RIAA Wants Taxpayer-Funded IP Police 522
Sydney Weidman writes "RIAA has given testimony before the House Appropriations Committee asking for more federal money for Computer Hacking and Intellectual Property investigation teams. You can find RIAA's side of the story here and a Cnet story is available as well. Apparently, RIAA is not satisfied with the current deployment of CHIP teams since they have been more involved in anti-hacking activities than in anti-piracy. My favourite Hilary Rosen quote: "Piracy is not a private offense, it hurts everyone by diminishing the incentive to invest in the creation of music." I guess Rosen won't be happy until each and every pirate is charged with crimes against humanity and convicted by the International Court of Justice"
Fun... (Score:5, Funny)
But we still won't have figured out the seashell thing.
CHiPs. (Score:5, Funny)
Of course not. Erik Estrada retired years ago, and it just hasn't been the same since.
--saint
Re:CHiPs. (Score:2)
I wonder (Score:5, Insightful)
It just seems that there is an awful lot of momentum right now against this kind of "Big Brother" activity from RIAA. Why not keep it up?
It just seems absurd to me that in this day and age where terrorism is such a focal point, that we would divert funds to fight music piracy. I'm quite certian that Al Qaeda is going after the latest Dave song instead of looking for a way to hack financial companies.
Re:I wonder (Score:5, Informative)
SSSCA wasn't killed. It was renamed to "Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act [CBDTPA]". And now it's been introduced in Congress.
Re:I wonder (Score:3, Informative)
With all the articles, it's easy to miss, but I'm very keyed on this whole thing...
see this? (Score:3, Informative)
I am a taxpayer, I don't want this. Tough.
How about we... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:see this? (million geek march) (Score:3, Insightful)
|Sarcasm on>>
But you are not a PAC, cannot bribe congressmen,
so what you want doesn't mean shit..
|Sarcasm off>>
That is what is wrong with the USA..
Maybe it is time for the 1 million geek march on
capital hill...
Re:see this? (million geek march) (Score:2)
Forget that. It's time for a 1 million geek march onto Hilary Rosen's lawn! Make it REAL clear what we're angry about. Besides, that's likely to get better press coverage. Everybody these days feels the need to do a march in DC.
CHiPS? (Score:2, Offtopic)
Permanent Link (Score:5, Interesting)
(yeah, I'm a hypocrite and karma whore. That doesn't mean I'm WRONG.
Re:Permanent Link (Score:5, Funny)
Lemme guess...you haven't seen many forums, have you?
Re:Permanent Link (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Permanent Link (Score:3, Interesting)
It's only when you start allowing everyone to post at the same level (ie no ranking system) that you see so much crap. If something gets to +3 than at least one person out there thought it had merit.
Travis
Hilary Rosen quote (Score:5, Insightful)
When will she realize that there's more to creating music than money? Artists create because they enjoy doing so. It's one of the profession, IMHO that have a lot of job satisfaction.
Sometimes she'd further her cause by staying quiet.
Re:Hilary Rosen quote (Score:2)
But if they weren't, in fact, in it for the money, and just creating their music just "because they enjoy doing so," they wouldn't be signing multi-million dollar contracts with these labels, now would they?
Re:Hilary Rosen quote (Score:2)
Re:Hilary Rosen quote (Score:3, Funny)
A) make music, enjoy process
B) make music, enjoy process, get paid millions
that's tough
Re:Hilary Rosen quote (Score:2)
Re:Hilary Rosen quote (Score:2)
Interesting thing on RIAA site.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Harmful to Minors: Such laws seek to change Supreme Court standards for materials that are denied to children by lumping certain sound recordings into the "harmful to minors" category. This step makes it easier to ban sales to minors of certain objectionable material.
The RIAA is currently, or has recently, engaged in fighting these "harmful to minors" proposals in Washington, Florida, New York, Michigan, Georgia, Tennessee, North Dakota, and Wisconsin, and on the federal level in the House and Senate.
ellimate fair use & promote free speech = more $$$
gotta love it..
Re:Interesting thing on RIAA site.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course. The RIAA knows that one of its biggest enemies is the FCC. If the FCC says "No minors shall be sold music containing any more than X number of vulgarities"; the RIAA immediately suffers as a result of losing a potential direct sale.
If the FCC says "Everybody can purchase and listen to whomever they want", the RIAA benefits, as now that 8 year old kid will be able to buy the RIAA-sanctioned Rap album about killing police officers.
mr. obvious (Score:2)
Gee, thanks, I was really confused before you cleared that up.
Actually, that's the most insightful thing.. (Score:2)
What a shame that he doesn't understand his own statement.
Perhaps if it were re-worded:
"If you cannot protect a thing, then you cannot own it"
might make it clearer to him.
