Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Government Media News Your Rights Online

RIAA Claim of Stopping Suits "Months" Ago Is False 141

Posted by Soulskill
from the pants-aflame dept.
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "According to a report on Wired.com, the RIAA spokesman claimed that the RIAA has not filed any new lawsuits 'for months,' and according to the Wall Street Journal report discussed here yesterday, the RIAA stopped filing mass lawsuits 'early this fall.' Knowing that the RIAA has a problem with telling the truth, I did a little investigating, and found out that the RIAA had, in fact, commenced a wave of lawsuits just last week. Why would anyone believe anything their spokesperson says? This is an organization that has a tendency to misspeak a lot, if you know what I mean, even when under oath." CNet has a copy of the RIAA's new form letter that it will ask ISPs to pass on to alleged copyright-infringing users. It says, in part, "This letter does not constitute a waiver of our members' rights to recover or claim relief for damages incurred by this illegal activity, nor does it waive the right to bring legal action against the user at issue for engaging in music theft."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

RIAA Claim of Stopping Suits "Months" Ago Is False

Comments Filter:
  • by a_nonamiss (743253) on Saturday December 20, 2008 @09:34AM (#26183583)
    The RIAA tell a mistruth to make themselves look better in the public eye? I can't imagine...
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by pizzach (1011925)
      I'll give you ten cents if you can tell me what companies the RIAA represents.
    • by fermion (181285)
      Although the RIAA has clearly overreacted to this whole download thing, obviously prompted by artists who are scared that they may have to get a job, and promotors scared that the gravy train of cocaine and hookers might be over, in this case I think the issue is reporting on the intent rather that what the RIAA said.

      First, I heard nothing about these 'months of not filing lawsuits' until now. Clearly we have seen lawsuits filed in the several months. I think we saw one on this site filed against some h

      • by Steve Franklin (142698) on Saturday December 20, 2008 @01:17PM (#26184971) Homepage Journal

        As has become painfully obvious in the political sphere over the past eight years, lying is not done for the sake of lying, nor is it done for the thrill of fooling one's fellow citizens. It is done to promote an agenda that would otherwise be difficult to advance without widespread belief in the false statements of the liars. In the case of the euphemistic "recording industry assoc" the lies are aimed at mitigating the negative publicity that is cutting into the very profits they are trying to protect. In short, this is one of those lose/lose situations to which unrestrained greed invariably leads.

        • I believe we call this propaganda.. or FUD, misinformation. So long as another version of the story exists, nobody knows what to believe.
      • Re:Hold the phones! (Score:5, Informative)

        by NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) * <ray.beckermanlegal@com> on Saturday December 20, 2008 @01:45PM (#26185209) Homepage Journal
        Wired, Wall Street Journal, and Associated Press were all told similar lies. I doubt that they were deliberately trying to help the RIAA lie, they just failed to investigate the facts. I don't think that they were necessarily bad guys for reporting that without checking into it. But it is important that, now that they know better, they take some action about meaningfully correcting the misinformation they helped to disseminate.
        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by aeschenkarnos (517917)
          I'm sure as soon as the RIAA put out a press release that clarifies or contradicts their earlier statements, the "journalists" will print that without comment or analysis too.
  • by Baron_Yam (643147) on Saturday December 20, 2008 @09:37AM (#26183595)

    We will ask the ISPs to cooperate in sending C&D letters to people we identify with our proven-poor methods, THEN, after having said we won't sue* we'll use the C&D letters from the ISP to target lawsuits.

    I really have to wonder how their lawyers sleep at night (on beds of $100 bills, I'm sure). The people employing the lawyers I have no doubt sleep peacefully, dreaming of other ways to game the system.

    • It all depends on when the interview was done. Maybe the spokesperson just said "we haven't filed any lawsuits in months" and left unsaid the rest, which is "but it's about that time we did". Besides, it's that time of the year, do you think the RIAA would forget about your christmas presents. Santa may sometimes forget the x-mas presents for the poor and downtrodden, but RIAA-claws wont.
      • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Maybe the spokesperson just said "we haven't filed any lawsuits in months" and left unsaid the rest, which is "but it's about that time we did"

        That's commonly known as a "lie of omission".

