Who Runs RIAA's Settlement Information Center? 172
eatonwood writes "Who is behind the RIAA's collections efforts? This comment at CallFerret says it is a company called PSC and lists a bunch of websites and contact information for them, but the connection to RIAA is still not completely clear (aside from the presence of a couple of clearly RIAA sites on the same server as PSC's). Anyone know anything more about who is doing RIAA's dirty work?"
Organized Prank Calling (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Organized Prank Calling (Score:5, Funny)
I'm calling from Nigeria, and I downloaded around 1500 of your songs. Now I'm willing to pay your fee, but in order to do so I must first secure my payments. So I need about $50000, to be deposited on bank account BIC415.201.25521.33. And then I will be happy to pay you the millions of dollars you claim I owe you.
Re: (Score:2)
hmmm. (Score:2)
But based on their litigious behavior to date publishing any details about them might bring down some legal wrath on your head.
So... what exactly is covered by freedom of speech or right to know?
- links to their website?
- phone numbers?
- photos of their HQ from public places?
- whistle blower documentation?
Re:hmmm. (Score:4, Interesting)
If they were a UK company, you could get a list of directors of both the SIC and various RIAA member companies and their home addresses through Companies House. All you need to do then is see if any names match up.
Obviously this doesn't help if the company has been set up as a totally separate entity with a totally separate list of directors, but it would tell you pretty quickly if Mr. Bloggs (who lives at 9 Acacia Avenue) runs company A and Mrs. Bloggs (who also lives at 9 Acacia Avenue) runs company B.
Re: (Score:2)
They are an organization that represents the music recording companies, all od which are multinational corporations like Sony with offices all over the world. I'm sure all the record companies have offices in the UK.
Re: (Score:2)
UK Companies House will know that they're a subsidiary of a US company, but probably not much more than that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In the US, the places to check are IRS records and the credit bureau.
Re: Who Runs RIAA's Settlement Information Center? (Score:3, Funny)
Re: Who Runs RIAA's Settlement Information Center? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
According to Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman in Good Omens Hell has much to learn from the modern software license. I'm not sure that I would necessarily quote Messrs Pratchett and Gaiman as infallible sources but...
Re: (Score:2)
This is a tough one... (Score:2)
Re:This is a tough one... (Score:4, Funny)
Obvious answer... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Obvious answer... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Mod parent up. Epic winnar.
Sincerely,
Life.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I know I'll get modded down for this comment (Score:2, Insightful)
You're artist, designer, or coder. You make things. Doesn't matter what it is as long as it's easily copyable on the internet (music, images, web pages, software). You do this for a living. One day someone sets up a web page that gives what you sell for a living away to others for free. What would you do? How would you handle it? Would you just tolerate it? What if you began to notice you were no lo
Re:I know I'll get modded down for this comment (Score:5, Insightful)
But then again... Maybe I would on the other hand want to be a successful lawyer enough to fall for these things, I'm not saying I'm perfect. If I were a lawyer, I'd want to be successful, and it's obviously a reasonably successful strategy for them, or else they wouldn't keep doing it. It depends on how much of a jerk I'd be willing to become.
Re:I know I'll get modded down for this comment (Score:5, Insightful)
That's really the point. For music, we all believe that artists should get remunerated for their work. Want makes the RIAA evil is that (A) they don't work in the interests of the artists, and (B) their approach to their customers is insulting, intimidating, disdainful and invasive. Some would use stronger words.
The RIAA right now is waging a campaign against music fans, in the name of artists (many of whom do not support their name being so used), and gee, if the people's rights, liberties and freedoms are caught in the crossfire, so be it. Hey, we can even reduce those too!
Re: (Score:2)
I'm against shoplifting, but I don't think that gives storeowners the right to summarily execute anyone they suspect of the crime.
Silly analogy....they don't execute suspected file sharers. Um....well, not yet they don't. (Let's not give them any ideas, hmmm?)
