F*cking RIAA - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Memalvada · 06-25-2003, 12:23 PM

Link:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...ech_music_dc_9

Quote:

Recording Industry to Sue Internet Song Swappers
By Andy Sullivan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A recording-industry trade group said on Wednesday it plans to sue hundreds of individuals who illegally distribute copyrighted songs over the Internet, expanding its anti-piracy fight into millions of homes.

The Recording Industry Association of America said it hopes to curb illegal song downloading by tracking down the heaviest users of popular "peer to peer" services like Kazaa and suing them for thousands of dollars in damages.

"We're going to begin taking names and preparing lawsuits against peer-to-peer network users who are illegally making available a substantial number of music files to millions of other computer users," RIAA President Cary Sherman said in a conference call.

The RIAA believes the popular peer-to-peer services, which allow users to copy music, movies and other files from each others' hard drives, are partly responsible for a decline in CD sales, and has aggressively sought to shut them down.

But until now the industry has shied away from directly suing users, opting instead to send them online warnings and clutter up the networks with dummy files.

Some advocates have argued the networks provide a harmless way for music fans to discover new artists, but Sherman and other music-industry figures likened them to shoplifters who steal groceries and other tangible goods.

A recent court ruling makes it easier to track down copyright violators through their Internet providers, and Sherman said investigators would begin to track down hundreds of users who make their digital-music collections available for copying. Lawsuits asking for statutory damages of $150,000 per count will likely be filed in six to eight weeks, he said.

The industry will not initially target those who do not allow others to copy their music collections, he said. Music fans who wish to avoid legal action should change the settings on their peer-to-peer software to block access to their hard drives, or uninstall the software completely, he said.

The RIAA has managed to shut down Napster Inc., the first peer-to-peer service, and several successors. But the trade group suffered a setback last month when a judge ruled that two other networks, Grokster and Morpheus, should not be shut down because they do not control what is traded on their systems.

"The RIAA, in their infinite wisdom, has decided to not only alienate their own customers but attempt to drive them into bankruptcy through litigation. So therefore they probably won't be able to afford to buy any music even if they want to," said Grokster President Wayne Rosso, who added he does not support copyright infringement.

Four college students agreed last month to pay between $12,000 and $17,500 each after the RIAA sued them for allegedly operating illegal song-swapping networks on campus.

RIAA members include AOL Time Warner Inc. Vivendi Universal, Sony Corp, Bertelsmann AG , and EMI Group Plc.

Fucking RIAA

...

Mad_Gecko · 06-25-2003, 12:57 PM

"Music fans who wish to avoid legal action should change the settings on their peer-to-peer software to block access to their hard drives, or uninstall the software completely, he said. "

Begs the ?, of what can they do if you shut down the access except to specific IP's at certain times. All pre-agreed with the interested parties on an IM or Chat?

Technology will win... Lawmakers can't move as quick!

viveleroi0 · 06-25-2003, 12:59 PM

saw it on slashdot. I have to admit, I know I rarely download enough music to standout at all, I haven't done anything for a long time and when I did it was like 10 songs. I am still nervous now though... damn RIAA.

Can't keep my away from the pr0n though.

lurkette · 06-25-2003, 01:02 PM

Anybody have a clue how legit the threat is? Are they really going to sue every "major" user? Are they that stupid?

opentocomments · 06-25-2003, 01:05 PM

look at it this way when they shut down one another pops up i mean
look its was napster now its WinMX, Kazaa, and ect. there are tons the only problem is with every one spread out u cant always find what u want like i might be on X peer to peer server but ur using Y peer to peer server.
My point is

Quote:

Originally posted by Mad_Gecko

Technology will win... Lawmakers can't move as quick!

Derwood · 06-25-2003, 01:26 PM

I started a similar thread in the "Tilted Music" Forum.

I recently got rid of Grokster because of all the pop ups, spyware and unwanted program installations. I heard KaZaA is just as bad.

Frankly, I only used Grokster to download songs that I thought were novelties. I can live without it.

I remember when "free" music wasn't available and people went out and bought CD's (or in my childhood, LP's and cassettes). I don't like what it says about our society (and views on theft) when people fully rationalize the stealing of music that one would otherwise have to pay for.

Fade · 06-25-2003, 01:48 PM

kazaa lite, imo, is the best one Ive had yet.

Derwood · 06-25-2003, 02:14 PM

even kazaa lite has spyware, meaning they are reading your hard drive's contents and selling your email to spammers....have a nice day!

LewisBlack · 06-25-2003, 02:20 PM

im not afraid of the propaganda machine known as the RIAA. All talk no action to the small music traders. I can recall various threats where they promised to bring all offenders to justice none the matter how small they were infringing on the laws. Bring it RIAA

GakFace · 06-25-2003, 02:39 PM

yeah, I just read this on MSN about it...

http://www.msnbc.com/news/931146.asp?0dm=H21BT

They say... (in the thread's one)

Quote:

are partly responsible for a decline in CD sales

Yes, please ignore the fact that CD's are a fucking 15 dollars. Yeah Some CD's are lower, I got the new Godsmack for about 10 bucks the day it came out, but I digress.

Quote:

Some advocates have argued the networks provide a harmless way for music fans to discover new artists, but Sherman and other music-industry figures likened them to shoplifters who steal groceries and other tangible goods.

Ummm... Actually this is one hell of a reason, it aint fake shit. When someone tells you of a band, its nice to Download it first and see if it fits your taste first.. THEN buy it. I put a poll up on 3.0 about this issue. Many people agreed they'll but the music if they like it.... AKA they downloaded to test it out.

Last but not least.. in my linkage, they say...

Quote:

“It doesn’t take too many tickets to get everybody to obey the speed limit,” Prestwood said.

Really? People get tickets every day... and they KEEP giving tickets. Shit I got a speeding ticket going 15 over last year, Sure I went speed limit for about 2 weeks.... now i'm back to good ol speeding... So uh, if thats their analogy, and I just showed how its crap... what does this say about them?

