Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Music Media Your Rights Online

Rosen Floats ISP Fee Idea -- Charge Everybody! 701

iconian writes "Hillary Rosen of RIAA wants to impose a type of fee to ISPs which in turn will be passed to all their customers indiscriminately to recoup supposed damages done by file-sharing. The RIAA considers downloading music illegally over the Internet to be the moral equivalence of stealing. I wonder then what is the moral equivalence of the RIAA taking realized cash from people who do not download music?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Rosen Floats ISP Fee Idea -- Charge Everybody!

Comments Filter:
  • Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Saturday January 18, 2003 @05:30PM (#5109355)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by Faggot ( 614416 ) <choadsNO@SPAMgay.com> on Saturday January 18, 2003 @05:32PM (#5109372) Homepage
    This is as absurd as taxing every blank digital medium that gets sold in America, in case they're used to pirate music!!

    oh.

    Wait a sec.
  • by aelfwyne ( 262209 ) <lotherius@NOspam.altername.net> on Saturday January 18, 2003 @05:32PM (#5109379) Homepage
    Then I'll start downloading pirated music, which I don't do currently. I don't have a single file-sharing app on my PC (unless you count MSN, FTP, et alius) and don't use those for much other than moving around source code..

    But if they make me pay an ISP fee to download pirated music, and they reap profits from that, isn't that the same as selling me the right to download said music? As far as I'm concerned, it is.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 18, 2003 @05:33PM (#5109386)

    Would someone please post Rosen's address, phone number, and, of course, e-mail address.

    Thanks,
    W00t

    Get Your Peace On [mnftiu.cc]

  • Hey... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by iNub ( 551859 ) on Saturday January 18, 2003 @05:36PM (#5109415) Homepage
    Charge me $10 a month for pirating, and I'm licensed to download what I want. Let's see if *anybody* buys music once it's legal to download it. I can't see how this is going to make them extra money. In fact, I think they'll lose money. Why would -- hey...

    Let's let them do it! Would you pay $10 a month for a year if it made the RIAA drown in their own stupidity?
  • by jpt.d ( 444929 ) <.abfall. .at. .rogers.com.> on Saturday January 18, 2003 @05:37PM (#5109419)
    Let me see if I get this right:

    1. Complain about piracy
    2. Lets charge per tape because we have our music pirated.
    3. ??
    4. Profit!!
    5. Complain about piracy
    6. Lets collect tax from ISP because we have our music pirated.
    7. ??
    8. Profit!!
    9. Complain about piracy
    10. ??
    11. ??
    12. Profit!!
  • Re:Nothing new (Score:4, Interesting)

    by cscx ( 541332 ) on Saturday January 18, 2003 @05:38PM (#5109428) Homepage
    Anyone else remember DATs, before they were taxed out of existence?
  • by Yo Grark ( 465041 ) on Saturday January 18, 2003 @05:39PM (#5109431)
    Here's a better article.

    http://news.com.com/2100-1023-981281.html

    In it, HR's more sane suggestion is to urge

    "major music labels, which include Sony Music, Warner Music, EMI, Universal Music and Bertelsmann's BMG, to ease licensing restrictions, develop digital copyright protections for music and invest more in promoting subscription download services."

    Sounds like a good plan to me.

    The only thing she forgot was the "oh and offer music at a fair price"

    Sometimes it seems paraphrasing is the main source of news on Slashdot. :P

    Yo Grark
    Canadian Bred with American Buttering
  • by Jason1729 ( 561790 ) on Saturday January 18, 2003 @05:40PM (#5109438)
    The recording industry already has a tax on most computer media in Canada.

    It's already 21 cents per CD, and is going up to 59 cents soon. There's also a fee of 21 cents/megabyte for digital camera memory and tiny HDs because they can also be used in mp3 players.

    Taxing ISPs is probably just the next logical step up here

    Jason
    ProfQuotes [profquotes.com]
  • by KDan ( 90353 ) on Saturday January 18, 2003 @05:40PM (#5109447) Homepage
    They already have gotten away with that (them and the MPAA). They got a price markup on audio cassettes and video cassettes, to pay for the pirating, and no one complained about it.

