you honestly think that it will stop with downloads and CDs? Already, hardware is being made that respects DRM, laws are being drafted and passed that make it a crime to circumvent this hardware, and market forces may not be enough to continue to offer products that don't support it.
So, if you're happy with your current setup, continue dismissing the RIAA's lobbying powers. Don't be surprised when the world marches on without you, adding DRM, restricting rights, and criminalizing fair use. Perhaps you can volunteer to backport everything in jail, instead of fighting the causes of diminished freedom. Really.
I'd love a commercial where pop music 'superstar' lookalikes (which wouldn't be hard to find - the RIAA has made every act the same
Crossfade to title:
"Support the RIAA, and you're only hurting yourself."
"Buy independent music."
Flash an informative URL...and scene.
As things are going, releasing something like that on YouTube would create more buzz - (and be incredibly cheaper) than spending money on TV ads.
Ha. This is a repost, but I thought it good enough to give another chance - I really think someone should run with it.
...
Boycotting the RIAA will only result in more cries of, "Pirates! Pirates!". I think a different boycott is in order.
On the RIAA page, there is a list of labels that associate themselves with the RIAA - remember, the RIAA is a group of labels, and other music related 'entities' that like the lobbying power that the RIAA gives them.
Not buying CDs, videos or DRMd files is not going to hurt the RIAA - they make their money from 'dues' from the individual labels. Not buying CDs will only help the RIAA make a case that it's due to piracy, and make that case to those who make the laws.
However, if a boycott was organized that picked, let's say five, (smaller) labels from that list, and let them know that no CDs from them will be purchased that month or year by the organized boycott, calls of piracy hurting sales could be refuted on that smaller scale,(Not that they can't be refuted now...)
Labels who think that calling their customers thieves, handing out lawsuits, restricting fair use, and lobbying for the demise of independent music is ok will get a message that their customers will not stand for it.
Issues with this:
In order to work this boycott has to be big, organized, and educated. Big, so the set of music the particular few labels include intersect with the boycotting group. The boycott doesn't work if no one was going to buy that music anyway. Those sales 'lost' to apathy will be blamed on piracy, and used to lobby for more restrictions and copyrightholder power.
Oraganized, so that the chosen labels (picked by size and choice of music: see above) get an actual message : "You are being boycotted by x number of people who have agreed that they will not buy your labels offerings until: (insert ultimatum here - hell freezes over, a year passes, or my favorite, disassociation with the RIAA) This notice should be sent anywhere that would reproduce it, and those not 'signed up' should be
Educated, so that they know what the RIAA is (not a company per se, but a collection of companies), why the boycott is happening, and how they can help.
There are certainly other things to take into account, such as the 'list' is by design, not accurate. There have been cases where the RIAA has claimed membership by some small (and suddenly successful) lables, in order to present a 'united front' and spread the message that RIAA=success/no RIAA=obscurity.
I'm convinced that the only way to kill the RIAA is to go after the legs - small and medium labels that support it. Once these smaller labels have severed their connection with the RIAA, the RIAA will have less money to lobby for DRM and the extention of copyrights, less money to pay lawyers to sue your dead grandma, less money to push their skewed facts, figures and arguments to an uneducated public.
Remember, the RIAA's money comes from labels and manufacturing, whose money comes from you. Small, focused strikes by a large educated group are the only way to win.
On the RIAA page, there is a list of labels that associate themselves with the RIAA - remember, the RIAA is a group of labels, and other music related 'entities' that like the lobbying power that the RIAA gives them.
Not buying CDs, videos or DRMd files is not going to hurt the RIAA - they make their money from 'dues' from the individual labels. Not buying CDs will only help the RIAA make a case that it's due to piracy, and make that case to those who make the laws.
However, if a boycott was organized that picked, let's say five, (smaller) labels from that list, and let them know that no CDs from them will be purchased that month or year by the organized boycott, calls of piracy hurting sales could be refuted on that smaller scale,(Not that they can't be refuted now...)
Labels who think that calling their customers thieves, handing out lawsuits, restricting fair use, and lobbying for the demise of independent music is ok will get a message that their customers will not stand for it.
Issues with this:
In order to work this boycott has to be big, organized, and educated. Big, so the set of music the particular few labels include intersect with the boycotting group. The boycott doesn't work if no one was going to buy that music anyway. Those sales 'lost' to apathy will be blamed on piracy, and used to lobby for more restrictions and copyrightholder power.
Oraganized, so that the chosen labels (picked by size and choice of music: see above) get an actual message : "You are being boycotted by x number of people who have agreed that they will not buy your labels offerings until: (insert ultimatum here - hell freezes over, a year passes, or my favorite, disassociation with the RIAA) This notice should be sent anywhere that would reproduce it, and those not 'signed up' should be ...
Educated, so that they know what the RIAA is (not a company per se, but a collection of companies), why the boycott is happening, and how they can help.
There are certainly other things to take into account, such as the 'list' is by design, not accurate. There have been cases where the RIAA has claimed membership by some small (and suddenly successful) lables, in order to present a 'united front' and spread the message that RIAA=success/no RIAA=obscurity.
I'm convinced that the only way to kill the RIAA is to go after the legs - small and medium labels that support it. Once these smaller labels have severed their connection with the RIAA, the RIAA will have less money to lobby for DRM and the extention of copyrights, less money to pay lawyers to sue your dead grandma, less money to push their skewed facts, figures and arguments to an uneducated public.
Remember, the RIAA's money comes from labels and manufacturing, whose money comes from you. Small, focused strikes by a large educated group are the only way to win.
Right now, your English teacher has a silent tear of joy running down her cheek, and she doesn't know why.