Fuck the RIAA (1141 hits)
Category: NoneRating: 0.81 on 28 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by <Barid_Bel_Medar.at.excite.com> (View user info) at 2003-06-25 14:34:27 EDT
Yeah, everyone knows about their crackdown on file sharing. Here's another article about it.
Music Labels Threaten to Sue Net Users
Email this Story
Jun 25, 1:19 PM (ET)
By TED BRIDIS
WASHINGTON (AP) - The embattled music industry disclosed aggressive plans Wednesday for an unprecedented escalation in its fight against Internet piracy, threatening to sue hundreds of individual computer users who illegally share music files online.
The Recording Industry Association of America, citing substantial sales declines, said it will begin Thursday to search Internet file-sharing networks to identify users who offer "substantial" collections of mp3 music files for downloading. It expects to file at least several hundred lawsuits seeking financial damages within eight to 10 weeks.
Executives for the RIAA, the Washington-based lobbying group that represents major labels, would not say how many songs on a user's computer will qualify for a lawsuit. The new campaign comes just weeks after U.S. appeals court rulings requiring Internet providers to identify subscribers suspected of illegally sharing music and movie files.
The RIAA's president, Carey Sherman, said tens of millions of Internet users of popular file-sharing software after Thursday will expose themselves to "the real risk of having to face the music."
"It's stealing. It's both wrong and illegal," Sherman said. Alluding to the court decisions, Sherman said Internet users who believe they can hide behind an alias online were mistaken. "You are not anonymous," Sherman said. "We're going to begin taking names."
Critics accused the RIAA of resorting to heavy-handed tactics likely to alienate millions of Internet file-sharers.
"This latest effort really indicates the recording industry has lost touch with reality completely," said Fred von Lohmann, a lawyer for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "Does anyone think more lawsuits are going to be the answer? Today they have declared war on the American consumer."
Sherman disputed that consumers, who are gradually turning to legitimate Web sites to buy music legally, will object to the industry's latest efforts against pirates.
"You have to look at exactly who are your customers," he said. "You could say the same thing about shoplifters - are you worried about alienating them? All sorts of industries and retailers have come to the conclusion that they need to be able to protect their rights. We have come to the same conclusion."
Mike Godwin of Public Knowledge, a consumer group that has challenged broad crackdowns on file-sharing networks, said Wednesday's announcement was appropriate because it targeted users illegally sharing copyrighted files.
"I'm sure it's going to freak them out," Godwin said. "The free ride is over." He added: "I wouldn't be surprised if at least some people engaged in file-trading decide to resist and try to find ways to thwart the litigation strategy."
The RIAA said its lawyers will file lawsuits initially against people with the largest collections of music files they can find online. U.S. copyright laws allow for damages of $750 to $150,000 for each song offered illegally on a person's computer, but Sherman said the RIAA will be open to settlement proposals from defendants.
"We have no hard and fast rule on how many files you have to be distributing ... to come within our radar screen," Sherman said. "We will go after the worst offenders first."
The RIAA said it expected to file "at least several hundred lawsuits" within eight to 10 weeks but will continue to file lawsuits afterward on a regular basis.
User Reviews
Submitted by korthrun (user info) at 2003-06-25 18:57:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
It hurts the artist if they hold the copyright. Most signed artists are treated like shit by the labels and do not hold the copyright on thier own work. Phish seems to be doing fine with thier project of downloading songs. All teh geeks I have asked would be estatic to pay $1-2 USD a song for download, and not have to deal with the B.S. of file swapping. Bunk songs, bad quality, someone logging off 85% into a download etc.
Movies, music whatever, I would pay, IF it wasn't $15-20 USD for an album with 1-2 good songs on it and a bunch of shit tracks. Alot of the musicians being "ripped off" didn't even write thier own shit anyway. You know every artist on motown had the same band? I am not bothered by the fact that they are suffering losses in sales mainly because musicians should not make that much anyway. You say your a musician streetpunk, how much do you make off your music? What do you get per gig on average? Whatever it is, I'm sure it's not much more than a grand if even that. Nothing about you or your talent, thats just the going price of an unsigned non coperate band afaik, a good one at that. I don't see any reason FagbandX should be making more than UbertalentY. As a matter of fact I hate it. You have some awsome telent in say, Biloxi, shredding it up, and you have some shitty player who was in the right place and made it big. Yay. Fags.
Submitted by Yes at 2003-06-25 18:43:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Linux(et al.)... with a bit-by-bit CD Copy program... Rips and burns the raw data from the CD to another CD, so unless they start making CDs with phsyical features that are expensive to reproduce (then we'd all need special players) the data will flow! The data will FLOW!!
MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Submitted by yidele (user info) at 2003-06-25 16:58:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
"...the SACD format is streaming, which means you cant copy it..." - no, it doesn't mean that. A streaming format simply means that it can be played via a stream. There are many ways of copying streams, not he least being an app that is a streaming client & writes the streamed chunks sequentialy into a file. There is no such thing as a "safe format". One of these days the recording industry will understand that, much as most of the software industry does.
Submitted by firefly (user info) at 2003-06-25 16:48:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
i agree with you streetpunk.
Submitted by streetpunk (user info) at 2003-06-25 16:21:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
DJMATT, I am a musician as well and I have been studying this. It does hurt the artist when cd sales go down because bands get terminated from labels and contracts, then they have no more music to promote with shrits, tickets, yadda yadda yadda. The new type of music media sounds good to me though.
Submitted by DJMattB241 (user info) at 2003-06-25 16:13:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Being a DJ, i've been doing a lot of thinking about this whole subject. First off, i agree, the RIAA is rich, and they dont need to worry about it as much as they do.
Secondly, they are now starting to produce SACD's... if you havent heard about these, they are very good. They are recorded in 5.1 surround sound AND they have a dual layer so a normal stereo mix comes out of your non-SACD equiped players. and the SACD format is streaming, which means you cant copy it. This works out wonderfully, because you can still swap the files around and stereo cd quality, but to get the ultimate, best version, you have to go buy the cd. Also, this promotes the idea of having to take some actual time with your recording to make it really shine so people WANT the 5.1 version (not just reverbing the back speakers).. See Dark Side of the Moon 30th Anniversary!!!
Next, yes. Very little of album sales go to the artist. I forget the exact number, but its a lot less than a dollar per CD. Thats no good. So buy the t-shirts, the concert tix, etc etc.
Next, I agree with previous posts. The quality of albums has gone down dramatically. More and more albums are coming out that are nothing more than a collection of singles and fillers (read Justin Timberlake). This is why no one is EVER going to break Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon's record of 741 (not exact, but close) weeks on the Billboard Top 200.. Albums just dont have the staying power that they used to.
If I were to make a list of albums that have come out in the past 10 years that (in my opinion) are definately worth getting and experiencing as a whole, it would be very short and look something like this:
Radiohead - OK Computer, Kid A, Amnesiac
Marilyn Manson - Mechanical Animals, Holywood
Tool - Aenema, Lateralus (just for the artwork! wooo!)
Lo Fidelity Allstars - Dont Be Afraid of Love
Groove Armada - Vertigo
im sure i could think of others, but it's time for me to go home, so i'm outta here.
Keep looking everyone! The good music is out there.... somewhere.
Submitted by streetpunk (user info) at 2003-06-25 16:00:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Fred Durst supports file sharing. Most independent artist support it to an extent but they also want you to buy their albums. I know there are some that are all for it but in the mainstream world, they are few and far between.
Submitted by dakota (user info) at 2003-06-25 15:54:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Are there any musicians that are publicly against the RIAA that you know of?
Submitted by hendrixjrr (user info) at 2003-06-25 15:54:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
We should all be lawyers, like Starr Jones
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2003-06-25 15:43:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
how is playing music for people at a party any different from transferring that same music to them over the internet?
Submitted by EH (user info) at 2003-06-25 15:43:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
"but if you try to download anything off the seether album or the Paparoach-love,hate,tragedy album, it will come out with imperfections that ruin the track. If this is part of the files make up, I don't see how a 14 year old kid(or anyone) could crack it. I am not much into computers but I could be wrong. "
- I can almost guarantee you that somewhere, someone is making an attempt to fix these imperfections and defeat the record company. Sooner or later it will be done, maybe not today, maybe not tommorow. We do have some rather intelligent people out there in the world, its only a matter of time before one of them shines again.
Speaking of gnuetella networks (previous review) Has anyone seen "the italian job" where seth green keeps talking about how he created napster and yadda yadda. I thought that was a very humorous part in the movie!
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2003-06-25 15:37:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by JMG114 (user info) at 2003-06-25 15:29:55 (#)
Ranking: 1
The poor RIAA. I feel bad for it. It's really, REALLY tough to make it by on almost $20 billion a year, isn't it?
hahahahahahahahahahahaha
seriously, they are a bunch of whiners. aren't they rich enough?