    Imho, this sort of thing just makes me doubly motivated to go out and download all the music I want. If I'm going to be paying a markup for it, might as well take advantage of it.

    Oh, and I haven't bought a single music CD in the last 3 years. And I'm proud of it. Once a system is in place to pay money to artists directly, I'll put some money in towards the artists I like. Until then, I ain't paying squat.

    Daniel
  • best for last (Score:5, Interesting)

    by BigBir3d ( 454486 ) on Saturday January 18, 2003 @05:44PM (#5109466) Journal
    wrt Kazaa and the like:

    "It's clear to me these companies are profiting to the tune of millions and millions of dollars. They must be held accountable," Rosen said.

    When did I give Kazaa money again...?
  • by kedi ( 583806 ) <<un.ouj> <ta> <idek>> on Saturday January 18, 2003 @05:47PM (#5109485)
    "just makes me doubly motivated to go out and download all the music I want"

    and ths makes me triply motivated to rip and put up my CDs for download. until now I used to allow only 1 user at a time to download from me, but now I will make it 10. look for kazaa user oggfan.
  • by nightherper ( 635698 ) on Saturday January 18, 2003 @05:47PM (#5109487) Homepage
    I second that!

    I own a car - but I don't go randomly running over people or property.

    I own serveral fireamrs, but I have never killed anyone or anyting with them. (Except for some out of date Coca Cola)

    I own a camera, but I don't go kidnap little girls and make kiddie porn

    I own several knives but I have never cut anyone but myself with them...

    Yet if I own a computer, a cd burner, cd-r discs and have an internet connection I am automatically a music pirate? (Or worse?!)

  • by PFAK ( 524350 ) on Saturday January 18, 2003 @05:49PM (#5109492)
    I guess I can now download 40GB of MP3s, this is getting really annoying. I can't even rip any of the new albums I've bought, it's made me less motivated to buy albums and just download them from the internet.
  • by bildstorm ( 129924 ) <peter@buchy.shh@fi> on Saturday January 18, 2003 @05:59PM (#5109557) Homepage Journal

    My mother, a standard consumer with nearly no knowledge of how to go about pirating music or burning CDs, pointed out something very simple to me. She said that the price of CDs was the big problem, not the economy so much, and not piracy.

    She pointed out how when Wal-Mart or K-Mart or Target have sales on CDs where the price drops quite low, say $10/CD, they sell out of the popular CDs. She also pointed out that in order for everyone to get paid reasonably, the cost to produce a CD would be about $5.

    So, when you spend that incredible $20/CD, what are you spending that money on? Padding the pockets of shareholders and paying lawyers chasing "piracy".

    My suggestion? When the CDs go on sale, buy 'em. Buy when they're low to show that you WOULD buy them if the were reasonably priced. Of course, getting the CDs you want may be tough then. Additionally, buy used CDs. Buy whenever the music hits a price you consider reasonable. Continue to support your favourite artists by buying t-shirts and going to concerts.

    They should really teaching these marketing people some real economics courses. Supply and demand aren't just a simple cross on a chart when you add in alternative methods of obtaining materials. Sometimes crime does pay. Maybe we should have politicians look at it too.

    "People are inherently selfish, but still they like to look morally upstanding in others' eyes. No one wants to be the bad guy." -me

  • by KDan ( 90353 ) on Saturday January 18, 2003 @06:03PM (#5109588) Homepage
    Most of the artists I listen to have nothing to do with the RIAA, and most of the music I listen from them doesn't even come out in CD form. For instance, I listen to a lot of swiss trance and progressive trance, and most of what I listen to in that genre is live sets recorded from the radio. The RIAA has done fuck all to put that in front of me (thank god, maybe it would sound more commercial if they had).

