RIAA Madness

[HogansGoat]

This is my first thread here at TFP. Hello and sorry for the rant, but I need to vent. I read today on Slashdot that the RIAA is now attacking XM, and you know Sirius will be next, because you can record the transmission. The only thing that pisses me off more than the fact that this organization is so ignorant of reality is the fact that they are getting away with it. This is why I vent to you; you who are born of the technology generation, you who can understand the absurdity of this. Next the RIAA will assail those cover bands who are too good. I remember recording the radio when I was a kid, like 6 years old, because I could, I still bought cassettes. But where was the RIAA when the tapes got munched? Where was the RIAA when the sun distorted my tapes beyond recognition of even the most avid day tripper? Why is inevitability ignored? Why are we letting them get away with it? We can’t blame the artists, they are as screwed as heroine addicts. The industry has them so tight they can’t make waves for fear of modern McCarthyism. We can’t blame politicians either. They are merely the wooden gun of democracy, brandished only in the hopes of getting a new coat of paint and fear of being discarded. I blame my self and those like me. I am smart, yet do nothing. I hear the lies and ignore them. I see my boarders of rights shrinking everyday as patriotic servitude encroaches and turn away. Why does my voice ring so hopelessly and so voraciously seeking an ear yet rebound on the edge of the world only to reverberate inner dialog? My vows to never buy another CD, Tape or MP3 dissolves in the presence of the Red Hot Chili Peppers, The Doors, Dave Brubeck and so many others that such a contract is ridiculous. Yet affecting the bottom line is the only weapon we have against this tyrant. They care little for their reputation as they vehemently regurgitate their fetid battle cry in the name of their alleged patrons, the artist, plunging their pens deep into the souls of children, shredding dreams.

Here is an excerpt of their mantra, a glimpse at their motivation: (from the RIAA web site, under research) Music is the world's universal form of communication. It touches every person of every culture on the globe to the tune of $40 billion annually, and the U.S. recording industry accounts for fully one-third of that world market. It employs thousands of people, including singers, musicians, producers, sound engineers, record promoters and retail salespersons, to name only a few.

See that part about the singers and musicians? They are just employees. For those of you who are or have ever been employed, you should remember the phrase “at will”. These are artists who “…touch every person of every culture on the globe…” yet they seem to be treated as corporate surfs. I know they have contracts, but let’s be realistic here. You think they will honor a contract if it negatively influences their profit? This is more like “at will, but with a reason we feel is valid and we might ejaculate a smattering of coins at you is you resist a little.” So this is all they understand: George, Abraham, Alexander, Ben, and so on. Now we must affect them somehow. Perhaps some kind of agreement to refuse products from those that would take unfair advantage of talented people. Maybe I’m too much of an optimist, maybe too idealistic. What more can I do but rant and hope others will hear?

J

[Paq]

funny you mentioned that bc i just heard a new fiona apple song on the radio and thought i'd download a recording of it, which would probably be a recording of a radio broadcast of it, which should not be illegal...i think

seriously, why not just go against the radio, i used to record every song i loved off the radio, so why is this all becoming a big deal now

[HogansGoat]

Exactly. When faced with the inevitability of mortality, the first reaction is denial. They see their own death, the end of the status quo, and they resist instead of adopting. Darwinism shows us these are the unsuccessful species.

[Jinn]

The only thing that pisses me off more than the fact that this organization is so ignorant of reality is the fact that they are getting away with it. This is why I vent to you; you who are born of the technology generation, you who can understand the absurdity of this.

This is so-unfortunately true. Being born of the technology generation, I can clearly see that this is our generations "revolution," just as the 30s and the 60s and all the other generations had theirs. Unfortunately for us, however -- our battle is in the courts and the hands of those in power. Yes, that same techno-illiterate bunch allowing things like the DMCA to stand. Hopefully -- hopefully -- part of our generation will be in government to represent us soon enough.

(I read that Slashdot article this morning myself..)

EDIT: www.eff.org. You'll like it -- I appreciate their pro-bono representation of those being bullied around by the RIAA and their protection of our Internet Rights so much that I'm now a donating member. You should check them out.

