RIAA Settles Suits Against Students 746
wo1verin3 writes "Cnet's News.Com has reported that the RIAA has settled the suits with four students accused of sharing songs. The settlements will see each student making payments to the RIAA totaling between $12,000 and $17,000, split into annual installments between 2003 and 2006."
I think I speak for us all when I say... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I think I speak for us all when I say... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What the hell were they thinking? (Score:5, Insightful)
And they would have funded this...how?
Of course, this is a travesty of justice because the law wielded by the RIAA is simply inconsistent with societal norms. I would have loved to see the RIAA sue Bill Gates for the Windows Networking code that allowed this lawsuit to succeed, but they weren't that stupid. The RIAA hand-picked their targets with the expectation of this outcome.
Don't blame the students for settling...they probably couldn't afford to do otherwise. Instead, ask these questions: If "P2P piracy" violates the DMCA, why isn't the US Department of Justice getting more involved? Why has the RIAA pursued the civil court path instead of putting pressure on the US DOJ? And what flaw in our system of law has given the power of law-enforcement to a body of five corporations?
I agree with the spirit of your post, but don't blame the victims. Attack the culprit.
--K.
Re:What the hell were they thinking? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I think I speak for us all when I say... (Score:5, Informative)
Mod points all gone, but you are right. What's worse is that they really should have fought this, because, as a recent poster pointed out [slashdot.org], the Audio Home Recording Act specifically says that noncommercial recording is legal. (Some people rebutted this with the point that computers are not techically digital audio recording devices, but that isn't so. Most major computer manufacturers nowadays specifically market their machines with the "Rip, Burn, Mix" message. That classifies them as exempt under the AHRA.)
Re:I think I speak for us all when I say... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I think I speak for us all when I say... (Score:5, Informative)
The AHRA doesn't exempt digital recording devices in the general common sense definition of the term. It creates a NEW definition of what constitutes a digital recording device, and only exempts THOSE.
And be fucking thankful, too.
Because if computers qualified as DRDs under the AHRA, 17 USC 1002 would REQUIRE that computers use SCMS (a sort of DRM), or a workalike. And section 1003 would REQUIRE that computer manufacturers and importers pay royalties to RIAA, ASCAP, etc. That would suck.
DAT is an AHRA-type DRD. Computers are NOT.
Don't believe me? Go read the Diamond v. RIAA case and get a clue.
Re:You don't speak for me. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You don't speak for me. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:You don't speak for me. (Score:5, Insightful)
>Under the DMCA you can get jail-time.
That's exactly why the DCMA should be repealed. It lets the RIAA, the MPAA, Adobe, etc. shift the cost of enforcing their copyrights onto the taxpayers.
Copyright violations are normally a civil offence, meaning if you violate my copyright I can sue you. But under DCMA, if the material is in digital format violating my copyright suddenly becomes a criminal offence. Why?
Re:You don't speak for me. (Score:4, Insightful)
Rampant piracy is, infact, capitalism at work.
Re:You don't speak for me. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You don't speak for me. (Score:5, Insightful)
Get real. The only part of "capitalism" this hurts is the music industry and the movie industry. (And I daresay it hurts the music industry a lot more, as it's still easier to go out and buy the DVD rather then wait 196 hours to download one.) And if the music industry insists on ignoring that basic tenet of capitalism, supply and demand, then they deserve to get the shaft.
Kierthos
Re:You don't speak for me. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You don't speak for me. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You don't speak for me. (Score:3, Insightful)
In this case, the fact that I get a copy of a piece of music does not deprive the person making that piece of music available, nor do I end up profiting from providing the same piece of music.
This does not even qualify as a barter economy, as there is not equivalency, one copy of a Perl Jam song is not t
Re:You don't speak for me. (Score:3, Informative)
You get use and enjoyment, without remuneration or recompense to anyone. Especially the creator.
The perfect "something for nothing".
Re:You don't speak for me. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You don't speak for me. (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, one of these guys was running a search engine. Since when is that illegal!?