    As for the so-called artists à la Britney Spears that the RIAA does expend a lot of effort on, to get them in my face whether I want to hear about them or not, those can go rot in hell. If they all go bankrupt I'll be happy. Finally the airwaves will be free for the types of artists which don't need multi-million dollar marketting campaigns to be listened to. And there's plenty of those, believe you me.

    Anyway, in answer to you and the AC before, you, on the theft thing: Theft would be for my benefit - I'm doing this to do my bit to help the RIAA go bankrupt. I'm not making any financial gains by letting other people download my music, so if I'm stealing, where's it going? Huh?

    Daniel
  • Wouldn't it be nice (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Mistlefoot ( 636417 ) on Saturday January 18, 2003 @06:04PM (#5109594)
    Wouldn't it be nice if Red Hat or Mandrake or Suse sued the governments (in those countries such as Canada and the U.S.) where funds are given to "musicians" for every cd purchased. I don't file share yet must pay a fee for each cd I purchase ... 59 cents each. At 3 cds each for my Mandrake and RedHat distributions (which I can download for free but must pay a "musician" to burn) that would muliply quite rapidly when you consider the number of North American open source user.

    It is quite ironic that an Operating System is offered to me free of use but I must pay a "Musician" for the right to copy it. Mandrake goes bankrupt. These may not be large number of dollars but the fact is that they are being "pirated" by the music industry from the Open Source community.
  • by Ether Trogg ( 17457 ) on Saturday January 18, 2003 @06:09PM (#5109630) Homepage
    1.) The right of taxation is reserved to governments only. Private organizations (like RIAA) do not have the right to tax. So, your "taxation analogy" is out the window.

    2.) A large portion of the money you pay when buying a CD goes directly to RIAA. Now RIAA is proposing that ISPs force their users to pay a fee, however indirectly, to RIAA. So, you the user are being forced to pay twice for products you've already bought. To follow your "taxation analogy," this would be called "double-taxation," which is illegal. Again, your "taxation analogy" fails.

    3.) RIAA is not accountable to the tax-paying public, because they are a private company. You and I have no voice in how RIAA performs its functions, yet they are demanding the right to "tax" us for merely using the Internet, which -- I might add -- they had no hand in creating or maintaining. Once more, following your "taxation analogy," this would be called "taxation without representation." Your analogy falls flat on its face, mortally wounded.

    4.) You state in your argument that, for your taxes paid, you get a set of services in return provided by the government. True. This is the balance of taxation. However, you get nothing from RIAA in return for the fee they propose to force upon you. That is not taxation; that's theft. So, once more, your "taxation analogy" is bogus.
  • Re:best for last (Score:4, Interesting)

    by LostCluster ( 625375 ) on Saturday January 18, 2003 @06:13PM (#5109649)
    Kazaa turned a profit... and this isn't something to be happy about.

    Kazaa is infested with all sorts of tag-along programs which are spyware and adware. Remember the famous one that stole Amazon.com affiliate program links so that Kazaa always got the credit?... yeah, that's stealing from Joe Webmaster... but Kazaa doesn't care.
  • Re:Nothing new (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ftzdomino ( 555670 ) on Saturday January 18, 2003 @06:14PM (#5109661)
    They already tax blank cd's in Canada (can't seem to find any good info on the US). If we let them put DRM on every PC and recording device, would we be able to get rid of these fees?
  • by Drakula ( 222725 ) <tolliverNO@SPAMieee.org> on Saturday January 18, 2003 @06:25PM (#5109707) Homepage Journal
    isn't this what happens with sale of any other product? I mean when you own a store and lose a certain percentage of revenue to shoplifting, etc. typically you raise your prices to compensate the additional overhead to your business. In that way, the other consumers pay for stuff they didn't steal.

    I don't want to see this happen either, but ther is precedent for it.
  • by MacAndrew ( 463832 ) on Saturday January 18, 2003 @06:26PM (#5109709) Homepage
    I must admit it's not insane to try to distribute a burden across a wide group of people, even if they object to the ultimate purpose. It's called taxation, and makes a lot of sense for a public good. Say, for example, a fuel tax to pay for the roads. Not perfect, but not insane.