Submitted by hendrixjrr (user info) at 2003-06-25 15:31:36 (#)
Ranking: 0
I would never waste my money on the shit I download anyway. Most of it is pure musical diarrhea.
same here, Jason... same here. i can't even count the amount of times that i bought a CD because i liked a song i heard by the band, only to find it was the only song worth a shit on the whole CD. record companies take one good song, and then make the artists write a few more shitty songs to make an album so they can sell it.
Submitted by streetpunk (user info) at 2003-06-25 15:34:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
No andrew, you can't sell them. If you are not making financial gain, it is not illegal. Check out the copyright laws, I am pretty sure of this. Neil Simon tried to sue some schools for recreating his plays in their speech performances and he lost because they weren't selling tickets, they were just performing at the tournaments.I understand that this is slightly different because it is hurting their sales but there are plenty of ways to combat it. Also, you can legally duplicate a movie as long as you don't sell it or charge people to watch it. That is when it becomes illegal. Handing out copied cd's from an album where the master was paid for walks a fine line but wouldn't hold up in court.
EH, I understand that codes can be cracked for viruses but if you try to download anything off the seether album or the Paparoach-love,hate,tragedy album, it will come out with imperfections that ruin the track. If this is part of the files make up, I don't see how a 14 year old kid(or anyone) could crack it. I am not much into computers but I could be wrong.
Also, they can offer things like free posters, chances to win shit, coupons onm other related products, yadda yadda yadda.
Submitted by hendrixjrr (user info) at 2003-06-25 15:31:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I would never waste my money on the shit I download anyway. Most of it is pure musical diarrhea.
Submitted by JMG114 (user info) at 2003-06-25 15:29:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
The poor RIAA. I feel bad for it. It's really, REALLY tough to make it by on almost $20 billion a year, isn't it?
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2003-06-25 15:28:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"It is illegal but damnit, it sure is cool."
loki has spoken.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2003-06-25 15:18:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
It is illegal but damnit, it sure is cool. I'm worried about what they will set this little threshold at. It's not even so much the money I would have spent on cd's as it is using this like my own little private radio station.
Because of a post on here last week, I got stuck on CCR and downloaded a shit load of it for my weekend trip to the mountains. I would not have rushed out and bought all of that, it would have been a passing, "I should get some CCR sometime I haven't listened to that in a long time and fuck I think my dad's were all on oh what are those big black disk things that had scratches on them called - records" If I hadn't downloaded it, I would have just listened to something I already had or the radio.
Submitted by EH (user info) at 2003-06-25 15:18:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
andrew has a damn good point. If the RIAA were to sue the consumers that would be suicide on their part. Excellent statement drew, that shizzle was off da heezy!
Submitted by EH (user info) at 2003-06-25 15:16:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I withdraw portions of this statement, particularly the ones that the following is relevant too!
http://www.ubersite.com/cgi-bin/message_get.cgi?message=1056566067396313337#78403
"Pirate recordings are the unauthorized duplication of only the sound of legitimate recordings, as opposed to all the packaging, i.e. the original art, label, title, sequencing, combination of titles etc. This includes mixed tapes and compilation CDs featuring one or more artists. "
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2003-06-25 15:14:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
i think it's funny that they want to sue all these people. yeah, sue the consumers. that will make you REAL popular. that will boost sales! all the people you just sued will be lining up to buy your products and telling all their friends!
dipshits.... they really have lost touch with reality.
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2003-06-25 15:11:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
uhhhhhhh... Stanton... that is actually illegal. you paid for a copy for yourself. you don't have the right to hand it out to anyone else. you can make copies for yourself, but you can give them to anyone.
Submitted by EH (user info) at 2003-06-25 15:11:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
streetpunk:
"Why can't they combat positively by offering shit that you can't download, dropping prices(like normal businesses), and putting out albums that you can't download."
I think I managed to answer this earlier but will re itterate my answer. Its because no matter how much money they spend. How much time they spend doing it, or how much brain power goes into it. Some 14 year old will come along and crack the code. Its happened time and time again, and will continue to happen. They are making a federal case out of this claiming its piracy, but what exactly do they classify piracy as? Because as far as I knew it was handing out copyrighted material and recieving funds back for it. If you are sharing music openly as a community on a peer to peer network, then you are not exactly making any money off of it now are you? The entire case/subject has so many thin lines with legalality its scary. I am willing to bet they have lawyers working around the clock making an attempt to find a loop hole somewhere that will benefit them more!
