RIAA Drops P2P Lawsuit Strategy, Goes Local 208
An anonymous reader writes "Wondering why the RIAA hasn't announced 800 lawsuits per month any more? Well, they're still suing people, but have developed a new strategy according to Slyck.com. Instead the RIAA is looking to be more localized, focused and personal with its new strategy."
As another reader puts it, the RIAA "will opt to file lawsuits on a weekly basis and work with local media to give it a more geographically relevant feel." Perhaps they'll also pick their targets a bit more carefully.
Fantastic (Score:5, Funny)
Great.
So what? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So what? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:So what? (Score:2)
I read KTVO [ktvo.com]'s news (such as it is -- seems they need MUCH work, what with all the typos, misquotes, leaked information, etc(not that I'm perfect in the typo department)), and the news of the local [kirksville...xpress.com] paper (though they only put two or so stories for each day on the web site).
I suspect I'm not alone.
(Well, mayhaps I'm alone in the particular sources I read, but.. ahh, you get the point).
Huh? (Score:5, Funny)
What, are we talking warm, fuzzy, happy, huggie-time lawsuits from your friendly neighborhood big-brother cartel?
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Interesting)
Here's hoping this stragegy backfires.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Funny)
Most people feel stealing is wrong, how could they not.
I enjoy stealing, but I'd be hard pushed to convince anyone I was doing the right thing.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
In no sense of the word can it be said that anyone here is being deprived of anything. A digital copy leaves the original completely intact. Of course, **AA argue that every single copy equals a lost sale. They would, wouldn't they? But this is blatantly ridiculous. There are far too many people who hoard music/movies - they couldn't have afforded to buy them all even if they wanted to. The truth is that a very tiny portion of those people who download would have bought the item if they hadn't downloaded (and a number of those people buy the item anyway, after they've tried it).
Downloading is just a convenience to most people. It's easier for me to download an album/movie and spend an hour listening to/watching it than it is for me to research what's worth buying. If I like it enough that I'll get more mileage out of it than the initial look, I'll buy it anyway. If there were no downloads I wouldn't buy any crap that came out, I'd do lots of research to see which were worth my limited fiscal resources. I'd waste a lot of my free time in doing so, but meh, I'd be more happy burning through time than I would money.
The real criminals are those who sell pirated items. Their customers have proven that they would be willing to buy (at the right price) the content and as such it's easier to make a case for a lost sale. Not all of them would be lost sales of course, most people would rather pay £5 for a movie AND see it at the same time as it's released in the cinema than wait 6-12 months and pay £20. But they are at least demonstrating that they're willing to pay some amount for that copy - thus the guy selling it is depriving the copyright holder of a sale, arguably stealing in the process.
Do we see the **AA/governments/police stamping out these resellers? Well, to a tiny extent. But for the most part they're going after casual downloaders. Why is this, if the real "thieves" are getting away with it? Because the real argument isn't about theft, it never was. It's about control. **AA want it and the internet has done a pretty good job of eroding it. So they attack downloaders, try to make us fear the tool that will remove their control, push for laws to control how we use content we've paid for. In essence they're trying to limit our rights in regards to our own legally purchased content - to me THEY are the real thieves in all of this. Just ask the artists, who also get royally screwed...
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, very insightful. You've come very close to the real issue, here. See, when CDs came out (never mind the promises about the prices coming down - they never did), everybody started re-buying albums that they already had to get the CD version. (How many copies has "Dark Side of the Moon" sold again?) So many people paid for the same music twice.
The next format was the DVD-Audio, but that never really caught on. So the next market was the iPod and on-line music. Well, guess what? I can just rip my CD's to populate my iPod. "NOOOOO! We can't allow that!" Too late now, the genie is out of the bottle. But that doesn't stop the greed.
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Informative)
On this topic (Score:2)
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
However, you are still being a cheap, freeloading asshole.
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
"The real criminals are those who sell pirated items."
I think most people reading this will agree with that statement as long as it doesn't include allofmp3.com and the other Russian music/software download sites. And, I think you were right to not word it as "...make a profit off of piracy," otherwise The Pirate Bay and the various P2P services would fall under the "real criminals" classification -- Kazaa and TBP have profited handsomely by fulfilling their mission of providing easy access to pirated
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
By "Stealing" the music, you are depriving them of the income they would have received had you purchased it.