I'd love to see someone create a system that actually allowed true borrowing of other people's music/movies
You may have heard of this - it's called a library.
The settlement (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:You don't speak for me. (Score:4, Interesting)
Doesn't matter.
Contributory infringement: if you know or have reason to know of direct infringement, and induce, cause, or materially contribute to it, you're liable too. You don't need knowledge of specific acts of infringement according to the Napster court; just infringement generally. Providing the technology isn't enough to give you knowledge if there are possible substantial noninfringing uses. But if you know or have reason to know for some other reason than the capabilities of your technology, that won't really help you. Particularly if you know of specific instances of infringement and don't purge it from your system insofar as you're capable and legally able to.
Vicarious infringement: if you have the right and ability to control the direct infringer's action, and get a direct financial benefit from the infringement. There can be financial benefit if infringement is a draw for paying customers. In Napster it attracted users who might someday be paying users, so it qualified. If you were a landlord for an actual place where this occurred and got a cut of the profits (as opposed to a flat rent that never varied) that would count too. Helping to sell ads might qualify as well. And if you have a legal right to control what's done over your system, and the actual ability to do so, you must be forever perfectly vigilant to never let any infringement occurr, or at least persist once you know of it. A system that didn't let you delete stuff off of it might help you, but it would probably be hard to build one that really worked like that and certainly to avoid the court not really believing you since it seems like such bad faith thing to do, viz. willful blindness. Even if the material isn't quite on your system, the index of material still has to be policed, since it basically corresponds to the infringing files and is what's actually helping the infringement occur. Wrong spellings don't help, since you have to police with common sense, just as users can decipher the typos with common sense.
So this still seems wrong to me, as contributory infringement. Maybe not vicarious, but I don't know all the details of what the people here were doing or planned to do. Most important was what they actually knew -- but unless these guys were naive pollyannas, I don't see much wiggle room there.
Re:You don't speak for me. (Score:5, Funny)
Of course there's a "hole" in it, you dickhead. Hold a fucking microphone up to the fucking speaker. What the fuck.
Calling shit like that a "hole" completely misses the point. Nobody cares if you ""tee" stdout (aka >&1) from
You know what it's like? You calling this a "hole" I mean. It's like if I put up a fence around my property. You're on one side of my property, and on the other is a Krispy Kreme. You can smell those donuts, and man, you want 'em bad. You look and look at my fence, but then you suddenly realize that you can just go AROUND my property, around the perimeter of my fence, to get to the Krispy Kreme. And after you do, you come back with your face smeared with glaze and say, "Hey, d00d, there's a hole in your fence look how clever I am!!!!!1" And I'm all, "Shut the fuck up you fat fucking pig, you don't even understand what my fence is trying to protect so you just shut your fucking mouth. Bitch."
Yeah. That's what it's like, that shit right there. Yeah.
Re:You don't speak for me. (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh really! People I know who were caught with illegal drugs in college weren't fined anywhere near this much. That is, the very few that were stupid and obvious enough to get caught.
Re:You don't speak for me. (Score:5, Informative)
This is NOT the same as Joe Sixpack hosting gigs of mp3s on his own computer and making them available to everyone else, this is a matter of going after students writing software that has the potential to be used maliciously (sound familiar?)
Re:You don't speak for me. (Score:3, Informative)
While I do belive that these guys were
Re:You don't speak for me. (Score:4, Insightful)
If I'm listening to web radio, am I going to be liable because the "broadcaster" didn't pay his/her ASCAP/BMI fees? I sure as hell hope not. Ditto if I download any other file. Maybe if I am knowingly involved in receiving illegal copies I can be held liable for contributory infringement of some sort, but how am I to know that it's not the record company sharing those files on Kazaa? (just an example... I don't actually use Kazaa)
Re:You don't speak for me. (Score:4, Insightful)
Y'know, something that's perfectly legit, even in the eyes of the IR... RIAA.
