Several Boycotts Of RIAA Organizing 590
There are numerous grassroots efforts coming together to Boycott the RIAA. I've decided that
I won't be buying any RIAA CDs for awhile personally (I've already cancelled a couple of orders, and I buy a ton of CDs) but decide for yourself. Should peer-to-peer file sharing be legal or not on the Internet? Should companies like Google and Yahoo be held legally responsible for the content that they index? Meanwhile, the OpenNAP servers and Gnutella are proving that the genie is out of the bottle and while this lawsuit may set a huge legal precedent, it won't help the RIAA in the real world.
They should really work with napster since there already is significant market share and potential for revenue. Gnutella and its kin won't have any centralized point.
Why I support the boycott. (Score:2)
Yesterday on CNN Headline News they stated that "studies have shown" that Napster users (or was it MP3 users?) tend to buy more music. I can attest to that.
I have been preaching for years how mp3's have facilitated the buying of better music for me. The thing is... and I wish the record companies realized this... I've actually bought cd's that I would -not- have bought otherwise if I had not been exposed to the music via mp3 first. I've downloaded songs out of curiosity then fell in love with the band and then bought multiple cd's by the artist. But just try to convince the record companies that it actually works this way!
I would be willing to pay for single-song downloads so long as they weren't any more money than a cassette single. I'd even pay for an entire cd via mp3 so long as it was a decent price. But so far these processes are not the norm, although it would save the record companies and artists the costs of a middle man and the media (cd or cassette) and they'd make more profit.
But no, the record companies are using "piracy" as an excuse to strip the rights of the individual because they are AFRAID.
Just like the DVD thing: They're not afraid of us copying the DVD's (it's not worth the trouble or the money). They just want to control what device we watch it on (devices produced by people who paid for the rights first). Thus aleinating Linux users, etc.
Did dual cassette decks or blank cassette tapes get outlawed? No. The public was -trusted- to obey copyright laws, and for the most part they did. Obviously! The recoding industry didn't crumble as soon as recordable cassettes came out.
The RIAA and other groups like it have to realize that they will keep customers if they respect them. This is why I support the boycotts, and agree with the statement at http://boycott-riaa.com/ [boycott-riaa.com] that THE FANS control the music industry.
If the RIAA fights us on this, we will find other ways arond the issue and continue to do things behind their back, FOR FREE and they will lose out. If they give us respect and freedom by giving us the chance to use this new technology to it's fullest while obeying copyright laws at least as well as we did with cassettes, then they could make life easier and more fun for listeners, AND make more than a few bucks here and there by embracing this new technology and offering nice clean mp3 downloads for a small fee... heck, even via Napster!
But so far these stuffed-suits don't seem to be smart enough to see it this way.
$0.02
Re:Liabilities for file sharing software? (Score:2)
its kinda funny really...
all ya'll are allways bitching about (for example) people not reading the fine print when they buy computers, and then compalining that they sould have known the actuall cost that was spelled out in the contract (with a little math)
same deal with the record industry!!!
have you ever seen a record contract? it spells out exactly what are the streams of revenue for the artist, what the record company keeps, other fees, etc...
this is why professional musicians have business managers... people who look at the record contract and determine the revenue, then deduct what the record company keeps, what the agent keeps... etc....
the artist (unless he/she has an incompitent business manager) is then told "you will have $n in revenu this year if you sell this many albums and play to this many people, otherwise, with this other set of figures you will $n2 in your pocket"
yes, record companies are asses, but really, people who are worried about getting screwed should voice those concerns durring contract negotiation, not after they spend more money than they can expect to have
and in the case of toni braxton, if she had two platinum albums, she should have had enough clout to make her concerns meaningful, if she bothered to mention them
Re:Liabilities for file sharing software? (Score:2)
kwsNI
Alright! (Score:3)
Computer CDR's are tax-free (Score:2)
========
Stephen C. VanDahm
E-TREE.ORG!!! (Score:2)
I love E-Tree. I've downloaded and burned dozens and dozens of excellent live shows that I never would have been able to hear if it weren't for the loose network of fans that make this kind of stuff possible.
========
Stephen C. VanDahm
Overlooked resource (Score:2)
Of course, many news servers don't have an alt.mp3 hiearchy. Seems a lot of sysadmins don't like binary newsgroups. You could try getting after your sysadmin to include them, I suppose. Or start looking for an internet service that does.
Re: Announcing Tape-ster! (Score:3)
RIAA: United States Postal Service a Tool for Piracy
========
Stephen C. VanDahm
Re:Computer CDR's are tax-free (Score:2)
Liabilities for file sharing software? (Score:5)
And shouldn't AOL be held accountable for the files and information it's users transfer?
--
send RIAA an ameail (Score:2)
We need to somehow let them *know* it's on. (Score:5)
As I've posted before, my music budget has more than tripled (according to quicken) since napster came out. So they're definitely shooting themselves on this one.
Kinda like sending in the warranty card when you buy a "linux supported" game with LINUX written all over it, we need some way to let them know when and why we're not buying the CDs.
Any suggestions?
What are the alternatives? (Score:2)
Interesting.. (Score:4)
Re:What I want to see (Score:2)
The RIAA didn't request to shut down Napster. They wanted to stop it from being used to distribute copyrighted songs.
Ralph
Need well defined fair use (Score:2)
I tell a friend in the next room "Check this out" and play a song for him. Fair use?
I lend someone a CD. Fair use? They make a tape of it? Fair use?
I send a net.friend a mp3 file over the internet and say "Here, check this out!" Fair use?
I send a net.friend an entire CD in MP3 format over the internet. Fair use? They make a tape of it. Fair use?
I rip a CD to MP3 format so I don't have to shuffle CDs. Fair use?
I record a song off the radio, make an MP3 of it and send it to a friend. Fair use?
I decide that CD I bought last month really sucks and sell it at a used CD store. Fair use?
Now lets get into the fun ones.
I have the chance to download a song or concert which I would not have heard otherwise. Fair use?
I have the chance to download an album that's been out of publication for a decade. Fair use?
I have a chance to download a southpark episode that aired last week on comedy central. Fair use? With the commercials stripped out? Left in?
I have a chance to download a bit of Anime that only ever showed in Japan, between the years of 1970 and 1975. Fair use?
I have the chance to download the text of a book that I read as a child. The author died 15 years ago and the book has been out of print for almost two decades. Fair use?
As has been pointed out, the ROMS to many games we played during the '80s will soon die. Is preserving them fair use?
I could probably come up with some more examples. The RIAA or MPAA would tell us that under current law, most of my examples are stealing. I think many people would agree that many of these examples are not stealing, especially in the cases where there was no possible way that I'd be able to get the content otherwise.
What I think we need is a fairly major reform of current copyright law, enumerating exactly what you buy when you purchase a copyrighted item, exactly what rights you have and what rights the publisher has. I think the time limits on copyrights and patents need to be moved way down. Copyright is already causing important content that was generated in the past few decades tob e lost. This is NOT the way these laws were supposed to work.