However much you may disagree with the logic, that is a sense of the word...
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
You are depriving the producers of the music (from the artist, to the record label, etc) of a potential sale. They have copyright law on their side and each person who copies (assuming not for legit backup purposes) this content is depriving the copyright holders their money. You may not agree with it, but the law is the law. I don't agree with my cities income tax, but it is the law. I have a choice of not living i
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
They'll probably offer to help.
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
I sure hope not. I'm just a regular guy, living in a small apartment, working the 8-5 grind trying to afford medical care and save up enough money to someday afford a home, family, and retirement. I also own several shares of WalMart. When people steal from WalMart, they are actually stealing from me and thousands like me. Anyone who doesn't think that is wrong is just an evil person trying to justify his own greed.
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
If your friend's skill really is worth more than his pay, he should ask management for more money or work for another company. That would be legal. If he and his manager embezzle to give him an "unofficial" (ha!) pay raise, they are both criminals.
Of course, I think it is most likely that your friend is just a thief, and management knows absolutely nothing about this "unofficial benefit." It's not hard to increase a person's pay.
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
ttyl
Farrell
Translation (Score:5, Insightful)
We see this in the UK when police raid places, it's ignored on the major news channels but local ones make if their main feature.
Either way it's the same shit, different day news wise.
Re:Translation (Score:5, Insightful)
1. How does the RIAA control the media so well? Are the big papers and news channels really lazy enough to only report things that have press releases?
2. For a group of companies that makes their money by essentially making idiots look cool, why are they so incapable of making non-piracy cool?
Re:Translation (Score:2)
Yes.
2. For a group of companies that makes their money by essentially making idiots look cool, why are they so incapable of making non-piracy cool?
They spend many many millions on an awful lot of idiots, for each one they actually have a success with. Plus, making people feel that something they really want to do is actually uncool is way harder than convinci
Re:Translation (Score:5, Informative)
The MPAA most certainly does. For example: 20th Century Fox is part of http://www.newscorp.com/operations/other.html [newscorp.com] which owns the NY Post, The Sun and the Times in the UK, and many many many more news outlets all over the world. There is not a snowball's chance in Hell of getting negative publicity over any MPAA action in a News Corp media business.
And so on with Time Warner and the rest...
While they are not the RIAA per se - there are connections between all these players, and a joint vested interest.
Re:Translation (Score:2)
Bring on the Blipverts!
Re:Translation (Score:3, Informative)
Any PR org. should know how to game the system. To understand how this is done, read Paul Graham's "The Submarine" [paulgraham.com] which does a nice job covering the subject.
Re:Translation (Score:2)
Let's be honest, piracy is always going to be cool because we all wanted to be pirates on the open seas at some point. This version of piracy is much safer to the pirates and doesn't cost those that got pirated lifes or solid goods. If the RIAA can make non-piracy look cool, then they could found a new modern religion based around preserving their copyrights. What it
Re:Translation (Score:2, Informative)
CBS - Owned by Viacom
ABC - Owned by Disney
NBC - Owned by General Electric, who also owns Vivendi/Universal
CNN - Owned by Time/Warner
Fox - Owned by News Corp., who also owns 20th Centrury Fox & Fox Broadcasting (couldn't find any musical ownership, we are discussing the RIAA after all)
Re:Translation (Score:3, Interesting)
BR> Aye, there's the rub. When the **AA employs hyperbole to make their case seem more relevant, they simultaneously make it more cool to be on the other side. Imagine you're 14 and you hear on the news, "A gang of cutthroat pirates electronically broke into the RIAA vaults today and made off with 50 godzillion* dollars worth of music..."
Just look at the products of the entertainment industry. "Ocean's 11 & 12", "Grand Theft Auto", and all the
Re:Translation (Score:2)
Re:Translation (Score:5, Interesting)
That's the thing with national news...They talk to national people. Some Senator or Representative who really needs RIAA money for his next election. But local news, you're talking to elected officials who probably won their office by a few thousand votes at best, about people who live right down the street. Make it local, you make it personal, and people will take it personally.
Re:Translation (Score:2)
That's so true.
If the RIAA doens't hire about a gazillion extra PR people, this tactic stands no chance of working.