    • Libel (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Accusing someone, falsely, of an illegal act is libel per se. There is immunity for doing it in a lawusit. But sending their C&D letter to the ISP, well there is no immunity for that.

      If my ISP gets one of those, I will file a libel action against then, and I'll bet $$$ that their illegal investigators Media Sentry are involved, which will give me yet another lawsuit to file.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 20, 2008 @10:40AM (#26183875)

      Reminder: I am not a lawyer in the US. This is a discussion forum, not legal advice.

      I question whether an ISP receiving this form letter would necessarily be compelled to act.

      It is apparently a 17 USC ss. 512(c)(3) notification; however from a careful reading of the letter and from my own understanding, the relevant part of the DMCA to an ISP providing access to one of their residential users using a peer-to-peer service to host and/or transmit copyrighted music files without the relevant permission of the rights holder(s) would appear instead to be 17 USC ss. 512 (a):--

      (a) Transitory Digital Network Communications. --
      A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the provider's transmitting, routing, or providing connections for, material through a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, or by reason of the intermediate and transient storage of that material in the course of such transmitting, routing, or providing connections, if--
      1. the transmission of the material was initiated by or at the direction of a person other than the service provider;
      2. the transmission, routing, provision of connections, or storage is carried out through an automatic technical process without selection of the material by the service provider;
      3. the service provider does not select the recipients of the material except as an automatic response to the request of another person;
      4. no copy of the material made by the service provider in the course of such intermediate or transient storage is maintained on the system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to anyone other than anticipated recipients, and no such copy is maintained on the system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to such anticipated recipients for a longer period than is reasonably necessary for the transmission, routing, or provision of connections; and
      5. the material is transmitted through the system or network without modification of its content.

      I note that subsection (a) does not contain any provision for "expeditiously disabling access" (i.e., takedowns), and would appear to intend to apply to internet routing in the normal form except where caching or content modification takes place (though ISPs do not have a so-called "common carrier" status, this is the relevant section that provides them with a disclaimer of liability for their downstream customers infringing copyright).

      I would appreciate comments on the same. Nowhere in the form letter do I see the RIAA making a threat against the internet service provider, any form of subpoena or open request to identify the user in question, or retain any identifying records for later subpoena. I surmise that this might be because their counsel are aware of the contents of 17 USC ss. 512 (a) and do not wish to appear too hostile to the ISP, as, at least by my reading, the ISP could quite happily junk this, or pass on a friendly warning to the user in question that they've been flagged, and take no further action on the matter.

      I would further surmise that they are insinuating that should the ISPs not cooperate willingly, they will push for legislation to compel the ISPs to submit, although this might necessitate an effective repeal of the DMCA, as in letter the DMCA acts as a conditional limitation of liability rather than a prohibition. It remains to be seen if the current legislature in the US in fact will be receptive to this idea.

      Reminder: This is not legal advice, merely my own ideas and observations on a discussion forum. Always consult counsel qualified in your jurisdiction before taking action. Doubly so if you're an ISP tech looking at these as they come in and wanting to know if you can killfile them; definitely contact your legal department and seek specialist advice regarding your individual situation.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by bbernard (930130)

      This really seems more like a way for them to perform discovery without all that mucking about with the courts. Get the ISP to respond with "Yes, we've identified Mr. Smith of 123 Main Street based on the information you provided..." I'm curious to see their strategy here--do they try to bury the ISP's in this letter to get them to decide to take their own action against file sharing to get the RIAA off their backs?

      To be blunt, this new "strategy" has to benefit them somehow. And there's only one benefit

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by tonyray (215820)

      As an ISP, under the DMCA, we receive notices all the time and we call the "offender" and ask them to stop doing whatever. It's just extra work and expense for us that we don't appreciate. The only difference between the letters we had been receiving and this one is that this one is talking to the offender rather than us. I suspect the RIAA hopes it will be scarier than one telling us someone on our network is violating their copyright. I have no problem with forwarding it to the offender as we really h

    • by Frosty Piss (770223) on Saturday December 20, 2008 @11:25AM (#26184155)

      We will ask the ISPs to cooperate in sending C&D letters to people we identify...

      ISPs are well know to *fold* at the slightest sign of a lawsuite, I expect the RIAA to have much better luck with this approach.

