Join RIAA Boycott

[efc]

I believe the only leverage that individuals have in the RIAA/file sharing arena, is a boycott of music CD's. With that in mind, I pledge to my fellow TZ members that I will not purchase a music CD for a period of six months or until the RIAA fully retreats from the harassment tactics that it is currently using. Join me by adding a post saying "ADD ME TO YOUR LIST".

[Big Booger]

Here here, Me too.

[phishhead]

hook me up...I'M IN!

[Stripe]

Add me to your list

I haven't bought cd's since high school...Partly for the reason that there hasn't been any good bands out there that make me "want" to go out and buy the cd. Anyways, you buy the cd for a song and the rest are crude anyways.

[SupaStar]

Yeah why not?...I'm in :)

[Thor]

This should turn out to ba a very long thread.......................

Oh, yes I'm in.

[Conan]

Well I've purchased 1 music CD recently, it was by a local artist. It cost half as much as international artists' CD's. Don't have any plans of buying any more in the near future.;)

[cash_site]

Yes Im on that list... but does it include dvds?? We just bought a new dvd player and need to get a good library :p

[Conan]

Originally posted by cash_site
Yes Im on that list... but does it include dvds?? We just bought a new dvd player and need to get a good library :p

That would be the MPAA in charge of DVD's.

[Big Booger]

yeah I think DVD's are ok. CDs, MDs tapes, Records, 8-track (are these even produced?), reel2reel audio, etc.. are no good.
:D

[lynchknot]

Sign me up. The last CD I bought was a used one 8 years ago! :p

[Richard]

You can buy CD's ?? :confused: :D

[egghead]

Originally posted by Richard
You can buy CD's ?? :confused: :D

Is it true that cd's have the printed words George Micheals or Prince?












that's what I have seen when I find these frisbee's on the side of the road.......

[Reverend]

Below is a small selection of images you may want to use for sigs or avatars.

Thanks to boycott-riaa.com (http://www.boycott-riaa.com/)

[egghead]

as a musician I would like to say that my career is doomed and I will never be a millionaire since everyone and their grand parents a downloading these crappy songs and no longer buying them.

anyone who says that they only buy the songs that they like are missing the point and have opted to demand convenience.

if you listen to the radio you will have to wait to hear something you like. After listening to the songs over a few weeks you might like it more. The commercial industry are paying the artists and record companies for the right to have you listen to the songs.

but on the internet.....

you can download any crappy song you like and i bet most people keep it on their hard drives or storage discs.

this will prevent you from even considering purchasing this crappy artists music yet you still hear it whenever you want and the artist dissapears and the commercial industry puts these guys on the back burner and another career has ended and the artist goes in to debt.

it is way to easy for everyone to sample high quality music and keep it forever.

who is stupid/rich enough to pay for something they already have?

every song in the world that I heard once I don't like. bottom line.

people are not stealing the hard product( the manufactured cd, cover and sleaves. )

So we are not stealing something out of a music store. and therefore not guilty of theft.

we are listening to a copy of music that has been originally purchased by someone who has chosen to share with others over the internet like a radio.

RIAA is wrong at what they are doing and they are right at trying to protect the assests of a trillion dollar industry that will collapse when the young 12 year olds grow older and never buy music again because they can always find a friend on the internet ho can lend it to them for free whenever they want.


their is no other way to look at that.

[zipp51]

It is a very big business as eggs says,and I for one think that a small minority(not the artists) are reaping too much profit off of one cd.Would you support the artist more if there was parity in the profit arena.In other words lower the damn price to around $5 to $7 for all new releases and the biggest buyers won't have to take the music via file sharing.
While corporate moguls ask us for pay cuts in the working world the price of goods and services has not followed the same trend.And who buys those cd's for the 10 to 16 year olds,why the parents do of course.
RIAA,do this for me................:kissass:

BTW I'm in.:D

[Big Booger]

You have very valid points egghead,
but I ask you this:

What percentage of every CD sold is given to the artist?

What artist produced in the last year is worth a sh!t?

How long should an artist lay claim to a song after it has been used and no longer holds the value that it once did? For example a CD sold today, just like any other commodity (besides jewelry) will lose value over the course of ownership... shouldn't a song, also loose value over the course of 5 years, 10 years, 50 years etc... I paid for a Skid Row CD 10 years ago, 2 years ago I looked at the same CD, and it had actually increased in the price.. from 12 to like 16 dollars....

The same songs, same CD, same album art, etc...

As an artist you of all people should despise the RIAA... they are a corporate entity that steals from the artists to like their own fat pockets...

Downloaders are wrong. I am a downloader of music.. however, most of the music, I have at one time or another purchased (not all but most), and honestly, I don't download much of the crap that is produced today. It is garbage.. when I go to a concert, I'll usually buy a CD. Other than that, I never do.. nor will I ever.

Independent artists need to realize the power of the internet and P2P.. There should be a P2P that allows streaming of independent artists videos, music and so on... cut the RIAA and all the companies it represents out of the equation. They are the major barrier to good bands getting fame and fortune.

These companies sell out artists, back stab them, get them in unfair contracts, and say they are "promoting artists" and "helping" It is a farce.. the biggest load of sheit I have ever seen in my life.

I don't mind paying for a song that I like. The apple Itunes is a damn fine service and I think 99 cents per song is reasonable.. but then how much of that 99 cents goes to the artists who worked to make the music we love?

And then you think about these so called bands that were created just to make money: "NSUCK, Crapstreet Turds, *****ee Speared" etc...

They are not artists, they are reproductions of a band using a formula that sells... Most of their music is synthesized, and is not original works.. They are selected out of thousands of competitors.. like that O-Town band.... It makes me vomit... to think they are created rather than evolving from say a garage band to a kickazz super star rock band like G&R, Metallica, all the Motown singers etc....

You cut out these big time record producers and you put in independent labels, who actually care about musicians and offer them competitive contracts that get the money to who deserves it..

The RIAA and nearly every single company it represents cares about the bottom dollar..

Do you think they really give a rats ass about any artist they represent? Do you really?

I don't and I am sure there are thousands who agree the RIAA is garbage.

But to say this, if you think being an artist is about being a millionaire, you are mistaken. There are thousands of great artists out there that do it as a hobby, they play on the weekends at the local pubs and taverns entertaining hundreds with their covers and original works.. those are the true artists.

Sure it would be great to get paid majorly, but those chances are a dime a dozen especially considering that the companies that promote music, base whether or not you will make it big on a monetary formula.. A+B=C

Goodlooks + Great editing = Big Money

Where does the music, the talent, the desire to perform fit into that equation?

Rappers figured this out a long time ago.. they got into the game of rapping by using the big labels, once they made it big they made their own record companies, "Bad Boy Records" "Death Row" etc...

Just something to ponder.. I am not saying that downloading music is a good thing.. I don't think so. BUt I will say this, 16 bucks or even 12 is just too much for the crap that is released.. And if I love a band enough I will purchase a CD, or buy the songs online.

And who wants to pay for one song from an artist that you like.. if you only want one song, then you should be allowed or have the option to buy that one song, either online, or through a retail outlet....


Last thing for me,

I personally don't pay for music that often.. in fact I would seldom even listen to it, if I couldn't download it for free or hear it for free on the radio. I think the only time an artist should get paid is when they play live. A recording is just that, a recording. Yeah a lot of time and effort when into it, and they should be compensated, but in my opinion, the only time I think it worth paying to see, is a live performance on a stage. At the same time, they can sell their CD, directly. This would encourage more performers to tour.. hell some of them seldom tour because it is tough work... they'd rather make a CD, release it, and sit on their arse and wait for the money train to roll in...

Live is the key! It sounds better, I enjoy it more and I think I get my money's worth. With a CD, I listen to it a couple of times, and bam I am finished with it. A live performance will be in my memory forever...

I agree with ZIpp $5-7 is definitely more in my price range and I would certainly think twice about buying a CD from an artist that I like, than paying 12-16 dollars.

Hell for 5 bucks, if you get the lyrics album art, cd, and all, it is worth it. It takes time to compile a CD, get the names sorted, go through fake and trundicated songs, repeats etc.. I'd pay 5 bucks to have a CD that I know would play in every player, all the songs are perfect, etc...

12 bucks is BS... and the RIAA is over populated with recording companies.. some of them need to fail.. and others need to lower their expectations especially during an economic recession.. what better way to avoid putting blame on their business model, than pawning it off on the consumers who "ROB ARTISTS OF THEIR PAYCHECKS" by downloading music for free.... that is the biggest load of horse sheet that I have ever heard in my life.

Their business model is screwed, they produce garbage music, charge extremely high prices, artists don't tour enough, are too stupid or uneducated to even think of starting their own recording companies to cut the middleman out etc....

I hate the RIAA!

[egghead]

thanks Big Booger,

this is true in so many ways


the really big picture in this is the rights of every software engineer , artist, photographers and writers that are trying to make a living are finding the internet a huge roadblock.

I heard you can buy windows xp for $1 in asia.

why would you pay $1 when you can get it free on the internet?

anything that can be heard or seen with the ears and naked eye can be captured in digital format and distributed over the internet for free.

why would you pay for something you can get for free? Wouldn't you take something for free if you wouldn't need to leave the house to get it? This is the way of the future!

if it has to do with music, speech, writing, painting, acting, dancing, software, creative thought or anything you can hear or see; It must be free for everyone. If you release it to the public you surrender your rights to the product.

you must compete for handouts with the jugglers and clowns on the street. if you really have a fan they will send your homepage a funny email joke.

the new age is when performers do it after work. Producers release movies for the letters.

music is written for the moment in time when their thought had meaning.

riaa will create a private network away from this mess and I bet that most of us will still listen because we all need to follow.