Re: (Score:2)
The person only has the recourse to file Chapter 11 (which may or may not absolve them of the debt to the RIAA). Or fake their own death and get a new identity in good standing. Thankfully the latter is still technically feasible until they start fingerprinting and DNA testing everyone which is what they want to do.
And they wonder why they dont want human cloning? It'd kill their #1 investigative tool, DNA. Then they'll have to go back to good old fashioned police work
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
if the people's rights, liberties and freedoms are caught in the crossfire, so be it
The artists signed their rights away when they signed the non-lucrative contracts with the RIAA member companies. The customers pay for an individual license to listen to tracks on a well-defined set of devices.
Let's not confuse things... the music industry is not in the business of taking away rights. They have never given any rights which they can take away at this point.
(A) they don't work in the interests of the artists, and (B) their approach to their customers is insulting, intimidating, disdainful and invasive.
Good summary! That's a business plan that shouldn't have succeeded in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Show me how that's true.
I have paid for a plastic disc with digital information on it. As long as I don't redistribute that information in violation of the law (note, Fair Use is part of the law), I am free to do whatever I want with that disc and that information.
Re: (Score:2)
Gather efvidence, get people prosecuted in a secure, legal way. You don't start sending threatening letters, suing people on spurious grounds and generally being a complete asshat.
"I'll admit, what I do know of the RIAA is they are extremely heavy handed, so much so that it's entirely possible that innocents are wrapped up in their vendetta."
That's completely unnacceptable. Ruining other
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I know I'll get modded down for this comment (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd probably give it up when I realised I was paying $39,000 a year "protection money" to the RIAA.
The RIAA do *not* have the artists' interests at heart, except in so far as that if the artists aren't making money, the RIAA can't extort it from them.
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing we seem to get are DRM-ed up pieces of content that only run on Windows, only on certain devices (e.g. iPod), and which cost MORE than buying physical content in the shops.
As a random example I can either pay $10 to buy a DVD with special features in Blockbuster. Or I can pay $14.99 on iTunes. Naturally the iTunes one only works on Wind
My sympathy is with you.. (Score:2)
I would rather not go
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There has always been music, humans like music and it's never going to go away so if 'artists' can't make money using current technology then they need to stop trying, the world doesn't owe them a living, and do something else. Other music will come in to fill the gap and match up with the new technology. In short music is important, 'artists' or particula
Re: (Score:2)
I'll admit, what I do know of the RIAA is they are extremely heavy handed, so much so that it's entirely possible that innocents are wrapped up in their vendetta. They are sloppy, thuggish, and an out right bully. What can they do? What would you do, just start giving away that which you make your living on? Is that the answer? Is that what everyone wants?
I don't pirate music either - that's not the issue.
You've pretty much summed it up yourself. It's not just the fact they're going after music piracy - the problem is they're going after people with sketchy 'evidence', trying to manipulate the legal system to their advantage.
They use their legal might to bully people into settling out of court [who may not have even pirated anything!] This is extortion, plain and simple.
Even in cases where piracy is legitimately happening, the fine is often far higher than
Re: (Score:2)
I'll admit, what I do know of the RIAA is they are extremely heavy handed, so much so that it's entirely possible that innocents are wrapped up in their vendetta. They are sloppy, thuggish, and an out right bully. What can they do? What would you do, just start giving away that which you make your living on? Is that the answer? Is that what everyone wants?
Maybe what they should do in the few cases where it becomes obvious that they made a mistake and sued the wrong person is to stop the lawsuit and offer to pay all the costs incurred by the victim. That wouldn't be enough, but it would be damn good start. Or at least, just stop the lawsuit? No, these guys just press on. That is the same tactic used by some debt collectors even when faced with proof that they are collecting invalid debts or collecting from the wrong person.
Wanting to collect from peopl
Bespoke Software and Street Performer Protocol (Score:2)
Yes, that is exactly what I would do - it is exactly what I do now.