And then at some point, some unknown person releases a hack for the utility, and (what do you know?) all those bad pirates are using the software in a totally unauthorised manner!
Bad pirates! No pieces of 8 for you tonight!
I think it's called plausable deniability. Big corporations and governments use it all the time.
Re:I think I speak for us all when I say... (Score:3, Interesting)
Two things are important to keep in mind. Number 1, the artists are getting screwed by the record labels who trick them into going into debt to produce and market the album. So the royalties earned by the band typically just go to pay off the debt. As long as a band is indentured to the label, they can keep demanding that the band produce more albums to pay off the first album that didn't reach expected sales. I know plenty of musicians (some
That'll Teach 'Em (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the RIAA should sue all of us, and then we'll all turn to buying CDs! Brilliant!
Re:That'll Teach 'Em (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That'll Teach 'Em (Score:5, Insightful)
I for one won't let this stop me though
Re:That'll Teach 'Em (Score:5, Insightful)
I wouldn't think it would deter downloaders as much as it would potential P2P software writers. Remember, these students wrote software that one reporter described as "mini-Napster."
If anything P2P will move more underground (compromised servers, encryption, passwords, etc) which will serve the RIAA pretty well as Joe User will probably not be able to keep up with the newest 'warez sites.' A barrier to entry was just erected today.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That'll Teach 'Em (Score:5, Interesting)
The legal forces of the RIAA have been tasked with something impossible. Control everyone.
Every dictator who's ever tried to do this before has eventually fallen back on the same tactic: Terror. If you make people fear for their lives for doing what you don't want them to, you can control and them more easily.
Unlike fascist dictators, the RIAA doesn't quite have the power to randomly make people dissapear. They haven't quite bought those laws yet. They're working in it, however. This is just an interim step.
Re:That'll Teach 'Em (Score:4, Insightful)
And the RIAA (and I suppose the MPAA) is running a very fine line between intimidating pirates, and turning MORE people into pirates by making them angry.
Personally, I'd bet something would happen like this (same as what happened when some European company was going after edonkey users):
File trading decreases for around a week or two because of the scare, then everything is back to normal. The fact of the matter is that the chance that any RIAA/MPAA-type body will go after an individual user is only slightly higher than being struck by lightning on a bright sunny day.
Sure, some people will get burned, but they can't afford, financially, or PR-wise to start goose-stepping on their customers...
Even though many people are downloading music, the majority of them still buy at least a FEW albums. Too much enforcement would mean they wouldn't buy ANY.
Apple's new music store is a good idea, however I still won't buy into DRM music. I'd be happy to pay $0.99 for an unlocked MP3, but I'll never willingly purchase DRM materials that I can't unlock for my own fair use.
N.
Umm...Apple's DRM (Score:4, Informative)
compared to tuition... (Score:5, Funny)
but geez, poor scapegoats, I could be next...and school leaves me broke enough already.
$12000 buys how many songs? (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, that does sound pretty good, would you pay, say $59 a month or something for unlimited mp3s? I might...
Re:$12000 buys how many songs? (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, it only costs $15 [emusic.com].
Re:$12000 buys how many songs? (Score:5, Funny)
I think you'll find it's OK. Digital technology nowadays can lower the Khz of the recording, and input all those little scratches and blips you're used to - you don't need to use the gramophone.
Re:$12000 buys how many songs? (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, that's a severe exaggeration perpetuated by the "analog audiophile" (note the quotes) community.
Yes, sampling simplifies an analog waveform. Theoretically, analog has infinite bandwidth, whereas a digital signal has a cap at a frequency depending on the sampling rate (Nyquist frequency = 1/2 of sampling rate - thus, on a 44.1 kHz-sampled CD, the highest frequency you can possibly record is 22.05 kHz. It gets a little worse than this by the need to use filters to be 40 dB down [Redbook standard] at the Nyquist frequency, so they really start rolling off around 20 kHz or so).