OOOH QUESTION! Are they gonna give the money to the artists? I mean if they just sue, and the artists STILL don't get any money, then uh....

DEI37 · 06-25-2003, 03:51 PM

The RIAA can kiss my hairy white ass!!! I hate them people...and the MPAA, too.

TaLoN · 06-25-2003, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Derwood
even kazaa lite has spyware, meaning they are reading your hard drive's contents and selling your email to spammers....have a nice day!

i get absolutely 0 spam and i don't have a special spam filter either.

juanvaldes · 06-25-2003, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mad_Gecko
Begs the ?, of what can they do if you shut down the access except to specific IP's at certain times. All pre-agreed with the interested parties on an IM or Chat?

Then it will be like before napster, back to private ftp's and the like and it will be hard to find "that one rare song" because your pool of friends does not have the same collection as millions of people all connected through one p2p app.

YourNeverThere · 06-25-2003, 07:09 PM

I RIAA Also decied a while back that ALL RECORDABLE CD'S ARE BEING USED TO STEAL FROM THEM! so they started taxing all recordable cd's 300% or somthing stupidly high like that. Dumb dumb dumb greedy bastards.

MSD · 06-25-2003, 09:09 PM

So I'm worth over 300 million to them. Good luck collecting it from my Family's income of 35k a year, plus the 90k of the house that we don't owe to mortgages. The two cars won't even get 10k if we sold them. Have fun getting .005% of what they seek and making a few thousand once they pay their lawyers. Maybe I should just be happy that someone thinks I'm worth something.

thescoreman · 06-25-2003, 10:52 PM

I used to download a buttload of songs, but as of late i just seemed to stop caring. I don't think that the music industry is down because of the downloading, it's just that all of the music being put out now sucks. And i also don't know how much of a threat this is, I'm just waiting to see the actual people that they grab for this, then they will have really grabbed my attention.

KeyserSoze · 06-26-2003, 04:28 AM

The last time they announced this type of action against users of file sharing programs their website was hacked into twice in 10 days. Something tells me they are soon to be hacked into again

The sad part is the artist only receives about .97 on every CD sold. My friend owns a couple of used record stores and about 50 times or more a week employees of the record companies and movie studios come in selling cases of new cd's and dvd's to his stores.......hmm I don't see them doing anything to curb those thefts

Like most users of file sharing if I download a couple of songs from a cd and like it I will go and purchase it(from my friend of course

) but the thing that pisses most consumers off these days is paying $15.00 for 1 song and the remaining songs on a cd are usually SHIT!

What happened to putting an album together that included several great tunes??

Name one Zeppelin,Who,Jethro Tull,Bowie etc. album that only contained one song worth playing and the rest were crap?? I can't think of a one. Maybe it's me but most of the music put out today is SHIT in my opinion, it's like the movie Almost Famous when Lester Bangs tells William Miller he's there to watch the collapse of music as we know it.

Oh well......time to end this rant.......FUCK THE RIAA!!

Derwood · 06-26-2003, 06:06 AM

Bands DO put out full albums of great songs. You're just listening to the wrong bands

KillerYoda · 06-26-2003, 06:06 AM

I hope they sue me. It might be fun.

kinetix · 06-26-2003, 06:25 AM

http://www.angryshirts.com/riaa.php

I wear my RIAA = Evil shirt proudly

cjvasco · 06-26-2003, 06:38 AM

The whole concept just bothers me. The RIAA have dug themselves so far into a ditch, and have distanced themselves so far from the consumers and somehow they think this will bring them back? Hell no. Now personally I don't know how the Home Recording Act works but i'm quite sure there is some sort of protection under that.

ratbastid · 06-26-2003, 07:32 AM

Kazaa claims their software has been downloaded 200 million times.

The RIAA plans to sue "hundereds" of file-swappers.

What do you think it takes to make the cut?

DaKnife · 06-26-2003, 11:43 AM

I just love how the RIAA seems to be totally unaware of the recession we're still trying to climb out of. They blame their plummeting sales over the last couple years to the "pirates" yet fail to note that the economy has been in the dumps during that exact same time period.

Someone needs verybadly to bring the RIAA to it's knees on this issue, and unfortunately it's going to take someone who can afford the legal processes to do it.

Tom Thumb · 06-26-2003, 12:24 PM

RIAA = Rich Idiots Against Artists.

Really, they pay money for us to listen to their songs for free on the radio. Why should we have to pay to listen for free on the internet?

Oh, right. Distribution. Well, remember that, thanks to the RIAA you'd do your favourite artist more of a favour by mailing them two quarters than buying their cd.

gibber71 · 06-26-2003, 05:10 PM

This is a really sticky issue.On one hand, people create music to share with others,and if they're good enough,they like to get paid for it. But if they are good enough that means they are getting tons of free exposure on the internet.I don't think the record companies have put that together yet,but if they have,it has saved them advertising dollars.

But then again,society and technology are changing as part of the natural evolution of things.If you write good songs and have some talent,you can make a living. Do I listen when musician's whine about not receiving royalties? I used to but I don't anymore.Just like I don't give a shit if 10,000 people are layed off from General Motors or Walmart. I do hope that the internet evolves to the point where the only music on it is the best of the best,but I don't think that will happen.

RaGe2012 · 06-26-2003, 05:36 PM

IMHO, the RIAA is a force that needs to be stopped. I think its totally rediculous that, in a democratic society, where millions of people use a service, that a company and its imps could take it down with a barrage of lawsuits (e.g. Napster). The RIAA is nothing more than a stupid, greedy, propoganda machine. Come on, isn't 15 Billion dollars in sales enough per year?
Face it, if the RIAA had their way, they'd be kicking in every KaZaa, Gnutella, WinMX, et. al user's door, arresting them and smashing their computer without a fair trial. I can practically see it now...