Spelling everything out is the only way these problems will ever go away.
Re:Boycott here is a waste of time (Score:2)
Most of the replies I got some up the real problem; there are not enough people here to make a dent. Oh, it's fun to run outside and rally around the flag and shout curse words at the major record labels. But people lose their interest and move on.
Why?
Because this is not about life and death. It is not a direct cost to you. Oh sure, you can say indirectly this affects you because you don't think it is fair to pay 15 bux for a CD and only 1 of those dollars goes to the artist and the rest to some universally despised, nameless, "fatcat" corporation. Guess those "starving artists" - and I say that with more sarcasm than truth - should have read those contracts.
Try protesting something really important, like people starving, corrupt, murderous governments, polluters, spouse abusers, or child stalkers.
Record companies? Please.
This protest will last until Taco or Roblimo have to get the latest "Last Who Live CD".
Re:Liabilities for file sharing software? (Score:2)
The answer is simple: Betamax (and Windows file sharing) have significant legitimate, legal uses. Napster does not.
While you and your buddies may have traded a few dozen MP3s via your college dorm's LAN the vast majority of Windows file-sharing usage is by corporations sharing internal documents.
Yes, Napster *can* be used to promote independent artists, but only peripherally. The legitimate use is an *anomoly* within Napster. According to the suit, something like 89% of MP3 files traded on Napster are *illegal*. Personally, I expected that number to be higher. Most people are just going to hit the search engine -- how do you search for artists you've never heard of?
The reality is that the folks at Napster created a tool to promote the *illegal* copying of music and they got called on it. Period.
Peripheral issues such as this being better for the RIAA's sales are irrelevent: The RIAA owns the rights to these works and as long as the copyright system is in place, the copyright holder sets the terms.
What really gets me is the *hypocrisy* of this matter. As Open Source/Free Software developers we depend on copyright law to enforce the terms that we as copyright holders have defined. (the GPL et al) Someone comes along and distributes a modified version of one of our OS/FS programs and doesn't redistribute the source. What do we do? We get angry. We talk about calling in the lawyers to fight these parasites and bloodsuckers. And we are fully justified in our anger because the users of our copyrighted works are not playing by the rules which we rightfully defined.
The RIAA is doing the same thing here. They defined the rules, and all you Napster users broke them. Now all you Napster users want to get angry at *them*? The arrogance and hypocrisy is just absurd!
-JF
Re:Liabilities for file sharing software? (Score:2)
You don't.
'twas CMU
Ryan
Re:Liabilities for file sharing software? (Score:2)
russells@spam.ix.netcom.com (put 'ryan' in the subject line, it's a shared account).
about 1800 songs.
Before college, I only listened to the radio. No mp3s, not a single audio cd. Freshman year of college (aug 1998) I discovered mp3s on the dorm network. I've downloaded about 1800 songs from the campus network, and a couple (4?, 7?) from napster. Recently I bought my first cd. I was tired of the mediocre sound quality of mp3s (low bitrates, crappy ripping). So far I have bought about 350 songs (20 cds).
I suppose the RIAA should thank the constant advertisements on 97.3 and 105.3 and the shared mp3s at my university for getting me to purchase cds.
Of course I'm not feeling so good about my purchases in light of the RIAA's recent behavior. Anyone know of a good colo outside of Berne-land?
Ryan
Re:Liabilities for file sharing software? (Score:2)
You only need to break the law once to go to jail. This should be obvious.
BTW, Napster's crime is probably accessory to copyright violation or some such. IANAL.
Ryan
Re:Liabilities for file sharing software? (Score:2)
Re:Come on, guys... get real! (Score:2)
It's not their music anymore. Say I make a thousand pirate copies of, ehrm, let's say Britney Spears albums. I promptly call her up, and tell her I'm pirating her music, and dare her to sue me.
She can't. She doesn't hold the copyright, her label does. Music became a work for hire, not distribution. Sign a contract, and even if it doesn't grant the company copyright to the songs, they still own every line, and your name, and your likeness, and quite possibly your genetic material. (They claim any publically recognized personal trait as theirs)
She couldn't even give it away for free if she wanted to. Shit, she couldn't sue me for BritneySpearsSucksMyDickOnDVD.com, she doesn't own her name.
Re:Liabilities for file sharing software? (Score:2)
Re:Liabilities for file sharing software? (Score:2)
But they'll never do that... because they can't make any money! They're not in it to stop a crime, they're in it to stop a new technology. Just like with cassettes and cdr's and vcr's and so many other new media. And, considering the track record of killing new technologies to prevent lawbreaking, they will fail here too.
I am a lawbreaker. I have stolen countless copywrited songs. But I haven't stolen enough for the RIAA to bother suing me. They want the big fish.
So for all of you Napster users with balls enough to admit it, reply to this message with your true name, email address, and the number of commercial songs you've stolen.
I have no intention of giving out my address on slashdot, because of the trolls. However if you feel like emailing me to argue my stance (or replying to this post), feel free. I'm not going to list the number of commercial songs i've stolen, because it's impractical *G* there are so many.
Yes, I have broken laws. Plenty of people have broken laws without being evil people. I'm not going to debate my evility, but I will say that I am not evil because of mp3s. I think this rant is long enough now, but nobody got this far anyway :-)
--
Goodbye old world, hello new ... maybe? (Score:2)
You could - in some ways - see Gnutella as an early form of an 'Eternity' service - because as more people use the service, the content increasingly becomes highly distributed and massively redundant - and therefore tends to live forever, and is hard to remove. Music is the ideal medium for this to start with, because just about everyone listens to music.
The RIAA looks like it is trying to protect the old world of the middle man doing the distribution work. This is dead. The new world is where the technological framework does the distribution work. There is no middle man, because the middle man is replaced by technology.
Promotion may still need to occur, to provide incentives for people to try out and listen to new works, but that promotion should happen around the new decentralised and distributed framework.
Irrespective of what security mechanisms the music industry tries to put into recorded music, there is now a whole globe out their focused on breaking it. Once the security is broken -- just like how just about every commercial software in history has been cracked -- and the music is put into this distributed web, then it is virtually unstoppable.
Rather than fight against piracy and copy -- which has _always_ existed -- perhaps the smart thing to do is embrace free copy, and change the business model, to make money out of performances, merchandise, special releases or whatever other things can be thought of. Piracy and copy has always been the most significant and most popular way of distributing media - but until now it has been ignored and marginalised and a lot of time and energy has gone into eradicating it - what a waste! Better to find a new approach to distribution that embraces free copy, but makes money in other ways.
Re:Why the boycott? (Score:2)
Good Point! (Score:2)
Not that I spent a ton of money on rentals or going to the movies before the lawsuit, but I'm trying to be consistent. without movies, I watch even less TV than I did before - my television viewing nowadays is pretty much confined to local news, Red Sox games, and WWF Smackdown (even though Fox carries the Sox and Paramount carries the WWF).