[Glory's Sun]

I don't understand how it's even possible for them to consider this move. How can they declare public performance illegal?

[HogansGoat]

Thanks JinnKai, I am probably going to support them as well. I must read and research first.

[Jinn]

For those of you curious about the article:

Slashdot link: http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/05/10/07...tid=186&tid=17

"The RIAA is at it again. Now they don't like satellite radio. From the article 'The record industry ... believes the recording capability [of satellite radio receivers] is a clear copyright violation and could take revenue away from paid download music services.' This comes on the heels of both Sirius and XM announcing mp3 enabled players and the ability to record music heard on the radio. Also from the article: 'RIAA may seek $1 billion plus in music rights fees for a new contract covering 2007 to 2012 to replace the current $80 million pact that expires in 2006.'"

Direct CNN link: http://money.cnn.com/2005/10/05/tech...reut/index.htm

[flstf]

Originally Posted by HogansGoat

See that part about the singers and musicians? They are just employees. For those of you who are or have ever been employed, you should remember the phrase “at will”. These are artists who “…touch every person of every culture on the globe…” yet they seem to be treated as corporate surfs.J

I think it was established in court not long ago that once they sign the contract they are just "work for hire" employees. Also, I think it came up that most musicians don't get paid until a CD sells something like 400,000 copies after the label takes out their expenses. The artists seem to be secondary in their business plan, after all they can always take a group of pretty boys/girls and make them a hit.

Originally Posted by JinnKai

Being born of the technology generation, I can clearly see that this is our generations "revolution," just as the 30s and the 60s and all the other generations had theirs. Unfortunately for us, however -- our battle is in the courts and the hands of those in power. Yes, that same techno-illiterate bunch allowing things like the DMCA to stand. Hopefully -- hopefully -- part of our generation will be in government to represent us soon enough.

I wouldn't count on it. A large number of the 60's radicals are now BMW driving corporate lawyers, they have joined the establishment.
The polititians will continue to pass DMCA type laws in favor of those who give them the money to get elected and the courts will interpret them accordingly.

I think what bothers the RIAA so much is our ability to record/copy music today in much higher quality then in the past. Once again they are fighting the advancement in technology as they have with almost every improvement in recording/playing media over the years.

[AngelicVampire]

If its freely transmitted (so like analogue television in the UK, not something like Sky which is "encrypted") then basically free usage should rule, I could have listened to it at the time/watched it so if I "time shift" (betamax ruling) the programming whats the problem. As it was broadcast freely rebroadcasting should not be a problem (I could build a transciever that repeats everything including static for kicks...).

[Jinn]

Unsatisfied with $2.49 ringtones and as much as 70 cents of each 99 cent iTunes download, Newsweek reports that record labels want a bigger cut of digital music profits. One example: If you type in 'Madonna' - a Warner act - at the <a href="http://video.google.com/">Google Video</a> site, and the results are accompanied by ads, Warner wants a share of those ad dollars."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9629461/site/newsweek/

[connyosis]

I just read that on Slashdot. Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with these people? I understand wanting to be paid for their work, but this is just sickening...

[Hardknock]

This, is but one of many examples of why I will continue to download my music. I will in no way shape or form, support these bastards.

They have singled-out me, their customer, and for that they shall pay.

[1010011010]

I'd guess that they've finally figured out that distributing music isn't going to be a money making business for very much longer, and they're casting about for any sort of revenue stream upon which they can try to lay claim.

I don't think they've realized that they're dealing with a hydra in a very elastic market and just keep thrashing around cutting off heads.

[1010011010]

Originally Posted by Hardknock

This, is but one of many examples of why I will continue to download my music. I will in no way shape or form, support these bastards.

So you download and listen to their advertisements? And I'm willing to bet when people ask you what music you listen to, you advertise for them via word-of-mouth, too. Shitty, isn't it? You pretty much have to boycott a large swath of common culture and/or do a lot of digging to find non-RIAA music.

[Hardknock]

Originally Posted by 1010011010

So you download and listen to their advertisements? And I'm willing to bet when people ask you what music you listen to, you advertise for them via word-of-mouth, too. Shitty, isn't it? You pretty much have to boycott a large swath of common culture and/or do a lot of digging to find non-RIAA music.