    Maybe we're not taking socialism seriously enough. Here's a proposal: If the various labels want to impose a tax and distribute it amongst themselves (an entirely inappropriate and possibly unconstitutional thing for the gov't to be doing, redistributing for a private "good"), why not go whole hog and socialize the music industry. Then they'll get their tax, and we, through Congress, can decide how much of the take they get. No profits, of course.

    Symmetry? Everyone happy? No one happy? Well, that's the point. :)
  • by anubi ( 640541 ) on Saturday January 18, 2003 @06:29PM (#5109729) Journal
    According to the referenced article:

    Rosen hailed a recent U.S. court decision which ruled that Kazaa, operated by Australian-based technology firm Sharman Networks, could be tried in America, as an important legal step to halting the activities of file-sharing services.

    How can a "U.S. court" take it upon themselves to dictate terms to the World? Shouldn't this issue be resolved before the United Nations?

  • by nathanh ( 1214 ) on Saturday January 18, 2003 @06:34PM (#5109758) Homepage
    i agree with you... it's like saying "grocery prices are outrageous... to show my malcontent i'll go rob a grocery store". the legal way to show malcontent is to not purchase the product. if enough ppl do this, things change.

    Except he was justifying copyright infringement, not shoplifting and/or robbery.

    Copying music is legally wrong. It is probably morally and ethically wrong. It is, however, not the same sort of wrong as theft. The problem is complex enough already: nobody needs your loaded analogies muddying the waters.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 18, 2003 @06:41PM (#5109811)
    "My suggestion? When the CDs go on sale, buy 'em. Buy when they're low to show that you WOULD buy them if the were reasonably priced. Of course, getting the CDs you want may be tough then. Additionally, buy used CDs. Buy whenever the music hits a price you consider reasonable. Continue to support your favourite artists by buying t-shirts and going to concerts."

    Ah, but that won't help. The RIAA still gets the same amount of money whether the CD is on sale or not. The retailers themselves are the ones taking the loss on a sale.
  • by joshsisk ( 161347 ) on Saturday January 18, 2003 @06:43PM (#5109829)
    And whose fault is that? Why does the RIAA collect money from blank CD-R sales to make up for piracy, but not give that money to the artists?
  • by Anonvmous Coward ( 589068 ) on Saturday January 18, 2003 @06:53PM (#5109899)
    "Imho, this sort of thing just makes me doubly motivated to go out and download all the music I want. If I'm going to be paying a markup for it, might as well take advantage of it."

    The way I see it, if they charge me like that, then I'm paying for a service. They're basically saying "It's all okay". So yes, I agree with you, I'd take advantage with it.

    What really irks me is that they've provided 0 way of legitimizing any MP3s we all have. They don't acknowledge that if you have a CD of a song that you're a legitimate user. They don't give you a way of purchasing a certificate or license for a digital copy of a song or CD. And if you delete your collection, they don't do anything to subtract that from their 'piracy' reports.

    So yeah I'd love to pay a small fee for this, they'd have little room to bitch afterwards.

    Too bad they won't try to make money by giving people an opportunity to legitimize what they have.
  • by reallocate ( 142797 ) on Saturday January 18, 2003 @07:21PM (#5110062)
    ...what is the moral equivalence of the RIAA taking realized cash from people who do not download music?

    I dunno, but so what? Feelings of moral superiority, by themselves, seldom carry the day.