I get paid for writing bespoke software. The programs are customised to my employer's requirements. Anyone can have a copy of the software, because that isn't where the value is. The value is that I configured it just for them; I changed bits or wrote entirely new bits that fit them exactly. I wrote a new module to work with their esoteric payments system. I changed
Re:Bespoke Software and Street Performer Protocol (Score:4, Interesting)
Imagine if bricklayers had to be paid by every person who visited a house they built several years ago.
That would be almost impossible to police.
But it is even more difficult to keep track of people who listen to music or watch video. That's even more difficult to police.
Instead, bricklayers get paid for making new buildings, and not for buildings they've already finished. Equally, artists should get paid for making new art, not art they've already finished.
Re:Bespoke Software and Street Performer Protocol (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
In the Christian belief system it is believed that our Saviour The Lord God Jesus Christ is the creator of everything and a divine being with a deep love of each and every one of us. Other, heretical, religions have different, wrong, gods and some even split up the many tasks The Lord Jesus Christ is capable of performing into seperate deities. But ultimately, if it helps the heretics come into christs fold you could imagine that all these different bel
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
To put it another way: Imagine if bricklayers had to be paid by every person who visited a house they built several years ago. That would be almost impossible to police. But it is even more difficult to keep track of people who listen to music or watch video. That's even more difficult to police. Instead, bricklayers get paid for making new buildings, and not for buildings they've already finished. Equally, artists should get paid for making new art, not art they've already finished.
Those analogies are usually unhelpful. Bricklayers don't need to be paid by everyone who visits the house because a) they have never been granted ownership of any part of the house b) they agreed to be paid a finite sum of money upon completion of the job.
However, if I *own* the house, I am entitled to charge everyone who wants to visit it.
What I profoundly dislike about anti-copyright activists is their desire to force their views upon everyone else. At present, nothing prevents artists from doing w
Re: (Score:2)
What I profoundly dislike about anti-copyright activists is their desire to force their views upon everyone else. At present, nothing prevents artists from doing what you have suggested above. It's up to the artists to decide whether they want to charge everyone who listens to what they have created, or simply want to give their work away for free.
This stuff could easily be turned on its head. Pro-copyright people are using guns (in the hands of the police) to force people to follow their idea of how people should behave.
I'll also note that my personal view of this is that I'm in favor of shorter copyrights and more obligations for the copyright holder (e.g, having to release source code when the copyright term is up), not no copyrights.
Eivind.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you insane? At present, nothing prevents me from giving someone a copy of something except the copyright restrictions that are forced on the populace at th
Re: (Score:2)
Are you insane? At present, nothing prevents me from giving someone a copy of something except the copyright restrictions that are forced on the populace at the threat of violence.
No, it's the fact that it's not your work to copy. The fact that it has to be backed by law simply reflects the basic greed and misplaced entitlement of, among others, the Slashdot audience. At some point, you will simply have to grow up and accept that paying $10 for a CD does not give you ownership of the work itself any more than buying one movie ticket gives you ownership of the theater building or buying a single soda makes you an owner of Coca-Cola.
Copyright itself is a view forced on everyone else!
Copyright isn't forced on you. You're free to re
Re: (Score:2)
I have a fundamental right to freedom of expression. The first ammendment makes no statements on how original that expression must be. On it's face that means I can express myself using the exact same words you do if I want to. However, in the interest or encouraging the arts and sciences we the people have agreed to limit these inherent rights.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Imagine you're a bricklayer building houses and the concept of credit doesn't exist, and everybody simply has to pay up front in cash for the whole price of the house. Suddenly you go from working on 100 buildings a year to one because 99% of people can't afford to buy a whole house with cash.
Or imagine you've got a $100 million building full of historical artifacts. Now, you could sell it to a private owner for a rich guy's playground. You could sell it to a
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
DK
Re: (Score:2)
Answer: the person with the cutthroat razor from the barber shop.