Are we talking about the same thing here?

You have ad's in the CD's you buy?

Why would I advertise for the bad guy?

Non RAA music or not, I'd say a good number of people are already boycotting them. Hence their slump in sales. This is just my opinion, but this could have been settled once and for all back in 2001 (or whatever year it was) when Shawn Fanning should have taken Napster to the SCOTUS but he pussied out.

Here's a secret. (which is all over the net but you may still not know) If you don't want to get caught, just don't share what you download.

[cyrnel]

There's no sales slump. There's a release slump of both singles and albums, and a reduction in selection due to mega-retailers sticking with the top 100, but unit sales of what's available continues to grow in spite of economic downturns. From every analysis I've seen that wasn't funded by the RIAA, they're canibalizing themselves.

However, the industry noises are a great way to push new efforts against fair-use. Really, DRM is a great way to bypass copyright altogether. If a work is protected in any way against backing-up, listening, viewing, copying, storing, the DMCA says you can't legally do diddly unless you pay again. Much like software licensing, the new media rights model is quickly moving toward permanent control over consumption where fair-use is irrelevant. I believe a few years from now we'll look back and see copyright and patent expansion were the means to that end.

[analog]

Internet radio is next, for the same reason... Live365, regular radio station streams, any music stream... mark my words now. Once satellite is done, this will be the next step.

[cyrnel]

Absolutely. ANY medium. Observe how print publishers are pushing the limits with recent objections to fair-use over works both in and out of print and copyright. They're all testing their boundaries and lobbying for as much stick as possible. It's the cell carrier mentality: a short-term nickel is better than a long-term buck, and the medium suffers along with its audience.

The progress of digital versatility will screech to a halt if these interests are given the free reign we've seen the last few years.

<a href="http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/stiglitz61">Here's an interesting commentary</a> by Joseph E. Stiglitz (Nobel laureate, economics) on recent changes to IP rights and the potential effects thereof. Not a threadjack, just trying to dig a little deeper.

[1010011010]

Originally Posted by Hardknock

Are we talking about the same thing here?

Yes.

Originally Posted by Hardknock

You have ad's in the CD's you buy?

Yes. Usually beween 10 to 15 at about 4 minutes each.

Originally Posted by Hardknock

Why would I advertise for the bad guy?

Because you don't realize that everytime you say you're listening to $popular_song, you're advertising $album_of_popular_song

Originally Posted by Hardknock

Non RAA music or not, I'd say a good number of people are already boycotting them. Hence their slump in sales.

The recording industry makes more each year than they made the previous year. There is no slump in sales. When the RIAA talks about "losing money" they're talking about how their actual profits were less than their projected profits. They're not talking about not making a profit or making less profit. They're making more profit, just not as much more as they wanted. This can just as easily be due to a flaw in their projection as any impact of copyright infringement.

Originally Posted by Hardknock

This is just my opinion, but this could have been settled once and for all back in 2001 (or whatever year it was) when Shawn Fanning should have taken Napster to the SCOTUS but he pussied out.

How much did you donate to his defense fund?

Originally Posted by Hardknock

Here's a secret. (which is all over the net but you may still not know) If you don't want to get caught, just don't share what you download.

Oh, so it's not actually about civil disobeience or anything like that... you just want free music. You should have just said so rather than tried the righteous indignation tact.

[HogansGoat]

I think what mr "666" is implying is that the industry is exploiting us and the artist. We get adds when all we want is music. The artists certainly see no return from these adds. Nobody is protecting us from these adds. I have not bought a CD in a while so cannot personally attest to such a thing.

Nobody wants free music, unless there total dicks, they just don't want to be ripped off! I wish the artists had another option. They deserve to make money on what they produce. I would gladly give them the whole $20 for the cd if I could or even by the song. There are numerous possibillities here.