DG
Grrr... (Score:3, Interesting)
However, when when the IP spooks start knocking on the doors of well meaning people everywhere demanding that they uninstall Kazaa or have their computer seized, maybe we can get the grass-roots support to get these laws repealed.
Re:Grrr... (Score:2)
However, when when the IP spooks start knocking on the doors of well meaning people everywhere demanding that they uninstall Kazaa or have their computer seized, maybe we can get the grass-roots support to get these laws repealed.
Well, if that ever happens, I don't think that people will fight to let the system get changed. WE have a historical precedent when the offenses that are as intense as jaywalking are inforced so radically.
It was called US prohibition. Outlawing alcohol on moral grounds. All it did was increase the incentive for making illegal acts available. The more you criminalize something common and relative, the more likely that people will create a larger black market. The more likely organized crime will pick up the tab slightly cheaper than the current market value.
Bootlegging will be waaaay
out of control. Its Bugsy Siegel time again!
Fucking Hillary Rosen needs to check her business contracts and CD prices before she checks her computer.
Piracy and respect. (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, this is wrong headed.
What is involved in Piracy is a lack of respect for the property rights of others, which is something that the Music industry has failed to provide the proper example for.
Far from arguing from the moral high ground, the only high ground they occupy is a pile of excrement at the bottom of the latrine they have fallen into, and in fact dug for themselves.
Re:Piracy and respect. (Score:4, Interesting)
The problems seem to happen when everyone starts believing the perfection of the analogy, and carrying over all sorts of baggage about the way things "should" be from their conceptions of physical property rights. The RIAA/MPAA love this, of course, since perpetuating this myth is what keeps them rolling in cash.
The reality is that there's nothing natural about intellectual "property" -- it's a convenient fiction created by society and enforced by the government. Convenient to a point, at least -- I'm not a wacked out radical here: I can see the advantages of limited IP laws to promote invention and arts. It's when that focus gets lost and the spurious analogy somehow takes moral precedence that I get annoyed.
This is all wrong (Score:2)
if they want to fight this they should do it with their own damn money.
Re:This is all wrong (Score:2)
Why the hell should taxpayers pay so private corporations can arrest them? It's their legal battle,
if they want to fight this they should do it with their own damn money
The RIAA and the Government are in similar situations: they wouldn't have their money if it weren't for consumers/citizens. In both instances, they're using our money against us.
Re:This is all wrong (Score:2, Interesting)
Yay! (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm Sure I Know The Answer... (Score:2)
I particularly like the comment near the end from Valenti. "If you can't protect what you own, you don't own anything." Sounds like he's taking a hit on US Government with their "failure" to protect us from terrorists. Little statements like that will no doubt be massively effective to a particularly sensitive legislature.
not so crazy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, the RIAA and the whole notion of intellectual property go against common sense, not to mention the Constitution (Article 2, IIRC).
And yes, the majority (note that word: majority) of IP is indefensible, and a waste of time to deal with (Britney Spears using Windows...wouldn't be surprised if she worked at Micro$oft!).
But we have built this great nation (and, to the extent that other countries have prospered, they have done so emulating the USA in this respect) on the rule of law, and the enforcement of said law by the appropriate Authorities.
Yes, they are funded by taxes, and we all find taxes a "necessary evil." But the right of taxation is firmly granted in the Constitution (Article 4) for the "protection of the Law of the Land."
To suggest that, given the current laws protecting intellectual property, we should then turn around and ignore them when it comes to enforcement, is going about it all wrong.
The result will be not only mass piracy (leading to more stringent laws!), but a complete collapse of all that we hold dear, the Order of Society.
No, until we reach that day when IP laws are stricken down from the books forever (I propose a new Amendment!), we must do our utmost to defend these laws, for they are the very things which make this country good.
Disclaimer: IANAL.
Re:not so crazy? (Score:3, Insightful)
You want Examples? I'll give you an excellent example you can go observe right now.
Go look at traffic.. over 70% is breaking the speed laws, and about 50% are ignoring the other traffic laws (tailgating, reckless driving, running red lights, passing on the right, passing at an intersection, etc...) These people couldn't give a rats ass about what laws say or are ther to protect them/other from. Hell retail fraud (shoplifting) is through the roof and not to poor black kids trying to steal a stereo to sell for food, but rich prissy white girls doin' it for the thrill. (A nice expose' on a local TV channel about this last month) Nobody cares about laws, manners, or even being polite..
Sorry but going to the grocery store with your "FUCK YOU!" t-shirt and your "Eat SHIT aNd DIE" hat while standing in line spouting "Sh*** that M....F... didn't give me my F..... dollar, i'm gonna kill him" is not appropriate behavoir in public. (It also made it easy for me to make the loser look more like a loser... but that's another story....)
The general public care about some songs that belong to what the public percieves as spoiled rich brats?? Not in your lifetime... not in anyone's lifetime.