However, the RIAA does have the advantage. They know when and where they're filing lawsuits, so they can pre-organize local talking heads to explain how and why filesharing is the bane of civilized society.
(Because they're trying to demo
Re:Translation (Score:2)
And then the **AA turns and says "But local representative, this person clearly broke copyright infringement laws. This person has downloaded/uploaded well over 1000 songs. We are taking our legally authorized action. Are you saying it is none of our business that someone infringed OUR copyrights? I don't understand how you say this is none of our business. In fact it is the business between
Re:Translation (Score:4, Insightful)
Now in national media, the RIAA vs. Everyone Else fight is probably a draw; or at least they're not seeing a lot of potential in pushing their agenda on the national stage. However, it's so much easier to be the only source for a shoestring local news station and make sure that they report your story from exactly your spin angle. Ask Karen Ryan about that.
RIAA can make sure that their local raids, local lawsuits etc. are reported in category 3a along the lines of "The dangers of filesharing in the tri-county area" or "Is your neighbor a dangerous media pirate?" And they'll show some poor hapless dropout sputtering to defend himself. He'll get one soundbite that makes him sound like a rube or thug. The local RIAA rep, (polished, well-dressed and trained), will politely yet sternly rattle off some talking points (probably trying to sound like a DA), and the report will wrap up with a conclusion that justice has been served. Think the EFF will be able to keep up in that realm? I doubt anyone could develop the rapid response needed to get a rebuttal into local news cycles, nationally distributed.
We love to complain about the terrible quality of the major nationwide news networks, but the local stuff is just horrific. It's diabolically clever for them to use it to their advantage.
But, I thought that (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:But, I thought that (Score:3, Interesting)
Piracy has been contained. It used to be happening on a national and global level. It's been contained to a local level now!
Open letter to the **AA: Most adults don't have the free time to consume your products (music, movies). Most of the consumption comes from youth, who don't have so much money to buy your products with. What they
Re:But, I thought that (Score:2)
"piracy had been contained!? Is the RIAA talking out of both side of its mouth again. Or, does one hand of the RIAA not know what the other is doing? Hmm."
Let's say that Best Buy announces that shoplifting is contained. Contained, of course, != "eradicated completely." Perhaps to Best Buy it means that their losses to shoplifting are less than 5%.
Does that mean that Best Buy will now:
RIAA: A boycott that works (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:RIAA: A boycott that works (Score:2)
If the numbers make sense, then I'm all for it. It wo
Re:RIAA: A boycott that works (Score:5, Interesting)
Right now teens are the #1 buyers of music.
There are very few teens who would give up buying a popular song in protest of something.
The real solution is to convince Small/Medium labels to either leave the RIAA or not join the RIAA in the first place.
Convincing the Small/Medium labels without the help of their #1 customers is the hard part.
You'd have to make it un-cool to buy from the RIAA.
You'd have to make it as un-cool as drunk driving and give them options on how to buy the music differently.
Imagine a video ad showing a teen in a music store thinking about where the money goes, how it funds corruption in our government (DRM, DMCA), how it makes the police kick down your door if they *think* you pirated the music, How it pays for lawyers to sue grandmas, and how little the artist actually makes from the sale. Then show the teen walking out the door without buying it. Then show the teen getting the music differently.
Getting the music differently is part I haven't figured out, yet.
Can they buy the music directly from the artist's web site?
Does the artist get more $ if you buy the music at their concert?
I dunno
Re:RIAA: A boycott that works (Score:2)
It wouldn't stop people from buying the music they'd want but it might slow the speed people buy those albums, or maybe have them investigate a small label, or a local band.
They can not... (Score:2)
Re:RIAA: A boycott that works (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:RIAA: A boycott that works (Score:2)
Most of the time, when an new artist signs with a label, they give that label an exclusive for the next N albums. So, no, there is no other, legal, way to get that music. For your boycott, convince the teens not to buy any music from RIAA labels, and tell them there are no other *legal* ways to get it. The teenagers will figure out the rest.
*Note. There are groups like "They Might Be Giants" http://www.theymightbegiants.com/ [theymightbegiants.com], that sell the
Re:RIAA: A boycott that works (Score:2)
Guess who owns those TV/radio stations, and newspapers?