[Conan]

Originally posted by egghead
I heard you can buy windows xp for $1 in asia.



It's $ 2 where I'm from.:p

[Big Booger]

Yep,
Spot on Egg.

Media in any shape or form, can be digitized and put on the internet. That is why I am a huge supporter of charging for content via the ISP, for access to any and everything. For example, if you want access to every media, whatever it maybe, you pay a fee to your ISP, and that small fee when multiplied by millions or in the case of China, billions goes to a third party organisation, preferably a non-profit, that then takes and splits the fee equally based on statistics of sales to each and every single artist. Yeah sure some will only get a half cent or less.. but multiply it by billions and you get the point. That way every artist is compensated, and every internet user can enjoy all that there is to enjoy.

I am sure everyone in their right mind would go for this, and if not, you don't have to have access to the internet.

And as well as free content you can have the typical e-stores for those that want the nice packaging, the manuals, the CD covers, etc...

Open source works much like this. Those that pay for it, get the extra stuff. But the fundamental goods are free. I have bought a mandrake Cd boxed for $23 because I wanted the manuals and tech support. It paid for itself a trillion times over.

And I have downloaded Mandrake, Red Hat, Suse, and the other day I nabbed Gentoo. :D

Freedom of information is the key to the internet. If you start banning, capping, and otherwise limiting the internet, it will fail. People will loose interest, and go back to the same old humdrum daily life. Free access, free information, and freedom are the only true way for the internet to be anything. It should be like a phone directory.. we get it for free, inside are some great deals, and there is access to lots and lots of stores and addresses (sites).

But I have seen artwork on the web and then went to see it in person while paying a nominal fee at a museum or gallery. The experience is 100% black and white. I'd much rather pay for the live experience.

Same with photography, music, television, movies etc...

Though one thing I don't get, is why in the hell television and movies are not an internet related media. Why can television and internet be combined. Like a global TV/Global Internet package all in one. The reason, cable companies will go broke, and ISPs will get rich.. While many cable companies are offering internet they also offer cable TV. If they do both, they get paid more.... by combining it they know they'd lose money..

It would be so convenient to be able to watch a pay per view TV show over the internet, than on a TV. I'd much rather be able to see any show in the world on internet, rather than have my parents tape the shows and send me them in the mail....

I hate the fact that technology is not being used to the fullest to provide the richest experience possible. I don't mind paying for things, in fact I do all the time. What I hate is getting ripped a new azz for things that are not worth what we pay for them.

Like Windows XP, $199 or $299 or whatever you paid for the professional version is too much. There is a reason Bill Gates is the richest man in the world. He is charging too much for the products that MS produce. You don't bankroll BILLIONS while charging a fair price for a good... you only make that much money off of charging too much for a product that costs less to produce than what you sell it for.

Everyone wants to make a profit, myself included. But when is enough, actually enough? You want to talk about pirates, head over to the Corporate Pirate meets like the WTO! Corporate pirates are robbing us blind of our hard earned money, and we are letting them. It is shameful.

[efc]

Important view on this subject. I saw the gentleman that created boycott-riaa.com on Tech TV last night. He is a very agressive individual that is not intimidated easily.

http://www.boycott-riaa.com/why.php

http://www.boycott-riaa.com/facts/

[Big Booger]

Great links. I hope this becomes a huge movement that stops these huge corporations from destroying freedom!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Every Music CDR since the AHRA was enacted has a hidden tax built into the price! (2% of the manufacturers sales) This is supposedly to pay the artists for home recording. Who Collects the Tax? The RIAA under the auspices of the AARC. Who shares office space with the RIAA and has many of the RIAA employees working for it. I haven't been able to find one artist that was paid a cent of the money. 4% is set aside for non-featured artists, of the remainder 40% for the featured artist and 60% for the labels. To date I have not found one artist who has received one cent of this money. (Source: RIAA website) In addition every CD recorder has a $2.00 surcharge built into the price that goes directly to the RIAA

The artists received not one cent of the money from the MP3.Com settlements of approx $158 Million to the labels. Who did??? The label themselves.

"SoundExchange" the new digital rights collective for collecting royalties from internet play is a division of the RIAA. They did not distribute royalties in July 2001 as they were supposed to do, but instead decided to wait until next year.

85% of all music is released by 5 major labels (Sony, EMI, UMG, Time Warner, & BMG)
Federal Trade Commission (FTC Statement)

At any given point about 20% of the music every recorded is available legally. The rest is locked away by the labels depriving the creators of a potential source of income, the fans of the music they want, while creating a false market for the band "d'jour."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Now I say this, either stop taxing the CDR sales, or stop hounding users who download music.. this has got to stop..

You can't double dip your wick and expect the candle to burn forever...

[sociallysleepy]

I really wanted to see that but my parents ditched the Digital Cable because Time Warner increased our bill to over 115 bucks

[efc]

double dip your wick

Enough said.:D

[Big Booger]

Originally posted by sociallysleepy
I really wanted to see that but my parents ditched the Digital Cable because Time Warner increased our bill to over 115 bucks

115 dollars is outrageous.. Digital Cable isn't worth a sh!t anyway. Get the basic cable, and internet package, then get one of those online TV programs, that let you watch any channel all over the world for next to nothing over broadband!

TV should be broadcasted over the internet.. this technology is here and now, but is being shoved to the side by cable operators because they want to make more money!

BUt the RIAA is even more scandelous.. charging for CDRs then moaning when users download stuff to put on those CDRs that the RIAA gets a cut from.. what a load of sh!t.

[heathy]

My name is Shaun and I have been working as a Systems Analyst for some time. Im looking to join your network if I could. I have been working with Bee-jay.

Bee-Jay has lost his job and does not have the fast conection that he did, hence the reason he has not been on:)

[Conan]

Originally posted by heathy
My name is Shaun and I have been working as a Systems Analyst for some time. Im looking to join your network if I could. I have been working with Bee-jay.

Bee-Jay has lost his job and does not have the fast conection that he did, hence the reason he has not been on:)

Welcome to Techzonez Shaun, and thanks for updating us about Bee-Jay.:)

[Thor]

Welcome Shaun. Hope Bee-jay gets back on his feet quickly.

[Thor]

Originally posted by sociallysleepy
I really wanted to see that but my parents ditched the Digital Cable because Time Warner increased our bill to over 115 bucks

My bill is $123 but.......I have all the extra channels there are.

[efc]

Just a request folks. Let's stay focused on the RIAA boycott issue. We can tackle some of the other issues later.

To start the debate again I will paraphrase a portion of the Tech TV special. A record executive was asked why the record industry did not seem to care (at least to the degree they do now) when people taped music from radio broadcast. The answer was that the quality was poor. The follow-up statement, "Then you don't care if music is "stolen" as long as the result is poor quality."

Needless to say it got a laugh.

[Thor]

Apologies for being off topic.

[efc]

Just a friendly nudge.:)

[Big Booger]

What about online streamed music copied over the net?

I guess because it is not as good as an MP3 (which does loose quality from the original) it should be ok.

:P

[sociallysleepy]

Originally posted by Big Booger
I guess because it is not as good as an MP3 (which does loose quality from the original) it should be ok.

128kbps is just below CD quality
I rip my mp3's at 320kbps, there is no loss in quality.

[Bee-Jay]

Egg, Big, Thor, Blackwar(still wondering were he is) and the knowledge based Conan it is good reading this thread, I want to comment on EFC's comment and as techzones supports this I will.....

My method may not be one that many agree with but that is OK, as I value what other have to say:)

I would like to see the the wealthy earn less, I think that a standard should be set, Global......maybe,? but it seems to me that people on TV or, those that can sing get millions, and as far as I know they still are.....what does this mean you ask.......?

I can not give the answer but recording it off the radio and recording it form the net seems to offer ....(potentialy(sp) the same results therefore why the comotion(sp) I pride myself on originals not something I have D/loaded....the visual aspects mean something to me.

If music is "stolen" or copied then I would class it as poorer quality.

I agree that something sould be done to limit it but some bloke in the basement with his PC or tape recorder is just going to turn around and repeat the cycle.

Interesting topic....

Heathy has explained what is hapening to me, wife and I made redundant, and currently on dial-up(yes it suxs) so I will try to stay in touch but all I can say is Heathy knows his shit and would be a great resource to this fine community, ask him questions and get him thinking, if you are in London arrange a meeting, he is a great person to know.




take care all and I will touch base when I can.

BJ

[Big Booger]

Originally posted by sociallysleepy
128kbps is just below CD quality
I rip my mp3's at 320kbps, there is no loss in quality.

Lossy Compression
In a lossy compression scheme, as the name implies, some of the original information is discarded when it is compressed. Therefore, it is impossible to produce an exact replica of the original audio signal when the audio is played. There are many different schemes of lossy compression available. These schemes generally provide varying compression ratios. The most popular of these, the MPEG Layer 3 (MP3) format, is commonly employed with compression ratios of up to ten to one. All lossy compression schemes add artifacts to the compressed audio. Artifacts are small imperfections created by the loss of the actual audio data. Although its quality may not seem that poor, the audio that has been processed by a lossy digital compressor is no longer "CD Quality".

------------------------------------------------------------


I was under the impression that at any bitrate, MPEG Layer 3 compression, would still reduce the quality.

All lossy compression schemes add artifacts to the compressed audio. Artifacts are small imperfections created by the loss of the actual audio data.