Re:not so crazy? (Score:5, Informative)
I hate feeding trolls, but here goes. The problem with that argument is that laws which are actively enforced and widely obeyed are seldom stricken from the books, no matter how dumb they are. Once a law becomes a viable source of revenue or a means to power it gains a larger base of support.
I agree that the ultimate answer is to remove or change the laws. Though IMHO no Amendment is necessary, simply a return to the original intent of the protections already in the Constitution.
In the meantime, however, passive resistance is the best offense. The RIAA and MPAA can't possibly lock up everyone that offends them, no matter how many bad laws they buy or how many IP G-Men they conjur up. Heretofore all they've gotten for their troubles are a massive public backlash and a lot of people closely examining industry practicies that they'd have preferred to keep in the dark. The tighter their grasp becomes, the more power will slip through their fingers.
Re:not so crazy? (Score:2)
The problem with that is that what the RIAA wants to do is move the burden of dealing with copyright infringement (a civil matter) onto the government.
Copyright infringement is also a criminal matter, even sometimes when distributing for non-commercial purposes.
I have a hard time understanding what it is that people want the government to do with copyright. It seems that most people are not against the law, and even favor enforcing it when it suits their interests, but then they regularly break the law, using napster or not paying for shareware or whatever, and get all disturbed when the government tries to enforce the law.
I guess one argument is that copyright law should be civil law, and the government shouldn't get involved except through the court system, and that's a good start, I guess. It's a tough situation having a nation full of criminals. Not only does it waste money and resources, it creates a powerful means for law enforcement officials to discriminate. When everyone is a criminal, freedom becomes a priviledge.
Here we go again (Score:2, Informative)
Remember to be polite when explaining why you disagree with this.
Be a part of the solution! (Score:3, Funny)
Well, why doesn't the RIAA focus its' efforts and resources on bringing about this marketplace instead of trying to prosecute the pirates!
Here's the RIAA argument that kills me... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is utter hogwash. If the record companies had any idea beforehand which CDs would be profitable, they would only publish the profitable ones. But they don't know ahead of time. That's why they publish a broad catalog, so that they have a better chance of publishing a hit and making a profit. To insinuate that the record companies publish unprofitable albums out of the goodness of their hearts is the height of deception.
Let's look at this from the point of view of a fictional touring music act that we'll call "Zit Remedy". If "Megadisc Records", member of the RIAA decides to publish a CD of Zit Remedy's music, it has only a slim chance of being profitable. If Zit Remedy's CD isn't profitable, then Zit Remedy receives no royalty payments. However, the CD still stands as a tool for publicity, possibly increasing concert revenues and sales of merchandise. Except Zit Remedy's self-titled debut release is priced at $20 a copy, so it reaches a very small audience... unless college students start ripping and file sharing. Then the profit potential for Zit Remedy climbs. More buzz = more concert attendees = more revenues. The only loser here is Megadisc.
It's pretty clear that the record companies represented by the RIAA have a flawed business model. I don't think it's up to taxpayers to subsidize bad business models. If it were, I could start a buggy whip factory and retire wealthy. Let Megadisc figure it out for itself.
Two forms of piracy... (Score:2)
What is of bigger concern, and I agree, is to take your downloaded mp3's and make a business of it selling CD's. Downloading should be well under most people's moral radar, but selling those for a profit is another story.
I'm almost helping the RIAA, this will be a popular post here on Slashdot!!
Re:Two forms of piracy... (Score:2)
The problem is, the laws are so vaguely worded that almost any offense becomes prosecutable. You wouldn't think that a US law could apply to a Russian citizen, and yet Skylarov sat in jail for how long? It's crap like that that makes IP laws and their enforcement so sleazy.
The reason I said "almost support" is because while it's good in theory, having the government further fund the enforcement of music and movie industry agendas would be like the mafia having the fbi help out on debt collection, or a bank having the irs help collect on deadbeats. It's legally wrong, but it's not the government's job to go looking for it. When a complaint is filed, they should investigate. Going on fishing expeditions or conducting year long sting operations is well outside reasonable boundaries.
Re:Two forms of piracy... (Score:2)
My companies postion (Score:2)
I am CEO of a fairly successful web development company. We provide web hosting services, as well as software as a service on our servers for which our clients pay a substantial monthly fee.
Sometimes a client is late paying, despite the fact that in our contract with the client we clearly specify they should pay their dues at the beginning of each calendar month.
I want a red telephone on my desk so I can call some tax-payer funded corporate police to go smash the fuckers door down if they're late paying. That would be great! Yea!
Only joking. Almost the weekend!
The Cost Of A CD (Score:2, Interesting)
Lifted:
Then come marketing and promotion costs -- perhaps the most expensive part of the music business today. They include increasingly expensive video clips, public relations, tour support, marketing campaigns, and promotion to get the songs played on the radio. For example, when you hear a song played on the radio -- that didn't just happen! Labels make investments in artists by paying for both the production and the promotion of the album, and promotion is very expensive. New technology such as the Internet offers new ways for artists to reach music fans, but it still requires that some entity, whether it is a traditional label or another kind of company, market and promote that artist so that fans are aware of new releases.