(Somewhere, USA)
A 16 year-old boy was arrested today for downloading MP3s. Under orders from the RIAA, a fully armed SWAT team broke down the door and arrested the boy and proceeded to destroy the boy's computer and all burned CD-ROMs. The teen's parents (held at gunpoint) were also then arrested and are charged with assisting in copyright infringement (for purchasing their son's computer) and are being forced to pay over 250,000 dollars in fines. The family is being held without bail. If they cannot pay the money, the family faces up to 25 years in jail.

LOL...the RIAA has definitely missed the 1984 deadline, but its good to see that they are getting back on track...haha

dasixth · 06-26-2003, 06:31 PM

Maybe if they would drop the price on the damn cd's more people would buy them! There is a lot of stuff I would love to have but I won't get because it is fifteen to twenty dollars! It sucks! I would buy so much more music if they would just drop them to like ten bucks. The funniest thing is why are they not attacking the used cd industry? The is much more money involved with selling used cds than downloading, and they see not a dime. At least with some of the downloading, a few people go out and buy the cd's.
But when you have artists like the Rolling Stones that demmand an entire flloor of a hotel, you aren't going to lower your prices. Don't get me wrong, I am not bashin the Stones because I love their music. I am just sayin it is one big vicious circle and no one wants to give in. It sucks! I think it will get a lot worse before it gets better! It's not about the music anymore and that is a damn shame.

rmarshall · 06-26-2003, 06:47 PM

I used to be heavy into Kazaalite in the winter. No time lately. I have about 1100 songs. I think most people will still download, but not share anything. Then the selection of music available will suck. Then some new technology will appear and it will get better again. The software will make it so the sharers are completely anonymous and nobody will be able to find out where the songs are coming from or going to.

gwr_gwir · 06-26-2003, 08:13 PM

yeah... that'll be nice when it comes out... but in the meantime, the RIAA keeps screwing America. I'm used to be heavy into filesharing in general (getting anything I want off the net-programs), but I don't buy CDs (besides CD-R) because they're too dang expensive... the motherlocking media has become much too powerful, and it's just a matter of time until either 1. some form of a rebellion happens and the public wins (which, given nature, will happen eventually), or 2. the RIAA and the media win (i.e. break people, enforce censorship, interrogations, etc - all kinds of unconstitutional stuff). when that happens, I'm either going to be dead, or in another country.

Dr. Smooth · 06-26-2003, 09:08 PM

i buy CD's from a few artists...those who i think are worth my money. otherwise, fuck yea im gonna download the songs instead of paying for them. 99 percent of the bullshit that they try and pass off as music nowadays isn't worth 15 bucks anyways

clues_blues · 06-27-2003, 06:00 AM

i gave up on kazaa about as quickly as i started... 50% of the songs i wanted were just loops anyways.

c_b

Derwood · 06-27-2003, 06:32 AM

Quick question. Did you people buy CD's 5 years ago?

I ask because the cost of a CD has pretty much stayed the same for the past 12 years. CD's were $15 back in 1990 when I started buying them, and in some places (ie Best Buy and Circuit City) are now CHEAPER than they were before.

You people need to get off your moral high horse about he RIAA. Sure, there is a pretty big difference between the cost of the CD and the money that goes into a band's pockets, but much of that is because the band doesn't pay a dime out of pocket for recording costs and marketing (much less music videos). It's not like $1 is going to the band and $14 is going into the bank account of the music company's CEO.

I taught at a small college last year, and was appalled by seeing kids with big 50-CD carrying cases full of CD-R's....and not mix CD's, just straight up albums.

My feeling is that if you can't afford a CD, you don't deserve to have it, no matter what you think of the company putting it out. I can't afford a Mercedes, but that doesnt' mean that my hatred towards European automakers gives me the right to steal a Mercedes. It means if I want one, I have to save for it.

Stealing is stealing, music hasn't been public domain for years, so quit your bitching

gibber71 · 06-27-2003, 06:51 AM

I'm probably the only one on your side Derwood.I agree with you and have to wonder what the trade off for me will be when I release a CD.Being broke or getting exposure.Time will tell.

It is interesting how people whine because of the price of this or that until the very technology they so embrace comes back to bite their ass. I can't wait for all these people who download and share thousands of songs have a mortgage,a wife and kid's,bills,etc,..and the company they work for hands them the pink slip because of someones better technology puts them out of a job.But then they will be crying foul won't they? If people knew how many thousands of support jobs are being lost in the music business they might think twice.But they don't, which is why when they lose theirs jobs,I won't have any crocodile tears for them.What goes around comes around.

Derwood · 06-27-2003, 07:31 AM

Exactly. And if these people can't afford a $15 CD, they probably shouldn't be able to afford a good computer and a broadband connection to steal the music. Or did they steal those as well?

guthmund · 06-27-2003, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Derwood
Quick question. Did you people buy CD's 5 years ago?

I ask because the cost of a CD has pretty much stayed the same for the past 12 years. CD's were $15 back in 1990 when I started buying them, and in some places (ie Best Buy and Circuit City) are now CHEAPER than they were before.

I bought CD's "back in the day" and sometimes I wasted $15-20 on a real fancy reflective coaster. Back then I was real selective about what I buy and still managed to grab a few stinkers. Today, I can try before I buy and haven't been upset about a CD purchase in the last couple of years.

Quote:

I taught at a small college last year, and was appalled by seeing kids with big 50-CD carrying cases full of CD-R's....and not mix CD's, just straight up albums.

This is wrong. I think most folks just give a few songs a try and then go buy the album. Stuff like that just gives the responsible song swapping public a bad name.

Quote:

My feeling is that if you can't afford a CD, you don't deserve to have it, no matter what you think of the company putting it out. I can't afford a Mercedes, but that doesnt' mean that my hatred towards European automakers gives me the right to steal a Mercedes. It means if I want one, I have to save for it.

