Slashdot Log In
Who Runs RIAA's Settlement Information Center?
Posted by
kdawson
on Mon Apr 28, 2008 04:16 AM
from the detecive-work-cuts-both-ways dept.
from the detecive-work-cuts-both-ways dept.
eatonwood writes "Who is behind the RIAA's collections efforts? This comment at CallFerret says it is a company called PSC and lists a bunch of websites and contact information for them, but the connection to RIAA is still not completely clear (aside from the presence of a couple of clearly RIAA sites on the same server as PSC's). Anyone know anything more about who is doing RIAA's dirty work?"
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Organized Prank Calling (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Organized Prank Calling (Score:5, Funny)
I'm calling from Nigeria, and I downloaded around 1500 of your songs. Now I'm willing to pay your fee, but in order to do so I must first secure my payments. So I need about $50000, to be deposited on bank account BIC415.201.25521.33. And then I will be happy to pay you the millions of dollars you claim I owe you.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
That would be appropriate, since the first album by the band that has brought independent digital releases to world attention, Radiohead's Pablo Honey [amazon.com] , took its title from a hilarious Jerky Boys bit.
Is there any statement from the Jerky Boys themselves about how they view the RIAA? I'd imagine such a free-spirited team to be sympathetic to the new world of independent digital distribution, and I'm sure we'd all
hmmm. (Score:2)
But based on their litigious behavior to date publishing any details about them might bring down some legal wrath on your head.
So... what exactly is covered by freedom of speech or right to know?
- links to their website?
- phone numbers?
- photos of their HQ from public places?
- whistle blower documentation?
Re:hmmm. (Score:4, Interesting)
If they were a UK company, you could get a list of directors of both the SIC and various RIAA member companies and their home addresses through Companies House. All you need to do then is see if any names match up.
Obviously this doesn't help if the company has been set up as a totally separate entity with a totally separate list of directors, but it would tell you pretty quickly if Mr. Bloggs (who lives at 9 Acacia Avenue) runs company A and Mrs. Bloggs (who also lives at 9 Acacia Avenue) runs company B.
Parent
Re: Who Runs RIAA's Settlement Information Center? (Score:3, Funny)
Re: Who Runs RIAA's Settlement Information Center? (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
According to Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman in Good Omens Hell has much to learn from the modern software license. I'm not sure that I would necessarily quote Messrs Pratchett and Gaiman as infallible sources but...
This is a tough one... (Score:2)
Re:This is a tough one... (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Obvious answer... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Obvious answer... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Mod parent up. Epic winnar.
Sincerely,
Life.
Re: (Score:2)
I know I'll get modded down for this comment (Score:2, Insightful)
You're artist, designer, or coder. You make things. Doesn't matter what it is as long as it's easily copyable on the internet (music, images, web pages, software). You do this for a living. One day someone sets up a web page that gives what you sell for a living away to others for free. What would you do? How would you handle it? Would you just tolerate it? What if you began to notice you were no lo
Re:I know I'll get modded down for this comment (Score:5, Insightful)
But then again... Maybe I would on the other hand want to be a successful lawyer enough to fall for these things, I'm not saying I'm perfect. If I were a lawyer, I'd want to be successful, and it's obviously a reasonably successful strategy for them, or else they wouldn't keep doing it. It depends on how much of a jerk I'd be willing to become.
Parent
Re:I know I'll get modded down for this comment (Score:5, Insightful)
That's really the point. For music, we all believe that artists should get remunerated for their work. Want makes the RIAA evil is that (A) they don't work in the interests of the artists, and (B) their approach to their customers is insulting, intimidating, disdainful and invasive. Some would use stronger words.
The RIAA right now is waging a campaign against music fans, in the name of artists (many of whom do not support their name being so used), and gee, if the people's rights, liberties and freedoms are caught in the crossfire, so be it. Hey, we can even reduce those too!
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Gather efvidence, get people prosecuted in a secure, legal way. You don't start sending threatening letters, suing people on spurious grounds and generally being a complete asshat.
"I'll admit, what I do know of the RIAA is they are extremely heavy handed, so much so that it's entirely possible that innocents are wrapped up in their vendetta."
That's completely unnacceptable. Ruining other
Re:I know I'll get modded down for this comment (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd probably give it up when I realised I was paying $39,000 a year "protection money" to the RIAA.
The RIAA do *not* have the artists' interests at heart, except in so far as that if the artists aren't making money, the RIAA can't extort it from them.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing we seem to get are DRM-ed up pieces of content that only run on Windows, only on certain devices (e.g. iPod), and which cost MORE than buying physical content in the shops.
As a random example I can either pay $10 to buy a DVD with special features in Blockbuster. Or I can pay $14.99 on iTunes. Naturally the iTunes one only works on Wind
My sympathy is with you.. (Score:2)
I would rather not go
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There has always been music, humans like music and it's never going to go away so if 'artists' can't make money using current technology then they need to stop trying, the world doesn't owe them a living, and do something else. Other music will come in to fill the gap and match up with the new technology. In short music is important, 'artists' or particula
Re: (Score:2)
I'll admit, what I do know of the RIAA is they are extremely heavy handed, so much so that it's entirely possible that innocents are wrapped up in their vendetta. They are sloppy, thuggish, and an out right bully. What can they do? What would you do, just start giving away that which you make your living on? Is that the answer? Is that what everyone wants?