But if you say 320Kbit/s MP3 creates an exact duplicate of the original, I'll take you for your word.

[lynchknot]

hehe - "busted"

http://www.ircspy.com/images/content/riaa.jpg

[sociallysleepy]

I have "better than average" hearing and I can say without a shadow of a doubt I'd prefer a 320kbps mp3(encoded on LAME) over a CD anyday. I have compressed a 320 down to 128 and noticed a HUGE difference in sound quality than compared the 128 to CD and it sounds the exact same to me.

It could just be me though, when my friend sends me songs and they are 128 I can notice the poor quality immediatly and I re-download a higher bitrate version(usually 192). When I asked him about the crappy quality he said it sounds great too him.

I also notice a huge difference between a downloaded 320 and a ripped 320 I do myself with LAME and CDEX. But like I said, my hearing is a tad bit weird.

[Conan]

Has anyone else tried Nero's MP3Pro encoding? Sounds pretty good to me and the file size is pretty small.

[efc]

Legal discussion on the RIAA supena issue.

LINK (http://research.yale.edu/lawmeme/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1219)

[gicio]

I am with you!!!



regards,


gicio

[Big Booger]

Originally posted by sociallysleepy
I have "better than average" hearing and I can say without a shadow of a doubt I'd prefer a 320kbps mp3(encoded on LAME) over a CD anyday. I have compressed a 320 down to 128 and noticed a HUGE difference in sound quality than compared the 128 to CD and it sounds the exact same to me.

It could just be me though, when my friend sends me songs and they are 128 I can notice the poor quality immediatly and I re-download a higher bitrate version(usually 192). When I asked him about the crappy quality he said it sounds great too him.

I also notice a huge difference between a downloaded 320 and a ripped 320 I do myself with LAME and CDEX. But like I said, my hearing is a tad bit weird.

Definitely, you are right. 320 vs 128 bit encoding are different, the more bits/second, the better the sound.. but I think either way, it will not be the same as the original.
:D

to me, the 320 sound, is more full, less noise etc..
128 sounds dull and flat.

[Big Booger]

My wife bought a CD two days ago.. I was like what the hell are you doing. :D

Found out it was an educational CD produced by Oxford Publishing.. I don't think they are RIAA related.. but I am not sure as I couldn't find out definitely.. I hope not.. bloody bastards... They are the vultures ready to rip the hearts out of the fans that pay their salaries..
Pure scum.

[egghead]

Originally posted by Big Booger
Definitely, you are right. 320 vs 128 bit encoding are different, the more bits/second, the better the sound.. but I think either way, it will not be the same as the original.
:D

to me, the 320 sound, is more full, less noise etc..
128 sounds dull and flat.

the 128k mp3 encoded file is almost always done with a technique called joint stereo.

this is done by mixing the left and right sources together and any audio sources that re distinct in left or right speaker get more priority in the encoded process.

this keeps the stereo speration but you will notice most cymbol sounds willl sound washed out or phased.

encoding at 160cbr or higher is almost alwaya encoded at true stereo and should not have this problem

320 cbr is nice quality but it is still constant bit rate and remains the same throughout the recording

if you have a song with plenty of dynamics the info gets squeezed in this constant rate.

i preffer variable bit rate at the highest level. this will allow the encoder to use as much bandwidth needed to preserve the sound quality as close to original

[uschie]

This whole thread just has me totaly confused.
You mean there are no 45's????:D

[zipp51]

Originally posted by uschie
This whole thread just has me totaly confused.
You mean there are no 45's????:D

Only Army issue.:D

[efc]

We are trying not to spend our money in way that help the RIAA. Boycott-riaa.com has done a thorough job of explaining the issue. This link talks about "Why Boycott?".

Link (http://www.boycott-riaa.com/why.php)

[Big Booger]

Is there a list of record companies that the RIAA covers? I'd really like to know?

Or better, which record companies are not a part of the RIAA?

[sociallysleepy]

http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/search.asp

there ya go.

[Big Booger]

Thanks SS,
Great resource!

One other question, when you buy used CDs, the RIAA doesn't get a penny right? Cause there is a used CD shop down the street from my home and I want to pick up the white stripes album.. Elephant.. :D

Just wondering, cause I really don't want to ever purchase an RIAA backed CD again. I'd rather tape the money to the ass of a camel.. and watch it go bye bye into the desert of doom.

[cash_site]

Originally posted by Big Booger
I'd rather tape the money to the ass of a camel.. and watch it go bye bye into the desert of doom.

so u have been to IRAQ then ??

LOL

[sociallysleepy]

The RIAA gets no $ from used CD sales.
They do get money from blank CD sales though which is quite funny.

[tons of fun]

Add me to your list!!!!!!!!!!

I've not bought a CD since 1999............I continue to share on my P2Pprogram....be well all.............

[beebster]

i havent bought a cd for years..sure add me.

[Big Booger]

I am resisting buying any CDs..

One other thing, does the RIAA get reimbursed for rental CDs?

[cash_site]

was upset with G/f last nite, went out shopping and she bought 2 ! new CDs, i nearly made her turn back and return them!

Well, at least I got home and ended up with 4 cds ;)

I did like Dido... :D

[efc]

Scarriest Haloween ghost, ever!

Link (http://www.villagephotos.com/viewpubimage.asp?id_=5962946)

[rstryker]

im in

[biker666_05]

im in add me to your list

[Big Booger]

May the RIAA rot in hell!

[souldreamer]

"ADD ME TO YOUR LIST".

:fire:

[Big Booger]

DOWN WITH THE RIAA!!! KEEP IT ALIVE.. TO HELL WITH THEM AND THEIR ILK!!!!

[joshsiao]

After reading the posts and seeing this: At any given point about 20% of the music every recorded is available legally. The rest is locked away by the labels depriving the creators of a potential source of income, the fans of the music they want, while creating a false market for the band "d'jour."

All I have to say is this. The so-called taxes and won lawsuit money goes to the labels that publish the artists work. The artists themselves get nothing. Secondly, the false market created causes such CDs to be very costly, thus actually making people go to the Internet for cheaper or free music. Thirdly, due to the false market, there is demand created. This also increases the prices and is a big profit for the labels. The artists do not get any advantage from these. (Think in terms of the Oil Market, low supply and high demand causes the oil prices to be high and the labels as the OPAC, having a monopoly over the market) Forthly, the talk about d/l music from the net makes artists not to earn money is complete BS, because the labels themselves earn the money from CD sales and not the artists. Fith, the labels and the RIAA come up with all these brainwashing BS to protect their profits so that people don't see red at the stock markets. (The rest in the stock markets are all economics and gibberish only for economists not us techs). Ok end of rant.:D

[efc]

I encourage everyone to buy anything for Christmas except a CD that would put one cent into the RIAA coffers.

The RIAA insists that theft is the reason that sales are down. I hope that the boycott is also having an impact.

[Big Booger]

I agree efc,
I skipped out on purchasing CDs because of the RIAA and their methods. I'd rather support a drug addicts habit than to give the RIAA one red cent.

I actually was going to get my wife the Norah Jones' CD for Christmas because she likes her music, but I didn't because it is an RIAA held lable that produces her albums.....

Again, Merry Xmas RIAA, I hope you go broke!

[efc]

It is time to stir the pot again. New suites by the RIAA.

RIAA embarks on new round of piracy suits
By John Borland
CNET News.com
January 21, 2004, 10:47 AM PT

The Recording Industry Association of America launched its largest wave of file-swapping lawsuits Wednesday, filing new copyright infringement suits against 532 currently unnamed individuals.

The suits are the industry group's first since an appeals court in December blocked its original strategy of identifying alleged file swappers before filing lawsuits by sending subpoenas to their Internet service providers. As a result, Wednesday's legal actions target hundreds of unnamed or "John Doe" computer users, whose identities will be added to the suits only after a court process likely to take several weeks.

"The process by which we identify defendants has changed, but the program has not," RIAA President Cary Sherman said in a press conference to announce the lawsuits. "Our message should be as clear as ever: We can and will continue to bring lawsuits against those who distribute music to millions of strangers."

The move comes after a month of mixed news for the RIAA, which had a set of legal setbacks--including the appeals court ruling on the subpoena issue--and some indications that the dampening effect of lawsuits on file-swapping may be wearing off.

A survey the Pew Internet & American Life Project took in December found that just 14 percent of Americans said they had recently downloaded music from a file-swapping network, compared to 29 percent in a similar survey completed in May 2003.

In contrast, a report released last week by Internet monitoring firm The NPD Group found that music file swapping rose 14 percent between September and November.

The RIAA declined to comment on the studies, saying different groups used different methodologies and that it is impossible to compare them accurately. Its campaign had been undeniably successful in teaching people about the legal issues surrounding file trading, executives said.

"What we do know for certain is that awareness has shot through the roof," said Mitch Bainwol, the RIAA's new chief executive officer, citing the results of a study the industry group privately commissioned. "Prior to the launch of these legal actions, 35 percent of the population understood that (trading copyrighted music online) was illegal. Now, that percentage is in the mid-60s."

As the group is taking a new legal approach, instituted to comply with the December appeals court order, the new lawsuits are being filed in four batches against large numbers of anonymous individuals. Although suits are bundled around ISPs and are being filed in New York and Washington, D.C., the RIAA declined to name which Net service providers are involved.

Instead of names, the suits contain information on the Internet Protocol addresses of alleged file swappers. An IP address is a technological routing device assigned each Net surfer by their ISPs while online. The RIAA plans to ask judges to open a legal discovery process that will allow it to obtain the subscriber information associated with those IP addresses. The subscribers' names will then be added to the lawsuits.

