250 million dollars is only 0.0078 % of 32 billion dollars.
Come on, we're suppose to be NERDS. Do the math. Quit pointing to iTunes as some sort of real cash flow to the RIAA. It's not. Either is the $3000 dollars they make from lawsuit settlements.
We forget how filthy rich this monopoly is. 32 billion dollars is a lot of money. Feel sorry for media companies now? Are we ripping off the artists? Hell no, the music industry has been ripping off artists MUCH longer than we've been alive!
I can't believe that there are ANY sales, period! Why do people still buy CD's from them? They're convicted price-fixers, and the price is still too high! What they need is a 90% sales slump, so that they have to cut their full time legal department.
There is nothing wrong with recording things (set in law since the time shift case)
This 'right' that we've enjoyed is being continuously eroded because it's only appyling to analog recordings. We will no longer have the right-to-copy digitally, and since everything is moving to digital....
Maybe, eventually, some company somewhere will sue people who bypass this signal, or a company who makes a signal filter.
There's no MAYBE in that sentence. It is absolutely going to happen. With the DMCA tied to this, it will be illegal to even try and make a machine that will ignore the broadcast bit. And they've learned from their mistakes from DeCeSS, and failing to sue DVD-John from Norway.
The companies are slowly lining up everything exactly the way they need it to hit a home run and have an iron fist on this right out of the starting gate.
Ever wonder why HDTV is going so slow in catching on? Because they want to get all this crap out of the way to start with.
And the U.S. government will pass ANY LAW they can to make this happen because they have a deadline on selling all the HDTV airwave range to these companies. They desperately HAVE to sell this spectrum to the content companies because it's been allocated in their budgets for many years now.
How true. Sad to think that Disney was built on the back of so many public domain stories. Even sadder to think about how long they'll "own" the copyright to (for instance) the recent movie, "League of ExtraOrdinary Gentlemen" or the lawsuits they'd bury you in if you tried to use that movie yourself in the wrong way.
I used to buy it to get familiar with all the new buzzwords/version/specs.
When the time came to build a new computer from parts, it was good to know about EDO vs SDRAM, CPU speeds, and the going rates for everything. At least for me. And it was from mostly looking at the ads, scary to say.
First of all, readers can be made to read RFID's from much further than 5 feet.
Second, how would you like to walk down the street, and someone read what you have in your purse/coat/wallet/bag?
Or the most popular 'what-if': A burglar is able to get an inventory of what you have in your house by simply driving around. OOohhh... a plasma TV. Let's rob this house.
And here's one I just thought of. What if a burglar scans your house on Monday while your whole family is at home. He pays special attention to your clothing inventory, especially all the shoes. From that day on, he/she could figure out when no one is at home, because they'll know when the clothing is not in the house... Time to break in.
While I agree with the aim of your main point, I'd like to point out that having 1% of their entire discography available online is hardly a true alternative.
1. I have no idea what these RIAA guys are talking about
Civil Case, not criminal. You have to prove your innocence, they don't have to prove your guilt. "I have no idea what they're talking about" won't work.
2. I have never used filesharing apps
False, they have documentation that that IP was online sharing files. Thus, you're back to #1.
3. I am not the only one who uses this computer, it is shared by multiple users and if anything happened it wasn't me.
Doesn't matter. They will be suing the name on the ISP's bill. If that's you, you're responsible.
4. I am not the only one who uses this internet connection and if anything happened it wasn't me.
Redundant, #3.
5. I have no songs on my PC whatsoever and I can prove it
I threw away the gun after I shot that guy. So I couldn't be the murderer because I don't have a gun. Your #5 is not an argument. They only have to go against ISP logs.
THERE, DONE. You owe 4.2 million dollars because we're chargining $150,000 per song. Too bad you didn't settle.
New to the cause?? That Pepsi/Apple commercial has been reemed by countless groups for exploiting those kids.
"I fought the law, and the law won", and the flashed words, "GUILTY", etc... totally misleading. None of those kids were guilty of anything. They settled out of court. They were never charged with a crime, and were never found guilty because they paid their $3,000 extortion money to the RIAA to avoid a ridiculous multi-million dollar lawsuit ($150,000 fine per song).
There's plenty of great things you Apple fanatics can crow about for Apple, but that commercial is not one of them. Besides, 'you wanna sell sugar water forever'?