So, yes, you do have to 'simplify' a recorded analog waveform to put it on a CD.
However, ask yourself this - does vinyl have infinite bandwidth? You think so? Well, say you have harmonics up at 50 kHz (which some sounds do) - do you think the mass of the needle/arm combination is able to move that fast? Nope.
Also, are you able to press vinyl with enough resolution to put a 50 kHz tone into it? Nope. Maybe possibly if you're doing your "pressing" with a laser, but other than that, no. Plus, you need those waves to be pretty damn deep (high amplitude) in that vinyl for them to move the needle. Otherwise the needle point will just skip right over 'em. And speaking of which, you need a needle sharp enough and fine enough to ride those 50 kHz grooves... which doesn't currently exist.
Then, you need pre-amps and amplifiers to reproduce a 50 kHz tone (tough, but not impossible), and speakers that can reproduce a tone that high (nearly impossible, and really freakin' expensive)... not to mention ears that can hear it.
In short, CDs have bandwidth limitations. But so do vinyl records. And a theoretical best vinyl has a lower signal-to-noise ratio than a theoretical best CD - and when you start talking about the high-res formats, SACD or DVD-A, there's no contest.
Records don't suck, they were great for their time. But they've been surpassed.
-T
Re:$12000 buys how many songs? (Score:3, Interesting)
how to pay off ? (Score:5, Funny)
Exaggeration theatre (Score:5, Funny)
Woah!
They pirated seven CDs each?
and how much (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:and how much (Score:3, Funny)
Re:and how much (Score:5, Insightful)
That got a "+Funny" mod, but I think it is a legit question. If the RIAA keeps talking about how "we" are hurting the artists, what measures are they taking to give the artists restitution?
Re:and how much (Score:5, Interesting)
Ahh, a fresh mind unspoiled by the cynicism that comes with watching the RIAA's and MPAA's actions
Re:and how much (Score:5, Funny)
To be fair, the RIAA should be charging the artists for copyright protection.
Hmmm, kind of like "protection money", eh?
Re:and how much (Score:5, Funny)
Well, $70,000 went for legal fees. $19,000 for publicity, $15,000 for fancy lunches, $11,000 for limo rides, and $45,000 for clothing. We figure the artists owe them somewhere between $20,000 and $30,000.
Pay up, suckas.
Re:and how much (Score:5, Funny)
They get 30% and the RIAA gets 100%. How, you ask? The artists will have to pay a 30% "protection fee" for the protection against piracy the RIAA has bestowed upon them.
Apple pricing suddenly looking better? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Apple pricing suddenly looking better? (Score:5, Interesting)
But on another note, Kudos to apple for pulling off a service I might actually use one day
They seem to have a nice selection of some of the rarer stuff I'm interested in, which is very neat.
wow... thats.. (Score:5, Funny)
That's a lot of cash... (Score:3, Insightful)
What is the logic behind these damages? Were the students in question getting rich of sharing files? Even if they were before (doubt it) they certainly aren't now.
Damn (Score:4, Funny)
Still 17K is not funny when you are still in school
Re:Damn (Score:4, Funny)
While 17K is funny to those of us who aren't in school. Absolutely fuckin' hilarious!
Not just distributing songs (Score:3, Interesting)
So my question is, are services that find copywritten material on networks Illegal? Since this case never went to court, it doesn't shed any light. Can Google be sued for direct links that liable for direct links?
Re:Not just distributing songs (Score:5, Insightful)
More seriously, the RIAA does not want this, or similar incidents, to get to court. Because then, the judge will make a ruling, which may just be against the RIAA. By attacking small targets, they are able to push for a settlement.
Re:Not just distributing songs (Score:3, Informative)
Napster was also about the stupidest company in the history of companies. They openly promoted that this was being used for copyright violation (as in publishing the screenshots of searches for infringing material on their website). If they could argue that they had no knowledge of specific infringing activities, then they probably would have been cleared, and the RIAA would have to go back to getting users banned.