But you wouldn't want to invest $40,000 + in a Mercedes without giving her a once over and a drive around the lot would you? $40,000 or $20 it still manages to piss most people off when they "waste" money on a piece of crap

Quote:

Originally posted by scoreman
I don't think that the music industry is down because of the downloading, it's just that all of the music being put out now sucks.

Absolutely. It's just easier to blame the "evil Internet" then it is to admit that the product is washed out crap or worse yet, embrace the technology and use it to their advantage instead of playing Gestapo on p2p networks.

yatzr · 06-27-2003, 08:11 AM

i would agree with derwood and gibber, except for the fact that artists who became musicians for the money are worthless. Any good artist simply wants people to listen to and appreciate their work. Bands like metallica that would rather make their record label millions need to quit THEIR bitchin. They were good when they were small, but now the suck big hairy balls. Then there's the other side with someone like Dashboard Confessional. I've never once heard him on the radio and only once ever seen him on mtv, but everyone that i've ever talked to knows him...how do they know him you ask? BECAUSE THEY DOWNLOAD MUSIC. and because they downloaded music, they went to his concerts and bought his shirts. Any real musician would rather have a million people enjoy their music than make a million dollars of off it.

The record labels aren't losing money just because people are downloading. They are losing money because people aren't buying cd's...they're buying dvd's and video games and cell phones and all the new crap thats out there. They're buying the new stuff that they actually care about. That's why people are complaining about the costs of cd's, they got all of this more important stuff to pay for. But anyway, when 99% of musicians say it is wrong to download music, i'll stop...until then, I'm not listening to a word the fuckin RIAA says.

cub4life78 · 06-27-2003, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by gibber71
I'm probably the only one on your side Derwood.I agree with you and have to wonder what the trade off for me will be when I release a CD.Being broke or getting exposure.Time will tell.

It is interesting how people whine because of the price of this or that until the very technology they so embrace comes back to bite their ass. I can't wait for all these people who download and share thousands of songs have a mortgage,a wife and kid's,bills,etc,..and the company they work for hands them the pink slip because of someones better technology puts them out of a job.But then they will be crying foul won't they? If people knew how many thousands of support jobs are being lost in the music business they might think twice.But they don't, which is why when they lose theirs jobs,I won't have any crocodile tears for them.What goes around comes around.

Make sure your music doesn't suck monkey balls and then you won't even have to worry about going broke....Novel idea huh?

joe100 · 06-27-2003, 08:28 AM

This topic drives me crazy.

Just because you think somebody is overcharging for their product you think it is OK to steal it.

If you guys actually created your own product and then somebody was stealing it you would be the biggest complainers on the planet.

Stop being so selfish and think about what you are doing.

lafemmefatale · 06-27-2003, 08:50 AM

Art thrives on misery, when we look back at classical music, composers were lucky if they can get one piece of their work played, most of them lived in horrible conditions and look at the jems they produced...fast forward to 70's, early 80's it was the cold war and a total culture explosion and you know that the best music was always from artists that were stoned...so what happened now?

Glitz and glamour with always be associated with music, but before the artists set the trend, they came up with the smackin new cool lifestyles, now record industries make it so artists follow trends...just look at the whole skater scene, as soon as that got started there were tons of one hit wonders, followed by artists that shop exclusively at Hot Topic...there's nothing cool and original about artists anymore.

And the 15$ cd, it's just crap, i'd only shell out that money if the most of the music on it really had something good, and if they lower the price, i'd lower my standards. I mean I'd love to help someone keep their job but not if it means listening to cds that sound like they were pulled out of somebody's ass...that's nuts. If people had a job security based on sympathy of consumers...it would be the end of technology as we know it.

So at the end of the day, save money for music that's worth it, and the record companies really oughtta save contracts for the artists who really have talent and maybe they'd make money again and we'd still be happy consumers.

yatzr · 06-27-2003, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by joe100
This topic drives me crazy.

Just because you think somebody is overcharging for their product you think it is OK to steal it.

If you guys actually created your own product and then somebody was stealing it you would be the biggest complainers on the planet.

Stop being so selfish and think about what you are doing.

RIAA is the one's complaining right? Last time I checked they weren't the ones making the music. Sure, they like to regulate how crappy they are, but its the artists making the tunes...and no artists are complaining as much as the frickin RIAA.

Here's some record label math to show you just how much record labels screw artists over. (it's really long, but very informative...read it and know the truth)
http://dir.salon.com/tech/feature/20...ove/index.html

Quote:

By Courtney Love
- - - - - - - - - -
Today I want to talk about piracy and music. What is piracy? Piracy is the act of stealing an artist's work without any intention of paying for it. I'm not talking about Napster-type software.

I'm talking about major label recording contracts.

I want to start with a story about rock bands and record companies, and do some recording-contract math:

This story is about a bidding-war band that gets a huge deal with a 20 percent royalty rate and a million-dollar advance. (No bidding-war band ever got a 20 percent royalty, but whatever.) This is my "funny" math based on some reality and I just want to qualify it by saying I'm positive it's better math than what Edgar Bronfman Jr. [the president and CEO of Seagram, which owns Polygram] would provide.

What happens to that million dollars?

They spend half a million to record their album. That leaves the band with $500,000. They pay $100,000 to their manager for 20 percent commission. They pay $25,000 each to their lawyer and business manager.

That leaves $350,000 for the four band members to split. After $170,000 in taxes, there's $180,000 left. That comes out to $45,000 per person.

That's $45,000 to live on for a year until the record gets released.

The record is a big hit and sells a million copies. (How a bidding-war band sells a million copies of its debut record is another rant entirely, but it's based on any basic civics-class knowledge that any of us have about cartels. Put simply, the antitrust laws in this country are basically a joke, protecting us just enough to not have to re-name our park service the Phillip Morris National Park Service.)

So, this band releases two singles and makes two videos. The two videos cost a million dollars to make and 50 percent of the video production costs are recouped out of the band's royalties.