It's tough to live your whole life in a vacuum, though, even if you try. I wish there were more independent places to get music and film, but maybe that'll be one of the things that comes out of all this legal wrangling that's going on.
- -Josh Turiel
Re:Attn! (Score:2)
You make a very good point: 99% of the MP3's that I download never make (or will never make) the top 10.
However, what are we to do when restrictions are placed on FTP, newsgroups or other services? Are we required to prove that the software (or plaintext or whatever) we are transmitting is not bound by any copyright law merely to protect those that are providing the service?
Just a thought...
--
The devaluation of music (Score:2)
I saw in the paper today a quote from the representatives of the RIAA seeking the injunction.
"Napster is teaching kids today that music has little intrinsic value"
While Napster indeed allows the trading of RIAA artists' music, it is the RIAA which is devaluing music. A while ago I read a good essay on /. about the abstraction of the artist from the art, citing Britney Spears as a prime example. Well, guess what RIAA, your marketing has come back to haunt you. Spears is just one of many, all of whom have one common characteristic: their music is the same. It doesn't matter what artists you listen to, as long as the music is popular and has a beat, who cares? Kids today will listen to anything the RIAA puts in the top 40, do you think they could care less who it is? It is apparent that a side-effect of abstracting the art from the artist is, the artist is expendable. If you can switch artists ard without changing the music, then what value does the artist have? None. Good job RIAA, you've dug your own grave.
As for the boycott, I will continue to do as I always have, I will buy only those albums which I have heard and which I enjoy all of. I do not buy albums which have 1 or 2 good songs. Never have and never will. There are certain artists I will buy and support without question, but I can count those on one hand. For the rest, if I don't hear their album, I don't buy it.
Re:Liabilities for file sharing software? (Score:2)
Please dont flame me, I have a right to this opinion
Better than boycott -- give the mp3's back! (Score:5)
Anyone who has mp3's downloaded from Napster should now repent -- send your mp3's back to the RIAA and tell them you've deleted them from your hard disk. Send them by email, or through the post on floppy/CD-R/Zip/DAT, etc.
by post:
RIAA
1330 Connecticut Avenue N.W., Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20036
by email: (report piracy email address) -- cdreward@riaa.com [mailto]
You might also want to pick up the phone and call them... tell them you wish to send your mp3's back and ask where to send them.
Telephone: (202) 775-0101
Re:Some artists don't desserve this punishment ? (Score:2)
TMBG has done it. Seems to be doing rather well.
Genie out of the bottle? (Score:4)
Not at all. If anyone thinks Gnutella can't be stopped, you are sadly mistaken. The only question is whether "they" will choose to stop it.
The decentralized nature of Gnutella would make it trivial to launch DOS attacks. If the music industry wanted to shut it down, they would just have to have various clients return garbage to queries, send nonsense messages, etc. Yes, future Gnutella clients could have some protections built in, but it's an arms race Gnutella would lose.
"Yeah, but I could just set up private networks among my friends." Sure you could, and then the music industry wins. They don't care about you sharing with your friends, they care about mass, anonymous sharing.
My only question is whether they would choose to do it.
--
Re:Are the alt-Naps really that good? (Score:2)
A service like Gnutella (not GNUtella, as it's not made by any free software people [gnu.org]) is decentralized so that you can become a node in a network of potentially infinite size. Of course, the fact that so many packets are going around makes latency a horrible burden to bear, so it's easy to get downloads that run at miserably slow speeds. (And don't even think about getting more than 1 KB/sec if you're running it on a dial-up connection.)
Re:Go back to tapes! (Score:2)
Heck, record your faourite songs off the radio.
Or just use Streamripper [bigfreakinserver.com]. It records songs off Shoutcast stations. Not only that, it places them in individual Mp3 files and names them. All perfectly legal under the fair use broadcast recording laws.
Re:What are the alternatives? (Score:2)
s/RIAA/You/
s/song/purchase/
s/on emusic/at my friends apartment/
"I've been using your credit card, but mostly because the you don't provide a real alterntive. I would be willing to pay, say, a buck a purchase (like at by freinds apartment) rather than using your credit card-- if the option were available. In other words, yes, I think what people are doing on your credit card is illegal (although, your credit card itself isn't
Not meant to be a flame, just food for thought...
It is an interesting paradox that many of those that advocate "free" software are simply substutiting one set of highly controlled and restrictive licenses for a different set of highly controlled and restrictive licenses.
Corporations write and release software because they have a strong personal desire to accumulate wealth and power. They control this software in a selfish desire to do the thing important to them (generate wealth and accumulate power).
Strong "free software" advocates write and release software because they have a strong personal desire to make information completely free. They control this software in a selfish desire to do the thing important to them (make information free).
I write and release GPL'd software because I have a strong personal desire to show people God's love in a practical way. I control this software in a selfish desire to do the thing important to me (show God's love in a practical way).
Either you respect a persons right to control distribution of content they have created to further their personal goals, or there can be no restrictions on redistribution (like the GPL).
Bill
Re:Go back to tapes! (Score:2)
You can get your favourite songs, the equivalent of multiple cd's on single tapes. Not the greatest thing, i know. I wouldn't imagine the kickback to be as high.
You can buy imported blanks
You can follow kearbear's suggesetion (its in this thread) of using streamstripper...
---
Re:Good Point! (Score:2)
I'm not sure what we can really do about things like that, but I'm glad to hear the 2600 case went reasonably well, and am keeping my fingers crossed that we get a reasonable decision out of it.
Re:Dumb (Score:2)
All parties in this issue are looking out for their own interests exclusively. Users don't want to lose a service they enjoy, and the RIAA wants to preserve their industry. In both cases it is about their respective bottom lines. I don't believe either side is truely able to give enough of themselves to put the Artist first. The Artists will end up deciding the outcome. Right now the RIAA has them in hand, but perhaps if they felt the effects of a boycott, they would be more willing to break the chains that bind them.
I envision a model where I can download songs from a band's official website. The mass market will not care to deal with shady ftp searches, warez sites, or even morally (legally?) ambiguous peer to peer networks, if a simple and reliable method for direct purchase of an mp3. We need the artists to buy into this vision, hence the boycott.
Re:Attn! (Score:2)
Boycott is useless (Score:2)
Let's say they adopt some kind of downloadable, micropayment system where you pay $1/song. That's slightly LESS than you are paying for songs right now PLUS they don't force you to buy the whole CD to get the one song. So they lose money there.
Even worse (for them), suppose we got what we really wanted: IP reform. We'd be able to trade songs with each other legally--and the RIAA would lose even more money.
No, boycott will do nothing because our demands essentially castrate the RIAA. They are fighting for their lives.
--
Give us our karma back! Punish Karma Whores through meta-mod!
Re:Liabilities for file sharing software? (Score:2)
Re:Some artists don't desserve this punishment ? (Score:2)
RIAA is not *creating* music.