    Seems to me this is just an attempt to scare big ISP's into doing the RIAA's dirty work for them. At that, there'd certainly be a few challenges in court that would gum up the works for at least a while.
  • by billstewart ( 78916 ) on Saturday January 18, 2003 @07:30PM (#5110110) Journal
    It's well known in the industry, and heavily commented on by some musicians that *some* record labels have been known to rip off their musicians' music and other record labels have failed to adequately promote their artists' music. To make sure that that doesn't happen and that artists are properly compensated and promoted, Congress needs to pass a law requiring record labels to pay bands up front and not rip them off later and record labels to pay the internet industry to distribute anything that isn't in the Top 40. This is heavily documented statistically - the decline in Billboard ratings of almost every song that was in the Top 40 five years ago clearly demonstrates that the lack of adequate promotion by the record industry is interfering wtih artists' earnings and recognition. Furthermore, almost everything that *is* in the Top 40 is there because of record industry promotion, except for a smaller number of artists that achieve that popularity because of their artistic abilities in spite of the rampant failure to adequately promote them, and a much smaller number of songs like the Macarena which are clearly statistical outliers or badly collected data.
  • Protest Ideas (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Qzukk ( 229616 ) on Saturday January 18, 2003 @07:31PM (#5110116) Journal
    Well, we could take a page from that guy collecting AOL cd's to toss on AOL's doorstep, and buy blank cd-r's by the box. Get N of them, and shatter the whole lot, then deliver them to RIAA headquarters. By fedex or courier with signature required (might require some help from the shipper... come in with a little box, corner a secretary and have her sign for it, then "OK boys, bring in the carts"). Then, use their signature showing they accepted the shipment of unused CDs to form a class action lawsuit (for the donors of CDs to the cause) for the amount of their "cd tax"*N cds plus legal fees, on the grounds that this payment was for a service never rendered. Optionally, allow nonsecret settling out of court by distributing N cd's full of mp3s.

    Another idea, less likely than the last: Follow Rosen around, and figure out some way to screw with the prices at grocery stores and gas pumps. See how many people are in her car and multiply the cost of gas by that much (when its charged). Ideally you'd add a little message to the end of the receipt: "Since this gas will be used by 3 people, we had to charge you 3 times as much". Options would be to use the max capacity of her car ("You MIGHT have 5 people in your car so we had to multiply by 5) or if she drives alone, multiply by two: "You are driving with BIN LADEN"

    Yet another idea: Write to your congressman and tell them that you are tired of paying the RIAA tax. Tell them that if you continue to have to pay RIAA to support their dying way of life, then you will have no choice but to copy music, so that the money you have spent on them for the right to pirate music isn't wasted. After all, in the absense of any other agreement to the contrary, you must assume that paying the "tax" whose stated purpose is to pay for piracy must give you a license to pirate music.
  • Re:Nothing new (Score:2, Interesting)

    by pyite ( 140350 ) on Saturday January 18, 2003 @07:33PM (#5110129)
    I have a DAT deck that I use pretty often. I don't own any commercial DATs nor no anyone who does. Instead, I use them to record live music, legally. I shouldn't have to pay the RIAA a tax for that, and I don't. DDS-1 (Digital Data Storage) tapes work fine and dandy in every DAT deck and many regard their quality better than audio DATs. Screw you RIAA.
  • by cannes ( 151121 ) on Saturday January 18, 2003 @07:36PM (#5110149) Homepage Journal
    support free music. There is one site that i can think of off hand EFF"s Open Music Registry [openmusicregistry.org]. There are a couple musicians out there that still give a damn about music... I'm not sure that things like these will really revert the people in the RIAA, I'm really don't think that they know that things like this exist.

    I believe that they are just throwing around ideas on how to stop piracy even the stupid ones... I really don't see something like this that would ever pass. They really haven't had any real good plans to stop piracy, well incentive to buy would be my best bet.. today i bought Foo Fighters ($11.99) and The Crystal Method ($6.99) price wasn't too bad and they are both pretty good records. But an ISP tax is something I'm not ever going to pay for.. I already pay $44 and that is enough. Anyway someone call Fugazi and tell that record industry is all fucked up again!

  • by rudedog ( 7339 ) <dave@ru[ ]og.org ['ded' in gap]> on Saturday January 18, 2003 @07:38PM (#5110166) Homepage
    Technically, you're not allowed to make a copy of music for your friend. Your friend is allowed to borrow your CD and copy it, but you are not allowed to copy the CD and give the copy to your friend. It's a subtle difference, but it is a difference -- the basic premise is that the person copying a copyrighted CD must intend to use the copy for his personal use.