The band gets $200,000 in tour support, which is 100 percent recoupable.

The record company spends $300,000 on independent radio promotion. You have to pay independent promotion to get your song on the radio; independent promotion is a system where the record companies use middlemen so they can pretend not to know that radio stations -- the unified broadcast system -- are getting paid to play their records.

All of those independent promotion costs are charged to the band.

Since the original million-dollar advance is also recoupable, the band owes $2 million to the record company.

If all of the million records are sold at full price with no discounts or record clubs, the band earns $2 million in royalties, since their 20 percent royalty works out to $2 a record.

Two million dollars in royalties minus $2 million in recoupable expenses equals ... zero!

How much does the record company make?

They grossed $11 million.

It costs $500,000 to manufacture the CDs and they advanced the band $1 million. Plus there were $1 million in video costs, $300,000 in radio promotion and $200,000 in tour support.

The company also paid $750,000 in music publishing royalties.

They spent $2.2 million on marketing. That's mostly retail advertising, but marketing also pays for those huge posters of Marilyn Manson in Times Square and the street scouts who drive around in vans handing out black Korn T-shirts and backwards baseball caps. Not to mention trips to Scores and cash for tips for all and sundry.

Add it up and the record company has spent about $4.4 million.

So their profit is $6.6 million; the band may as well be working at a 7-Eleven.

Of course, they had fun. Hearing yourself on the radio, selling records, getting new fans and being on TV is great, but now the band doesn't have enough money to pay the rent and nobody has any credit.

Worst of all, after all this, the band owns none of its work ... they can pay the mortgage forever but they'll never own the house. Like I said: Sharecropping. Our media says, "Boo hoo, poor pop stars, they had a nice ride. Fuck them for speaking up"; but I say this dialogue is imperative. And cynical media people, who are more fascinated with celebrity than most celebrities, need to reacquaint themselves with their value systems.

When you look at the legal line on a CD, it says copyright 1976 Atlantic Records or copyright 1996 RCA Records. When you look at a book, though, it'll say something like copyright 1999 Susan Faludi, or David Foster Wallace. Authors own their books and license them to publishers. When the contract runs out, writers gets their books back. But record companies own our copyrights forever.

The system's set up so almost nobody gets paid.

Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)

Last November, a Congressional aide named Mitch Glazier, with the support of the RIAA, added a "technical amendment" to a bill that defined recorded music as "works for hire" under the 1978 Copyright Act.

He did this after all the hearings on the bill were over. By the time artists found out about the change, it was too late. The bill was on its way to the White House for the president's signature.

That subtle change in copyright law will add billions of dollars to record company bank accounts over the next few years -- billions of dollars that rightfully should have been paid to artists. A "work for hire" is now owned in perpetuity by the record company.

Under the 1978 Copyright Act, artists could reclaim the copyrights on their work after 35 years. If you wrote and recorded "Everybody Hurts," you at least got it back to as a family legacy after 35 years. But now, because of this corrupt little pisher, "Everybody Hurts" never gets returned to your family, and can now be sold to the highest bidder.

Over the years record companies have tried to put "work for hire" provisions in their contracts, and Mr. Glazier claims that the "work for hire" only "codified" a standard industry practice. But copyright laws didn't identify sound recordings as being eligible to be called "works for hire," so those contracts didn't mean anything. Until now.

Writing and recording "Hey Jude" is now the same thing as writing an English textbook, writing standardized tests, translating a novel from one language to another or making a map. These are the types of things addressed in the "work for hire" act. And writing a standardized test is a work for hire. Not making a record.

So an assistant substantially altered a major law when he only had the authority to make spelling corrections. That's not what I learned about how government works in my high school civics class.

Three months later, the RIAA hired Mr. Glazier to become its top lobbyist at a salary that was obviously much greater than the one he had as the spelling corrector guy.

The RIAA tries to argue that this change was necessary because of a provision in the bill that musicians supported. That provision prevents anyone from registering a famous person's name as a Web address without that person's permission. That's great. I own my name, and should be able to do what I want with my name.

But the bill also created an exception that allows a company to take a person's name for a Web address if they create a work for hire. Which means a record company would be allowed to own your Web site when you record your "work for hire" album. Like I said: Sharecropping.

Although I've never met any one at a record company who "believed in the Internet," they've all been trying to cover their asses by securing everyone's digital rights. Not that they know what to do with them. Go to a major label-owned band site. Give me a dollar for every time you see an annoying "under construction" sign. I used to pester Geffen (when it was a label) to do a better job. I was totally ignored for two years, until I got my band name back. The Goo Goo Dolls are struggling to gain control of their domain name from Warner Bros., who claim they own the name because they set up a shitty promotional Web site for the band.

Orrin Hatch, songwriter and Republican senator from Utah, seems to be the only person in Washington with a progressive view of copyright law. One lobbyist says that there's no one in the House with a similar view and that "this would have never happened if Sonny Bono was still alive."

By the way, which bill do you think the recording industry used for this amendment?

The Record Company Redefinition Act? No. The Music Copyright Act? No. The Work for Hire Authorship Act? No.

How about the Satellite Home Viewing Act of 1999?

Stealing our copyright reversions in the dead of night while no one was looking, and with no hearings held, is piracy.

It's piracy when the RIAA lobbies to change the bankruptcy law to make it more difficult for musicians to declare bankruptcy. Some musicians have declared bankruptcy to free themselves from truly evil contracts. TLC declared bankruptcy after they received less than 2 percent of the $175 million earned by their CD sales. That was about 40 times less than the profit that was divided among their management, production and record companies.

Toni Braxton also declared bankruptcy in 1998. She sold $188 million worth of CDs, but she was broke because of a terrible recording contract that paid her less than 35 cents per album. Bankruptcy can be an artist's only defense against a truly horrible deal and the RIAA wants to take it away.