They "brought attention" to 89 of the suits being against universities. The rest of the 500 are just poor non-school shmucks. They did NOT just file against schools.
People will support it once they become familiar with the bands
Truer words have never been spoken. This the main power card the RIAA has. The marketing they do to make their artists popular is what keeps the cycle going. By playing the song over and over, people become familiar with it. And then equate it to 'liking' the song. As their friends start to enjoy the song, now they have to enjoy the song to be able to partake in conversation about that music.
Exposure is the only thing that separates an excellent indy band from being a popular band. Good luck.
You know the article is bunk when you read it. It sounds as convincing as my 10 year old explaining the reasons why he should be allowed to stay up later.
The year 2004 will be THE year for HDTV! Hahahaaha. Great premise. Do you work part time at Best Buy?
My favorite is that the final 'nail' in Tivo's coffin will be when ESPN starts airing some sportcrap in HDTV. Oh no, the end!
Heheh, interesting story. Your norwegian RIAA is acting that way probably for 2 reasons. 1) It's in their interest to make everyone think that the only music in the world is RIAA-copyrighted music. 2) They're full of themselves.
You may find that you have to play 100% independent music to become ASCAP free (or whatever the norwegian alternative is for the royalty collection). I am pretty sure that is the case with online-radio streaming (which has it's own rules, I know... so may not apply with air-waves at all) I am sure you will have to provide tons of paperwork to your norwegian Riaa in proving that you don't "owe" as much money as playing 24/7 riaa-music.
And unfortunately, you may find that your 20.000 listeners dwindles down to 30 when you start playing the unknown, unpopular indy music, as they switch stations. A shame, really.
Good luck. I know that in america, if you tried that stunt, Clear Channel would move to town, set up their own RIAA-music station, and probably go commercial free for 3 months to ruin your station. Then they'd buy your station, and then change format back to RIAA-music.
I have always believed that the economy is the main factor in CD sale-loss, and believe that any increase could be the easing of the recession. At the very least, it's a logical factor that has been supressed by media and the RIAA cronies.
In 2001, our company had to fire 100's of people after huge sale dropoffs. We were simply unable to blame it on pirates, and not big enough to make a national political campaign out of it.
Slashdot Mirror
That would be awesome!
I'd buy it! (However, my rate my go up due to being high-risk)
The search for the Horse-and-Buggy industry is still at large!
I'm sure that the RIAA would bring it up, but that would hinder their plans to lie about piracy and purchase new laws from Congress.
Come on, we're suppose to be NERDS. Do the math. Quit pointing to iTunes as some sort of real cash flow to the RIAA. It's not. Either is the $3000 dollars they make from lawsuit settlements.
We forget how filthy rich this monopoly is. 32 billion dollars is a lot of money. Feel sorry for media companies now? Are we ripping off the artists? Hell no, the music industry has been ripping off artists MUCH longer than we've been alive!
I can't believe that there are ANY sales, period! Why do people still buy CD's from them? They're convicted price-fixers, and the price is still too high! What they need is a 90% sales slump, so that they have to cut their full time legal department.
We're safe until we run out of trees.
This 'right' that we've enjoyed is being continuously eroded because it's only appyling to analog recordings. We will no longer have the right-to-copy digitally, and since everything is moving to digital....
There's no MAYBE in that sentence. It is absolutely going to happen. With the DMCA tied to this, it will be illegal to even try and make a machine that will ignore the broadcast bit. And they've learned from their mistakes from DeCeSS, and failing to sue DVD-John from Norway.
The companies are slowly lining up everything exactly the way they need it to hit a home run and have an iron fist on this right out of the starting gate.
Ever wonder why HDTV is going so slow in catching on? Because they want to get all this crap out of the way to start with.
And the U.S. government will pass ANY LAW they can to make this happen because they have a deadline on selling all the HDTV airwave range to these companies. They desperately HAVE to sell this spectrum to the content companies because it's been allocated in their budgets for many years now.
How true. Sad to think that Disney was built on the back of so many public domain stories. Even sadder to think about how long they'll "own" the copyright to (for instance) the recent movie, "League of ExtraOrdinary Gentlemen" or the lawsuits they'd bury you in if you tried to use that movie yourself in the wrong way.