      As to why the RIAA *has no shame* at all *and keeps on doing* things like this? No court has seriously slapped their hand, and it doesn't look like any will in the near future. So much for our court system protecting the innocent and keeping an eye on things.

      • by ShinmaWa (449201)

        ISPs are well know to *fold* at the slightest sign of a lawsuite. As to why the RIAA *has no shame* at all *and keeps on doing* things like this?

        [Dave Bowman voice:] My god.... its full of stars!!

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Jason Levine (196982)

        Actually, there are multiple instances of courts telling the RIAA to stop certain practices of theirs and the RIAA simply ignoring the judge's orders in another court.

        Two examples that come to mind are filing multiple unrelated John Doe lawsuits as one (cuts down on filing time for the RIAA, but is an abuse of the court process) and being told that "making available" isn't a valid argument then telling another judge that "making available" *is* a valid argument.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by mpe (36238)
          Actually, there are multiple instances of courts telling the RIAA to stop certain practices of theirs and the RIAA simply ignoring the judge's orders in another court.

          But until a judge decides to "throw the book at them" why should they stop?
    • by ari_j (90255)
      It's not how you sleep at night, it's where.
  • it's a trick (Score:5, Insightful)

    by El Puerco Loco (31491) on Saturday December 20, 2008 @09:40AM (#26183601)

    it's probably a ploy to get more people to download pirated music, as lawsuits seem to be their main source of income these days.

    • Re:it's a trick (Score:5, Interesting)

      by aurispector (530273) on Saturday December 20, 2008 @10:35AM (#26183847)

      I can't help but wonder how much their actions are being guided by the big recording corporations vs. the lawyers running the organization. Their actions are all over the map - they can't seem to decide whether to keep mugging downloaders for the cash or to run a PR campaign against file sharing.

      For years, existing technology dictated a particular business model that made them all a lot of money. Now, technology has changed, but they see the old business model as their birthright. What the record companies have to do is abandon the media sales paradigm - which is apparently a tough pill to swallow for them - and start offering ad-supported "free" downloading of low bitrate mp3's. Selling vinyl records or cd's or preloaded chips or whatever is going to be a sideshow from now on. The availability of free, legal downloads will basically undercut the file sharers if they actually provide consumers with better value than the torrents, e.g., wallpapers, videos and other content.

      Their insistence on charging 99 cents per track for downloads reflects their continued greed and cluelessness. Downloading a given CD @ $0.99/track as MP3s is a far worse deal for the consumer than a CD purchase when you factor out the cost of production and distribution costs associated with CDs. Additionally, the CD is a relatively permanent offline master copy - I've lost track (no pun intended) of how many times I've lost music due to hard drive crashes, data corruption, etc.. If they charged 10 cents a track for high-quality downloads it becomes an impulse buy - I'd gladly buy tons of high quality tracks at that price provided at least some of the revenue went to the artists. I'm not blind to the fact that record companies give value back to the artists in terms of management expertise and promotion but their cut is inevitably going to be a lot smaller - something they refuse to accept.

      • by reddburn (1109121)
        The lawyers ARE the organization. It started as a lobbying group...
      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Kierthos (225954)

        I disagree that 99 cents a track is a bad deal.

        I mean, let's face it... how many albums have you heard recently that had maybe one or two good/catchy tracks, and the rest of the album was pure crapola? I'd much rather pay a couple of bucks for the relatively few songs I tend to like off of an album rather then pay $15-$20 for the entire CD and only ever listen to the same few tracks.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      lawsuits seem to be their main source of income these days

      Only they know for sure, of course... but Ray's best estimate is that they are losing money overall [slashdot.org]: they may make money off settlements (or maybe just break even?), but the legal and investigative costs that go into all those dropped or default judgment cases destroys all that profit, and then some.

      I don't think it's actually profitable for them. I think it was always intended as some kind of "campaign of fear" to make people too afraid to file-share... which seems not to have worked.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by sjames (1099)

        They probably weren't expecting that any of the defendants would have any significant defense. They seem to have cherry picked cases where defense was unlikely. They got surprised there. As a business model, it's a failure, but it's entirely possible that it's an unanticipated failure.