Re: (Score:2)
The analogy should be that the artist is the bricklayer -- both get paid to do their job.
The RIAA are the homeowners... and they're getting upset that everyone is peeping through their windows looking at their architecture without paying them the full price of admission.
They then refuse to pay the bricklayer his wages because the bricklayer agreed to the job on being paid a percentage of the profits that were to be made from those tours.
They also sue all the people
Re: (Score:2)
Gah... can't believe I missed that one.
Re: (Score:2)
...the bricklayer was on a train that left Kansas City at 12:25pm and while traveling he wrote a song at 3 notes per minute. Also the memorabilia (2 boxes) had been shipped to his home from 2 different cities. One was twice as far away than the other and one of these rains was an express that traveled at 60MPH (the other train left at 1:45pm.)
Now assuming that he paid for shipping at $.45/mile and all three trains unexpectedly met at some central spot where he picked up the packages, paid for the shipping used and "cashed in" on the percentage of the $1000, 3000 note song he had written on his planned 3 hour train ride.
How much money did he make or gain at the end of the day?
The answers are simple, they don't let you pickup packages mid-shipment. You don't get paid for partial incomplete songs.
As a bricklayer, you should know that no payments come till ALL the work is done.
Also, If you're wasting your money on old barbershop memorabilia then shipping fees are the least of your financial worries.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
as a matter of interest, what is your view of inheritance tax?
Surly it should be 100% right?
23% of the richest 1,000 people in the UK did NOTHING to get the money but be born with rich parents. They are paid for doing nothing, and never have contributed anything whatsoever.
Surely if your principle holds, it should be illegal for your parents to leave you anything in their will right?
If not, explain to me the difference.
Re: (Score:2)
Surely if your principle holds, it should be illegal for your parents to leave you anything in their will right?
If not, explain to me the difference.
The difference is that inheritance is not payment for anything, and never was intended as such.
This is quite obvious, after all your children do not have an inherent right to the money: you are free to spend it all before you die. (althought your laws may retrict you totally disowning them of what is left AFTER you died)
Inheritance is a donation. Therefore children are of course not "paid", and it does not matter whether they did anything to earn it.
Just as you are free to donate any amount you want to an
Re: (Score:2)
Others may feel that way about all property. After all, for probably BILLIONS of years, there was no concept of property at all, so why the hell should "The Duke of Westminster" own half of the property in London? Native Americans had no
Re: (Score:2)
It *is* scary how much the prevailing groupthink of slashdot is that "teh copyright owners are teh Satan" and that man is born with a god g
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
patronage...
Ok cool, so we will have the music and the movies that the government and the wealthy would like yes?
Kiss goodbye the grand theft auto
Kiss goodbye to punk music
Kiss goodbye to pretty much anything that criticises the war on terror or inequality.
Its amazing what crap people will cling to if it lets them feel good about ripping off musicians...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Great, I can only see that as a good thing. I'd rather listen to music whose performers seek greater musical abilities, not shirk them off.
There was plenty of punk made outside of the recording industry's purvue. Some of the best stuff never made it to Vinyl, and only made it to CD when home studios became popular. Indeed, much of it would have probably vanished had it not been shared outside of the boundries the music industry would impose on us. Some of it with the Artists' blessing, some of it without.
Yeah, cuz no one will criticise the government, its foreigh policy, or the politicians that populate it unless they're paid cold, hard cash.
Not.