When the time came to build a new computer from parts, it was good to know about EDO vs SDRAM, CPU speeds, and the going rates for everything. At least for me. And it was from mostly looking at the ads, scary to say.
The magazine is worthless today.
I think that's the point.
RFID's are useful for returns, also. Not only can the item go straight back to inventory, but you wouldn't need to produce a receipt.
But disabling RFID's at checkout would ruin that money-making benefit. This is just one of the reasons mentioned on NPR this morning.
Second, how would you like to walk down the street, and someone read what you have in your purse/coat/wallet/bag?
Or the most popular 'what-if': A burglar is able to get an inventory of what you have in your house by simply driving around. OOohhh... a plasma TV. Let's rob this house.
And here's one I just thought of. What if a burglar scans your house on Monday while your whole family is at home. He pays special attention to your clothing inventory, especially all the shoes. From that day on, he/she could figure out when no one is at home, because they'll know when the clothing is not in the house... Time to break in.
But won't a form RFID be moving to cash also, if not already? After all, what is that metal strip that's in the bill already?
Oh yea? Boycotts are coming whether you like it or not. Roll that up and smoke it.
--Consumer #1342982304982
While I agree with the aim of your main point, I'd like to point out that having 1% of their entire discography available online is hardly a true alternative.
The punishment should equal the crime.
Civil Case, not criminal. You have to prove your innocence, they don't have to prove your guilt. "I have no idea what they're talking about" won't work.
2. I have never used filesharing apps
False, they have documentation that that IP was online sharing files. Thus, you're back to #1.
3. I am not the only one who uses this computer, it is shared by multiple users and if anything happened it wasn't me.
Doesn't matter. They will be suing the name on the ISP's bill. If that's you, you're responsible.
4. I am not the only one who uses this internet connection and if anything happened it wasn't me.
Redundant, #3.
5. I have no songs on my PC whatsoever and I can prove it
I threw away the gun after I shot that guy. So I couldn't be the murderer because I don't have a gun. Your #5 is not an argument. They only have to go against ISP logs.
THERE, DONE. You owe 4.2 million dollars because we're chargining $150,000 per song. Too bad you didn't settle.
"I fought the law, and the law won", and the flashed words, "GUILTY", etc... totally misleading. None of those kids were guilty of anything. They settled out of court. They were never charged with a crime, and were never found guilty because they paid their $3,000 extortion money to the RIAA to avoid a ridiculous multi-million dollar lawsuit ($150,000 fine per song).
There's plenty of great things you Apple fanatics can crow about for Apple, but that commercial is not one of them. Besides, 'you wanna sell sugar water forever'?
They "brought attention" to 89 of the suits being against universities. The rest of the 500 are just poor non-school shmucks. They did NOT just file against schools.
Truer words have never been spoken. This the main power card the RIAA has. The marketing they do to make their artists popular is what keeps the cycle going. By playing the song over and over, people become familiar with it. And then equate it to 'liking' the song. As their friends start to enjoy the song, now they have to enjoy the song to be able to partake in conversation about that music.
Exposure is the only thing that separates an excellent indy band from being a popular band. Good luck.
The year 2004 will be THE year for HDTV! Hahahaaha. Great premise. Do you work part time at Best Buy?
My favorite is that the final 'nail' in Tivo's coffin will be when ESPN starts airing some sportcrap in HDTV. Oh no, the end!
You may find that you have to play 100% independent music to become ASCAP free (or whatever the norwegian alternative is for the royalty collection). I am pretty sure that is the case with online-radio streaming (which has it's own rules, I know... so may not apply with air-waves at all) I am sure you will have to provide tons of paperwork to your norwegian Riaa in proving that you don't "owe" as much money as playing 24/7 riaa-music.
And unfortunately, you may find that your 20.000 listeners dwindles down to 30 when you start playing the unknown, unpopular indy music, as they switch stations. A shame, really.
Good luck. I know that in america, if you tried that stunt, Clear Channel would move to town, set up their own RIAA-music station, and probably go commercial free for 3 months to ruin your station. Then they'd buy your station, and then change format back to RIAA-music.
In 2001, our company had to fire 100's of people after huge sale dropoffs. We were simply unable to blame it on pirates, and not big enough to make a national political campaign out of it.