Scare Tactics (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Scare Tactics (Score:3, Interesting)
No judge on earth is going to award million dollar penalties to the RIAA. I'm betting that this ~$4000 a year penalty represents something like 40% of these kids overall yearly income.
With the exception of some very bizzare child support cases, the courts would not have taken 40% of their income for 4 years. It just doesn't happen.
A Good Defense? (Score:5, Interesting)
Was paying the $17,000 really in the end the wiser decision? It just seems like he had a solid argument, especially given the recent development with Morpheus and Grokster.
Re:A Good Defense? (Score:5, Informative)
The US doesn't have loser-pays, although you can sue someone for your legal fees...
why did they settle? (Score:3, Interesting)
Law Firm Names (Score:5, Funny)
"...said Howard Ende, a Drinker Biddle, and Reath attorney representing..."
How do legal firms wind up with names this stupid? There is the oft-mentioned Dewey, Cheatham and Howe but maybe in this case they should have gone for Bendham, Ohver and Quick.
Besides, in my book if your last name is "Biddle," you're automatically an asshole.
Re:Law Firm Names (Score:3, Funny)
"Besides, in my book if your last name is "Biddle," you're automatically an asshole. "
cribcage replied:
"Maybe there's a joke, there, that I'm missing. But FYI, Charles Biddle is not only a spectacular and legendary jazz bassist; he's also the owner of Biddle's Jazz & Ribs in Montreal, one of the premier jazz clubs in the world."
Oh.
My music sharing idea (Score:5, Interesting)
It is legal for me to listen to a CD and then sell it to a friend, buy it back, etc, over and over.
Let's say that we form a Co-op with 100 members. Each member kicks in $100, giving us a budget of $10,000 with which to purchase CDs. $10 from each member is reserved. The CDs are ripped and encoded.
Let's say I want to listen to a CD. My $10 on reserve buys that CD from the Co-op. While I own the CD, I get to listen to the encoded music (I do not take physical possession). During that time, no other Co-op member may listen to the CD (unless there are additional copies available for purchase due to popularity).
Essentially, a locking protocol would maintain a 1:1 relationship between the listener and physical media.
Once I am done listening, I sell the CD back to the Co-op and my $10 is freed for the next selection.
Is this legal? Has it been tried? Thanks!
Re:My music sharing idea (Score:5, Interesting)
That was essentially the idea behind the my.mp3.com service (you put a CD in your drive, mp3.com software figures out what CD it is, you can download mp3s of that CD from any computer once you login, occasionally you have to furnish the CD again). My mp3.com didn't last long. The RIAA put a stop to it almost immediately.
An identical idea was/is being tried with ROMs: essentially an online video game rental service. Last I heard Nintendo and their ilk were trying their damndest to shut it down.
Of course, it seems obvious to us that such an idea is clearly within the bounds of technology, the law, and reason. The way Nintendo and the RIAA see it, however, is that they can simply get more money by making everyone buy their own copies of games and music, so that's what they're pushing for, technology, the law, and reason be damned.
Re:My music sharing idea (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't care how much you hate the RIAA's guts, making copies of CD's and posting them on t
Well, they paid for it! (Score:5, Funny)
I guess... (Score:5, Funny)
Let's set up a fund for them (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyone?
Re:Let's set up a fund for them (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, you'll create a cycle where the RIAA keeps filing cases and the settlement amounts keep getting higher, because they will be funded by warm-hearted individuals such as yourself.
Re:Let's set up a fund for them (Score:5, Insightful)
Laws can be made against anything. It doesn't mean it's actually wrong to do that thing.
I use Kazaa. I buy CDs. I've bought CDs because I've used Kazaa.
I plan to buy the new Radio Head album when it comes out, purely because of the "leaked" tracks, from "Hail To The Thief."
I've never bought a RadioHead album before in my life, and I'd never have probably heard the songs that made me want to buy the CD, in the first place, either.
It's not a black and white issue.