That's why it costs $18 for a CD instead of $1.50? Right.....
That is so lame.
They must be pissed at "free" content providers. (Score:2)
Its a place for them to put their stuff so it gets out there and, being a wiki, they can collaborate on editing and enhancing the content.
Content that the xxAAs doesn't control and squeeze every possible dime out of. Content that's not constantly churned in an effort to wipe out the creative source by limiting their exposure while fostering a feeding frenzy for whatever's NEW NEW NEW while its really the same old whine in the same old bottle with a new label that really doesn't really look any different.
And who knows? I may have the next Stephen King, Emily Post or Nirvana putting their stuff on my box just to have a back-up and to register a copyright date.
Or I may be starting an entirely new form of collaborative writing.
Re:They must be pissed at "free" content providers (Score:2)
I've been wondering why some of the bigger names in the industry (those with a conscience, that is), like the folks in the Recording Artists Coalition, or people with huge clout like Stephen King, etc., don't get together and start their own media business. (I hesitate to call it a "label," 'cause there's really no reason to restrict this to music only).
A company that treats its artists well, with reasonable contracts, easy outs, maybe even "a la carte" marketing costs (not "hey, we'll do everything we can, and tell you how much you get after it's all sorted out", but "hey, you want us to buy an ad on MTV? Here's what it'll cost you. You wanna do all your own promotion on the internet? Here's what it'll *add* to your monthly checks.")
A company that isn't afraid to act as an advocate or promoter for the artists, rather than for their stockholders.
Am I crazy? Does such a beast already exist? Or would they be beaten into submission by the RIAA and the other big players?
If a company like this had real backing, and were to sign some big names (king, dave matthews, billy joel, whatever), then I'd think they'd have a chance of actually succeeding.
Maybe (and now I'm getting REALLY crazy), set themselves up as a non-profit company? Hmm....
Download More MP3's To Help (Score:2)
First of all, you're not stealing anything. When you download an MP3, you're transfering electrons from one source to another (and they are eventually recycled). Electrons. Bits. A CD is a thing that you can hold, touch, whatever. It costs money to produce copies of a work on CD, but nothing to send it over the Net (except bandwidth costs). If anyone is losing money, it's the RIAA and ONLY the RIAA consortium. You do not hurt the artists. In fact, you can *really* help the artists out with online donation. [fairtunes.com] Every time you download an MP3, give the arist 100% of the profits instead of the 0.01% that the RIAA gives them. This is the best way to weaken the RIAA because it shows artists they they do not need a big record label to get their music sold. All they need is a cheap computer and an Internet connection.
What the RIAA is pissed off about is that this technique which some call "stealing" gives power back to the artists. Several artists have attempted to distribute music via MP3, but the RIAA has smacked them down for doing so. The RIAA is pissed because they hate these so-called "theives" because their business model is becoming outdated. To combat that, they want to make the government freeze-frame innovation.
Wake up. This greedy group of companies are the real theives. They seize ownership of the work of artists, and then pay them shit for it. Let's fight those bastards by downloading MP3's like crazy, and then giving the artists the money directly. Simple! It's cheaper for you, and more profitable for the musicians! What more do you want?
RIAA crusade (Score:2)
Right now, even the use of DVDs you own out right are in jeopardy from laws regarding circumvention devices. This is all so insane and this comes from someone that does take these issues seriously and votes accordingly.
Corporate America makes the heart of the country beat because our culture based on the bottom line. Unless you want to go Socialist and I don't then you accept this.
However, I do not think that gives the corporate powers that be the right to trample on the personal rights of the citizens to actually use the products they spend good many for, including copying that material to a different format and using it in that medium (from CD to mp3 of course for example).
We also know the insane diregard for prior-use in copyright and trademark law as well.
Laws simply have no clue about technology and see all use of technology beyond a corporate money-making function as suspect.
That is the scary part that know one really talks about.
_______________________________________________
It hurts who? (Score:2)
Actually, this primarily hurts the pirate. Other people aren't particularly benefitted by someone else encouraging investment in his own taste in music. If Britney Spears fans don't pay for her music, non-fans won't be hurt by her going into another business, and people who actively dislike her won't have to hear her on the radio or at parties any more.
Encouragement or non-encouragement of further production is very much a private, individual issue.
Erm... (Score:2)
I mean, it's a statement of the obvious isn't it? We can argue until the cows come home about alternative methods of funding music, but on a straightforward level, surely the above is right? Surely if people copy rather than buy, less money goes to the artists, which means fewer artists able to support themselves?
And what's the deal with this...