The subscribers will be given a chance to settle before their names are officially added to the suits, Sherman said. However, the settlement amounts offered by the RIAA may be higher than in previous rounds, since the new process has raised legal costs, and the earlier suits have made it far less likely that a file trader could plead genuine ignorance of the law around the issue, the group said.

Wednesday's suits bring the total number of people in the United States sued by the RIAA for file swapping to 914. Sherman said 233 suits have been settled so far; another 100 suits reached settlement agreements, at an average of about $3,000.

Other music industry groups in Canada and Europe have indicated in recent months that they are likely to follow the RIAA's lead and begin filing suits against people swapping copyrighted music online in their own regions. None of these legal actions have yet occurred.

[Reverend]

Posted it earlier http://www.techzonez.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8527 ;)

[efc]

Yeah, I didn't see your post until after I put this one in. Still - it might start a new round of post on this thread. It has been active.

[Big Booger]

John Doe.. good luck laying down the name with the IP. If I were an ISP I'd fight this with all the fevor of a starved tiger. The RIAA should back down and disengage. This is not a war.. you are attacking the wrong crowd. Their sales are even up, yet they continue with this..

They are pissing off customers, potential customers and it is not having a good effect. I wished kids were more active in this and could understand the effects of buying CDs. Kids are powerful and can make a stand by stopping the purchase of CDs. That would be a great message.

[efc]

Time to rev this thread up again. Below article appeared today.

washingtonpost.com

Record Industry Sues More Over Downloads

By TED BRIDIS
The Associated Press
Tuesday, February 17, 2004; 2:07 PM

WASHINGTON - The recording industry sued 531 more computer users Tuesday it said were illegally distributing songs over the Internet in what has become a routine reminder reminder that college students, teenagers and others can face expensive lawsuits for swapping music online.

The Recording Industry Association of America filed the latest complaints against "John Doe" defendants in lawsuits in Atlanta; Philadelphia; Orlando, Fla.; and Trenton, N.J. It said the defendants were customers of one of five Internet providers based in those cities.

Philadelphia is the headquarters for Comcast Cable Communications Inc., the nation's largest cable company. Atlanta is headquarters for Earthlink Inc., another of the nation's biggest Internet providers.

Music industry lawyers identified the defendants only by their numeric Internet protocol addresses and expected to work through the courts to learn their names and where they live.

The RIAA's president, Cary Sherman, said illegal downloads continue hurting new, legitimate Internet services for selling music. "We are sending a clear message that downloading or 'sharing' music from a peer-to-peer network without authorization is illegal, it can have consequences and it undermines the creative future of music itself," Sherman said in a statement.

Last month, the recording group filed lawsuits against 532 computers users who were customers of Internet providers based in Washington and New York. The latest actions represent the largest number of complaints filed at one time since the trade group launched its legal campaign last summer to cripple Internet music piracy.

The recording group has said previously that after its lawyers discover the identity of each defendant, they will contact each person to negotiate a financial settlement before amending the lawsuit to formally name the defendant and, if necessary, transfer the case to the proper courthouse. Settlements in previous cases have averaged $3,000 each.

[Reverend]

It also appeared on the TZ front page today ;) http://www.techzonez.com/comments.php?shownews=7372

[SupaStar]

That's where I saw it (thanks Rev), and I don't like it one little bit!

[cash_site]

What is the implication of the "John Doe" case? how are they going to put IPs to names? Do they have a big list of IPs ie 10,000+ and they are slowly going thru them? like the CHildPorn website sting ??

[Big Booger]

And what about the ISPs that go defunct in the time it takes this to go to court??

This is a joke and a lame attempt at the RIAA to get more publicity in hopes that file sharers will be scared off by their silliness.

[Dehcbad25]

Now, is this a stupid question?? But anyhow I will ask it, woudln't the RIAA be better if it targets to illigal profiting from pirated music instead that downloaders??
I don't remember where, but I read that there are a lot of bands joining together against RIAA because file sharing makes them more popular.

[efc]

More news from the boys with the supenas. Lets show those college punks a thing or two.

I still say, "Boycott, boycott, boycott".
***************

Record industry sues U.S. file-sharers
Wed April 28, 2004 02:37 PM ET

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A U.S. music industry group says it has sued 477 more people for online copyright infringement as part of its effort to stop music piracy, blamed for a prolonged sales downturn. Since January, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), employing the "John Doe" litigation method, has sued more than 2,000 people.

The RIAA is using this method because the names of the 477 people accused of illegally distributing copyrighted sound recordings on peer-to-peer services were not yet known, said Jonathan Lamy, spokesman for RIAA.

The trade group has identified suspected song-swappers by Internet addresses only since an appeals court in December sided with Verizon Communications by ruling that Internet Service Providers did not have to respond to subpoenas, filed as a prelude to lawsuits, requesting names of users.

As in previous suits, the RIAA plans to discover swappers' names and locations through court-issued subpoenas, Lamy said.

Wednesday's action was directed at file sharers using commercial ISPs as well as 69 people at 14 universities, including Brown, Emory and Princeton.

In March, RIAA suits targeted 89 people using college networks.

"It remains as important as ever that we continue to work with the university community in a way that is respectful of the law as well as university values," said Cary Sherman, the RIAA's president.

The RIAA represents the world's big record labels like Warner Music, Bertelsmann AG's BMG, EMI Group Plc, Sony Corp.'s Sony Music and Vivendi Universal's Universal Music Group.

The RIAA has filed 2,454 lawsuits since September, including suits filed before the "John Doe" method became mandatory. It has settled about 437 cases for about $3,000 each (1,700 pounds).

[Dehcbad25]

Is there a new list?

[efc]

Department of Law
120 Broadway
New York, NY 10271
Department of Law
The State Capitol
Albany, NY 12224
For More Information:
212-416-8060
For Immediate Release
May 4, 2004
$50 MILLION IN ROYALTIES RETURNS TO ARTISTS
Deal With Record Industry Sets New Procedures for Recovery of Unclaimed Asset

State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer today announced a deal with the nation’s top recording companies that returns nearly $50 million in unclaimed royalties to thousands of performers. The agreement comes after a two-year investigation by Spitzer’s office found that many artists and writers were not being paid royalties because record companies had failed to maintain contact with the performers and had stopped making required payments. This problem affected both star entertainers with numerous hit recordings and obscure musicians who may have had only one recording.

"As a result of this agreement, new procedures will be adopted to ensure that the artists and their descendants will receive the compensation to which they are entitled," Spitzer said.

Under the deal, the recording companies have agreed to do the following:

• List the names of artists and writers who are owed royalty payments on company websites;
• Post advertisements in leading music industry publications explaining procedures for unclaimed royalties;
• Work with music industry groups and unions to locate artists who are owed royalty payments; and
• Share artists’ contact information with other record companies.

In addition, each company has agreed to have the heads of the royalty, accounting and legal departments meet regularly to review the status of royalty accounts and take steps to improve royalty payment procedures.

The companies have also agreed to comply with New York State’s Abandoned Property Law, which requires that if an artist or his or her family cannot be found, unclaimed royalties be "escheated" or turned over to the state. The state then holds these monies until a claim is made.

The participating companies include: SONY Music Entertainment; Sony ATV Music Publishing; Warner Music Group; UMG Recordings; Universal Music; EMI Music Publishing; EMI Music North America; BMG Songs; Careers-BMG Music Publishing; BMG Music and the Harry Fox Agency.


Spitzer thanked the recording companies for their cooperation in resolving the matter. He noted that the companies could have fought the initiative, which actually goes beyond what the law requires. Instead, the companies worked with the Attorney General’s office to resolve the matter in a way that will help artists and their descendants.

Spitzer also thanked music industry attorney Bob Donnelly, who originally brought the matter to the attention of his office and then helped identify ways to resolve it.

Prominent artists who were owed royalty payments included: David Bowie, Dolly Parton, Harry Belafonte, Liza Minnelli, Dave Matthews, Sean Combs and Gloria Estefan.

Spitzer noted that while royalty disputes are common in the entertainment industry, this particular problem did not involve disagreement over the terms of the recording contract or the amount of the royalty payment. Instead, it was a matter of the record companies not maintaining accurate contact information to mail royalty payments. Pursuant to the agreement, the companies will make a greater effort to locate and stay in touch with artists who are owed payments.

Spitzer said the recording companies had improved their efforts to find missing artists since the investigation began two years ago and that, collectively, the companies had already returned more than $25 million to those who were owed funds. An additional $25 million is expected to be distributed as part of the settlement.

The matter was handled by Assistant Attorneys General Gary R. Connor, Harriet B. Rosen, Patricia Cheng and Joseph Wilson of the Attorney General’s Investment Protection Bureau, under the direction of Acting Deputy Attorney General Terryl Brown Clemons.

[Big Booger]

Are they paying interest on these payments? As it sounds like to me they may be a little late in getting the payments to the artists...

Another reason to loathe the RIAA...

[efc]

And they wonder why sales are down.

*********************
Price hike at Apple iTunes

Published Friday 7th May 2004 11:26 GMT in The Register

The world's five biggest music labels have successfully forced Apple to increase the prices it charges for songs on the online iTunes Music Store.

As we reported back in April, the major labels have been engaged in negotiations (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/04/09/pigopolist_price_hike/) with the Mac maker in a bid to persuade it to put up prices.