Awful precedent (Score:5, Insightful)
1) There will be tons of lawsuits filed.
2) Million-dollar lawsuits are unpayable for the "common people," but $15,000 is well within reach. That means those sued will _have_ to pay it, and no judge will dismiss the settlement. It's feasible and doable to pay $15,000 over five years. Chump change to the RIAA, yes -- but most importantly: This will be a self-supporting business. Settlement money will fund new lawsuits. The RIAA is not after the money, they're out to threaten and terrorize anyone who uses file-swapping, and literally, the lawsuits will "pay for themselves."
This stinks... If you thought the Microsoft tax was bad, get ready for the RIAA tax!
Re:Awful precedent (Score:3, Informative)
The money levels being paid also aren't high enough or realistic enough to work as a deterrant.
Re:Awful precedent (Score:3, Interesting)
Wait a sec... don't the RIAA and the MPAA already make a bit of money off of each CD-R(W) (and other digital media) sold?
Why... that means I've already paid for the right to pirate!
(I doubt that would stand up in court, but it makes sense to me.)
Re:Awful precedent (Score:3, Interesting)
In the US though, it is just money down the drain.
And with this... (Score:5, Informative)
Time to expand my musical tastes.
independent-artists.com [independent-artists.com]
boycott-riaa.com [boycott-riaa.com]
Why RIAA Keeps Getting Hacked [wired.com]
RIAA Affiliated Labels [riaa.org]
Hmmm. Can't seem to get to the RIAA site right now...
Re:And with this... (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, feel free to take my K5 suggestion [kuro5hin.org] as a starting point. We could also all bookmark each others journals [slashdot.org], and watch for mention of good, independent music that we each discover.
BTW, Richard Cook and Brian Morton have just released the 6th edition of their popular Penguin Guide to Jazz on CD [amazon.com]. At $17.50, for over 1700 pages of small-type reviews, it's a pretty fucking terrific deal. The 5th edition was invaluable to me -- and I already knew a ton about jazz. I imag
I'm seeing bankruptcy in their future (Score:4, Insightful)
Both the students and the RIAA, actually. The RIAA is going to have to make some drastic changes if they want the music business to remain viable. The students, on the other hand, can wait for the paperwork to be finalized and immediately file for bankruptcy. It's very doubtful they have anything at all of value for the bankruptcy court to make them sell in order to pay off creditors, and it's even more doubtful that the RIAA will pay their lawyers to show up at the bankruptcy hearing for that small an amount. The students won't have to pay them a cent.
How about the Artists themselves? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:How about the Artists themselves? (Score:3, Informative)
They shouldn't have settled... (Score:5, Insightful)
What they should have done is not bothered hiring attorneys at all, appeared pro se, and then taken it to a jury trial and turned it into a circus. Believe me, that scenario would have the RIAA shaking in their boots. There would be massive publicity, the RIAA would have been completely trashed before it was over and no one would have cared who won in the end. This is their nightmare scenario, and if anyone else out there gets sued, don't take the easy road with settlement. Go in there and humiliate the RIAA.
Re:They shouldn't have settled... (Score:3, Informative)
Copyright confusion (Score:4, Interesting)
If I buy a CD, I am legally allowed to listen to it. Correct?
Am I legally allowed to play it for a friend while I am present? I would think so.
Am I legally allowed to lend it to a friend for his sole listening? I should think so.
Now... Can I listen to a CD with a friend via the telephone? Doesn't seem illegal to me? Is it?
What about streaming a CD via a webcast to a friend and myself? This is very similar to listening on the telephone... Probably not legal... Why? Is this considered a "public broadcast"? What about the telephone version? Nobody would consider a telephone conversation to be a public broadcast would they?
The line between illegal and legal seems to be very arbitrary, and rather contrived.
Maybe they should follow the Open Source model and give the music away and make money on concerts, t-shirts, etc.