Aside from being over the top, it doesn't follow on from the previous statement at all. It doesn't even follow from Rosen's desire for taxpayer funded enforcement of copyright law.
Current copyright law (the DMCA) is absurdly over the top. The RIAA is doing some pretty absurd things to enforce it. But I don't see why Rosen's quote was singled out, it actually makes her look quite reasonable. And suggesting that anyone's proposing treating copyright breakers as war criminals makes you look silly and ensures the real arguments you might have against the current copyright regime, arguments which are legitimate and need to be heard, will be ignored.
Time for Civil Disobedience (Score:2, Interesting)
The whole industry is rife with kickbacks and legislated fees (ask your local station how much they had to pay in ASCAP/BMI fees). It really is time that YOU as the consumer let these people know that you're not willing to be labelled as a criminal.
I propose that the next time you want to purchase a CD, video tape or DVD, you write/email the company marketing, sales droids of the record label and the RIAA and inform them that you have deferred the purchase until they get their act together. Keep a running total of how much you've deferred spending and make sure they know that the reason they're losing sales is not because of piracy, it's because of their greed and willingness to dissolve your rights for their profit.
I would also suggest copying this to the sales and marketing droids at large flavourless major retailers like Wal-Mart, Target, Best-Buy.
There's two reasons why this will get attention. First, any time you mention a lost sale to anyone in a sales capacity, they get very nervous. Once you start attaching dollar figures to lost sales, this is a topic that will be discussed in monthly sales and marketing meetings. They'll start visiting offices in their building wanting to know what's going on and why this is an issue. Second, even with a small percentage of people deferring purchases and emailing, the volume of mail is going to be an inconvenience that can't go un-noticed.
The only way to make a corporation see the folly of its ways is to make it clear in no uncertain terms that their actions equate to lost sales. Make it clear in black and white, or rather red and white and I'm sure they'll back-off.
Tax Funded Police? Just Look to Ontario, Canada! (Score:2)
In the Toronto area we have a highway called the ETR (Electronic Toll Route) which, as its name implies, is a toll highway.
Here's the kicker: if you have any outstanding payments due to the ETR the MoT will not allow you to renew your plates!
On the surface that sounds understandable being an Ontario highway and all... BUT the MoT doesn't own the ETR. The Ontario gov't doesn't own the ETR. CANADA doesn't even own the ETR! Our government sold if off to a foreign company (not the US, but don't get me started on that).
So, we have the Ontario Ministry of Transportation acting as a collection agency with the ability to extort money from you on behalf of a privately owned, foreign, corporation!
A corporation, I might add, facing a class action lawsuit for certain obsene business practices (they have a habit of charging $20 fee's on a $0.20c overdue balance, amoung many other things).
So where does that leave you? Have a dispute with the ETR? Tough, no car for you then. And I thought America was bad...
But what if i'm not a memeber? (Score:3)
Let's play "Turn Rosen's quotes against her" (Score:4, Insightful)
And centralized corporate control of the music industry hurts everyone by diminishing the incentive to invest in the creation of music through an increased barrier to entry, less diversity of the music that is promoted, price fixing in the distribution segment, aggressive legal tactics used against distribution mechanisms that could be used to bypass the need for a centralized corporate structure, etc. Now which one do you think causes the most harm?
Of course, using the usual "evil naughty no-good pirates" rhetoric to support the "treating copyright violations as criminal matters" issue is to be expected I guess. We can't expect the RIAA to deal with internal issues that could reduce piracy and copyright infringement at the expense of market dominance...
My Favorite Quote Too ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Since she brought it up, lets discuss crimes "against each of us":
Just my $0.02
Re:My Favorite Quote Too ... (Score:5, Insightful)
//rdj
Re:My Favorite Quote Too ... (Score:3, Funny)
Still, the average price of a book here in the netherlands is E 12.95 (according to a recent article in the paper) whereas the average CD, with higher sales and lower costs for production is almost twice that??)
higher sales = higher demand = higher price
Re:My Favorite Quote Too ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Valenti implies RIAA doesn't own anything (Score:2)
It's interesting to hear Mr. Valenti of the RIAA admitting this, because it basically implies that they don't own anything. I'm sure he did not intend to make that point, but he did.
Sure, the RIAA keeps trying to impose copy protection on their content, but as Schneier eloquently explains [counterpane.com], their efforts are futile:
And in other news ... (Score:2)
When asked about the accessories that were sold with the jackboots, the store owner had this to say: "Well, they bought a lot of DoorBusters and ski masks. Though I thought they would be interested in bulletproof vests, they said that where they're going, they don't need to worry about that."
Along with the sales spike in jackboots, MP3 players, also known as "The Devil", have started to slump.
"Yeah, well, we heard about the sales spike of jackboots, and decided it just wasn't worth it anymore." said Timmy Malone, admitted pirate. "They're taking all of the fun out of it now, with rummaging through our stuff." Right after the interview, Timmy was kicked in the groin and arrested.