According to a New York Post report today, citing (http://www.nypost.com/business/20309.htm) sources close to the talks, all five have succeeded.

The sources claim Apple has now signed agreements with EMI, Bertelsmann Music Group (BMG), Sony, Universal and Warner that will see prices on some songs rise from 99c to $1.25, an increase of over 26 per cent.

Still, that's better than the $2.99 price point some labels had been pushing Apple to introduce.

Album prices are going up to. Many are likely to continue to be offered for $9.99, but some are appearing in the ITMS for $16.99, a rise of 70 per cent.

As one music industry source told The Register: "That will really ingratiate the public and discourage piracy, won't it?"

Apple does appear to have had it way in other areas, however. The NYP's sources reckon the company did not agree to label demands that some artists' songs only be sold in album batches and not as individual tracks.

In the past, some acts, most notably Radiohead and Metallica, have said they will not allow their songs to be offered individually. But that clearly runs against what many music consumers want: the ability to pick and choose the songs they want and not be stuck with all or nothing album offers. The old days of buying an entire album for one song are hopefully behind us.

We'd say it's about time the music industry started thinking that way too. There will always remain a place for albums - CDs too - but artists and labels have to start thinking 'outside the disc' if they're to reach a new generation of consumers now empowered to buy exactly what they want.

Other services may face similar demands, but there does seem to be a particular focus on Apple. Having established the market for legal downloads, Apple now seems to be facing a music industry paranoid about the power that success might bring the Mac maker. ®

[efc]

Apple Computer dismissed rumors Friday of rising single-song prices at its iTunes online music store, saying that it planned to maintain the price tag of 99 cents per song.

Reiterating comments made by Chief Executive Officer Steve Jobs (http://news.com.com/2100-1027_3-5201598.html?tag=nl) last week, an Apple spokeswoman said the company is maintaining its single price tag for individual songs. The comment came in response to an article in the New York Post reporting the likelihood of higher prices as a result of new contracts with record labels. As earlier reported (http://news.com.com/2100-1027_3-5199227.html?tag=nl), some full-album prices have already begun to climb on the service.

"These rumors aren't true," Apple spokeswoman Natalie Sequeira said. "We have multiyear agreements with the labels and our prices remain 99 cents a track."

Apple's commitment to the 99 cent retail price point--which is shared by other music services such as Musicmatch--comes in spite of wholesale prices for music that are already beginning to fluctuate, according to record labels and other download services.

The big music labels are eager to move to a system where they can price prerelease or top singles differently than back-catalog tracks. This variable pricing has long existed in the offline world, and will help them make more money from the most popular music, while increasing demand for older tunes through lower prices, they say.

"The problem is, the systems that everyone built to get things going were built to get things going," said one top record executive in a recent interview. "The easiest way to do that was to have fixed pricing. (But the services) have been expanding those systems so they can vary pricing."

Some labels have already begun passing on these variable wholesale prices (http://news.com.com/2100-1027_3-5199227.html?tag=nl) to the online services, executives have said. This has appeared in occasional rising album costs, but like Apple, none of the download stores has yet passed along the higher wholesale costs of singles to their customers.

Executives at other music services have said that the shifting wholesale costs would likely find the download stores beginning to experiment with both higher and lower prices over the next year. Apple, which retains a majority market share, will likely influence the decisions at services with smaller audiences.

[Big Booger]

With sales up, the RIAA and their cronies think they can just gouge and gouge to get every last penny that they can muster...

CEO speaking to the board:

"This year profit margins were up by 50 billion, but that is not good enough. I want to make it to Forbes' top 20. I say we raise prices and produce more crap music. It should sell well to all the brainless teenagers across the globe"

:D

[Dehcbad25]

Great. I was thinking to apply for that service. Now I won't

[Iced_Eagle]

I'm in.

[efc]

On May 25 RIAA sued another 493 downloaders. Sales are up even thought the industry is treating customers like dirt. Makes me ill.:Puke:

[efc]

Single mom overwhelmed by recording industry suit

http://www.siliconvalley.com/images/common/spacer.gif
BY LESLIE BROOKS SUZUKAMO
http://www.siliconvalley.com/images/common/spacer.gif
Pioneer Press
http://www.siliconvalley.com/images/common/spacer.gif
Tammy Lafky has a computer at home but said she doesn't use it. "I don't know how," the 41-year-old woman said, somewhat sheepishly.

But her 15-year-old daughter, Cassandra, does. And what Cassandra may have done, like millions of other teenagers and adults around the world, landed Lafky in legal hot water this week that could cost her thousands of dollars.

Lafky, a sugar mill worker and single mother in Bird Island, a farming community 90 miles west of St. Paul, became the first Minnesotan sued by name by the recording industry this week for allegedly downloading copyrighted music illegally.

The lawsuit has stunned Lafky, who earns $12 an hour and faces penalties that top $500,000. She says she can't even afford an offer by the record companies to settle the case for $4,000.

The ongoing music downloading war is being fought on one side by a $12 billion music industry that says it is steadily losing sales to online file sharing. On the other side, untold millions of people — many of them too young to drive — who have been downloading free music off file-sharing sites with odd names like Kazaa and Grokster and who are accusing the music industry of price gouging and strong-arm tactics.

Lafky says she doesn't download free music. Her daughter did last year when she was 14, but neither of them knew it was illegal because all of Cassandra's friends at school were doing it.

"She says she can't believe she's the only one being sued," Lafky said. "She told me, 'I can't be the only one. Everybody else does it.' "

A record company attorney from Los Angeles contacted Lafky about a week ago, telling Lafky she could owe up to $540,000, but the companies would settle for $4,000.

"I told her I don't have the money," Lafky said. "She told me to go talk to a lawyer and I told her I don't have no money to talk to a lawyer."

Lafky said she clears $21,000 a year from her job and gets no child support.

The music industry isn't moved. It has sued nearly 3,000 people nationwide since September and settled with 486 of them for an average of $3,000 apiece, according to the Recording Industry Association of America, which represents the major and minor labels that produce 90 percent of the recorded music in the United States.

"Our goal in these cases and in this program (of lawsuits) that we're trying to achieve is to deliver the message that it's illegal and wrong," said Stanley Pierre-Louis, senior vice president for legal affairs for the RIAA.

Since the music industry began its lawsuit campaign, awareness of the illegality of downloading copyrighted music has increased several-fold this year, Pierre-Louis said.

"And we're trying to create a level playing field for legal online (music) services," he added.

These services sell music for under a dollar a song, and some have become well known, like Apple Computer's iPod service, which advertises heavily on TV. Others are just getting off the ground.

Pierre-Louis said the RIAA does not comment on individual cases like Lafky's, but he said the music industry typically finds its targets by logging onto the same file-sharing services that the file-sharers do. Its agents then comb the play lists for names of songs that are copyrighted and that they believe are being illegally shared.

The record companies follow the songs when they're downloaded onto computers, and they also note how many copyrighted songs are stored on that computer's hard drive memory, because those songs are often "uploaded" or shared with others through the file-sharing service.

Since January, the industry has filed 2,947 lawsuits, most against "John Does," until the record companies went to court to get names of the downloaders from their Internet service providers. Last month, the music industry filed 477 lawsuits nationwide, including two "John Doe" lawsuits against users at the University of Minnesota whose identities have not been revealed.

The industry is particularly keen on stopping people who keep their computers open on the Internet for others to share. On Lafky's computer, for instance, record companies like Universal Music Group, Sony and Warner Bros. found songs by groups they publish like Bloodhound Gang, Savage Garden and Linkin Park. Also found were songs by artists Michelle Branch, MC Hammer and country stars Shania Twain and Neal McCoy, which not only were downloaded but also available to others to upload, according to the lawsuit.

Federal copyright laws allow for penalties that range from $750 per infringement or song up to $30,000 per infringement, Pierre-Louis said.

If a defendant is found to have committed a violation "in a willful manner," he or she can be fined $150,000 per song, he said.

The record companies are willing to negotiate cases individually if someone says they cannot afford the penalties. So far, no case has gone to trial, the RIAA said.

Pierre-Louis said the RIAA isn't afraid of a consumer backlash. "We're facing a daunting challenge and we have to face it head-on," he said.

Tammy Lafky is facing her own challenge. She said she doesn't know what she'll do. "I told her," she said, referring to the record company lawyer, "if I had the money I would give it to you, but I don't have it."

[efc]

Beastie Boys' album installs DRM code

http://msl1.mit.edu/furdlog/index.php?p=2099

[Big Booger]

Beastie Boys' album installs DRM code

http://msl1.mit.edu/furdlog/index.php?p=2099




Just use linux. :D I don't think it will be installing Mac and WIndows Code on a Debian install... hehehehe

Honestly it's crap like this that makes users want to go out and intentionally download the Mp3s or entire albums...

[darkside515xx]

add me, i haven't purchased a cd in 3 years and still counting. :D

[efc]

Associated Press
Hundreds More Sued Over Music File Swaps
06.22.2004, 03:51 PM

The music industry filed copyright infringement lawsuits against 482 computer users Tuesday, the latest round of litigation by recording companies against suspected online music file-swappers.

The cases were filed against 213 people in St. Louis, 206 in Washington D.C., 55 in Denver and six in New Jersey, according to the Recording Industry Association of America, the Washington-based trade group that represents the major recording companies.

As in previous complaints brought by the industry this year, the lawsuits were filed against unnamed "John Doe" defendants, identified only by their computers' Internet protocol addresses.

The tactic is used when the defendants' identities are not known because it allows plaintiffs to ask the court to subpoena Internet access providers to reveal the names of their customers.