        It's also possible that they cherry picked the cases they did hoping for a fast series of wind to maximize the terror factor. In the end, we don't know enough to reliably deduce if they expected to profit from the lawsuits dir

  • ...the old plan, twice the spin.
    Just think, with the ISPs on board they can be sure they sue the right people this time round (probably).
    • by Ihmhi (1206036)

      IF they put any more spin on their press releases it's going to throw the Earth's rotation outta whack.

  • Fixed. (Score:4, Informative)

    by theaveng (1243528) on Saturday December 20, 2008 @09:57AM (#26183691)

    >>> This is an organization that has a tendency to mispeak

    "RIAA is an organization that has a tendency to [lie, intimidate citizens, and extort money] a lot, even when under oath." There. Fixed that for ya. ;-)

  • I guess misspeaking isn't the same as perjury.

    If it were you or me, we'd be in the slammer, but if you're a rich member of a powerful industry, it just gets ignored by the courts. Ah yes, to be rich and powerful.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by abigsmurf (919188)
      Perjury is only when under oath. Unless done to commit a crime (libel, fraud, etc) you're allowed to lie as much as you want.
  • Good to see Baghdad Bob found a good job following the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime.

  • by pikine (771084) on Saturday December 20, 2008 @10:21AM (#26183777) Journal

    RIAA Caught Lying About Stopping Prosecution Tactic

    Otherwise, when people see "RIAA Claim..." people stop reading. "RIAA Caught Lying..." gets people's attention.

    • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      NYCL submitted the story. He's a practicing lawyer. Lawyers tend to choose their words carefully, so as to avoid getting sued for defamation.

      I reckon that's about as strong a statement as he could make without the RIAA suing him.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        NYCL submitted the story. He's a practicing lawyer. Lawyers tend to choose their words carefully, so as to avoid getting sued for defamation. I reckon that's about as strong a statement as he could make without the RIAA suing him.

        I don't worry about the RIAA suing me. Were they to attempt that, they would be making a grave mistake, and I would probably have more fun than I've ever had in my professional life.

        I do, however, take great pains to be accurate. Unlike the RIAA's lawyers, being truthful is important to me.

        • I do, however, take great pains to be accurate. Unlike the RIAA's lawyers, being truthful is important to me.

          Note that "the RIAA's lawyers" is such a large group that it's not likely any of them could have a defamation claim against NYCL based on the above statement.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    "LET them die!"

    Seriously. How long do we need to put up with this kind of abuse from corporate America? They used to welcome customers with open arms, happy that their families could eat that night because we were all happy to consume and be treated like human beings. I'm not sure where that train derailed but it was a bloody mess.

    About a year ago I began a very small social experiement. I simply got tired of seeing what the music, movie, and videogame industries were doing to their customers. Sure, they ca

    • by Zwicky (702757) on Saturday December 20, 2008 @12:40PM (#26184709)

      Your wallet is a tool for change.

      Sure is. ;)

      Joking aside, I have to agree. I haven't yet taken it to the extent you have. I still have my old music and movies but I don't buy anything new. It was never really a conscious decision against the RIAA or MPAA for me, but a result of a growing dislike towards money-grabbing/useless corporations generally. (For me this not only includes companies that don't provide value for money, but also those that treat me as a stupid consumer.)

      I'd like to send these associations and the companies they represent the way of the Big Three, which would hopefully knock some much needed sense into them. The problem as I see it is that media is seen as a disposable asset by many people; something to just waste money on regardless of the low quality and unoriginality. Vehicle purchases are quite different: most people want to get value for money and have a vehicle that will last them years.

      Part of me - the slightly sinister part - secretly hopes the economy will worsen more and the general populace will be forced to tighten their belts even more. With luck, it would be enough to seriously disable these media cartels. However, even then I doubt it would work. More people would just clue onto downloading tracks and the RIAA would go back to their old method of suing every last one of them. Other people would continue to purchase their shiny CDs even in the face of bankruptcy (the world has no shortage of idiots).

  • Why deny suing? I can't imagine RIAA collects enough money from downloaders to pay their legal costs. It seems more likely they are trying to deter thieves. However, for reasons that are all too obvious, it doesn't work if you keep it a secret.

    And at the risk of being flamed and down-modded, let's not forget that achieving artistic excellence is grindingly difficult and will rarely be done for charitable purposes.