As an author I support author's rights, and that includes artists and musicians who make the films, musc, paintings, etc. we all enjoy. However, government monopoly entitlements are, in the best of circumstances, a highly ineffecient and imperfect way to implement artistic rights. They empower the middlemen, publishers and industry cartels, while simultaneously disempowering artists and their audiences. To characterise anyone who criticises the current monoply regime as theives, or imply they believe artists shouldn't get paid, is rediculous and intellectually dishonest. To attack those who decry the heavy handed and flagrantly unjust methods employed by those cartels against the innocent and minorly guilty ($250,000 for pirating a dozen $1 songs? Please) goes well beyond intellectual dishonesty.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
be careful buddy, you let your holier-than-thou snobbishness leak out a little there.
if mere peasants like me and 95% of the population are happy to buy our 'crappy music and video games' why the fuck do we need arrogant elitist pricks like you to dictate what we are allowed to enjoy?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I find it strange that people were smarter then than they are today.
Re:I know I'll get modded down for this comment (Score:4, Insightful)
During the time that most people were switching to the CD, the record companies, members of the RIAA, colluded to illegally fix prices, and frankly the artists saw none of that money.
Now, the with the customer able to obtain in a fast, easy, and durable form, the music that they want, for as little as 89 cents a track, the record companies are finding that their "buy the same stuff in a different format" business model, isn't working. Rather than attempt to adapt to the new market, arguably difficult and risky, they formed a different plan: litigation.
The cost of filing a suit is trivial. The fear of being ruined in a lawsuit is tremendous, and most people will spend 4-5K dollars to make it go away rather than risk a lifetime of ruin trying to dig out from under a multi-million dollar debt. The fact that RIAA does not gather enough evidence to go to court, and that the evidence gathered is probably wrong as often as 20% of the time, is significant.
The RIAA set up a call center based upon the the techniques of debt collectors, with out the restraint of actually having to be debt collectors. These settlements, as we have seen, are little more than the promise that the RIAA won't sue you again. BUT having admitted that you did violate the copyright, the victim has been set up for a second bite, once the music writers sue for infringement, and then the performers can sue again. So it appears that the business model of suing for millions based upon listening to music will be with us for a long time.
Using the legal system to extort money from people is wrong. Making it a business, is particularly evil.
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't you ask Metallica? http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/04/27/1458228 [slashdot.org]
Views on copyright-type issues have always been influenced by the level of technology. It doesn't seem to have been much of an issue before the printing press. As the technology has changed with computers and the internet, so has people's view of copyright. It's only to be expected. There are people who th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They can pursue their legal actions with honesty & dignity, while complying with rules of law. They could have kept up with technology. They can recognize that their business model is antiquated. They can stop pimping crappy formulaic music and over sexualized mouthpieces. They can stop the loudness arms race. They can produce a product worth buying, in a form worth buying. They can replace my damaged media for a nominal and fair price.
Oh fuck it.. who am I fooling. As long as th
Re: (Score:2)
And in return for paying for that content, those customers want certain freedoms to deal with it in their own way. That means transferring it to another device, s
Re: (Score:2)
You're a hard working man and in the evenings you like a drink at your local. A couple of evenings a week some travelling musicians might come in and play you a few songs, some old classics and maybe one or two of their own and if you like it you might throw some money in their hat, since you can play a fiddle and your mate can play the tambourine you and your mates might have your own sing son
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The anger toward the RIAA is not because we (the Slashdot community) would prefer to get the product of artistic expression for free, but rather because they are attempting to collect huge sums of money on art that they had zero input in creating. We hate the fact that we are being persecuted by a bunch of people who have usurped the art work of others, and are using artificial mechanisms to monopolise others' enjoyment of that art. They are illegitimately standing between creators a
Re: (Score:2)
I honestly don't understand peoples absolute preoccupation with the RIAA. Let me ask you something...
{snipe}
I'll admit, what I do know of the RIAA is they are extremely heavy handed, so much so that it's entirely possible that innocents are wrapped up in their vendetta.
entirely POSSIBLE? well, there is an answer to your first question. You might understand once you realize that it isn't that innocent people MIGHT get sued, harassed, and badly treated, it because they ARE being harassed, sued, and badly treated. And when it turns out that an innocent was caught up in thier shotgun litigation and decides to defend themselves, they cut and run, doing everything they can (until now successfully, for the most part) to cover the legal costs of those they targeted.