I don't pirate music either - that's not the issue.
You've pretty much summed it up yourself. It's not just the fact they're going after music piracy - the problem is they're going after people with sketchy 'evidence', trying to manipulate the legal system to their advantage.
They use their legal might to bully people into settling out of court [who may not have even pirated anything!] This is extortion, plain and simple.
Even in cases where piracy is legitimately happening, the fine is often far higher than
Re: (Score:2)
I'll admit, what I do know of the RIAA is they are extremely heavy handed, so much so that it's entirely possible that innocents are wrapped up in their vendetta. They are sloppy, thuggish, and an out right bully. What can they do? What would you do, just start giving away that which you make your living on? Is that the answer? Is that what everyone wants?
Maybe what they should do in the few cases where it becomes obvious that they made a mistake and sued the wrong person is to stop the lawsuit and offer to pay all the costs incurred by the victim. That wouldn't be enough, but it would be damn good start. Or at least, just stop the lawsuit? No, these guys just press on. That is the same tactic used by some debt collectors even when faced with proof that they are collecting invalid debts or collecting from the wrong person.
Wanting to collect from peopl
Bespoke Software and Street Performer Protocol (Score:2)
Yes, that is exactly what I would do - it is exactly what I do now.
I get paid for writing bespoke software. The programs are customised to my employer's requirements. Anyone can have a copy of the software, because that isn't where the value is. The value is that I configured it just for them; I changed bits or wrote entirely new bits that fit them exactly. I wrote a new module to work with their esoteric payments system. I changed
Re:Bespoke Software and Street Performer Protocol (Score:4, Interesting)
Imagine if bricklayers had to be paid by every person who visited a house they built several years ago.
That would be almost impossible to police.
But it is even more difficult to keep track of people who listen to music or watch video. That's even more difficult to police.
Instead, bricklayers get paid for making new buildings, and not for buildings they've already finished. Equally, artists should get paid for making new art, not art they've already finished.
Parent
Re:Bespoke Software and Street Performer Protocol (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
To put it another way: Imagine if bricklayers had to be paid by every person who visited a house they built several years ago. That would be almost impossible to police. But it is even more difficult to keep track of people who listen to music or watch video. That's even more difficult to police. Instead, bricklayers get paid for making new buildings, and not for buildings they've already finished. Equally, artists should get paid for making new art, not art they've already finished.
Those analogies are usually unhelpful. Bricklayers don't need to be paid by everyone who visits the house because a) they have never been granted ownership of any part of the house b) they agreed to be paid a finite sum of money upon completion of the job.
However, if I *own* the house, I am entitled to charge everyone who wants to visit it.
What I profoundly dislike about anti-copyright activists is their desire to force their views upon everyone else. At present, nothing prevents artists from doing w
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Imagine you're a bricklayer building houses and the concept of credit doesn't exist, and everybody simply has to pay up front in cash for the whole price of the house. Suddenly you go from working on 100 buildings a year to one because 99% of people can't afford to buy a whole house with cash.
Or imagine you've got a $100 million building full of historical artifacts. Now, you could sell it to a private owner for a rich guy's playground. You could sell it to a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
as a matter of interest, what is your view of inheritance tax?
Surly it should be 100% right?
23% of the richest 1,000 people in the UK did NOTHING to get the money but be born with rich parents. They are paid for doing nothing, and never have contributed anything whatsoever.
Surely if your principle holds, it should be illegal for your parents to leave you anything in their will right?
If not, explain to me the difference.
Re: (Score:2)
It *is* scary how much the prevailing groupthink of slashdot is that "teh copyright owners are teh Satan" and that man is born with a god g
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In Hong Kong, no one buys legitimate copies. Yet, there is a steady stream of new art because the market adapted to changing conditions there and found a new way to be profitable.
Auteur filmmakers from Ingmar Bergman to Emir Kusturica and beyond have been unsure of the profitability of their ventures. Nonetheless, they still realized their visions thanks t
Re: (Score:2)
patronage...
Ok cool, so we will have the music and the movies that the government and the wealthy would like yes?
Kiss goodbye the grand theft auto
Kiss goodbye to punk music
Kiss goodbye to pretty much anything that criticises the war on terror or inequality.
Its amazing what crap people will cling to if it lets them feel good about ripping off musicians...
Re: (Score:2)
European arts ministries provide a good example that state-funded arts do not, in fact, produce only what the state wants. I doubt more than a handful of people in the French government have anything good to say about, say, the music produced by IRCAM, but it is already in its third decade of generous state funding. Similarly, few in the Finnish government listen to obscure comtemporary composers e.g. Kaija Saariaho, Magnus Lindberg, or Kimmo Hakola, but the commissions keep rolling in and the orchestras' m
Re: (Score:2)
Great, I can only see that as a good thing. I'd rather listen to music whose performers seek greater musical abilities, not shirk them off.