    See here [neil.eton.ca] for more info.
  • by kaiidth ( 104315 ) on Saturday January 18, 2003 @08:17PM (#5110335)
    Just a small point:

    I might be atypical, as I appreciate my TV consumption is well below the average, but the following comment holds as true before and after I made that particular change in my life; I never learnt about artists because 'the members of the RIAA paid a shitload of money'. Generally, I almost always find new artists I like - in order - by word-of-mouth from friends, by chance (eg. turning up at a random gig or other and discovering I like it), by poking around the record store, or, recently, by internet.

    Occasionally, I do find new artists I like off the radio or television - very occasionally - but really, if the RIAA are PAYING significant $ to get their acts on advertising-sponsored radio then I think they're doing something wrong (or, more likely, are victims of the payola they almost certainly imposed on themselves).

    One thing that I know for sure is that at least in Europe, the idea that a musical act has to pay radio stations - especially small, local advertising sponsored stations of the few-hundred-thousand-listener variety - should by all logic be laughable. Like local newspapers, most local institutions /anywhere/ are begging for free content... if, at least, they weren't contractually bound not to play it. Which, sadly, I suspect they are.

    The point of all this being that, frankly, your RIAA - advertising - economics theory is part wishful thinking and partly true, but much of what makes it true is fall-out from the bad behaviour of the RIAA and its European cousins.
  • Re:Nothing new (Score:4, Interesting)

    by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Saturday January 18, 2003 @09:02PM (#5110481) Homepage Journal
    Last I checked, so-called "Music" CD-R discs were no different from data CD-Rs whatsoever. Period. They just say Music on them, and they tend not to be as high-speed, since devices intended solely for music duplication are usually not very fast. Is there something new that I don't know about? Could you explain how they will work with older CD-R music-only devices? Could you provide a link?

    Normal "Music" CD-Rs do cost you some extra money which goes to the RIAA, some of which supposedly goes to artists but I suspect that means it goes to the label and a tiny fraction of it goes to artists. Either way it's wrong to take my money when I buy CD-R media so I NEVER EVER buy so-called music CD-Rs. Interestingly, non-geek people I explain the situation to say that they will also never buy them, with very little prompting. This is how much the common man hates the music industry. It doesn't stop people from buying music but it does lead them away from it.

  • CD prices (Score:3, Interesting)

    by cje ( 33931 ) on Saturday January 18, 2003 @09:07PM (#5110505) Homepage
    Absolutely agree.

    If I go into a place like Circuit City or Best Buy, wander over to the CD section, and buy the soundtrack for a movie such as The Fellowship of the Ring, I can expect to pay about $17.99 USD. Yet I can now wander over to the DVD section and pick up the DVD for that same movie for $19.99 USD -- and there I get the whole movie plus commentary tracks, deleted scenes, documentaries, etc. The soundtrack is only a couple of bucks less and all I get is the soundtrack.

    And yet Hillary Rosen and her goose-stepping Gestapo at the RIAA complain about falling CD sales figures and they have the nerve to act surprised. What's that you say, Hillary? CD sales are off? No shit, Sherlock.

    The fact of that matter is that 90% of what the RIAA puts out is complete garbage and 100% of it is overpriced. They're well aware of this fact, but really don't care; they're more concerned about preserving their ancient sales model and revenue stream than they are about putting out a high-quality product for a good value. Perhaps that's why DVD sales are skyrocketing and CD sales are flat. DVD movies are cheap, high quality, and offer a lot of bang for the buck.

    The fact that DVDs are outselling $20 CDs that only have one or two decent tracks on them should come as a surprise to nobody.
  • by BrainInAJar ( 584756 ) on Saturday January 18, 2003 @09:53PM (#5110680)
    "the typical /. poster sure smells like someone who just wants free music. So much for the moral high ground."