The RIAA is misusing copyrights though. I don't have a problem with paying an artist for a CD. I do have a problem with supporting the cartel that is the RIAA. They are using their copyrights in an effort to control the industry, which is illegal.
Artists should be just as outraged at the RIAA as I am. Its obvious that the RIAA is not protecting artists, but their cartel. Online music has bosted sales of CD's, I myself by more, and different types of music since I've been listenting to MP3's, which is a good thing unless you're interested in maintaining a cartel.
A good artist doesn't need the RIAA any more. The distribution channels are there for online music, but the RIAA doesn't want this because they loose everything. So they're doing anything they can do to slow the progression so they can keep up. This is anti-competitive. You can't use copyrights to do this.
451 Fahrenheit (Score:2)
Not everyone steals from the music industry. Although I think what the industry does to the musicians is wrong (and shutting down Napster is wrong, they should get the pirates instead), I still don't steal from them. I will boycott, however.
Re:Interesting.. (Score:2)
Napster, on the other hand, is immediately useful to goddess-only-knows-how-many millions of users daily. Not only that, but the RIAA seems to be trying to stamp out all forms of digital music. Don't bother pointing out SDMI and the others, they're complete jokes. They're just token gestures, an empty claim of being "with it", sort of like Dr. Evil saying he's hip in the first Austin Powers movie. Whenever I think of secure digital music, I think of that. The RIAA seems determined to stop the evolution of their industry, and that's where the two groups differ.
Maybe I'm completely wrong, but it sure seems that way to me...
Of course, this doesn't affect Gnutella.
Ooh! (Score:2)
Re:Neither side deserves to win (Score:2)
I can't cry for them. They are a company built on an a-moral business model. But I can cry for the internet.
Soon, it may be illegal to post links to illegal material at all. I have nothing against scour, alta-vista, and yahoo who only link to illegal mp3s. Sure, they are as agnostic as napster, making it easy to download mp3s, whether they are copyrighted or not. Legal or not.
The future of the internet is in jeapordy. Soon everything objectionable on the internet will be walled off. This will, of course, section off the internet. It will be illegal to link to porn, music, or stolen software. That means that places like breast cancer resource sites, copyright-free music, and free software will all suffer hard.
Is there a way to stop it? To boycott those who are causing this? No. WE are causing it, by putting so much effort into creating new ideas that we want disseminated and to own at the same time. The future will closely resemble the past, with guilds controlling complete sections of the economy, enforced by law. My suggestion, therefore, is to join a guild.
-Ben
Brainstorming for a New Solution (Score:2)
Napster as an application falls way short on what it should be. Yeah, yeah, the disclaimers and user agreements are fine and I believe it is the individual who is ultimately responsible for criminal behavior. I can print books on how to make bombs, I can describe a hundred and one ways to kill someone, but in the end it is the individual who takes the action that is criminal.
With that being said, I want a better solution. Gnutella and FreeNet have their problems, technologically and morally. I still believe, no matter what, that if you want to have a song(story,picture) to listen to(read,look at)over and over, the artist(writer,photographer) who created that song(story,picture) deserves compensation.
This implies to me that any solution developed needs to incorporate the artists. The means the first step is to make sure the artist owns the copyright on the recording not the recording company. Then that artist agrees to distribute their work via a network.
I, the user, buy into the network. I get to put as much money as I want to with a minimum within reason (say $5). Everytime I download a song, my account is deducted a reasonable price, $.75 to $1.50. Even better, the artist sets a base price for each song and let market forces fluctuate the song. For every N downloads a song gets its price increases so it eventually finds its true market value. Unknown artists can set their songs at $0 and allow people to have it for free and see if the market will increase the price.
The money collected from the download is given to the artist. The network makes money to cover its costs much in the same way PayPal gets its money, by doing short term investments with the money people put into their accounts.
As I said, I am snowballing here and I don't know the viability of any of this. I also know MP3.com has done similar things so this isn't truly a new idea but a simplification of existing ideas coupled with a Napster user's desire for instant gratification with little hassle.
Salon Article (Score:2)
My e-mail to the RIAA... (Score:2)
To whom it may concern,
It is with grave concern that I (and many other music lovers) watch the current legal proceedings between your organization and Napster. I feel that the RIAA's actions in this matter have been premature and based on a flawed understanding of the nature of Napster's service to its users.
I enjoy the use of Napster because it allows me to "try before I buy", albeit through unofficial channels. I can think of several CD's that I have purchased after downloading songs from Napster - songs that were _not_ getting heavy rotation on the radio. I do not "steal" whole CD's worth of music using this service, simply because I enjoy owning a physical copy of the music, with liner notes, and pictures of the band, and a disc that I can play without turning on my computer. Therefore, using Napster will never cause me to not buy a CD that I would otherwise buy.
It is with great regret that I must now refrain from purchasing discs by RIAA-represented artists, as a form of protest over the shutting-down of Napster. I guess I will probably miss some good CD's that I was looking forward to buying, but I would miss Napster more, should you succeed in permanently eliminating it. Thank you.
Re:Genie out of the bottle? (Score:3)
I wouldn't be too sure about this. First of all, DOS attacks are illegal. If the RIAA is connected to this sort of activity they'll wind up in a lawsuit they're guaranteed to lose. Second, I think the OSS method of Gnutella development may be able to patch vulnerabilities faster than people can invent them. And third, Gnutella is just an intermediate technology -- the real threat to the industry is Freenet, which already has schemes to protect against the attacks you mention.
Technologically, the RIAA is screwed. Having a dinosaurian brain, however, they haven't noticed this yet.
Re:Interesting.. (Score:2)
There just isn't a level of access for movies like there is for mp3s. The medium doesn't exist to allow widespread piracy for movies, as there simply is not the bandwidth, storage, or patience in order to accomplish it on a similarly massive scale. People are going to protest what is tangible and apparent, and what affects them most at a given time. When and if Napster is disconnected, a lot of users will suddenly become angry, and it will take little more than a suggestion to protest the RIAA. However, when the plug is pulled on DeCSS, we fall into more of a conceptual violation of rights, where the effect isn't felt directly my nearly as many people; it's a problem for philosophers of the information age.
Boycott here is a waste of time (Score:5)
I don't download MP3's or use Napster. My choice. I would rather bang on pots and pans than listen to most of the music out there. But then, that's my opinion.
But if you really want to boycott someone, stop preaching to the choir and involve the majority.
"I am not gonna buy my 15 CD's this year"
What a waste of time. Get a few thousand, die-hard, CD-buying fiends to quit buying CD's. Convince club DJ's to stop buying more music. Convince radio stations to quit playing anymore new music. Get sympathy, if possible, from the people who make up those million sales for Brittainy, N'Sink and whoever.
"I am write a letter to my Congressman"
That is exactly the wrong way to go about it.
Write to the advertisers on the radio station whose format you enjoy. Tell them you will no longer listen to the stations they advertise on.
Write to record labels and include copies of receipts for the last year or so.
Stop listening to the radio.