[Willravel]

The RIAA is not some all powerful government organization or such, it issimply to music what the SAG is to movies. It's kinda a union-esque organization, handling licences, royalties, and certifying gold and platinum records. Their power is their ass-loads of money and law force that the media would have you believe could indict and sentence O.J Simpson without breaking a sweat. So how does one fight back? Well the first ideas that come to mind are contacting (and eventually mass protesting) to change existing piracy laws that are being used outside of their original intent. We need to make sure the laws that govern us are crystal clear. You cannot steal a CD from Tower Records. You can record a song off the radio. Changing laws is as simple as getting the attention of the state assembly (or house, depending on the state). If you're in California, like me, I'd suggest having you and 10,000 of your closest friends write to Kevin McCarthy (majority floor leader) about the end to the RIAA witch trials.

It's worth mentioning that the RIAA has sued approximately 13,000 people in the United States suspected of sharing copyrighted works, almost all of them unsuccessfully (according to wikipedia).

http://www.boycott-riaa.com/

[HogansGoat]

That is certainly a start.

[roachboy]

the riaa is not really a union-like organization: it is a trade group made up of record labels. here is a snippet from the riaa itself:

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is the trade group that represents the U.S. recording industry. Its mission is to foster a business and legal climate that supports and promotes our members' creative and financial vitality. Its members are the record companies that comprise the most vibrant national music industry in the world. RIAA members create, manufacture and/or distribute approximately 90% of all legitimate sound recordings produced and sold in the United States.

In support of this mission, the RIAA works to protect intellectual property rights worldwide and the First Amendment rights of artists; conduct consumer industry and technical research; and monitor and review - - state and federal laws, regulations and policies. The RIAA also certifies Gold®, Platinum®, Multi-Platinum?, and Diamond® sales awards, and recently launched Los Premios De Oro y Platino?, a new award celebrating Latin music sales.

http://www.riaa.com/about/default.asp

and here is a list of the member labels:


http://www.riaa.com/about/members/default.asp


the wikipedia article for riaa indicates some of the complexity folk encounter when trying to get a handle on what it is and what is has been doing within the brave new legal world of i.p. law:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Re...ion_of_America

one thing is clear: the riaa is not about the interests of the artists--they were formed by record labels to advance/protect the interest of the labels.
which put them in a curious spot with reference to file sharing: avowed capitalists working to stifle the usage of new technologies that threaten the centrality of record labels products.
it is not about the music, not about the musicians--it is about the labels.

[Stompy]

It's music. When you say, "I like [band]", it's not an advertisement for the RIAA. That's probably one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard

I enjoy this topic because it finally brings to light how ridiculous it is for this entity to profit just because someone releases music. They aren't needed. Artists can release albums without being tied to a label. They can go on tour and disconnect themselves from this non-real entity.

Word of mouth is a better form of self-advertisement, but probably slower than blasting, "buy this!!" to millions of idiots watching MTV. The type who stick with the word of mouth approach will last a lifetime and won't fade out like mass marketed approach.

Their methods are old and stale. Their failed aggressive position in this matter will fall apart in the coming years because you simply cannot track every "offender" in music distribution and proving an offender broke the law is, believe it or not, a very difficult thing for them to do (most people admit guilt and settle rather than fight it).

You're either the type of person who blindly follows the law and disagrees with the downloading, or you're the type with common sense that isn't really bothered by it. People get their panties twisted up over this, but the fact of the matter is - there isn't much you, the law, or any lawsuit can do about it. Period.

Personally, I download my music and support the artist while they are on tour. If it's not good enough, then I dunno what to say other than "Take it or leave it," because that's simply how it is and how it will remain.



Going after Sat. Radio is pointless. Anything they do at this point is a last attempt to maintain a dying hold on what was once a mighty profitable empire.

Wave goodbye. It's over.

[1010011010]

Originally Posted by Stompy

It's music. When you say, "I like [band]", it's not an advertisement for the RIAA. That's probably one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard [...] Word of mouth is a better form of self-advertisement....

Make up your mind.

As for songs being ~4min advertisements for albums... Look up the concept of "Pay For Play".