Let's face it, there's no real economic way to defeat them.
Re:RIAA: A boycott that works (Score:2)
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)
I'd go for $10M in unmarked bills and a helicopter.
Boycott? Just look for a different business model (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:RIAA: A boycott that works (Score:2)
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 abs
Re:RIAA: A boycott that works (Score:2)
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.
Re:RIAA: A boycott that works (Score:3, Informative)
Anyway here's a (somewhat outdated) family tree outlining who owns whom in the music business:
http://www.arancidamoeba.com/mrr/whoownswho2.html [arancidamoeba.com]
Think you're really buying from indeoendent labels? Check this diagram before you buy.
Re:RIAA: A boycott that works (Score:2)
http://news.dmusic.com/article/6724 [dmusic.com]
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.
Translation: (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Translation: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Translation: (Score:2)
Re:Translation: (Score:2)
Quite the opposite, actually.
Now they have upgraded to a distributed automatic lawsuit generator !
(But well, they might have turned off the old one, if that's what you meant...)
Wild Guess... (Score:5, Funny)
World Cup?
More of the same (Score:4, Insightful)
Or the RIAA/MPAA are so befuddled that they sue people who aren't guilty of much of anything. If they think this is somehow going to put a better face on their draconian tactics then they are even more egotistical and deluded than I had previously realized. If nothing else, it will rally local P2P groups and rouse them into action, and the local publicity the RIAA/MPAA is seeking will not be as friendly as they imagine. In fact, i see this backfiring on them in the long run, as the average customer begins to wonder why they are paying so much for this content.
Re:More of the same (Score:2)
Brilliant! (Score:4, Funny)
If they ARE blood-sucking leeches, they are very smart blood sucking leeches. Bravo!
Re:Brilliant! (Score:2)
SO CAN I GET YOU GENTLEMEN SOMETHING MORE TO DRINK? OR MAYBE SOMETHING
TO NIBBLE ON? SOME PIZZA SHOOTERS, SHRIMP POPPERS, OR EXTREME FAJITAS.
PETER GIBBONS
Just coffee.
BRIAN
Oh. Sounds like a case of the Mondays.
PETER GIBBONS
What if we're still doing this when we're 50?
SAMIR NAGHEENANAJAR
It could be nice to have that kind of job security.
Insurance? (Score:4, Funny)
They are the dumbest people alive. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, the threat of legislation and consistent bullying tactics are a surefire way to get me to "enjoy" my music legally. Basically all they want to do is make it look like they are catching people every day (and I'm sure they are) and then publicize that in local papers. I don't care if Robert Vaughn in Washington D.C. gets caught for file-sharing, but if Jimmy across the street gets a fine, well then I'd better be scared.
I wonder if the RIAA has done any public image surveys since they decided to start terrorizing their consumers? It's one thing to try to protect your intellectual property; it's another thing entirely to shake down every person with an internet connection. I can't think of one person nowadays who thinks the record industry is anything but a pack of devils; I just wish there was some way of translating that revulsion into serious market reform. They're just jackals, plain and simple.
Re:They are the dumbest people alive. (Score:5, Insightful)
The RIAA is working great. It's a great big magnet for all the ill-will generated as the labels fight to control how music is distributed. Everyone hates them, but no one hates the member labels - the abstract acronym organization that sells nothing takes all the blame. Perfect.
Why would the RIAA care what their public image is? They want you to like Shakira (her hips don't lie, you know) - they don't give a flip what you think about the organization.
Robert Vaughn (Score:2)
Choose RIAA (Score:5, Funny)
In Fascist Amerika... (Score:2)
Reporters? (Score:3, Insightful)
Advertorial (Score:2)
I'm more worried about publicising the personal details of alleged sharers. It's not safe when there are so many loonies out there. How would the *AA would react if individual record company execs were named and shamed like this?
That's the BSA model (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:That's the BSA model (Score:2)
Microsoft, AKA the Business Software Alliance, doesn't usually prosecute individuals. It'd be different if the RIAA was going after large web sites that host MP3 files (does anyone dare do that anymore?) and charge money to join like allofmp3.com, but they're going after kids sharing music on their home machines with no intentions of making any money off of it.