    No, I don't want free music. I want reasonably-priced good music.

    Last time I bought a CD, it cost me $25 canadian. That's WAY too much for a college student (one of the largest CD consuming groups) to be paying. If the RIAA is trying to price-gouge a group of people who have no money, that's just nuts.

    If CD's were $10 CDN, I'd buy much more music, even if I only like 1 or 2 songs on the CD. Since they cost so much, unless I like the whole CD, I'm not buying it.

    And that's another thing. If a CD sucks, I can't return it to the store, I'm stuck with a Frisbee/coaster/arrow target/whatever. The CD's that I have bought, I had on MP3 before I bought them. I bought the CD 1) so I can get better mp3 rips and 2) for cover/liner art.
  • Check out the latest issue of Wired magazine. (I doubt the articles are online yet...issue 11.02.)

    When I pulled my copy out of the mailbox, the image of the Hindenburg accompied by the headlines (THE FALL OF THE MUSIC INDUSTRY and HILARY ROSEN: THE MOST HATED NAME IN MUSIC) certainly piqued my interest.

    After reading the article on Hilary, I'm almost sympathetic with her plight. She is the punching bag, with asshole anal-retentive CEOs of the big 5 labels on one side, and all of us /.er's on the other. Based on the article, I don't think she likes the assholes that run the labels anymore than she likes the people that upload songs to Kazaa.

    None of this is any defense for Hilary, though. While her ability to withstand being beaten up from two sides (including death threats...shame on any asshole that sent her a death threat!) is admirable, it doesn't change the fact that she's on the wrong side of the issue. Her contract expires this year. It will be interesting to see if she's willing press on as a $1 million per year punching bag.

    Slightly offtopic, but in this same issue of Wired there's an article that encourages companies to embrace hackers rather than persecute them. Just thought I'd mention that. (And no, I don't work for Wired.) :)

    --K.
  • Re:Nothing new (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Mister Transistor ( 259842 ) on Sunday January 19, 2003 @12:18AM (#5111366) Journal
    Link? I don't know of any but I'll give you one better. Firsthand personal experience.

    There's a stack of 5 of them sitting on my damn shelf right now in front of me; my older Yamaha CDR100 will NOT burn to them - it rejects them as invalid media, even trying to do a red-book audio CD type of burn. It simply refuses to recognize the discs as valid blank CD-R media. Since I don't own a consumer CD-writer, I never could use them, and my roommate that bought them by accident had since lost the receipt, so I couldn't return them either. And there they sit; a monument to CD-Audio-R format or whatever the hell they called it.

    I very recently purchased a brand-new whizz-bang 48x16x48 CDRW drive, so perhaps it might be able to do something with them, but I can assure you 100% that they are NOT ordinary CD-R media with a "Music" label and hefty surcharge attached.

  • Dear Mrs Rosen (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ChillinTheMost ( 642759 ) on Sunday January 19, 2003 @01:26AM (#5111675)
    Dear Mrs Rosen,

    I was planning on purchasing two CD's tonight from TranceTrax.com The latest Orion and Leviathan releases however, after reading the tales of your latest bullshit I decided to donate $25.00 to the EFF. As a result I no longer have the extra cash to spend on those two CD's.

    I purchase two CD's each month from TranceTrax.com which helps pay for the audio feed provided by philosomatika Since I an not doing this I will simply donate $10.00 to philosomatika instead.

    Have you ever thought that maybe it's you who might be directly responsible for the 6% drop in sales?

    PS: Check out www.dontbuycds.org

  • by name_already_taken ( 540581 ) on Sunday January 19, 2003 @02:13AM (#5111843)
    RIAA both has their cake and gets to eat it too.

    I have a Sony PCM2500 DAT deck with a digital input which is connected to the digital output of my Toshiba DVD player. When I play a mass produced audio CD in my DVD player, the Copy Prohibit indicator on my DAT deck lights up and the deck won't record the music from the CD. Problem is, when I bought the so-called audio grade DAT tape that's in the deck it cost more than so-called computer grade tapes do because of the RIAA tax on audio DAT tapes.