[Jinn]

Good ol' Sony.. another company in the RIAA:

Originally Posted by from slashdot

SysInternals.com guru Mark Russinovich has a detailed investigation of a rootkit from Sony Music. It's installed with a DRM-encumbered music CD, Van Zant's "Get Right with the Man". The rootkit introduces several security holes into the system that could be exploited by others, such as hiding any executable file that starts with '$sys$'. Russinovich also identifies several programming bugs in the method it uses to hook system calls, and chronicles the painful steps he had to take to 'exorcise the daemon' from his system."

http://www.sysinternals.com/blog/200...al-rights.html

a fucking music CD that installs a rootkit on your computer... I hope someone sues the everliving fucking shit out of them - fucking sons of bitches.

Here- let me do the right thing and buy a CD.. oh wait sony just fucking blew up my computer. A couple grand on a god damn computer that you torched just so you can protect your fucking mp3s Sony.. that'll teach me to fucking buy a CD. The honest ones get fucked.. might as well just download the clean mp3s from a file sharing place. I think I just figured out what crime I'll commit if I commit one.. this fucking industry needs to catch up to the times.. FAST.

EDIT: Oh did I mention that it prevents your fucking CD drive from working if you try to delete it? Yea.. good ol RIAA.

[cyrnel]

Glad you posted this JinnKai. I was running headless today & almost forgot about it.

The linked writeup by Mark R. is a great example of system sleuthing. No rocket science, just someone very familiar with Windows and tools ferreting out a rat. And what a rat.

[Willravel]

Doesn't that break the law? One is allowed to back up music on one's own computer if no one else can hear it or share the music, yes? So isn't it illegal to instal tools for maintaining a hack, espically if there is no wrong doing by the consumer? Someone's gott aknow the laws behind this.

[flstf]

Originally Posted by willravel

Doesn't that break the law? One is allowed to back up music on one's own computer if no one else can hear it or share the music, yes? So isn't it illegal to instal tools for maintaining a hack, espically if there is no wrong doing by the consumer? Someone's gott aknow the laws behind this.

Hard to believe that DRM has become so intrusive.
From one of the replies to the referenced article:

They have gone to great lengths to protect the software from tampering. The software is a copy protection. By disassembling and reverse-engineering it before finally removing it, you have not only effectively circumvented their copy protection, but you have posted it on the Internet, too. In short, you are in violation of the DMCA. Same applies for any other malware or viruses that you circumvent through the use of anti-virus software.

One anonymous coward suggested to make use of other operating systems or even a normal CD player. Again, this would be a way of circumventing the copy protection software, and thereby be in violation of the DMCA.

Looks like getting rid of the malware may be against the law as well.

[Jinn]

Reverse-engineering, a previously normal legal and mature approach to software design, was made mostly illegal by the DMCA. His deconstruction of the software makes it "fruit of the poisoned tree" and not admissable in court. Likewise, presenting it would open him to a counter-suit. How fucking great is that? Well, they destroyed my computer -- but I can't prove it because it would be illegal to show you how.

[Willravel]

Take the CD into court that you legally purchased, and have a professional show the court what they did. There has to be some kind of willful destruction of property law being broken by Sony.

[Jinn]

Under a new proposed Analog Hole bill, it will be illegal to make anything capable of digitizing video unless it either has all its outputs approved by the Hollywood studios, or is closed-source, proprietary and tamper-resistant. The idea is to make it impossible to create an MPEG from a video signal unless Hollywood approves it.'"

http://www.boingboing.net/2005/11/01...fter_the_.html

yeaaaa.... good ol RIAA. I've had a chip on my shoulder towards them for years, and I pray for the day when they finally go away..

Maybe the A Hole bill will help others see just how ridiculous they are.

[cyrnel]

Think of this rootkit's role in DRM as an early, crude version of Trusted Computing Initiative boxes. Locked down from outside, monitored by private firms (hopefully), and you better not mess with it.

In a way I'm glad to see Sony pushing the limit. We need examples.

[flstf]

Originally Posted by JinnKai

EDIT: Oh did I mention that it prevents your fucking CD drive from working if you try to delete it? Yea.. good ol RIAA.