  • "music theft" ? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by John Hasler (414242) on Saturday December 20, 2008 @11:14AM (#26184085) Homepage

    There is no such thing as "music theft". It is settled law in the US that copyright infringement is not theft, and calling an infringer a thief can constitute libel.

    • Like calling Al Capone a mobster, when in fact he was really just a furniture salesman who forgot to pay one state tax bill.

      • by bentcd (690786)

        Like calling Al Capone a mobster, when in fact he was really just a furniture salesman who forgot to pay one state tax bill.

        Al Capone wouldn't want to sue for libel anyway so it's largely moot: if he sued you there is actually a good chance you would win and anyone could then call him a mobster with impunity. Instead, if you were lucky he would break your kneecaps and tell you not to call him a mobster again.

  • It was a marketting ploy, conceptualized, designed, and brought to fruition by the music industry: the same people that have the power to turn shit in to gold records.

    Most likely a ploy to see who would fire up thr bittorrent clients and start going crazy. Never believe this crap until your certain the laws have been written, passed, and every one is truly in the clear.
  • by hyades1 (1149581) <hyades1@hotmail.com> on Saturday December 20, 2008 @11:31AM (#26184203)

    Every time you think the RIAA has gone as low as it can, it finds yet another way to open up a whole new universe of douchebaggery.

    Please, God, let them say something like this under oath, and let it be in front of a judge who takes a dim view of perjury (and prefers jail time to fines as a method of educating people on the workings of the US legal system).

  • 1. Class action lawsuit against RIAA for false advertizing. They make up an absolute lie to look non-evil to sell more records.... Anyone who bought those records bought them under false pretenses.
    2. ?????
    3. Profit!!!

  • by Omeganon (104525) on Saturday December 20, 2008 @12:03PM (#26184397)

    While they don't explicitly identify them as such, the content of the e-mail is essentially a DMCA notification. Since the content is not stored on the ISP's systems, and is just a transitory communication over the ISP's network, the ISP is not obligated to perform any action whatsoever. They could >/dev/null 2>&1 them and there's nothing the RIAA could do about it.

    To be valid, the DMCA notification needs to be directed to the party hosting the content, in this case the end-user. The ISP for that user is not obligated to 'pass on' the notification to the end user any more than they would be to 'pass on' a notification meant for another ISP. It is the complainants responsibility to identify the correct destination for the DMCA notification, not anyone else's.

    Even _if_ the ISP were hosting the content on systems they own, the only obligation they would have would be to remove the specifically identified offending content from their systems. Per the DMCA, the alleged offender would have 10 days to contest the validity of the DMCA notification at which point the ISP would be required to re-post the content if they did so. The claimant would then need to begin legal proceedings to obtain further relief.

    Seems to me to be a re-hash of a previously failed tactic. Once the RIAA found this was a dead-end, they began their DOE lawsuits.

  • by kimvette (919543) on Saturday December 20, 2008 @12:20PM (#26184547) Homepage Journal

    The simple solution to this is to bankrupt the RIAA members. It worked for the big three - they've been producing crap cars for decades now, while the Japanese took our advice that our own people would not receive, and have been producing fantastic, high-quality cars.

    That's not to say that the the big three produce all crap - but the high-quality reliable vehicles they do produce (the 'Vette, a few caddies and other luxury cars) are vehicles that Joe Sixpack can't afford. On top of that, the reliable vehicles they DO have and are utilitarian and comfortable (such as Pontiac Vibe, the Saturn Astra) are made by Japanese or European manufacturers (OK the Astra is a rebadged Opel, but it's still not what I'd consider part of the big three).

    The RIAA, truthfully, is producing mostly crap nowadays. If an artist can't produce a mega-hit or won't sell out to do so, then they won't get air play. Oh, they'll get signed, but that's only for the label to bind them so they can't go elsewhere to an indie label who will make that long-term investment.

    Just say no. Don't listen top top 40 radio, don't buy their crap, and don't download their crap either, because you're only fueling their argument. Just stop being a customer. Buy used records/CDs. Sure, it'll drive the price of used media up a little, but guess what? The labels won't live through a year or two of an outright boycott. They'll try to legislate a used media tax, but there is no way that would fly (right of first sale: when you buy a CD or DVD, you OWN it. They know this and cop to it in their own adverts. Britney spears, own it today on CD! Narnia/Prince Caspian, own it today on DVD! They KNOW you own that copy, not just license it).