"Illegal downloading continues to cause enormous harm to the entire music community," said Steven Marks, the RIAA's general counsel. "We must stay on the path of education, enforcement, and offering great legal services."

In all, a total of 3,429 people have been sued by the recording industry since its legal campaign against individual computer users began in September. At least 600 of those cases were eventually settled for roughly $3,000 each. None of the cases has yet gone to trial.

The recording industry blames lagging music sales in recent years on the rise of online music piracy.

While some surveys have shown the number of people engaging in file-sharing has declined since the RIAA began its legal assault, other data shows millions continue to share music, movies and software online.

[DevilDude]

im in, infact ive been in this since the day napster went down. :)

[Big Booger]

No doubt, the hayday of napster will forever be remembered.. Burn in HELL RIAA!

[lriecks13]

Add me to your list

[dredone]

Lets send our leaders a clear message about what we think about the RIAA and their sorry lawsuits. Join the EFF and get involved!


For more information on EFF activities & alerts:
<http://www.eff.org/>



EFF is a member-supported nonprofit. Please sign up as a member today!

: . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : .


* Action Alert: Induce Act Hearing Rescheduled - Keep Up the Pressure!

The Senate Judiciary Committee has taken the Inducing Infringement
of Copyrights Act (Induce Act, S.2560) off the fast track,
scheduling a hearing on the bill next Thursday. This is good
news for the public, but the recording industry is going on the
offensive, turning up its rhetoric in an effort to scare common
sense out of the debate. In a letter sent to the Judiciary
Committee and all 100 senators, RIAA president Mitch Bainwol
insists that critics of the bill are missing the point, and
that the Induce Act is a "moral behavioral test that targets
the bad guys."

But the wording of the legislation itself doesn't support
Bainwol's claims. By making it illegal to "aid, abet, or
induce copyright infringement," the Induce Act could make
companies liable for violations committed by their customers.
This extends liability so far that it threatens both current
and future technologies. Under the Induce Act, creators
of the next iPod or VCR would be forced to subject
themselves to approval from every major copyright holder
before even getting to market. That's too high a price to pay
to satisfy the recording industry in its witch-hunt for
peer-to-peer file sharing.

More than 6,000 EFF supporters have already written to their
senators to stop the Induce Act from giving copyright
holders this kind of veto power over new technologies.
Now it's time to turn up the volume. Forward this message
to five of your friends, family members, or co-workers, and
ask them to support copyright balance, not copyright
bullies.

Send a letter to stop the Induce Act today:
<http://action.eff.org/action/index.asp?step=2&item=2918>

[KillaJ]

Im def. down...

[efc]

Source: The Register


More universities agree to RIAA/Napster 'protection'

By Ashlee Vance in Chicago (http://forms.theregister.co.uk/mail_author/?story_url=/2004/07/19/riaa_napster_six/)
Published Monday 19th July 2004 17:10 GMT
The RIAA and its business front Napster signed up six more universities today to their music rental service - a program that could force parents to shell out even more money for higher education costs.

Cornell University, the George Washington University, Middlebury College, University of Miami, the University of Southern California and the Wright State University (Ohio) have all pledged to have Napster up and running in the near future. The schools join Penn State University and University of Rochester as Napster subscribers. That's a grand total of eight schools in the last nine months that have agreed to become music vendors and pay an RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) tax to avoid lawsuits against their students.

There might be something noble about the schools protecting their children if it were not for the dubious circumstances surrounding these deals. None of the schools have yet to say how much they actually pay for the Napster service. It costs $10 a month for the average subscriber, but Penn State and University of Rochester have admitted to receiving the service for much less. And, in May, Ohio University revealed (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/12/ou_napster_tax/) that Napster is looking for about $3 per month from each student.

The price in itself is a problem but not the main problem. Napster and the RIAA tossed Penn State and University of Rochester sweet deals, having every intention of dangling the schools in front of the press and other universities as models to follow. If Napster would be more forthcoming, we'd all know exactly how much this "service" is going to affect university prices. Some of the Napsterized schools have warned that students may end up footing the service bill directly in the near future - not that they aren't paying in some way, shape or form already.

What's more disconcerting is the way the RIAA has used legal threats to goad these schools toward becoming music brokers. The record labels have repeatedly been accused by the US government of price-fixing and other acts reminiscent of mob-like behavior. Now, they've tied up the courts with thousands of lawsuits and made it clear (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/04/28/riaa_sues_moreschools/) that universities are their primary targets. And now Cary "Baby Face" Sherman, president of the RIAA, is leaning on schools to pay up for Napster or continue on as legal targets.

It's lucky for Napster that the RIAA picked it as a henchman. Students can now download as many songs as they like while enrolled at a university. This is a nice service if holding onto to your tunes is not important. Once their four years at school are over, the students are cut off from Napster and lose all the music they've download. That is unless they pay 99 cents per song or $10 per album to own a permanent download that can be burned onto CDs or MP3 players.

Real Networks must be wondering what it did wrong to upset Baby Face Sherman, and Apple must be in hysterics as download hungry kids flock to its iPod device, where high margins reign.

"Napster simply outperformed our expectations," said Nicholas John Linder, former student assembly president, Cornell University. "In our role representing the student body, we needed to find a university-wide solution to online piracy and dispel the common fear of looming lawsuits. Napster offers a unique blend of a name students recognize, a broad music library that appeals to every taste and community features that let you discover new music and share your favorites with friends."

Linder forgot to mention that Sherman went to Cornell for his undergraduate degree. Good to keep it all in the family. ®

[Big Booger]

That's blackmail.. you either sign up or we sue you... what the hell kind of country do we live in?

[efc]

People of America, quit buying their music. If you keep giving them profit when they act like thugs - this war is over.

[efc]

Latest outrage of the RIAA.

http://www.wisinfo.com/journal/spjlocal/292464933486275.shtml

[don_corleone]

im in

[efc]

Slow-moving lawsuits over music downloads producing court twists

By Ted Bridis, Associated Press | August 20, 2004

WASHINGTON -- A woman in Milwaukee and her ex-boyfriend are under orders to pay thousands to the recording industry. A man in California refinanced his home to pay an $11,000 settlement. A year after it began, the industry's legal campaign against Internet music piracy is inching through the federal courts, producing some unexpected twists.

"I'm giving up and can't fight this," said Ross Plank, 36, of Playa Del Ray, Calif. He had professed his innocence but surrendered after lawyers found on his computer traces of hundreds of songs that had been deleted one day after he was sued. Plank, recently married, refinanced his home for the money.

"Apparently, they would be able to garnishee my earnings for the rest of my life," Plank said. "For the amount I'm settling, this made sense. I didn't see any other way. They've got all the power in the world."

The campaign has also produced worries, even from one federal judge, that wealthy record companies could trample some of the 3,935 people across the country who have been sued since the first such cases were filed in September 2003.

"I've never had a situation like this before, where there are powerful plaintiffs and powerful lawyers on one side and then a whole slew of ordinary folks on the other side," said U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner at a hearing in Boston. Dozens of such lawsuits have been filed in her court.

On the West Coast, another judge rejected an injunction sought by record companies against one Internet user, saying it would violate her rights.

So far, however, record companies are largely winning their cases, according to a review by The Associated Press of hundreds of lawsuits. They did lose a major ruling this week when a U.S. appeals court in California said manufacturers of software that can be used to download music illegally aren't liable, leaving record labels to pursue lawsuits against Internet users.

James McDonough of Hingham, Mass., said being sued was "very vexing, very frustrating and quite frankly very intimidating." He told Gertner, the Boston judge, that his 14-year-old twins might be responsible for the "heinous crime" of downloading music "in the privacy in our family room with their friends."

Gertner has a teenage daughter and said she was familiar with software for downloading music. She blocked movement on all the Massachusetts cases for months, "to make sure that no one, frankly, is being ground up."

Gertner started ruling on cases again this month, when she threw out counterclaims accusing record companies of trespass and privacy invasions for searching the online music collections of Internet users.

At least 807 Internet users have already settled their cases by paying roughly $3,000 each in fines and promising to delete their illegal song collections, according to the Recording Industry Association of America, the trade group for the largest labels.
Experts said the amounts of those settlements -- compared to $7,500 or more for losing in court -- discourage people from mounting a defense that could resolve important questions about copyrights and the industry's methods for tracing illegal downloads.

http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/File-Based_Image_Resource/spacer.gif "When you're being sued for a relatively small amount of money, it doesn't make sense to hire the specialized entertainment or copyright counsel," Gertner said at a hearing this summer.

In Milwaukee, Suheidy Roman, 25, said she couldn't afford a lawyer when her ex-boyfriend, Gary Kilps, told record companies that both of them had downloaded music on Roman's computer. Although she denies the accusation, Roman ignored legal papers sent to her home. A U.S. judge earlier this year granted a default judgment against her and Kilps, ordering each to pay more than $4,500.

Industry lawyers said they have won an estimated 60 such default judgments nationwide.

"I've got brothers and sisters and family who come here and use my computer all the time," Roman told the AP. "But as far as downloading or distributing music, I don't do that. ... I don't have any money for an attorney, let alone for any judgment against me." She said she is unemployed with two small children.

Roman said that since she was sued, she hasn't talked to Kilps. He doesn't have a telephone listing and didn't return calls from AP to his relatives.

Lawyers said they traced to Roman and Kilps an Internet account distributing songs by UB40, Tu Pac, Destiny's Child and Air Supply. They said the illicit music collection also was associated with an account under the name "Flaka," which Roman acknowledges is her nickname. She told AP she deleted all the files on her computer, not just any songs.