Mu
Re: (Score:2)
Here's what happened: people didn't stop paying. However, the author stioo stopped writing the book. Who is wrong here? I was most amazed that people who had actually paid the asshat defended his actions. If I'd paid for some of those chapte
Re: (Score:2)
Having said that, there's a few flaws in your argument. You're conflating the major labels and their proxy the RIAA with artists. The majors have effectively based their entire business models on ripping off artists. Do some research if you don't believe me - there are many many many easily-found stories by artists covering just t
Re: (Score:2)
Interestingly, I just came across this relevant article on OReilly: http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2008/04/when-authors-ask-us-about-the-consequences-of-piracy.html [oreilly.com]
Re: (Score:2)
A small minority think it is okay to take your stuff without compensation, period.
However, a large majority would say that you do not have a right to make money off of those creations as is currently legal. Corporations have twisted copyright to the point that you are losing support for it short term. The fact is that by the original reasonable laws, any songs or movies made prior to 1980 would now be in the public domain.
Every time they pass a law extending the
Re: (Score:2)
You had me as far as "things". Unless you are referring to an act of cranking out physical objects based on your design, you are not making any "things". You are however transmitting information, your brain being the source of the transmission. "Things" and "information" however are wholly separate entities in this Universe and obey a completely incompatible sets of rules, information specifically not behaving in a way in which it is possible to assign it
Re: (Score:2)
And what if you were Ford and Toyota started the "free car for all" campaign? Would that impact your business plan? If noticed that Toyota dropped the warranty on the free cars and was trying to make money on the repairs and also charged for upgrades, wouldn't that cause you to re-think your marketing strategy? Or would you just file suit against them and claim dumping?
What can they do?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The industry blew it ! The recording industry messed up ! As soon as the music became digital, a new format was born. Even as hobbyists were trading mp3s for YEARS before the big P2P distrobution networks were created, The recording industry was busy with physical formats. Hi def this and audio dvd that. They had a chance, blew it, and there is no catching up to the runaway train.
If it's really important to them ... (Score:2)
... then they would leave a message, or send you a letter, or sue you.
Who Run RIAA Settlement Center?! (Score:2)
It is the artists (Score:2)
As much as they don't want you to think it is them, the artists are the cause of the RIAA. If they refused en mass to continue creating/releasing their art until the RIAA disappeared, it would cease to exist.
I don't care how many say the RIAA doesn't represent them, as long as it is funded and allowed to represent the "recording industry association" then it does represent them.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Isn't it obvious? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Satan. he's an intern. but he might not work out (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's funny how the meaning of the song might differ depending on the demography.
Re:Mods == fags (Score:5, Funny)
..but I repeat myself.. (Score:2)
Who Runs RIAA's Settlement Information Center? (Score:2)
"Can't hear. Louder!"
Master-Blaster runs RIAA's Settlement Information Center.
"Still can't hear. Say louder!"
MASTER-BLASTER RUNS RIAA'S SETTLEMENT INFORMATION CENTER!!
"Embargo off."
Somehow the mental image of toiling amongst pig manure to make money for the RIAA just seems incredibly apropos.
Re:We? (Score:4, Funny)
Aren't we doing it? We're parrotting their *evil ways* around, keeping them in the media.
Whoever said "money doesn't grow on trees" never owned an orchard. Whoever said "there's no such thing as a free lunch" never had a grandma. Whoever said "the way to a man's heart is through his stomach" was obviously a virgin woman.
Whoever said "there's no such thing as bad publicity" never owned a restaraunt that was in the newspaper because their samonella-poisoned food killed children.
The RIAA is just plain evil and people need to know the evil they do. They will not gain from negative publicity. Would you have kept Sony's rootkit secret so they didn't get the free publicity?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)