This would also be similar to the way Art sells... $$$ for an original painting, $$ for a limited print, and next to nothing for a poster. I figure it's just a case of particular industry that has become over-inflated in comparison with other industries and is facing a market correction... You can see the panic in their eyes!
Precedent ? (Score:3, Insightful)
By settling with the RIAA, are the students essentially creating a precedent that spiders and search engines are responsible for filtering out copyrighted works ? This could be really bad if it were true. Well, the situation is really bad either way, because the RIAA has shown that they can crush anyone they want regardless of the law... This ruined my day.
Apple iTunes Store (Score:3, Interesting)
--Richard
Sorry RIAA: law or not no one cares (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Sorry RIAA: law or not no one cares (Score:3, Insightful)
Can you blame them for trying everything they can to r
What we do now is this: (Score:5, Insightful)
Second off, we do -not- download music by bands that are the larger whores of the industry - Britney Spears, Creed, Eminem, etc. (My question to you is, why do you want to? They suck and are horribly unoriginal).
Third, any music that we download that is under the mandle of the RIAA, we pay for - by mailing, paypaling or handing the musicians we like money for the downloads. You will likely get a large degree of personal grattitude from someone when you hand them 15$ and say, "I downloaded your albums online, so I wanted to pay for them, because they were good." $10, even, would speak more than buying their stuff. You paid for it because you liked it.
<b><i>More importandly still</i></b>, however, is that we must support our <a href="http://www.wipeyoureyes.com</a>local bands, or our local 'scene'. You can do this by going to shows, buying their CDs, t-shirts and other merchantdise, and just giving them a good ol' pat on the back. (Might not want to try this with some guys, they'll snap your neck if ya do... crazy hardcore drummers) If we don't do this, then all traces of good music will soon disappear, due to discouraged musicians trying to feed themselves, and there being a decreasing pool of 'indie' artists from which the larger msuic industry can choose their whores from.
Piracy and Fair Use (Score:3, Interesting)
The only thing that really concerns me about the RIAA and MPAA is copyright protection technology.
I buy a CD, I rip it and store it on my PC, I put the CD in a binder. I then listen to it via my PC (which has much higher quality stereo components than anything else in my house). If I want to listen to that CD in my car, I burn it to a CD-R so I don't have to worry about damaging it and I listen to the CD in my car.
AFAIK this all falls under fair use. So copyright protection would essentially force me to either A) spend more money and buy a new CD everytime I damage one and have to lug thousands of CDs around or B) force me to circumvent those measures so I can use fairly a product I've legally obtained.
Copyright protection is illegal.
Don't get mad... get busy. (Score:3, Insightful)
I own appx. 4000 vinyl lp's, hundreds of tapes, & mostly used CD's, and I have dozens of hours of my own music to wade through. I stopped buying new CD's when I realized what it cost to produce them as compared to their ridiculous retail price. It didn't help to understand also how the artist's almost always get screwed too. OK, maybe every once in a while I just have to have the new Steve Morse, Duke Robillard or Elvis (Costello), or maybe something from an independant label but generally speaking, the 'music industry' has lost my thousands of discretionary entertainment dollars. Forever.
So if you can live without most of the crap that passes for innovative music these days, simply don't buy their product. It's that easy. Fsck them and their greedy pinhead lawyers. It's a simple war of attrition. HEY - and pick up an instrument. Learn how to make your own damn music. Why buy the milk when you can own the cow? That'd really piss em' off heh heh.
And don't listen to the radio either. Clear Channel and it's cult mentality sucks worse than rehashed disco.
You don't think... (Score:4, Insightful)
Probably wouldn't impact other kids, but scare the bejesus out of some parents who would have all the more reason to further restrict little Johnny's and Jane's Internet access.
* DONATIONS * (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:17 grand? (Score:3, Interesting)
So, rather than a deterrent, it's actually given them an incentive ('cause if they're going to go bankrupt anyway, why not share even more).
Re:17 grand? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:17 grand? (Score:3, Funny)
--Joey
Re:For the sake of the artists (Score:5, Informative)