In a few courthouses, the music industry has stumbled even in victory. A judge in California rejected an injunction banning Lisa Dickerson of Santa Ana, Calif., from illegally distributing music online. Although the judge agreed Dickerson was guilty, he said there was no evidence she was still breaking the law and determined that such a ban on future behavior would violate her rights. She was ordered to pay record companies $6,200 in penalties and court costs.

Still, the California consultant who recently agreed to pay the largest settlement in any of the lawsuits, $11,000, urged Internet users not to take solace in rare procedural victories.

"It scares me," Plank said. "For anyone fighting any of these lawsuits -- unless they have nothing to lose -- the only thing to do is settle. You have no power against these people."

[Big Booger]

It's like trying to wrestle an alligator. I wonder how many of these people they are charging will ever buy music again? I know if I were sued I'd never buy a single song or track, ever...

They were potential customers... not any longer. And are these tactics really working? I mean you can go on any P2P and there are still millions and millions of songs available for download.. freely.

What about those who are sharing in countries where the RIAA cannot reach, afghanistan, Iran, North Korea and so on?? I guess the RIAA is just screwed in that sense.

And what about those who store their songs on their HDD for playing.. and say their PC was compromised and some hacker is using their database for illicit sharing? If I were doing the p2p thing, I'd certainly try to use that defense.

[Dehcbad25]

That is a good point. I share my music with my sister. Would that be actually wrong? After all, she could come into my appartment and take the CD (we live next door).
From Apple's point of view, you can share music files inside the same network.
I wonder if the CDs that have the copyright protection are actually legal...don't I have the right to make a back up in MP3 for my own personal use?

[efc]

US raids Net song swappers
Wed August 25, 2004 03:59 PM ET
By Peter Kaplan and Andy Sullivan WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. agents have raided the homes of five people who allegedly traded hundreds of thousands of songs, movies and other copyrighted material over the Internet, Attorney General John Ashcroft says.

Agents raided residences in Texas, New York and Wisconsin early on Wednesday and seized computers that they suspect were involved in a nationwide file-trading network.

The raids marked a sharp escalation of the years-long legal battle surrounding unauthorised copying over peer-to-peer, or P2P, networks.

Until now, the Justice Department has only pursued elite groups of hackers who steal and distribute movies, music and software before their official release dates.

Authorities made no arrests. But Ashcroft warned that those who copy music, movies and software over P2P networks without permission could face jail time.

"We do not believe it is appropriate for the Department of Justice to stand by while such theft is taking place," Ashcroft said at a press conference.

"P2P does not stand for 'permission to pilfer,'" Ashcroft said.

Targeted in the raids were people operating "hubs" in a file-sharing network based on Direct Connect software.

An official at Direct Connect parent NeoModus was not immediately available for comment.

In order to join the network, members had to promise to provide between one and 100 gigabytes of material to trade, or up to 250,000 songs, Ashcroft said.

"They are clearly directing and operating an enterprise which countenances illegal activity and makes as a condition of membership the willingness to make available material to be stolen," he said.

Each of the five hubs contained 40 petabytes of data, the equivalent of 60,000 movies or 10.5 million songs, Ashcroft said.

Among the files offered on the network were the movies "Kill Bill," "Lord of the Rings -- The Two Towers," and "The Last Samurai," according to an affidavit filed in connection with one of the search warrants.

Agents also searched an Internet service provider, but officials declined to specify which one and said it was not a target of the investigation.

Recording studios have waged an aggressive legal campaign against the networks and their users, but have also appealed to the Justice Department for help.

An appeals court in California affirmed last week that such networks can't be held responsible for illegal copying.

Record labels have brought more than 3,000 copyright lawsuits against individuals since last year, typically winning settlements of around $5,000 (2,780 pounds).

The Recording Industry Association of America on Wednesday announced it had sued another 744 individuals and refiled suits against 152 others who had ignored or declined offers to settle.

[rik]

.

[Dehcbad25]

cool pic :D

[rohitk89]

im late...but in

[efc]

They never quit.
**************
RIAA Sues Another 762 Over File Sharing
Total number of suits filed by the music industry since 2003 exceeds 5500.

Grant Gross, IDG News Service
Friday, October 01, 2004

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) today filed 762 new lawsuits against alleged file traders using peer-to-peer (P-to-P) file sharing services. The total number of such lawsuits filed since September 2003 now exceeds 5500.

Thirty-two people at 26 U.S. universities who allegedly used their university networks to distribute music files on P-to-P networks were among defendants in the new lawsuits filed Thursday. However, the defendants are unnamed. The RIAA (http://www.riaa.com/default.asp) filed 744 such lawsuits in late August. In December 2003, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the RIAA does not have the authority under U.S. law to subpoena the names of alleged P-to-P file traders from Internet service providers.

Other Defendants Named

In addition to the so-called "John Doe" lawsuits announced this week, the RIAA last week brought lawsuits against 68 named defendants. Those defendants are people whom the RIAA earlier sued but who declined or ignored an RIAA offer to settle their cases.

The lawsuits against university network users are intended to drive home the message to students that unauthorized downloading has consequences, according to RIAA President Cary Sherman in a statement. "We want music fans to enjoy music online, but in a fashion that compensates everyone who worked to create that music," Sherman says.

Among the universities involved in the latest round of lawsuits are Colgate University, Columbia University, Georgetown University, Kent State University, Louisiana State University, Michigan State University, Stanford University, the University of Connecticut, and the University of Louisville.

The RIAA has now filed 5541 lawsuits against alleged music-file uploaders since September 2003.

[Big Booger]

Well I haven't boughten a single CD since this thread began. So screw the RIAA and all the greed that they represent.

I'd rather listen to live performances than pay the RIAA. You get your money's worth at a concert at least... usually.

[souldreamer]

Well I haven't boughten a single CD since this thread began. So screw the RIAA and all the greed that they represent.

I'd rather listen to live performances than pay the RIAA. You get your money's worth at a concert at least... usually.

I totally second that!! I don't mind paying for live performances.

[efc]

UK music to sue online 'pirates'
Head of the IFPI Jay Berman says piracy stifles new talent

The British music industry is to sue 28 internet users it says are illegally swapping music online.

The British Phonographic Industry (BPI) says it is targeting "major uploaders" - those who make music available to share free with others.

Music file-sharers have been blamed for a decline in world-wide CD sales.

The BPI's actions follow that of its US counterpart which is already suing those it calls the worst offenders. It says more cases are expected to come.

A further 459 alleged file-sharers across Europe now face legal action, the IFPI global music industry body said on Thursday, with France and Austria also targeted for the first time.

US record companies have issued more than 5,700 lawsuits from alleged file-sharers, with many settling out of court.

At the moment the BPI does not know the names of the 28 people it is going after, but is asking the courts to force internet service providers to hand over their personal information.

Plenty of warning

There was an outcry when a 12-year-old girl from New York was served with a lawsuit by the US industry, which was eventually settled by her mother.

The same could yet happen in the UK.

"We don't screen for political correctness. We go on the basis of IP addresses. We do not know who it is, it is based on their internet activity," said IFPI chairman Jay Berman.

IP addresses are used to identify a particular machine using the internet at any one time.

BPI chairman Peter Jamieson said: "We have been warning for months that unauthorised file-sharing is illegal. These are not people casually downloading the odd track.

"They are uploading music on a massive scale, effectively stealing the livelihoods of thousands of artists and the people who invest in them."

Co-ordinated effort

The 28 people being sued in the UK should find out in the coming few weeks who they are, said BPI general counsel Geoff Taylor.


MUSIC LAWSUITS WORLD-WIDE
5,700 in the US
300 in Denmark
168 in Germany
50 in France
100 in Austria
Source: IFPI
Once they have been served with the legal action they will be given the chance to settle out of court. If they do not the BPI will seek damages and an injunction to stop them using file-sharing services.

The BPI warned in March it would take legal action against users of peer-to-peer music services, and has sent more than 350,000 internet message to desktops saying the song-swapping sites they were using were being watched.

The BPI believes a hardcore 15% of file-sharers are responsible for 75% of all illegal music downloading.

[efc]

Technology companies and the record industry are nearing a last-minute showdown on Capitol Hill over a controversial bill aimed at quelling file swapping.

The bill, sponsored by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and dubbed the "Induce Act," was introduced earlier this year, in large part as a response to court rulings that have said that file-sharing software companies were not liable for copyright infringement by their customers.

A round of negotiations between the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and technology organizations closed this week without reaching compromise, according to people familiar with the talks. As of late Wednesday, Hatch's Judiciary committee was scheduled to vote on a version of the bill Thursday morning. That prospect prompted a flurry of last-minute protest letters from technology and consumer organizations.

"The recording industry (proposals) would effectively put at risk all consumer electronics, information technology products, and Internet products and services that aren't designed to the industry's liking," read one letter sent Wednesday and signed by lobby groups representing technology companies, including News.com publisher CNET Networks. "We urge you not to move forward now."

The issue has become a key rallying point for many in Silicon Valley who fear that the legislation might have impact well beyond the file-swapping world. The result has been a relationship between technology and content companies at its most tense since bitter battles over Hollywood-sponsored antipiracy proposals in 2002.

The RIAA is taking a conciliatory approach toward the technology industry, saying it is solely interested in stopping file-swapping companies that profit from copyright infringement. The group has said it is open to changing the legislation in whatever way necessary to achieve that goal.