    Don't even do Rhapsody, because the labels are using them to try to get you to embrace DRM, because then you WON'T own the music, it will be licensed under that model - under contract law, because it's a rental.

    Just say no. Spend your money on DVDs - better value. You get an entire movie for less than the cost of a DVD. Check out hulu.com - free movies and TV series archives.

    Break the record companies. It can be done. Don't download their crap and they won't have any basis to sue, and don't buy their crap because it will bankrupt them. Just say no. It didn't work for drugs, but it did work for the auto industry and it can work in the music industry.

    • Amen to that.

      I adamantly refuse to support the RIAA labels until they stop treating consumers like crap.

      That doesn't mean changing the tactics used in treating consumers like crap - it means STOP TREATING THEM LIKE CRAP.

      Sadly, though - for every one person who refuses to purchase their wares, there are ten more who need their "Soulja Boy fix", and will keep groups like UMG in business. To make matters worse, groups like UMG and Sony obviously aren't one-trick ponies. They have other industries they can draw

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Pichu0102 (916292)

      The simple solution to this is to bankrupt the RIAA members. It worked for the big three - they've been producing crap cars for decades now, while the Japanese took our advice that our own people would not receive, and have been producing fantastic, high-quality cars.

      In other words, give them a bailout once they ask for it?

    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      The simple solution to this is to bankrupt the RIAA members.

      I think they're doing that to themselves.

    • Get behind the abolition of copyright, or the imposition of more reasonable interpretations of it - like fixed terms less than ten years, no criminal prosecution unless done for financial profit, limitation on liability to the retail price of the item ($.99 per song and $5.00 per movie, not per potential copy).

      Although your idea is a good step too.

      • by corsec67 (627446)

        limitation on liability to the retail price of the item

        The punishment has to be a bit above the retail price. Limit it to something small, like 3x the lowest street price or some specific number, whichever is higher. Higher for commercial copyright infringement, of course.

        If the liability limit is the retail price, that would kill GNU and similar copyleft licenses.

        • by symbolset (646467)

          3x nothing is still nothing.

          The corrections I propose don't disadvantage the GNU and other copyleft licenses. If anything, they bring them up to the level of the other licenses. There remains the potential for injunctions against violators to prevent commercial infringement.

          BTW, "copyleft [wikipedia.org]" means "make a copy, as long as there's a copy left." Much of my output is licensed this way, with "all rights reversed [google.com]".

          Copyright and patent are a large part of what's preventing progress in the IT realm. The purpo

        • by mpe (36238)
          The punishment has to be a bit above the retail price. Limit it to something small, like 3x the lowest street price or some specific number, whichever is higher. Higher for commercial copyright infringement, of course.

          Any fixed price is going to wind up being just as unrealistic, sooner or later.

          If the liability limit is the retail price, that would kill GNU and similar copyleft licenses.

          For a commercial copyright infringer all you'd need to do would be to use the price that infringer was selling at a
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Jason Levine (196982)

      Might I add: Get your music fix from Indie artists. Buy from eMusic.com or AmieStreet.com. You'll spend less money, get music from great artists, won't get DRM, and the artists will actually see much of the money you're spending. I'd love to see the day when an eMusic/Amie Street artist got so popular that they broke into the Top 10 list. (If that's even possible.)

  • Perhaps the RIAA was expecting that Big Media would happily propagate the lie, but drag its feet on the retraction? How dare they? We all know that Big Media lives and breathes social ethics.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Bitch bitch bitch. Moan moan moan. If you are so up in arms about it, go after them already. If a bunch of /b/ tards can make a mockery of Scientology and may yet push it over the edge to it's destruction, certainly some dedicated geeks can do the same to the RIAA and MPAA.

    Black faxes. Prank calls. DDOS. Protests in front of the HQ of RIAA and their lawyers and the HQ's of the big record labels involved. Boycotts of RIAA labled artists. You can do it, but you'd rather moan behind a keyboard and baw

  • Nothing to see here, move along.

Unix is the worst operating system; except for all others. -- Berry Kercheval

Working...