Artists want to believe that we can make lots of money if we're successful. But there are hundreds of stories about artists in their 60s and 70s who are broke because they never made a dime from their hit records. And real success is still a long shot for a new artist today. Of the 32,000 new releases each year, only 250 sell more than 10,000 copies. And less than 30 go platinum.

The four major record corporations fund the RIAA. These companies are rich and obviously well-represented. Recording artists and musicians don't really have the money to compete. The 273,000 working musicians in America make about $30,000 a year. Only 15 percent of American Federation of Musicians members work steadily in music.

But the music industry is a $40 billion-a-year business. One-third of that revenue comes from the United States. The annual sales of cassettes, CDs and video are larger than the gross national product of 80 countries. Americans have more CD players, radios and VCRs than we have bathtubs.

Story after story gets told about artists -- some of them in their 60s and 70s, some of them authors of huge successful songs that we all enjoy, use and sing -- living in total poverty, never having been paid anything. Not even having access to a union or to basic health care. Artists who have generated billions of dollars for an industry die broke and un-cared for.

And they're not actors or participators. They're the rightful owners, originators and performers of original compositions.

This is piracy.

There's another 3 pages of this on the site...i didn't feel like lengthening the thread quite that much.

06-25-2003, 12:57 PM	#2 (permalink)
Mad_Gecko Pro Libertate Location: City Gecko	"Music fans who wish to avoid legal action should change the settings on their peer-to-peer software to block access to their hard drives, or uninstall the software completely, he said. " Begs the ?, of what can they do if you shut down the access except to specific IP's at certain times. All pre-agreed with the interested parties on an IM or Chat? Technology will win... Lawmakers can't move as quick! __________________ [color=bright blue]W[/color]e Stick To Glass "If three of us travel together, I shall find two teachers." Confucious

06-25-2003, 12:59 PM	#3 (permalink)
viveleroi0 Psycho Location: Oregon	saw it on slashdot. I have to admit, I know I rarely download enough music to standout at all, I haven't done anything for a long time and when I did it was like 10 songs. I am still nervous now though... damn RIAA. Can't keep my away from the pr0n though. __________________ "It's not that I don't understand, it's that I don't care" - Homer Simpson

06-25-2003, 01:02 PM	#4 (permalink)
lurkette My future is coming on Moderator Emeritus Location: east of the sun and west of the moon	Anybody have a clue how legit the threat is? Are they really going to sue every "major" user? Are they that stupid? __________________ "If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." - Anatole France

06-25-2003, 01:26 PM	#6 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	I started a similar thread in the "Tilted Music" Forum. I recently got rid of Grokster because of all the pop ups, spyware and unwanted program installations. I heard KaZaA is just as bad. Frankly, I only used Grokster to download songs that I thought were novelties. I can live without it. I remember when "free" music wasn't available and people went out and bought CD's (or in my childhood, LP's and cassettes). I don't like what it says about our society (and views on theft) when people fully rationalize the stealing of music that one would otherwise have to pay for. __________________ "You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

06-25-2003, 02:14 PM	#8 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	even kazaa lite has spyware, meaning they are reading your hard drive's contents and selling your email to spammers....have a nice day! __________________ "You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

06-25-2003, 01:48 PM	#7 (permalink)
Fade Banned	kazaa lite, imo, is the best one Ive had yet.

06-25-2003, 02:20 PM	#9 (permalink)
LewisBlack Upright Location: minnesota	im not afraid of the propaganda machine known as the RIAA. All talk no action to the small music traders. I can recall various threats where they promised to bring all offenders to justice none the matter how small they were infringing on the laws. Bring it RIAA

06-25-2003, 03:51 PM	#11 (permalink)
DEI37 Go faster! Location: Wisconsin	The RIAA can kiss my hairy white ass!!! I hate them people...and the MPAA, too. __________________ Generally speaking, if you were to get what you really deserve, you might be unpleasantly surprised.

06-25-2003, 07:09 PM	#14 (permalink)
YourNeverThere Practical Anarchist Location: Yesterday i woke up stuck in hollywood	I RIAA Also decied a while back that ALL RECORDABLE CD'S ARE BEING USED TO STEAL FROM THEM! so they started taxing all recordable cd's 300% or somthing stupidly high like that. Dumb dumb dumb greedy bastards. __________________ The Above post is a direct quote from Shakespeare

06-25-2003, 09:09 PM	#15 (permalink)
MSD The sky calls to us ... Super Moderator Location: CT	So I'm worth over 300 million to them. Good luck collecting it from my Family's income of 35k a year, plus the 90k of the house that we don't owe to mortgages. The two cars won't even get 10k if we sold them. Have fun getting .005% of what they seek and making a few thousand once they pay their lawyers. Maybe I should just be happy that someone thinks I'm worth something.

06-25-2003, 10:52 PM	#16 (permalink)
thescoreman Upright	I used to download a buttload of songs, but as of late i just seemed to stop caring. I don't think that the music industry is down because of the downloading, it's just that all of the music being put out now sucks. And i also don't know how much of a threat this is, I'm just waiting to see the actual people that they grab for this, then they will have really grabbed my attention.

06-26-2003, 04:28 AM	#17 (permalink)
KeyserSoze Psycho Location: Lost Angeles	The last time they announced this type of action against users of file sharing programs their website was hacked into twice in 10 days. Something tells me they are soon to be hacked into again The sad part is the artist only receives about .97 on every CD sold. My friend owns a couple of used record stores and about 50 times or more a week employees of the record companies and movie studios come in selling cases of new cd's and dvd's to his stores.......hmm I don't see them doing anything to curb those thefts Like most users of file sharing if I download a couple of songs from a cd and like it I will go and purchase it(from my friend of course ) but the thing that pisses most consumers off these days is paying $15.00 for 1 song and the remaining songs on a cd are usually SHIT! What happened to putting an album together that included several great tunes?? Name one Zeppelin,Who,Jethro Tull,Bowie etc. album that only contained one song worth playing and the rest were crap?? I can't think of a one. Maybe it's me but most of the music put out today is SHIT in my opinion, it's like the movie Almost Famous when Lester Bangs tells William Miller he's there to watch the collapse of music as we know it. Oh well......time to end this rant.......FUCK THE RIAA!! __________________ THERE IS NO KEYSER SOZE!!