Local police chief was quoted as saying "I wish we had this much power."
When asked about the tactics that this new intellectual police, or "iPolice", they said that there was nothing to see here, and to move along.
So, how is our lobby team coming along? (Score:2)
They're wheedling in the language they need (Score:2)
My emphasis added. Holy living fuck. Looks like I'm gonna have to go buy me a permit.
GMFTatsujin
Rosen Power (Score:2)
Along the way, however, if success has come to them in small amounts, the bigger a figure they become and the more influence they have, the actual fight and not the original cause is what spurs them onwards. It's almost as if once they get going, they're afraid to stop lest they lose prestige, power, or the cause they have been fighting for rolls backwards down the slope of success.
I believe that Hilary Rosen has gone beyond the line of "genuine, meaningful cause-fighting" and into this "don't let go or you'll never get back on the horse" syndrome. All of a sudden, the fight has become her personal fight; the rewards and setbacks are her own, reflect directly on her current power and reputation.
The problem for all of us, in this, is that she won't back down. She'll never back down until she retires, has health problems, or just falls over dead.
Case in Point: Bill Gates. Is it just me, or has that man become the most weanie person on the stand? He has gone from large, powerful, can't-touch-me-attitude, pre-litigation CEO to a stuttering, shocked, I-can't-believe-they're-actually-suing-me ex-CEO, to a psuedo-confidant clear-as-spring-water wuss. M$ is clearly (to me at any rate) his personal fight, and he's being whacked and whacked and whacked until he's a climber on a sheer wall that refuses to let go.
This is going to be a tiring fight, folks, if you choose to fight it (and I do). Ever cornered a badger? Ever tried to play catch with a grizzly's cub? If you enjoy being disembowled, I encourage you. Noone ever said the fight was going to be glorious, but in the end, perhaps we'll have won something we truly care about.
Generation Gap (Score:2, Interesting)
Recording Artists Safety Guide ... (Score:2)
Maybe old, but I found this yesterday. Though it was funny.
Recording Artists Safety Guide to the Beach [cosmo7.com]
High Priority/Low Priority (Score:2, Informative)
Considering that the CIA just warned of a Chinese cyber attack on the US [latimes.com], I really doubt that CHIP units are going to start devoting more time to a few 15-year olds trading MP3s.
Where's My Taxpayer paid Bodyguard? (Score:2)
Re:Where's My Taxpayer paid Bodyguard? (Score:2)
They sure have the right to steal our money but we should never ever listen to music for free. From now on, if they want me to listen to music, they better pay me.
Selling thousands of duped CD's *is* piracy (Score:2)
A different Perspective? (Score:2, Interesting)
The fact is, music is too expensive for my tastes. I'm a cheap bastard but an honorable one and I just cannot justify spending 20 bucks on a CD unless I like every song on it. Most Cd's just aren't that good.
As for the RIAA, I think they are greedy corporate types, but the world is filled with them and America wouldn't be what it is without them. I do oppose taxpayer funded control of their IP rights because, because I believe that the MP3 trade actually helps CD sales and I don't want my tax dollars going to something I care nothing about.
I also dislike the "big brother" side of having more people watching my online activities (not that I do anything illegal).
Finally, if the RIAA did manage to destroy all music sharing, I think things the industry would split. On one side would be all the corporate backed monsters who rely on the tours to rake in most of the money. On the other side would be so called independents (who'd probably get together in some fashion) to start their own model of business.
Not that I care much about what happens, but I think it will work itself out in the end either way.
That's it-no more taxes from me (Score:3, Funny)
I will then simply cease filing a tax return. I might even write a letter explaining my reason for doing so. Go ahead, try and collect, and watch it turn into a media circus as I scream about it on Slashdot (thereby transmitting it across the globe). Come on, I DARE you.
~Chazzf
Thought police (Score:5, Interesting)
First of all: Most of the money from sales of music goes to marketing of music. This is because the music listening public are too stupid and sheepish to be immune from being convinced to buy whatever crap BMG wants to sell. This marketing machine payed for by record companies does more to stifle the creation of music than CD pirates ever could. Since local bands could never spend so much to convince the public to buy their stuff, it takes a back seat to the stuff on MTV. Most of the value of the music IP that the RIIA is worried about is not in the music itself but in the marketing investment that the record company has made in pushing the music. For example: Britanny Spears mad diddly off her first album, but could command huge $$ for another one since the record company had already invested mega $$ in marketing her.
Is this maketing a service? Should we thank the record companies for bringing us music we might not otherwise know about? I think not. I think that especially with the internet, bands can show the world what they've got easily, and people can find it on their own. In this wired age record companies who once were the only way to distribute music find that they no longer serve a useful purpose and are nothing more than leaches on society. They control what is on the radio, so that's what I hear, and that's all I know to buy. Without them the radio would play other stuff by artists who have placed their stuff on the internet for free, and who would be happy if I listened so I would want to go to one of their concerts. Music would continue to be created even if there were no such thing as record companies. Maybe artists would not get rich by leveraging the record company's marketing investment, but maybe lesser known artists would make a better living if they could get a little airplay.