Stop listening to CD's.
Stop buying, borrowing or downloading music.
And have the millions who buy the teen-scream, underpants crowd do the same.
"I am gonna download as much music as I can"
Good. Those numbers will be seen not as a protest, but as validity for what the recording industry thinks of you: You are not rebels but thieves and vandals trying to loot a few more songs before the impending shakedown.
Do them one better. Do not listen to, record, buy, borrow or download any more of their music.
Oh, and convince the "millions of people who do not use the Internet/MP3 technology regularly, and listen to the radio for their music" crowd to do the same.
Otherwise, this is a waste of time. But hey, you will have your principals.
Re:Liabilities for file sharing software? (Score:2)
Not that I mean to beat a dead horse, but The Tobacconist near where I work sells bongs. I'd bet that 99% of people who buy them smoke pot in them, which is illegal. But these "bongs" are 'Tobacco Sampling Devices'. The 1% makes their sale justifiable.
An even better idea .... (Score:2)
Heck, I even bought a Sinclair ZX-81 there a few months ago for $10.
Re:Liabilities for file sharing software? (Score:2)
Re:Why the boycott? (Score:4)
Re:Boycott here is a waste of time (Score:2)
Resistence is never futile (Score:3)
Really? I had a look at a number of other posts by you, for example here [slashdot.org], here [slashdot.org], here [slashdot.org], here [slashdot.org], and here [slashdot.org]. The last is rather interesting, in which someone accuses you of being an RIAA plant and you respond by admitting you are a troll.
Based on the content of your messages, it appears that that is all you are. In the unlikely event that you do work for the RIAA (and are a plant) I find it amusing that the RIAA would invest time and money discouraging a boycott they "don't care about." It is far more likely that you have succeeded in trolling slashdot very well this day, even getting a high +5 score doing it. There is no shortage of extreme Randian cynics on this site, and your post obviously appealed to some of them. Congrats.
(And shame on you pitiful fools who think it is somehow cool and worldly to espouse cynicism, apathy, and capitulation over standing up for your ideals.)
Where we make the money is in the Top 10 records - the stuff that most Slashdot readers (and other concerned citizens) don't listen to. We don't make much money off of your purchases. We make the money in the mass market. And by and large, the mass market doesn't care about your boycott.
First, that isn't true at all (and this exposes you as a simple troll and not an RIAA plant/spokesperson/whatever). The music industry makes a great deal of money on music of various genres which are not top ten. If they didn't, they would have no compunction in ceasing production of the material and killing the artists' careers. Such is standard operating procedure in the industry.
Furthermore, successful boycotts are almost never "mass market actions," they are activist actions taken by a minority. However, even a very small minority can make enough of an impact to threaten the bottom line, and this is as true with the RIAA as it is with anyone else. The difference is that the RIAA is defending a monopoly (of questionable legality), and monopolists often cannot see their business surviving the loss of their monopoly and will defend it to the death, even against all reason.
Finally, no boycott is in vain. A boycott of one person who stops going to a store or buying a product because it offends their principles is a victor -- that person has taken proactive control of their own life, against a torrent of propoganda and marketing telling them to do otherwise.
Your boycott will fail, unless what you want is to destroy the artists that you listen to - the artists who survive on a small but dedicated fan base. You are destroying the art that you love over a legal difference of opinion. We hope you're happy.
And you have the audacity to call us arrogant?
Resistence is never futile. It always costs the enemy something, and is always better than just rolling over and capitulating. There is a possibility we may lose the war, but it is certain that the RIAA is losing money as I type this.
Re:Go back to tapes! (Score:2)
---
Re:Interesting.. (Score:2)
With a company like Disney, it gets even worse, as a number of good television programs run on ABC. I prefer to watch ABC News rather than the others (I don't want to have much to do with NBC because of their closeness with Microsoft, and I just don't like CBS News..
The 2600 crew has noticed that few people want to report on their DeCSS case. I've heard Emmanuel say on his radio show that he's had reporters call him up and ask about other topics. He'd politely answer questions, but at the same time would point out that that reporter's organization was on `the other side' in the DeCSS trial. Mostly, he just gets a shrug and some response to the effect of `well, I don't choose the stories..'
Of course, I think you were thinking about movies, and only movies. Personally, I really enjoy a good movie. It provides a good escape, where your mind can unwind for an hour or two. There are a lot of movies that really suck, and I personally have been going to fewer movies since the DeCSS thing started, though I still go. I try to only go to the `good' movies, the ones I'll really enjoy.
It is extremely difficult to avoid the products of companies involved here. It's relatively easy to avoid Microsoft. With these big media companies, they're all around you. They may even own your local newspapers or television stations.
Perhaps that's even more of a reason to go through with a boycott..
--
Ski-U-Mah!
mp3.com (Score:5)
And, possibly just as importantly, mp3.com has been in RIAA's line of fire for a while now.
Might as well support something they're trying to shut down, right?
...j
(a satisfied customer of mp3.com and nothing more)
Folks Stealing Music No Longer Buying CDs? So? (Score:2)
I doubt a bunch of Napster users who stop buying CDs is going to hurt RIAA. In fact, it could be a very good thing for the industry.
What's the first thing these people do when they buy a CD? Of course, the go home, RIP it and put it up on the net. Duh.
Thus, I suspect that a boycott will keep new music from showing up on the web through other (gnutella) channels.
If we really want to stick it to The Man [afrosquad.com], we need to go out and buy every popular CD in the local music shop (certainly not Amazon [amazon.com] since they are very The_Man-like) and put it online. Once the popular stuff is online, we need to head for the more obscure tunes. And we need to mirror it across the world so no one can shut us down.
Only then will we have true freedom. Are you with me?
InitZero
(The best part of this post is that the sarcasm will be missed by so many and that the flames will come from both sides. I love hypocricy!)
Re:Liabilities for file sharing software? (Score:2)
If the artist is dead, that doesn't mean anything. The term for copyrighted material (thanks Disney) is outrageously long -- chances are it's still owned by that person's estate or heirs or company
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
The RIAA has done quite a bit (Score:2)
Napster is a drop in the bucket compared with what will happen when electronic distribution makes them irrelevant. However, if they can kill electronic distribution now, they can continue their monopoly.
Re:Liabilities for file sharing software? (Score:2)
ok fine then... (Score:2)
if there are any artists that are starving, send me an email (you should be able to figure it out). Send me an mp3 of one of your songs. If I like it, then I will pay you a dollar for it and ask for more. Otherwise, I will kindly thank you and delete it.
p.s. I don't listen to much top40, country, rap, or classical.
It really depends on where the graph goes down... (Score:2)
Announcing Tape-ster! (Score:4)
Here's how it works:
IT'S THAT EASY! And best of all IT'S FREE!
Napster's real problem was (Score:2)
As an analogy, consider the early popularity of the 'Net. All of the trafficing in free porn (of all forms), bomb-making instructions, etc., would have brought any SINGLE company down through lawsuits galore.