    So, I've paid an extra fee when I bought the tape to compensate someone for the audio I'll supposedly be copying, but the copybit scheme encoded on the CD prevents me from doing so (until I shell out $120 for a Behringer Ultramatch to strip the copybit from the data stream)... Am I not being ripped off here?

  • by DoctorFrog ( 556179 ) on Sunday January 19, 2003 @10:05AM (#5112861)
    The RIAA and the MPAA may be pulling a King Canute act (look it up) but the typical /. poster sure smells like someone who just wants free music. So much for the moral high ground.

    Making sweeping statements about the average slashdotter and using your generalization to judge on their morality makes as much sense as assuming broadband users are a bunch of 'pirates' and using your generalization to charge them money.

    I have never, repeat never, downloaded any mp3 that wasn't clearly licensed by the artist allowing me to do so. The RIAA is charging me, with every blank CD-R I buy, for acts of copyright infringement I have never committed, and are now suggesting a scheme which if it passed would likely have me pay a monthly maintenance fee for those same acts which I have never committed.

    Hell YES I have the moral high ground!

  • by Gadzinka ( 256729 ) <rrw@hell.pl> on Sunday January 19, 2003 @12:24PM (#5113331) Journal
    Brilliant example. If grocery prices were being artificially jacked up by a marketing cartel, farmers were being paid shit wages, and there was a 'tax' on gardening tools and fertiliser that went to the same cartel to cover loss of profits due to home gardening. even if you were only using the tools and fertiliser to grow roses and not vegetables. That's about where we're at.


    No, that's still not the same.

    When you steal the groceries from the shop behind the corner, you take it from the owner of the shop and he loses money spent on it. When you take someone's car, you take away his posession. When you photocopy a dollar bill and circulate it, you take away a bit of value from every single dollar bill on this planet.

    When you copy music you don't do any of this. You don't deprieve original of its value, you don't take the money spent on its creation. There is very questionable point of lost revenue, but thats just it: it's questionable.

    Go figure...

    Robert
  • by joshsisk ( 161347 ) on Sunday January 19, 2003 @01:25PM (#5113584)
    Most artists that I know that have signed to a label did so when they were very young, 19-23, and had no clue about how business works. The the labels get A & R reps, who are "cool"-seeming young dudes (usually guys who were in signed bands that broke up) to hob-nob with you and convince you that the label is different than all the others.

    Then these A & R reps get you to sign a "deal memo" which they will tell you you don't need your lawyers to read, it's nota contract. And it's not, but it's still legally binding. All it says is that you intend to sign a deal with the label.

    Once you've signed, you're in and you can't really get out. The deal memo means that you can't sign with another label, and if you can't do that you are pretty much at the mercy of what contract they give you.

    Sure, you could probably get a lawyer and get out of the deal memo, but a) these people are young and don't have lawyers or big money, b) the labels have better lawyers and bigger money, and c) the fear that other labels won't want you if you have a reputation for being litigous.

    All in all, the deck is stacked towards the labels.
  • by zcat_NZ ( 267672 ) <zcat@wired.net.nz> on Sunday January 19, 2003 @04:21PM (#5114465) Homepage
    I agree. That's why I changed the analogy and compared it with a fee on gardening tools;

    • Copying music; User ends up with music for very little cost. Copyright owner still has everything they originally had, but is possibly out a sale.

    • Growing own vegetables; Grower ends up with food for very little cost. Commercial grower, corner store, supermarket, etc. still has everything they originally had, but is possibly out a sale.


    I know this analogy is still slightly flawed; it's more like growing your own Monsanto roundup-ready-canola without paying Monsanto for the seeds. But it is nothing like stealing actual vegetables from a store.

    Incidentally, you might want to do a web search and read up on roundup-ready-canola. Monsanto is just the kind of company that might propose a tax on farming equipment to cover their 'seed piracy'

The moon is made of green cheese. -- John Heywood

Working...