06-26-2003, 06:06 AM	#18 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	Bands DO put out full albums of great songs. You're just listening to the wrong bands __________________ "You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

06-26-2003, 06:06 AM	#19 (permalink)
KillerYoda The Original Emo Gangsta Location: Sixth Floor, Texas School Book Depository	I hope they sue me. It might be fun. __________________ "So you're Chekov, huh? Well, this here's McCoy. Find a Spock, we got us an away team."

06-26-2003, 06:25 AM	#20 (permalink)
kinetix Upright	http://www.angryshirts.com/riaa.php I wear my RIAA = Evil shirt proudly

06-26-2003, 06:38 AM	#21 (permalink)
cjvasco Tilted Location: Boston, Mass	The whole concept just bothers me. The RIAA have dug themselves so far into a ditch, and have distanced themselves so far from the consumers and somehow they think this will bring them back? Hell no. Now personally I don't know how the Home Recording Act works but i'm quite sure there is some sort of protection under that.

06-26-2003, 07:32 AM	#22 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	Kazaa claims their software has been downloaded 200 million times. The RIAA plans to sue "hundereds" of file-swappers. What do you think it takes to make the cut?

06-26-2003, 11:43 AM	#23 (permalink)
DaKnife Upright	I just love how the RIAA seems to be totally unaware of the recession we're still trying to climb out of. They blame their plummeting sales over the last couple years to the "pirates" yet fail to note that the economy has been in the dumps during that exact same time period. Someone needs verybadly to bring the RIAA to it's knees on this issue, and unfortunately it's going to take someone who can afford the legal processes to do it.

06-26-2003, 12:24 PM	#24 (permalink)
Tom Thumb Crazy Location: In a self portrait	RIAA = Rich Idiots Against Artists. Really, they pay money for us to listen to their songs for free on the radio. Why should we have to pay to listen for free on the internet? Oh, right. Distribution. Well, remember that, thanks to the RIAA you'd do your favourite artist more of a favour by mailing them two quarters than buying their cd. __________________ My name is marketing. Now buy my product.

06-26-2003, 05:10 PM	#25 (permalink)
gibber71 Loser	This is a really sticky issue.On one hand, people create music to share with others,and if they're good enough,they like to get paid for it. But if they are good enough that means they are getting tons of free exposure on the internet.I don't think the record companies have put that together yet,but if they have,it has saved them advertising dollars. But then again,society and technology are changing as part of the natural evolution of things.If you write good songs and have some talent,you can make a living. Do I listen when musician's whine about not receiving royalties? I used to but I don't anymore.Just like I don't give a shit if 10,000 people are layed off from General Motors or Walmart. I do hope that the internet evolves to the point where the only music on it is the best of the best,but I don't think that will happen.

06-26-2003, 05:36 PM	#26 (permalink)
RaGe2012 Upright Location: New Jersey	IMHO, the RIAA is a force that needs to be stopped. I think its totally rediculous that, in a democratic society, where millions of people use a service, that a company and its imps could take it down with a barrage of lawsuits (e.g. Napster). The RIAA is nothing more than a stupid, greedy, propoganda machine. Come on, isn't 15 Billion dollars in sales enough per year? Face it, if the RIAA had their way, they'd be kicking in every KaZaa, Gnutella, WinMX, et. al user's door, arresting them and smashing their computer without a fair trial. I can practically see it now... (Somewhere, USA) A 16 year-old boy was arrested today for downloading MP3s. Under orders from the RIAA, a fully armed SWAT team broke down the door and arrested the boy and proceeded to destroy the boy's computer and all burned CD-ROMs. The teen's parents (held at gunpoint) were also then arrested and are charged with assisting in copyright infringement (for purchasing their son's computer) and are being forced to pay over 250,000 dollars in fines. The family is being held without bail. If they cannot pay the money, the family faces up to 25 years in jail. LOL...the RIAA has definitely missed the 1984 deadline, but its good to see that they are getting back on track...haha __________________ "Yesterday we bowed our heads to kings and bent our necks to emperors. But today we kneel only to truth..." - Kahlil Gibran

06-26-2003, 06:31 PM	#27 (permalink)
dasixth Upright Location: Kentucky	Maybe if they would drop the price on the damn cd's more people would buy them! There is a lot of stuff I would love to have but I won't get because it is fifteen to twenty dollars! It sucks! I would buy so much more music if they would just drop them to like ten bucks. The funniest thing is why are they not attacking the used cd industry? The is much more money involved with selling used cds than downloading, and they see not a dime. At least with some of the downloading, a few people go out and buy the cd's. But when you have artists like the Rolling Stones that demmand an entire flloor of a hotel, you aren't going to lower your prices. Don't get me wrong, I am not bashin the Stones because I love their music. I am just sayin it is one big vicious circle and no one wants to give in. It sucks! I think it will get a lot worse before it gets better! It's not about the music anymore and that is a damn shame.