The fact that the Internet was decentralized and lawsuit-proof (comapred to Napster) allowed the proliferation of everything which legal harassment had supressed.
Napster has provided the model for peer-to-peer music-sharing. On the Web, everyone is an imitator of something.
Caveat: I have never, ever used Napster, or its imitators. I quit buying music years ago when it became obscene the price of CDs for the single good tune in a pile of duds. I'm just lucky to have good radio where I live.
Eric Anondson
paytheartists.com (Score:4)
I could imagine an "about" page that reads something like this (please point out any innacuracies, either in law or in philosophy):
What is paytheartists.com?
Paytheartists.com is a site dedicated to compensating artists for their work without supporting the leeches who at this point in time are vigorously fighting what they correctly perceive to be a very serious threat to their monopoly. The premise is simple: music is available to internet users through Napster et al, and this site gives you the ability to compensate the respective artists a paltry sum per song.
The desired effect is to show musicians that the Internet can be an ideal way to distribute music while still making money off it, and without resorting to closed protocols that attempt to enforce compliance.
But what about people who won't voluntarily pay?
This is inevitable, and perhaps not all bad. First of all, there are children and others with limited incomes who don't have the money to spend in the first place, so this isn't lost revenue. Secondly, music lovers would hopefully be enthusiastic to reward music they like, and might perhaps contribute more for a song they especially like.
Aren't the activities you advocate illegal?
Yes. However, we believe them to be moral.
First of all, the operation of this site will not increase piracy. Napster and other music distribution systems make obtaining copyrighted music simple already, and anyone who wants music can get it. The effect of this site, therefore, is only positive, because we seek to take all the music "sharing" that is so widespread, and let the artists who created the work in the first place in on a little bit of the fun.
Secondly, we have absolutely no moral qualms about leaving the record companies out of this. They are so rich and powerful today only because they've had a complete stranglehold on the industry for so long, that any musician who wanted to be heard widespread had no choice but to go to a record company. Worse, these artists are now stuck because they don't own the rights to their own songs. Look on any CD, and you won't see (C) The Artist, but rather (C) The Big Record Company. Artists couldn't legally take their own music online now even if they wanted to.
The record companies are further working against the artists by refusing to budge an inch in regard to online distribution of music. The RIAA maintains to this day that it's illegal even to rip a CD you own to your own computer. A site like this would be completely unneccesary if they would simply embrace the advent of digital music instead of fighting it.
We challenge the RIAA to stand by their comments about their litigation being all in the name of the artist. If this site succeeds and begins compensating artists in significant amounts (and with the huge cut the record companies take, it should take too much money per song to get up to what the artist would make off a normal CD), the RIAA should be estatic that everything is working out so well. If they condemn it as a haven for pirates, they'll be caught in their own lie.
--
THERE IS NO PARADOX IN THE SALES DROP!!! (Score:3)
OK Damnit, people listen for once.
Stats don't lie.
Except when you make them to lie.
Why did college area sales drop? Let's see, the stats that they site are roughly from the may to june time frame. What happens then? Hrmm.. Toughy.. Let's see. I personally take classes up til the first week of may, then dead week, then finals. What next? OH YEAH!! I GO FSCKING HOME!!!!
Gee, if college students pack up and leave, how are they going to buy cds?? NO WONDER THE SALES DROPPED!!! Did they ever site the drop in other areas?? Hrmm, maybe because it's been proven that it went up??
The stats are telling you what they want them to.
</extreme rant>
I appologize for that, but I'm kinda tired of RIAA, and this is another example of why they're not earning a whole lot of my money right now (I admit, I buy one or two, because I'm moral and understand that the artists deserve money for their work, and if I did buy it the CD has to be good.)
Word from the RIAA (Score:3)
Time to fill up the hard disk on the old 386 and mail the machine to them I suppose...
Society is clueless... (Score:2)
From the misconceptions and misinformation that Napster is an "MP3 Swapping Web Site" to the pure ignorance of the belief that "Cop Killer" bullets can be shot through the blade of a bulldozer, people don't care about accuracy of information as long as it's entertaining.
Last semester, I had a professor who tried to convinve me that nobody had ever thought the world to be flat. His reasoning was that since people could see that the Earth's shadow was round, they couldn't have possibly thought that the earth was flat. My response, "A Quarter is both flat and round." A few people in the class actually laughed.
Back to my original point, you can't expect government officials to be any less clueless than society at large.
LK
Re:Dumb (Score:2)
I don't mean artists should jump ship and break contracts. They should be pressuring the RIAA to change their practices. If they can point to a boycott and say "Is this what I have signed my rights to you for?", then that will be the catalyst for change. The longer the animosity between the RIAA and the CONSUMER goes on, the more damage will be done to the artists. I don't see how a consumer boycott is bad but ripping off fans is good. Both are means to an end, which do you want?
Re:Government is clueless... (Score:2)
When it comes to censorship, there are no clear lines. Consider a gun control law that decides which guns are 'bad' and which guns are 'good'? Does that make any sense?
Tomorrow, if I decided to share information about how to build bombs on the internet, there's not a lot anyone can do about it. My ISP could drop me, but I can just post the information in a free NG or a host overseas.
We must tread lightly into areas dealing with such powerful, precedence-setting censorship laws. The next thing you know, they'll be banning books like I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings and Huckleberry Finn in schools...oh wait they've already done that.
--
Re:Liabilities for file sharing software? (Score:5)
Bzzzt.. Utter crap. If he were going to buy Diablo 2, he would have done so by now. No one loses money when you give a copy the recipient wouldn't have paid for anyway.
Lars's pocket? The only one who would ever notice the small percentage drop in purchases would be the RIAA and the studios. They don't deserve it. Christ, Toni Braxton sang her way into two platinum albums and then had to declare bankrupcy because she owed the record company more money in promotion fees than they paid her. Limp Bizkit had to get day jobs after their first album, because the industry hoovered them dry.
I say we walk into the offices at Sony music and shoot everyone with a Rolex or an imported sports car. That would put the money back in artists pockets.
What I want to see (Score:5)
Why the boycott? (Score:3)
And then there's Napster. A company just as bad as the RIAA. They rely on all this media coverage for free advertising. They know that people are going to use their service for piracy. They are also willing to put as much effort as possible into making sure that nobody else tries to compete with them.
So who boycotted Napster last time they threatened someone with legal action by (just as an example) using their logo? Anyone?
You, sir, are user/reader #174,382 (Score:3)
At least 174,382. Take a look at your user page [slashdot.org].
And will the boycott do any good? I don't know. Will I do it? Sure. For the same reason I vote, even though my vote a tiny drop in the bucket, often filtered through the electoral college... it's what I can do, so I do it. It's better than doing nothing at all.
you tell me that i make no difference
at least i'm fuckin' trying
what the fuck have you done?
-Minor Threat
A band on Dischord Records [dischord.com], a label which is completely independent of the RIAA, and who offers most of their CDs for $8, postpaid.