The guy doing the reverse engineering to get rid of the malware was over my head technically but I did understand a few things about his methods. The scariest thing to me is that Microsoft could probably make just a few changes to Windows and it would have been almost impossible for him to have discovered that Sony was behind the malware infection and the method to delete it. I imagine our ability to rid our computers of these infections will become more difficult in the future.

[Willravel]

That's it....thus begins my boycott of any RIAA films or music.

[cyrnel]

It's much broader than just the RIAA, music, or even entertainment.

Originally Posted by flstf

... I imagine our ability to rid our computers of these infections will become more difficult in the future.

Welcome to Trusted Computing. The TCGroup and their Trusted Platform Modules restrain your devices (at the lowest level) to an industry controlled sandbox. The IP boundaries can be expanded as they see fit, before or after your purchase, and you have no say. It's a bit like the worst shrink-wrap license but enforced from the hardware layer on up.

In this case Sony (a TCG member) installed a rootkit as an early, crude, example of what will be implemented in the hardware of your computers and other digital devices, the operating system, and anything that wants to interact with them.

Consider how the fight over Open Document relates to these closed systems. Not something TCGroup members want to see.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by cyrnel

In this case Sony (a TCG member) installed a rootkit as an early, crude, example of what will be implemented in the hardware of your computers and other digital devices, the operating system, and anything that wants to interact with them.

Consider how the fight over Open Document relates to these closed systems. Not something TCGroup members want to see.

But isn't there a way to hold Sony liable for infecting a system with an unsolicited program? There must be a law that protects the consumer from Sony hacking our computers. It is not yet illegal to put a copy of a CD on your computer, so long as it is not shared in any way. Even if someone DOES share the files, doens't that make Sony a vigilante for trying to enforce piracy laws, circumventing law enforcement agencies?

[cyrnel]

Will, I haven't seen the shrinkwrap license for this Sony DRM'd music. All work is protected by the DMCA, so if the shrinkwrap includes installation you probably already bought into the process. (and as mentioned, the disassembly would be illegal) Courts have routinely held that opening the package is acceptance even though most of us don't read those things.

I could see Sony going after Mark R over his published account. There have been copy protection schemes so simple they could be defeated by holding down a key when a disc in inserted. Publishing the one-key "workaround" has been found in violation of the DMCA.

Your aren't missing anything though. Old IP law with any sense of fair-use runs counter to IP owner motives. We'll either see the courts revise old rights into more of a "licensed per view" arrangement or these new systems will be somewhat restricted. It's a tough situation though. Licenses are the tried & true workaround to fair use. It means we never actually own the product. Why should we be able to make copies of what we don't own? In spite of Betamax, several media companies (Fox, Warner, and I can't recall) dispute there's any legal right to make even a single backup copy, nor do they have to supply economical replacements, and I don't see our representatives voicing concerns about the changing landscape.

I hope this gets more interesting and doesn't just wash over society like a comfy blanket. Unfortunately plenty of consumers will accept anything to enjoy whatever new music/movie/quicken/etc, oblivious to what they're buying into.

Time to retire and become a monk.

[nofnway]

Originally Posted by JinnKai

Good ol' Sony.. another company in the RIAA:



http://www.sysinternals.com/blog/200...al-rights.html

a fucking music CD that installs a rootkit on your computer... I hope someone sues the everliving fucking shit out of them - fucking sons of bitches.

Here- let me do the right thing and buy a CD.. oh wait sony just fucking blew up my computer. A couple grand on a god damn computer that you torched just so you can protect your fucking mp3s Sony.. that'll teach me to fucking buy a CD. The honest ones get fucked.. might as well just download the clean mp3s from a file sharing place. I think I just figured out what crime I'll commit if I commit one.. this fucking industry needs to catch up to the times.. FAST.

EDIT: Oh did I mention that it prevents your fucking CD drive from working if you try to delete it? Yea.. good ol RIAA.

check this if any hacker comes along behind this Root Kit they can hide their nefarious software simply by beginning the name with $sys$

Now the company behind this software has a Service pack for the software they hid on your computer. You have to let them fix the software you can't see so you can remove it....No, Really. You trust them now don't you?

[nofnway]

DMCA just has to go. I call do over!