Re:That's the BSA model (Score:2)
Maybe we should be asking: Will the Courts "allow for retroactive purchase and penalties to be paid in an extralegal manner"
IIRC, in one of the (few) RIAA goonsquad cases that ended up in court, the Judge bitchslapped them when the RIAA lawyer tried to fob some of the responsibility off on their collection agency.
I'm sure else someone will have the exact quote handy.
We're all guilty you know... (Score:3, Insightful)
"We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties," Justice David H. Souter wrote in court's decision.
So Dell, Gateway, Microsoft, Apple, etc, all need to specifically have a disclaimer stating "don't use our stuff to infringe copyright"? Currently, it looks like Dell, Gateway, Microsoft, Apple, etc are all guilty...after all, their products are all used to "infringe copyright". Same with hard drive manufacturers, cd/dvd burner manufacturers, burning software manufacturers, etc.
That and, of course, we wouldn't want to hold individuals responsible for their own actions. It seems to me that gun manufacturers could now be held responsible for murder wouldn't it? Maybe a bad analogy, but is a gun really manufactured to specifically murder people? I agree with the lower courts decision completely - it just makes logical sense. But the fact that it was overturned 9 to 0 by a higher court tells me that a few people were bought and paid for.
Re:We're all guilty you know... (Score:2)
Re:We're all guilty you know... (Score:2)
Artists (Score:2, Interesting)
After speaking to an artist on a small label I was told that the most money they see and retain is from merchandise they sell at concerts, excluding cd's.
Even cd's sold on websites don't necessarily put more money into the pocket of the artists, because the same percentage goes right to the label.
If y
Re:Artists (Score:2)
How would that piss off the RIAA?If it really came down to them suing you, then the fact that you were willing to spend the money would only serve to legitimize their faulty "lost sale" resoning.
I'm not saying that yo
Re:Artists - (Score:3, Interesting)
I've had the luxury of being a part of a band signed twice to a small labels. We made absolutely nothing, despite experiencing moderate success.
Since then, we've purposely avoided label interest so we can control our own music and merchandise (and destiny). We record everything ourselves and release all music under a creative commons license. So far, it's working well.
We have broken even on our bar tabs, equipment, promotion, and gas... we
I don't listen to music (Score:2)
They to employ the Microsoft model (Score:2)
He could now be working for the RIAA... (Score:2)
think back to whether you actually returned the Publishers Clearing House entry before opening the door...
Localized and Personal? (Score:2)
Instead the RIAA is looking to be more localized, focused and personal with its new strategy.
Hey, it's Web 2.0 lawsuits!
Re:Localized and Personal? (Score:2)
Around here it isnt a big deal (Score:2)
Hopefully more ISPs just tell them to FUCK OFF, nasty letter to follow. The lawsuits come to a crashing end because judges simply dont give a shit to bother signing off on a REAL subpeona, not those fake ones the music industry gets to write themselves.
If ISPs were smart they would just say "hey we dont keep logs of who was at what ip for that long, those logs may exist in our backup vault, bu
Laugh (Score:2, Interesting)
This is not going to work, anymore than their initial batch of lawsuits did. There needs to be some serious discussion of how to reform the music and movie industries and create a system
Re:Laugh (Score:2)
So far, there is no compelling case for "not free". Oooh, I might get caught is not a compelling case. "I want to support the artist" is not a compelling case, because your payment isn't helping the artist.
Unfortunately, most of what I have heard about dir
Sounds Like... (Score:2)
Hmmm. This kind of sounds like, well, terrorism. I guess those guys are better funded than the news might have previously led one to believe.
I cannot believe they made me use the "T" word.
If I served on a jury for this..... (Score:4, Insightful)
$3 for every song on his computer ($1 Itunes price, $2 punitive), minus $36 for every physical CD he owned ($3 a song, figure an average of 12 songs a CD).
It's enough to make the kid feel pain for violating the law, without being absurd. While a $20,000 judgement against you would suck, it's not unpayable.
Of course, a $20k judgement may not make such a law suit a net financial loss for the RIAA, but they can cry me and the rest of the Jury a river.
Also remember that the Jury is the ultimate arbriter of both the defendant and the law- even if the law says he's to be fined $1000 per song or such nonsense, a jury does not have to follow that in setting an award.
IANAL but you can read about Jury Nullification [wikipedia.org] yourself.