There was plenty of punk made outside of the recording industry's purvue. Some of the best stuff never made it to Vinyl, and only made it to CD when home studios became popular. Indeed, much of it would have probably vanished had it not been shared outside of the boundries the music industry would impose on us. Some of it with the Artists' blessing, some of it without.
Yeah, cuz no one will criticise the government, its foreigh policy, or the politicians that populate it unless they're paid cold, hard cash.
Not.
As an author I support author's rights, and that includes artists and musicians who make the films, musc, paintings, etc. we all enjoy. However, government monopoly entitlements are, in the best of circumstances, a highly ineffecient and imperfect way to implement artistic rights. They empower the middlemen, publishers and industry cartels, while simultaneously disempowering artists and their audiences. To characterise anyone who criticises the current monoply regime as theives, or imply they believe artists shouldn't get paid, is rediculous and intellectually dishonest. To attack those who decry the heavy handed and flagrantly unjust methods employed by those cartels against the innocent and minorly guilty ($250,000 for pirating a dozen $1 songs? Please) goes well beyond intellectual dishonesty.
Re: (Score:2)
I should add that the new music I seek out is that produced by the alternative funding methods I mentioned. I'm not making apologies for "ripping off musicians" at all. I'm simply saying that the arts will continue to exist even after the demise of copyright-based revenue streams. It might not be the crap music and videos games you like, but nonetheless there will continue to be human artistic endeavours ju
Re: (Score:2)
be careful buddy, you let your holier-than-thou snobbishness leak out a little there.
if mere peasants like me and 95% of the population are happy to buy our 'crappy music and video games' why the fuck do we need arrogant elitist pricks like you to dictate what we are allowed to enjoy?
Re: (Score:2)
I find it strange that people were smarter then than they are today.
Re:I know I'll get modded down for this comment (Score:4, Insightful)
During the time that most people were switching to the CD, the record companies, members of the RIAA, colluded to illegally fix prices, and frankly the artists saw none of that money.
Now, the with the customer able to obtain in a fast, easy, and durable form, the music that they want, for as little as 89 cents a track, the record companies are finding that their "buy the same stuff in a different format" business model, isn't working. Rather than attempt to adapt to the new market, arguably difficult and risky, they formed a different plan: litigation.
The cost of filing a suit is trivial. The fear of being ruined in a lawsuit is tremendous, and most people will spend 4-5K dollars to make it go away rather than risk a lifetime of ruin trying to dig out from under a multi-million dollar debt. The fact that RIAA does not gather enough evidence to go to court, and that the evidence gathered is probably wrong as often as 20% of the time, is significant.
The RIAA set up a call center based upon the the techniques of debt collectors, with out the restraint of actually having to be debt collectors. These settlements, as we have seen, are little more than the promise that the RIAA won't sue you again. BUT having admitted that you did violate the copyright, the victim has been set up for a second bite, once the music writers sue for infringement, and then the performers can sue again. So it appears that the business model of suing for millions based upon listening to music will be with us for a long time.
Using the legal system to extort money from people is wrong. Making it a business, is particularly evil.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't you ask Metallica? http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/04/27/1458228 [slashdot.org]
Views on copyright-type issues have always been influenced by the level of technology. It doesn't seem to have been much of an issue before the printing press. As the technology has changed with computers and the internet, so has people's view of copyright. It's only to be expected. There are people who th
Re: (Score:2)
They can pursue their legal actions with honesty & dignity, while complying with rules of law. They could have kept up with technology. They can recognize that their business model is antiquated. They can stop pimping crappy formulaic music and over sexualized mouthpieces. They can stop the loudness arms race. They can produce a product worth buying, in a form worth buying. They can replace my damaged media for a nominal and fair price.
Oh fuck it.. who am I fooling. As long as th
If it's really important to them ... (Score:2)
... then they would leave a message, or send you a letter, or sue you.
Re: (Score:2)
It's funny how the meaning of the song might differ depending on the demography.
Re:Mods == fags (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
..but I repeat myself.. (Score:2)
Who Runs RIAA's Settlement Information Center? (Score:2)
"Can't hear. Louder!"
Master-Blaster runs RIAA's Settlement Information Center.
"Still can't hear. Say louder!"
MASTER-BLASTER RUNS RIAA'S SETTLEMENT INFORMATION CENTER!!
"Embargo off."
Somehow the mental image of toiling amongst pig manure to make money for the RIAA just seems incredibly apropos.
Re:We? (Score:4, Funny)
Aren't we doing it? We're parrotting their *evil ways* around, keeping them in the media.
Whoever said "money doesn't grow on trees" never owned an orchard. Whoever said "there's no such thing as a free lunch" never had a grandma. Whoever said "the way to a man's heart is through his stomach" was obviously a virgin woman.
Whoever said "there's no such thing as bad publicity" never owned a restaraunt that was in the newspaper because their samonella-poisoned food killed children.
The RIAA is just plain evil and people need to know the evil they do. They will not gain from negative publicity. Would you have kept Sony's rootkit secret so they didn't get the free publicity?
Parent