Second of all: Do we want an IP police to tell us what we are allowed to think without paying a fee?
Do you think the cops can shut down p2p file trading of copyrighted material without snooping on everything that is traded on p2p? If the FBI can't stop illegal IP traffic on it's budget and using it's existing powers, then it still has use in stopping kidnappers and terrorists, in fact that 'failure' doesn't tarnish the public's image of the FBI because most people who want music and would rather wait for it to download than pay the money for it at the store download it guiltlessly, and don't want the FBI to stop them.
But if there is a special agency who's only purpose is to stop illegal IP trading, they will called before congress if their agency is innefectual, and they will explain that the task is impossible, and that to enforce the law they need an SSSCA type law, and that Freenet should be banned, and that so should most p2p, and gpl software too.
I would be willing to give up the notion of copyright and the patent systems altogether. What moral right does someone who creates an artifact that represents an idea to the very eternal notion itself? They should own only the artifact itself. Why should we subsidise the creation of such artifacts by granting copyright? I don't think the value of what is created in that way warrants the subsidy since the material created is mostly created with the express purpose of making $$ and not with enriching my life. Why is fostering technological growth good in and of itself? Is the car really a good thing? Has it actually benefitted mankind? If patents are granted to compete with other countries then maybe we should stop the war and sign a peace treaty outlawing patents.
Gotta laugh... 'it hurts everyone' (Score:3, Interesting)
That cracked me up! I guess everyone feels there is a humanitarian need for paying for music in this world. That's like coal miners saying oil and natural gas are bad for everone because there isn't enough coal mines opening up anymore. The afflicted parties and everyone are usually quite at odds with each other.
Hillary Rosen is right... (Score:3, Funny)
On the other hand, I thought Rosen was trying to promote some sort of copyright violation police. I have no idea why she's talking about piracy though, which has nothing to do with copyright violation.
Still funny and relevant... (Score:3, Informative)
RIAA Suggests Logo for CHIP (Score:3, Funny)
Re:this is a pretty good soap (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't think congressmen was ever meant to be a career... I'm sure that's not what the founding fathers had in mind. We need term limits so that we get a constant cycle of new ideas and new people in the legislature... and to make it harder for lobbyists to get their way.
Re:this is a pretty good soap (Score:2)
"I don't think congressmen was ever meant to be a career... I'm sure that's not what the founding fathers had in mind"
begs the $10,000,000 question - why did the founding fathers fail to put what you're sure they had in mind down on paper?
Re:this is a pretty good soap (Score:2, Funny)
As opposed to fine, upstanding politicians like, oh say, Chirac and Le Pen.
Re:this is a pretty good soap (Score:2)
Re:Good! (Score:3, Funny)
I'll adopt a Recording Industry Middle manager for 79 cents a day...
Please.... these people need to be attacked by angry mobs.
This Hillary Rosen is one reasone I believe we need to bring back burning at the stake or public impalement.
Re:Good! (Score:5, Informative)
Fighting so very hard, in fact, that musicians get around $1.37 per CD [cosmik.com]? Fighting so hard that one musician [salon.com] goes so far as to say that he would rather have his music be given out free than through his label?
The RIAA and MPAA aren't fighting to protect anyone except themselves.
$1.37 per CD? That seems high. (Score:2, Insightful)
He is one of the biggest names under the RIAA banner. Lesser names would get even less.
Re:$1.37 per CD? That seems high. (Score:2)
Isn't in more pongiant to look at the 'cut' the artist gets rather then the gross payout per CD (and whats inflations effect on those values?)?
Uh huh... How about we help the artists instead? (Score:5, Interesting)
What the RIAA is pissed off about is that this technique which you call "stealing" gives power back to the artists. Several artists have attempted to distribute music via MP3, but the RIAA has smacked them down for doing so. The RIAA is pissed because they hate these so-called "theives", they're pissed because their business model is becoming outdated. To combat that, they want to make the government freeze-frame innovation.
Wake up. This greedy group of companies are the real theives. They seize ownership of the work of artists, and then pay them shit for it. Let's fight those bastards by downloading MP3's like crazy, and then giving the artists the money directly. Simple! It's cheaper for you, and more profitable for the musicians! What more do you want?