Take care as you do this . . . (Score:5)
Thus, don't use the word boycott in the same breath as you discuss other alternatives to Napster. It sounds as though you are saying, "hey, I wasn't willing to steal content before --I was buing CD's just as I was sharing them-- but I'll do it now."
While that is another tack -- the guerilla "you can't touch me" approach -- it is inconsistent with, IMHO, the point of a boycott -- to expose a bad for what it is, while making your own point.
By all means boycott if you can get a signficant market force together, but while doing so, DO NOT "share" the content you are boycotting. Don't listen to it at all -- protest and picket at live performances by artists who don't come out against RIAA's position, and listen to free music from artists who do come out.
It may not be as much fun at Dance parties, but hey -- if it is a matter of principle, let's stand by our princples.
But this is more than keeping cash while listening to someone else's music -- so don't prove the RIAA's point for them. Turn away from "big music" in favor of local talent, or talent that takes a "new view." Encourage local radio stations to do so as well.
This would make a difference, and it would also make a point.
Guerilla tactics might work --and they might not work: but you are simply inviting more warfare and litigation. In case you hadn't noticed, that's fighting RIAA in a forum in which they are powerfully equipped.
Far better to fight the fights elsewhere:
(1) hit them in their pockets by not buying (and by not using) their products; make sure the local distributors of these products hear, politely but loud and clear, how you feel about these.
(2) get active -- write congressmen and senators -- do it now, and keep doing it.
(3) stay alert and educated -- there are sound, cogent arguments in support of your position, but many resort instead to pabulum and the language of "underground piracy". That will kill your position in the long run -- you need not only to mobilize those who agree with you, but also to convince those who do not hold fixed and strong positions on these matters.
I, for one, am a strong IP advocate. If anyone would have held a fixed position on these issues, it would have been me -- but I listened and heard the sound, solid arguments in support of Napster, and was "turned." Other smart people can be turned as well -- but not if all they are hearing is pabulum from both sides.
The idea is to have the activists who care active, and the people who don't pissed off at the other side.
For my part, I'm not buying RIAA CD's, but neither will I be using the alternative music sharing servers so long as the injunction is in place. I will be writing and advocating the virtues of the Napster position before the Congress and at every public opportunity, and assailing the arrogance and weaknesses of RIAA's position, while acknowledging their right to protect IP at the same time.
In the meanwhile, trust the system to get this right in the end. They did in Sony and they did in Diamond -- in time, so too will they do so with Napster. At the same time, watch out for the Congress, who can change the law with a word -- make sure it costs any Congressman or Senator in this election period to take the "big media" position -- MAKE IT AN ISSUE.
This morning, Vice-Presidential candidate Cheney was asked about Napster. He begged off, saying he didn't know much about it. This can't be permitted to happen.
Make it a grass roots political issue -- try to get someone in Congress to pass a limitation to exclusive rights expressly permitting space-shifting as a form of fair use or otherwise.
You can make it happen, if you have the right and the will to do so. Do you?
Hrmm. (Score:3)
The issue is that Napster Inc. Is succeeding solely because they *knew* and *know* that people are using their service almost *exclusively* for pirating music.
It's not simply about technology; it's about a business that has been foudned *solely to help people pirate music*.
Do I think file sharing should be banned or even controlled? No way. I think you don't blame the tool; you blame the people.
But in this case napster is more than the tool; it is a company making money off of piracy.
Do we need Napster? (Score:3)
So why do we need Napster? IRC MP3 trading has been around for a long time and no one wants to shut it down
Not going to cut it... (Score:5)
And this 'boycott' would be incredibly hard to suggest to other people, especially those who never use Napster or any other P2P system. Again, The World is Not Filled With Angry Young Men.
Bottom line: if you disagree with something like this, a boycott is not going to do a whit of good except maybe proving to RIAA demog peeps that "heavy internet users" no longer buy as many CDs. That's just grease for their fire.
Serious suggestions:
Re:We need to somehow let them *know* it's on. (Score:3)
Has anyone heard if anyone is going to be doing a virtual sit in?
Re:Liabilities for file sharing software? (Score:5)
Interesting point. I know that most of my MP3s where gotten off of windows filesharing at college. Getting files off the local network was much faster, and chances are someone at the school had the mp3 i wanted shared.
We even had students create network seach engines so we could seach the network for mp3s. The nicest part was, the servers (on linux) would even allow you to get the samba share through http so you could still easily search and download from you linux box.
So who is to be held liable for all this? Microsoft? The creaters of the search engine? Maybe the college for "allowing" this to happen?
If i email an MP3, should the ISP be held liable?
The RIAA will never be able to stop the swaping of mp3. They would have to sue just about everyone with a computer.
Re:Liabilities for file sharing software? (Score:5)
I think the difference is that Windows File sharing is not used mainly to distribute copyrighted material. Napster was created specifically to do that.
Seriously, don't argue the point, it was created to swap copies of songs, not to "promote small artists" or whatever. Do you think when Shawn Fanning wrote the software he thought, "Great! Now my friends and I can exchange all the unsigned bands we listen to!"
I'm not against Napster, really, it's a great idea, I think that, if anything, it actually promotes record sales, and is generally good for the world. But there is something inherently wrong with a program that gives anyone and everyone access to practically any song ever recorded without compensating the artists.
If everyone used Napster, both Fred Durst AND Lars Ulrich would be working at McDonalds, probably together, bitching about how they wish they could make money off of their music, instead of having to distribute it for free.
Don't worry, Napster isn't going to go away, it will come back in a better form for everyone involved.
message for you, sir (Score:3)
Of course, faxing the mp3's (bonus points for creativity in method) to them at (202) 775-7253 would probably be the preferred method. :-)
Sorry for replying to myself, but I'm having a bit of fun with the whole idea...
Re:Boycott here is a waste of time (Score:3)
When the DeCCS fiasco surfaced, I emailed the CBC
about it. Partly as a result of my actions, the
story made the national evening news here in
Canada! They interviewed Matt Skala fairly
extensively, and I was on the news for about five
seconds. When all was said and done, we exposed
Mattel's misbehaviour to an audience of consumers
orders of magnitude larger than
THAT is the way to get attention. Take it to the
streets, to the public, and to the consumers.
My Boycott Idea(s) (Score:4)
However, this isn't the solution for everyone. Not everyone has the bandwidth, time, or storage space to get their music online (we all have the means: Gnutella, IRC, FTP, Usenet, etc.). However, there is a very, VERY simple solution if you want to purchase a CD and not have money go to the RIAA.
If you buy a music CD at a used CD store, the artist (and the RIAA) get absolutely nothing for your purchase. Someone already gave the RIAA money. The damage has been done. You however, for a lower price, can not only purchase the CD, but also not pay the RIAA. And no moreal qualms since it's legal.
Sharing music is good. Napster is not good. (Score:5)
Sharing music is a reasonable thing, given that a lot of trading is of rarities and bootlegs that you can't buy in your local store. My own MP3 usage has been to this pattern:
I rip all my own stuff so I can play it off my PC's.