Submitted by streetpunk (user info) at 2003-06-25 15:03:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
This article just pissed me off. Why can't they combat positively by offering shit that you can't download, dropping prices(like normal businesses), and putting out albums that you can't download. I think I am going to copy every cd I have multiple times and start handing them out on street corners. Let them try to sue me. Do they not realized that when I bought the album, I bought the distribution rights for that album? If I have a cd that I bought, and I record it to a cassette tape for a friend, that is my right and none of their business. What they forget is, people have to buy something to put it on the net. If no one does, then it won't be available. The fact of the matter is, they can't tell me what to do with their product after it is bought and paid for and they can't go after the friends that I authorized copies to. It sounds like they are getting desperate. Maybe, they need to fire some of these highly paid attorneys.
Submitted by antluvdog (user info) at 2003-06-25 15:02:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
The RIAA is about power. Power to control the airwaves, power to control who makes it big, power to suck the life and finances out of good artists.
Napster chinked that armor. Kazaa et. al. will be the swords that slay the dragon.
Fuck the RIAA. Fuck the MPAA.
Finally, the consumers backlashed and won.
Submitted by EH (user info) at 2003-06-25 14:59:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
I don't even think its a matter of supporting the artists. If you look at the break down of the cd cost's the artists dont make much off the production of a cd. They make their money from T-shirts and concert tickets. To the best of my knowledge its somewhat hard to pirate t-shirts and concert tickets. The RIAA wants more money from the cd's because the funds that are collected from cd sales go to them and the recording studios. Its all about money and nothing more. You can support a band in so many other ways then buying their cd that probably has 2 good songs on it.
some good ways to support your bands -
buy their out rageously priced concert tickets and spend a fortune on the beer at the concert
buy their shirts, or any product that they endorse
mow their lawn
send pipe bombs to someone who they publicly stated they despise!
send them your daughter/sister
Ya know whats funny and what I just thought of... those fucking commericials "If you do this you are supporting terrorism" Well, If you support your bands you are supporting drug use, which according to those commercials are supporting terrorism. Don't believe me? Then I want you to go home, take all your cd's tapes and records off your shelf and burn them. Cause all of those artists...RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRREAAAALLLY High on drugs when they wrote that stuff!
Submitted by Cymensen (user info) at 2003-06-25 14:53:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I should sue the RIAA for being assholes. Seriously, can they even legally do that? That has to break some sort of privacy law.
I think I'll start making my own damn music, and tell them to cram CDs up their ass. I download from the Internet, but I still buy CDs, and if they want me to quit, I fucking will. Infact, I think I'm gonna download fifty songs today just to tell the RIAA to cram their greedy, assinine policies right up their stretched ass. I prbally won't like the songs I download; I'm just doing it to piss them off.
Fuck corprate America. Fuck the RIAA. Fuck Metalica, too. The were the RIAA's little puppets in the beginning of this.
Submitted by turveytopsy (user info) at 2003-06-25 14:50:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
Fuck the RIAA? There's no need to. They fucked themselves. While piracy may account for some of the recent trends in music sales, another novel idea to blame it on is that there is NO GOOD MUSIC BEING RELEASED!
I personally can't wait until the RIAA gets the rights to go vigilante against offenders of copyright infringement.
"Downloaded the most recent Metallica album eh? Fuck you pirate!"
c:\format c:
I'm all for supporting artists when they do something good. I dislike the trend that we've created in which this neo-clepto behavior has become the norm.
Submitted by EH (user info) at 2003-06-25 14:47:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
So, I guess I should start talking to my lawyer and packing an "overnight" bag for my prison sentence.
I really think the RIAA should just shut the fuck up and deal with it. No matter what they do, its not going to stop. Look at what happened to napster, They shut down napster and 4 more Gnuetella's(SP) popped up. This is going to be like the war on terrorism in the sense that it will never end. They can sue all the people they want, and they can keep shutting these places down but somewhere, someone is making a new program, or figuring out an elaborate way of cracking their anti piracy encryption they embed on their cd's. I always find it amusing when they spend two years and hundreds of thousands of dollars if not millions to develop some encryption. Multiple years, lots of money with a team of 46 year old mathematitions and programmers and its broken down in 3 weeks by some 14 year old looking to play dvd's or a cd on his computer.
Further more, they have made a crap load of outlandish request's to the government to allow them to hack into peoples computers and delete files, attach virii and trojans into mp3's and set them loose on the networks. They didn't even take into account that some people out there may in fact have legitimate mp3's on their systems. They also didn't take into account that some people may download the songs to "evaluate" them, before purchasing the cd or cassette. The RIAA is a bunch of money hungry whores craving for more. They are profiteering glutton's and nothing more!