Re:Uh huh... How about we help the artists instead (Score:4, Insightful)
<SARCASM>I currently have a job opening at my company for a programmer. I would love to hire you since you obviously will be the cheapest employee in the company. Following your logic would give me the ability to pay you exactly $0 since anything you produce would either exist in your brain (pseudo-bits) or on my hard drive (bits again). I can then just make a copy of your work and *poof* its mine. I'm mean they're just bits after all.</SARCASM>
The erosion of people's ethics to limit the concept of theft to apply only to physical items is absurd. Its only a way for people to justify the theft of music, movies, software, satellite TV, etc. to themselves. The further concept that just because the RIAA of a bunch of greedy corporate bastards is just another way to salve people's souls into believing they aren't criminals.
Neither of these arguments changes the fact that it's theft. If you believe that it's anything else you're just deluding yourself. The answer to the greed of the RIAA is simple. Stop buying their product until they smarten up. Within 3 months things will change. Its called a free market system and its works pretty good if you let it. Moving your morals down the evolutionary chain isn't the answer.
Re:Uh huh... How about we help the artists instead (Score:3, Interesting)
I Like your idea about paying the artists directly - but you don't realize that most record labels OWN the rights to the profit on that music, and (even if people did pay the artists directly) they would have complete legal rights to the money you send them. In fact, the artist could be sued for everything they own if it was ever found out. Most record labels are pure evil, and have already (through the use of lawyers) though out every way that an artist can beat the system.
Independent artists are the way to go such as found at: http://www.audiokingdom.com The only reason they are not popular is because they don't have a billion-dollar marketing machine behind them to brain-wash everyone into wanting their music. If you REALLY want to help the music industry, turn off your radios and your tv's and start supporting your local artists instead of the ones that record labels brainwash you into supporting!
ALSO: you are completely full of shït if you actually believe that downloading an MP3 (one that isn't 'released' by the artist) is not stealing. It certainly IS stealing - there is no way to get over that fact.
Your pathetic rhetoric about 'electrons and such' is revolting! How can you justify your actions when you already know how little artists make from labels, and how they are trapped into contracts? I can understand downloading songs that are not available on the shelves, or live recordings, and stuff that you can't order from a catalog, but we all know that the majority of the piracy that occurs is music that is available on the shelves!
C'mon people: get a job a buy the friggin CD! Do you think that artists actually spend hours upon hours working hard to make an album just so that some little punk can download their music on the web? If they didn't think they could make a living producing music, most of them would be flipping burgers at Denny's or driving busses for a living. When you download an MP3 (or copy a friends CD) rather than buy the CD, you are completely undermining the careers of these musicians.
If an artist wants to support the MP3 movement by releasing their songs that's fine. Download to your hearts content. Many respectable artists such as Chuck-D have a fantastic vision for music - but it's not a reality yet. Just because one artist says it's ok, it does not mean that they are giving you permission to download everyone elses music.
If you even had an ounce of creativity in your blood, you'd soon realize that copying ANYTHING that is copyrited is determental to the dream that people can make a living doing what they love.
PS: This exact same concept applies to programmers and 'big-bad software companies'
Re:Good! (Score:2, Informative)
The remaining $15 is used to pay for advertizing, copyright management, lawyers, and profit for the publishers.
-Rusty
Re:Good! (Score:2, Insightful)
I will accept that the label rather than the publisher is getting money from the sale.
-Rusty
Re:The MPAA/RIAA/BSA/SPA cartel (Score:2)
You could however make them the piece envoys to the Middle East; I seam to remember somthing about the healing power of music
Re:The MPAA/RIAA/BSA/SPA cartel (Score:2)
Re:Slashdotted already. (Score:2, Interesting)
The *real* news story (Score:2, Informative)
Note that after the 2nd paragraph, the real version and the one trolled above wildly diverge.
I encourage everyone to put the troller on their "enemies" list, and to modify moderation for such people down by two or more points, so you don't have to see this crap in the future.
Re:Slashdotted already. (Score:3, Informative)
J
Re:These agencies are funded by big corporations. (Score:2, Informative)
They shouldn't. The FSF have lobbyiest. When your a little guy like us lobbyist are the only way to get your views heard by Senators.
Think about it. Big corporations have access to Sentors because of how big they are. You and me? Well, we don't have (for the most part) big corporations that represent our interests. So, we donate and become members of orginizations (FSF, EFF, NRA -- yeh, most of you problably won't like that last one) that DO have the money to influence to lobby for our position in government.
Getting rid of the lobbyist is the FASTEST way to guarentee(sp) that your view will NOT be heard by our Congressmen. Without lobbyiest ONLY the rich and powerful (corporations) will have access to influence (corporations don't need lobbyist to get access to congressmen).
If you want your views heard, after you write/call your congressmen join non-profit orginizations that repressent your views. THAT is the best way to get Congress to hear your voice.
Not enough of us are joining FSF or EFF.
Re:Would'nt it be nice.... (Score:2)
Re:Would'nt it be nice.... (Score:2)
You forgot something (Score:2)
No, she won't be happy even then, and you know why?
The ICJ's maximum penalty is life in prison. Yep, no death penalty for those pirates. Unacceptable!