Re:Oh goodie (Score:5, Interesting)
Going after 12 year olds for "violating" intellectual property rights is bullshit -- when was the last time you asked a 12 year old about intellectual property rights and got any answer other than a headscratch and a "huh?".
Telling a 15 year old she has to lie in court otherwise she will be tried for perjury is not only unethical but brutal. If you're religious, placing your hand on the bible and swearing to go that you're telling the truth and then having to lie because the RIAA told you to is "just protecting intellectual copyright"?
Suing a woman who has never used a computer in her life... doesn't that just scream "I'm the RIAA and I don't look into things before I try to ruin peoples' lives by suing them into the poorhouse"?
They're NOT protecting the artists that they suppossedly represent (via the record companies that they represent):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riaa [wikipedia.org]
"In 1999, Stanley M. Glazier, a Congressional staff attorney, inserted, without public notice or comment, substantive language into the final markup of a "technical corrections" section of copyright legislation, classifying many music recordings as "works made for hire," thereby stripping artists of their copyright interests and transferring those interests to their record labels. Shortly afterwards, Glazier was hired as Senior Vice President of Government Relations and Legislative Counsel for the RIAA, which vigorously defended the change when it came to light. The battle over the disputed provision led to the formation of the Recording Artists' Coalition, which successfully lobbied for repeal of the change."
"In 2006, the RIAA claimed that ripping CDs and backing them up does not constitute fair use, because tracks from ripped CDs do not maintain the controversial DRM to protect the music file from copyright infringement. They argue that, there is no evidence that any of the relevant media are "unusually subject to damage" and that "even if CDs do become damaged, replacements are readily available at affordable prices.""
That's right, they want you to buy a new CD when yours breaks... after all, they're "unusually subject to damage", right? Those thing pieces of plastic scratch more easily than my ass! Ripping the CD to my computer (and not sharing it) is not fair use? They don't want me putting it on my mp3 player so I can take my 800+ CD collection wherever I want without hiring a personal music assistant? Damn, well I guess I could employ one of the people the RIAA sued into the ground for pretty cheap. By the way, about 20 of those cds no longer work due to scratches, thankfully I have all my music ripped to my computer so I was able to burn myself a backed up copy -- I store all my cds in the cases they come in or in proteced and padded cd booklets so it's not like I'm mishandling them.
The RIAA is not in the interest of protecting rights of the artist or the consumer -- they're in the interest of making themselves rich and powerful.
Re:Oh goodie (Score:4, Interesting)
Hmm. I've always suspsected that the goal of DRM is to make you pay for the same thing over and over. This confirms my suspicion.
Interestingly enough, this [riaa.com] is still on the RIAA's website:
Re:Oh goodie (Score:2)
Wow. Haven't heard of that case. Can you provide a link?
Re:Oh goodie (Score:2)
Re:Oh goodie (Score:2)
Why is that any different from going after a 12 year old trying to steal candy from WalMart w/o paying for it? Either way, police and parents will be alerted. I'm not flamebaiting - I really think you people are on a hair trigger to go ape-shit over an organization enforcing copyright pr
Re:Oh goodie (Score:2)
Re:What if I was hacked? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:What if I was hacked? (Score:2, Informative)
Since it wasn't the mother, she had no knowedge of computers, they moved right on to her daughter.
"The RIAA sued the defendant Candy Chan, who had no experience or knowledge of computers. It was possible that her 13 year old daughter may hav
Re:What if I was hacked? (Score:2)
If I loan my car to Bob & Bob runs over Alice, Alice can sue me as the car owner and probably win a settlement from the insurance company. If however I locked my car and Bob stole it - running over Alice in the process, she shouldn't be able to win the case. (not that she can't sue, and not that some jury won't feel sorry for her & give her something)
In short, you're n
Re:As an artist, this makes me sick (Score:2)
Re:Sue for Libel? (Score:2)
They are not just trying to scare the general public (there should be something illegal about the way they are doing this), but they are going to ruin individual's names in the process.
There is something illegal about how they're doing this. There is a law commonly called RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act [wikipedia.org]) which was set up to bust the mafia. RICO has some distinct advantages, such as allowing for significant civil damages as well as harsh criminal penalties. To prosecute and/or fil