I download all kinds of TMBG rarities and boots. I've bought all their albums, too.
I download an occasional file that looks interesting, and if it's pretty good I consider buying the album.
Occasionally I exchange files with some of my meatspace friends.
I suspect a lot of Napster users are like me in that sense - it's a tool to complete collections and poke around interesting stuff, rather than just a way of getting all the free songs you can.
I see Napster as being the commercially oriented sacrificial lamb to the greater goal of opening up the distribution system. The cat's out of the bag, and soon the Gnutella's of the world will be dominant and unstoppable - and nobody will be able to stop it since there's no commercial shop behind the software.
If the RIAA had a clue, though, they'd adapt Gnutella to their own ends and provide for micropayments as part of it. The fact that they don't is just proving that the established order just doesn't Get It.
- -Josh Turiel
Re:What About DVDs CmdrTaco? (Score:3)
Yeah, that's one thing I never understood about napster. It started off with those two guys working on it. So far so good. They dropped out of college to take advantage of the VC frenzy on anything internet related the past couple of years. Great for them.
Then these VC guys start funding them. What the hell were they thinking? They're suits, they should 1 understand that it's used for arguably illegal purposes and is liable to be a bad investment and 2 wonder how in the heck they're
--
Neither side deserves to win (Score:4)
Let's face it. Napster is/was not the only game in town, but it was the most prominent, and had venture capital to boot. RIAA knew they stood a good chance of winning, and is desperately looking for a precedent in their favor. And going after Napster makes for good publicity with the media (who still report Napster as a "website that allows users to share MP3s").
The bottom line is that RIAA has been gouging customers for years and it's not at all surprising that Napster would come along. Napster, for it's part, has knowingly been aiding people to trade music that they didn't pay for. Neither side deserves to win.
I honestly believe that if people are given a convenient way to purchase the music online, a large number will. If RIAA realizes this, they stand a chance of surviving. If they don't, they won't be around 10 years from now.
---
RIAA vs. MPAA (Score:4)
The MPAA is making a dumb move in the DeCSS case, but movies are available in several formats: tape, cable, theaters as well as DVD. DVD represents an increase in quality, but you can get any movie on tape.
What the RIAA plans to do is create a system where you will pay per use or per transfer. They want to control the use of music in a way which will abrogate your basic rights to use copyrighted materials.
There's also a major difference in who gets paid. When you see The Perfect Storm, George Clooney gets money from you directly. He gets a share of the gross. Other major stars do as well, as well as any profits from his image in other media.
Even the smaller stars get millions for their participation. The screenwriter and director make a profit as well. Movies are financed in several ways, by private investors as well as studios.
So the MPAA fight is about using formats, not screwing the artists. They get paid anyway.
Also when you see a movie like South Park, you support the fight against the MPAA's censorship. The best way to fight the MPAA is by supporting those who oppose it and the people who make the films the try to censor.
The RIAA represents the record companies and their interests. The artists are the lure they use to cover their own greed and duplicity. They get a ho like Lars Ulrich to whine about Napster when they steal his money and his right to publish songs.
You want to see a pimp in action, look at the major labels. They and their middlemen make $14-15 dollars from every $16, and that's if the artist is lucky. Roger McGuinn said he made more from Mp3.com than from a 40 year recording career worth of albums.
Ever wonder why Ice Cube and Ice T went into movies? Because they don't owe the record company a dime for that work. They do when they record songs. This is like sharecropping. Massa Sony lends you money to live while you pay him back with labor. He gets most of the money from your efforts.
What needs to happen is a way we can pay the artists for their work and not the record comapnies. When they say theft, it's their bottom line, not sweet little Lars, they're worried about.
The movie studios used to do the same thing until the 1950's, when TV gutted their market. Suddenly people ran their own careers and the studios provided financing and support.
Peer to Peer networking is going to be the record company's TV. Their long overdue wakeup call.
Government is clueless... (Score:3)
Take the Napster trial into account: What they are telling us is that it's illegal to provide a service that shares information. Napster, in my view, has not done anything wrong. The problem was that they were trying to apply age-old laws to a medium that changes every nano-second -- it just doesn't work out.
So boycott it is -- we won out over the PID on Intel chips...lets hit the RIAA where it hurts!
--
What About DVDs CmdrTaco? (Score:5)
Frankly I don't plan to stop buying CDs since I've always been opposed to Napster since all it is is a greedy VC funded [zdnet.co.uk] company trying to make money of the work of others. Now on the other hand, even though Slashdot is well aware of the DeCSS fiasco [slashdot.org], we are constantly bombarded with various [slashdot.org] articles [slashdot.org] on buying DVDs [slashdot.org].
I'm not one to fault others for their personal decisions but if you plan to make a stand, make the right one. The more I people I see complaining about Napster the more it seems like all they care about is free music and not the issues of digital rights or the power of corporations. That seems to be the only explanation for dissing the RIAA but supporting an industry that uses Gestapo tactics to terrorize tenagers [slashdot.org]. Where are the grassroots efforts to boycott the MPAA?
Go back to tapes! (Score:3)
Its the only way to hear the artists you like. There doesn't seem to be much alternative to the RIAA.. the bastards
---
Paradox (Score:3)
In fact, the boycott itself may provide just the sort of evidence the RIAA wants to use in court. They were already citing a drop in CD sales in College areas, this will just increase that effect.
Maybe a solution is to only buy used CDs. This will demonstrate that there is a market for CD's but that we have no interest in giving RIAA any additional money. Of course, they may attribute the spike in used CD sales to people selling the CD's they have already ripped.
Help [206.253.208.199]
Why this is a bad idea (Score:3)
The RIAA already has a significant number of lawmakers in "panic-mode." They've freaked 'em out enough to believe that money is being lost hand-over fist, and even though the our sales don't appear to be suffering, our revenues could be MUCH HIGHER blah blah blah.
So, what happens next? A bunch of us decide we're not going to buy CDs. What does the RIAA do?
They jump up and scream, waving sheets of sales-data in the faces of those in the commerce-committee; "SEE! WE TOLD YOU! OUR SALES ARE DOWN! THAT'S NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE! BAD NAPSTER! BAD GNUTELLA! BAD NAPIGATOR! BAD SCOUR.COM!!"
I don't think that any "Boycott the RIAA" movement will be considered "legitimate enough" to be taken seriously, but a thousand groups with insignificant impact individually makes a significant (or at least noticable) impact, and plays right into the RIAA's hands.
Sen. McCain: "So, even though the 'Boycotttheriaa.org' site is boycotting the cds of the companies you represent, you say that the boycott is not part of your sales dip?"
RIAA Stooge: "No. Well, not significant anyway. See, our research shows that Boycotttheriaa.org boycott only accounts for point-zero-zero-zero-two percent of our sales-dip."
Sen. McCain: Golly! You're right! Send out the jack-booted thugs!