06-26-2003, 06:47 PM	#28 (permalink)
rmarshall Addict Location: Kingston,Ontario	I used to be heavy into Kazaalite in the winter. No time lately. I have about 1100 songs. I think most people will still download, but not share anything. Then the selection of music available will suck. Then some new technology will appear and it will get better again. The software will make it so the sharers are completely anonymous and nobody will be able to find out where the songs are coming from or going to. __________________ "Do not resent growing old. Many are denied the privilege" Irish proverb

06-26-2003, 08:13 PM	#29 (permalink)
gwr_gwir Crazy	yeah... that'll be nice when it comes out... but in the meantime, the RIAA keeps screwing America. I'm used to be heavy into filesharing in general (getting anything I want off the net-programs), but I don't buy CDs (besides CD-R) because they're too dang expensive... the motherlocking media has become much too powerful, and it's just a matter of time until either 1. some form of a rebellion happens and the public wins (which, given nature, will happen eventually), or 2. the RIAA and the media win (i.e. break people, enforce censorship, interrogations, etc - all kinds of unconstitutional stuff). when that happens, I'm either going to be dead, or in another country. __________________ Being intelligent is not a felony. But most societies evaluate it as at least a misdemeanor. -- Robert Heinlein

06-26-2003, 09:08 PM	#30 (permalink)
Dr. Smooth Upright	i buy CD's from a few artists...those who i think are worth my money. otherwise, fuck yea im gonna download the songs instead of paying for them. 99 percent of the bullshit that they try and pass off as music nowadays isn't worth 15 bucks anyways

06-27-2003, 06:00 AM	#31 (permalink)
clues_blues Tilted Location: 3 feet high and rising	i gave up on kazaa about as quickly as i started... 50% of the songs i wanted were just loops anyways. c_b __________________ nothing to see here

06-27-2003, 06:32 AM	#32 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	Quick question. Did you people buy CD's 5 years ago? I ask because the cost of a CD has pretty much stayed the same for the past 12 years. CD's were $15 back in 1990 when I started buying them, and in some places (ie Best Buy and Circuit City) are now CHEAPER than they were before. You people need to get off your moral high horse about he RIAA. Sure, there is a pretty big difference between the cost of the CD and the money that goes into a band's pockets, but much of that is because the band doesn't pay a dime out of pocket for recording costs and marketing (much less music videos). It's not like $1 is going to the band and $14 is going into the bank account of the music company's CEO. I taught at a small college last year, and was appalled by seeing kids with big 50-CD carrying cases full of CD-R's....and not mix CD's, just straight up albums. My feeling is that if you can't afford a CD, you don't deserve to have it, no matter what you think of the company putting it out. I can't afford a Mercedes, but that doesnt' mean that my hatred towards European automakers gives me the right to steal a Mercedes. It means if I want one, I have to save for it. Stealing is stealing, music hasn't been public domain for years, so quit your bitching __________________ "You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

06-27-2003, 06:51 AM	#33 (permalink)
gibber71 Loser	I'm probably the only one on your side Derwood.I agree with you and have to wonder what the trade off for me will be when I release a CD.Being broke or getting exposure.Time will tell. It is interesting how people whine because of the price of this or that until the very technology they so embrace comes back to bite their ass. I can't wait for all these people who download and share thousands of songs have a mortgage,a wife and kid's,bills,etc,..and the company they work for hands them the pink slip because of someones better technology puts them out of a job.But then they will be crying foul won't they? If people knew how many thousands of support jobs are being lost in the music business they might think twice.But they don't, which is why when they lose theirs jobs,I won't have any crocodile tears for them.What goes around comes around. Last edited by gibber71; 06-27-2003 at 06:54 AM..

06-27-2003, 07:31 AM	#34 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	Exactly. And if these people can't afford a $15 CD, they probably shouldn't be able to afford a good computer and a broadband connection to steal the music. Or did they steal those as well? __________________ "You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

06-27-2003, 08:11 AM	#36 (permalink)
yatzr Insane	i would agree with derwood and gibber, except for the fact that artists who became musicians for the money are worthless. Any good artist simply wants people to listen to and appreciate their work. Bands like metallica that would rather make their record label millions need to quit THEIR bitchin. They were good when they were small, but now the suck big hairy balls. Then there's the other side with someone like Dashboard Confessional. I've never once heard him on the radio and only once ever seen him on mtv, but everyone that i've ever talked to knows him...how do they know him you ask? BECAUSE THEY DOWNLOAD MUSIC. and because they downloaded music, they went to his concerts and bought his shirts. Any real musician would rather have a million people enjoy their music than make a million dollars of off it. The record labels aren't losing money just because people are downloading. They are losing money because people aren't buying cd's...they're buying dvd's and video games and cell phones and all the new crap thats out there. They're buying the new stuff that they actually care about. That's why people are complaining about the costs of cd's, they got all of this more important stuff to pay for. But anyway, when 99% of musicians say it is wrong to download music, i'll stop...until then, I'm not listening to a word the fuckin RIAA says. __________________ Mechanical Engineers build weapons. Civil Engineers build targets.

06-27-2003, 08:28 AM	#38 (permalink)
joe100 Banned	This topic drives me crazy. Just because you think somebody is overcharging for their product you think it is OK to steal it. If you guys actually created your own product and then somebody was stealing it you would be the biggest complainers on the planet. Stop being so selfish and think about what you are doing.

06-27-2003, 08:50 AM	#39 (permalink)
lafemmefatale Insane Location: Vancouver	Art thrives on misery, when we look back at classical music, composers were lucky if they can get one piece of their work played, most of them lived in horrible conditions and look at the jems they produced...fast forward to 70's, early 80's it was the cold war and a total culture explosion and you know that the best music was always from artists that were stoned...so what happened now? Glitz and glamour with always be associated with music, but before the artists set the trend, they came up with the smackin new cool lifestyles, now record industries make it so artists follow trends...just look at the whole skater scene, as soon as that got started there were tons of one hit wonders, followed by artists that shop exclusively at Hot Topic...there's nothing cool and original about artists anymore. And the 15$ cd, it's just crap, i'd only shell out that money if the most of the music on it really had something good, and if they lower the price, i'd lower my standards. I mean I'd love to help someone keep their job but not if it means listening to cds that sound like they were pulled out of somebody's ass...that's nuts. If people had a job security based on sympathy of consumers...it would be the end of technology as we know it. So at the end of the day, save money for music that's worth it, and the record companies really oughtta save contracts for the artists who really have talent and maybe they'd make money again and we'd still be happy consumers. __________________ -poor is the man whose pleasure depends on the permission of another-