"In a short period of time, there has been remarkable progress," RIAA spokesman Jonathan Lamy said. "A coalition of groups and members of Congress have coalesced around the core proposition that the 'bad actors' deserve to be held accountable. No one is defending the parasitical business model of the illegitimate peer-to-peer networks. The remaining issues are definitional and we continue to work through those."

Rolling back Betamax?
At the core of the RIAA's push--and of much of the technology industry's fear--is an effort to change the way that a 20-year-old court decision affects copyright law.

In 1984, the Supreme Court said that the Sony Betamax videocassette recorder was legal to sell, despite being widely used to copy movies and television shows. The court reasoned that the device could not be banned outright because it had a number of uses that did not involve copyright infringement. That rule, later known as the Betamax doctrine, now protects virtually all products that can make copies as long as they too have "substantial noninfringing uses."

This has proven a key part of the legal defense for peer-to-peer software companies such as Grokster and Streamcast Networks against charges of copyright infringement by the record industry and Hollywood studios. They've said, and federal courts have agreed, that the file-swapping networks can be used for legal purposes despite the widespread song and movie piracy they allow.

However, judges in those cases said that if content companies didn't like those decisions, they should take it up with Congress--and that's just what the RIAA has done.

Hatch and the record industry group have said they want to focus heavily on behavior, rather than on specific technology. They say that the file-swapping companies are "inducing" illegal behavior on the part of their customers and should be held liable for that action.

Technology companies and consumer advocates say this threatens to roll back the Betamax doctrine and expose to liability a wide variety of companies--from Web browser makers to iPod maker Apple Computer.

The senator outlined his goals for the bill in a letter to Register of Copyrights Marybeth Peters, who has supported the bill. In the letter, Hatch wrote that he wants a "technology-neutral bill directed at a small set of bad actors, while protecting our legitimate technology industries from frivolous litigation."

Reports from the participants in negotiations this week were mixed. Recording industry sources said that substantial progress had been made, although the parties remained split on how to define peer to peer. Consumer groups said the gap remained wide.

The technology groups pressed Hatch on Wednesday to put a hold on the bill's progress, citing the need for more public scrutiny of the bill's language, which remains in flux.

"Every one of the half-dozen drafts proposed would make fundamental changes to copyright law, with potentially enormous impact on innovation, creativity, and competition," the Center on Democracy and Technology wrote in a letter to Hatch on Wednesday. "Given the short period over which (the bill) has been discussed, the absence of hearings on the new language, and the overall lack of opportunity for the public to comment, we believe it would be in the best interests of all parties to allow a more orderly process to go forward."

If the bill faces a vote as scheduled on Thursday in the Judiciary Committee, it still could be changed before it faces a full vote in the Senate. Participants said that the vote could be delayed at the last minute, however, given the fluidity of the situation.

Congress will return in November to vote on budget bills after the election, and most observers expect the bill to be taken up again then.

In the meantime, technology executives are rallying people to contact Congress to express their displeasure over the bill, which was a hot topic of conversation at the Web 2.0 conference in San Francisco this week.

HDNet founder and Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban summed up the fears of many of the event's attendees. "If you're at this conference, your livelihood is at risk if the Induce Act passes," he said.

[Big Booger]

Technology companies and the record industry are nearing a last-minute showdown on Capitol Hill over a controversial bill aimed at quelling file swapping.

The bill, sponsored by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and dubbed the "Induce Act," was introduced earlier this year, in large part as a response to court rulings that have said that file-sharing software companies were not liable for copyright infringement by their customers.

A round of negotiations between the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and technology organizations closed this week without reaching compromise, according to people familiar with the talks. As of late Wednesday, Hatch's Judiciary committee was scheduled to vote on a version of the bill Thursday morning. That prospect prompted a flurry of last-minute protest letters from technology and consumer organizations.

"The recording industry (proposals) would effectively put at risk all consumer electronics, information technology products, and Internet products and services that aren't designed to the industry's liking," read one letter sent Wednesday and signed by lobby groups representing technology companies, including News.com publisher CNET Networks. "We urge you not to move forward now."

The issue has become a key rallying point for many in Silicon Valley who fear that the legislation might have impact well beyond the file-swapping world. The result has been a relationship between technology and content companies at its most tense since bitter battles over Hollywood-sponsored antipiracy proposals in 2002.

The RIAA is taking a conciliatory approach toward the technology industry, saying it is solely interested in stopping file-swapping companies that profit from copyright infringement. The group has said it is open to changing the legislation in whatever way necessary to achieve that goal.

"In a short period of time, there has been remarkable progress," RIAA spokesman Jonathan Lamy said. "A coalition of groups and members of Congress have coalesced around the core proposition that the 'bad actors' deserve to be held accountable. No one is defending the parasitical business model of the illegitimate peer-to-peer networks. The remaining issues are definitional and we continue to work through those."

Rolling back Betamax?
At the core of the RIAA's push--and of much of the technology industry's fear--is an effort to change the way that a 20-year-old court decision affects copyright law.

In 1984, the Supreme Court said that the Sony Betamax videocassette recorder was legal to sell, despite being widely used to copy movies and television shows. The court reasoned that the device could not be banned outright because it had a number of uses that did not involve copyright infringement. That rule, later known as the Betamax doctrine, now protects virtually all products that can make copies as long as they too have "substantial noninfringing uses."

This has proven a key part of the legal defense for peer-to-peer software companies such as Grokster and Streamcast Networks against charges of copyright infringement by the record industry and Hollywood studios. They've said, and federal courts have agreed, that the file-swapping networks can be used for legal purposes despite the widespread song and movie piracy they allow.

However, judges in those cases said that if content companies didn't like those decisions, they should take it up with Congress--and that's just what the RIAA has done.

Hatch and the record industry group have said they want to focus heavily on behavior, rather than on specific technology. They say that the file-swapping companies are "inducing" illegal behavior on the part of their customers and should be held liable for that action.

Technology companies and consumer advocates say this threatens to roll back the Betamax doctrine and expose to liability a wide variety of companies--from Web browser makers to iPod maker Apple Computer.

The senator outlined his goals for the bill in a letter to Register of Copyrights Marybeth Peters, who has supported the bill. In the letter, Hatch wrote that he wants a "technology-neutral bill directed at a small set of bad actors, while protecting our legitimate technology industries from frivolous litigation."

Reports from the participants in negotiations this week were mixed. Recording industry sources said that substantial progress had been made, although the parties remained split on how to define peer to peer. Consumer groups said the gap remained wide.

The technology groups pressed Hatch on Wednesday to put a hold on the bill's progress, citing the need for more public scrutiny of the bill's language, which remains in flux.

"Every one of the half-dozen drafts proposed would make fundamental changes to copyright law, with potentially enormous impact on innovation, creativity, and competition," the Center on Democracy and Technology wrote in a letter to Hatch on Wednesday. "Given the short period over which (the bill) has been discussed, the absence of hearings on the new language, and the overall lack of opportunity for the public to comment, we believe it would be in the best interests of all parties to allow a more orderly process to go forward."

If the bill faces a vote as scheduled on Thursday in the Judiciary Committee, it still could be changed before it faces a full vote in the Senate. Participants said that the vote could be delayed at the last minute, however, given the fluidity of the situation.

Congress will return in November to vote on budget bills after the election, and most observers expect the bill to be taken up again then.

In the meantime, technology executives are rallying people to contact Congress to express their displeasure over the bill, which was a hot topic of conversation at the Web 2.0 conference in San Francisco this week.

HDNet founder and Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban summed up the fears of many of the event's attendees. "If you're at this conference, your livelihood is at risk if the Induce Act passes," he said.


Orin Hatch is just a sock puppet of the RIAA.. I'm sure the RIAA lined his pockets well to bring their interests before Congress.. what a load of cow poo.

[efc]

Justices won't weigh Net music lawsuit tactics

Published: October 12, 2004, 8:18 AM PDT
By Reuters

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to consider whether recording-industry investigators may use a favorite tactic to find out who may be copying their songs over the Internet.

The Recording Industry Association of America had invoked a 1998 copyright law to force Internet providers like Verizon Communications to turn over the names of customers they suspected of sharing their copyrighted songs.

Verizon had argued that the RIAA must file a formal lawsuit to get customer names, an extra step that they said would discourage frivolous requests.

A U.S. appeals court in December 2003 agreed with Verizon and ruled the RIAA must file anonymous "John Doe" lawsuits to get customer names.

The high court's action is not likely to seriously affect the recording-industry's legal campaign against Internet song swappers, as investigators have sued more than 3,500 individuals since the appeals court ruling.

The Supreme Court rejected the appeal by the recording industry without any comment.

[Reverend]

Justices won't weigh Net music lawsuit tactics

Published: October 12, 2004, 8:18 AM PDT
By ReutersPosted by Pia

http://www.techzonez.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12153

[efc]

Slashdot is reporting that Walmart is demanding lower prices from music manufacturers. They are reporting it as one monopoly at war with another, the RIAA.

I am a big Walmart supporter, so I personally think the premise for this story is wrong. The difference from Walmart and the RIAA is that the RIAA is trying to keep the ability to maintain high prices. Walmart has become a retail giant by passing savings on to their customers.

If this fight becomes public, it will be fun to watch. With Walmart selling one out of every 5 CD's sold, the RIAA/other factions of the music industry, may have to deal. It should be good for the music consumer.

Remember, boycott the RIAA.

[Big Booger]

I wished all artists could be independent and yet well-known at the same time. Greedy agents, record companies and the countless middlemen inbetween gobble up nearly every last cent of the $12-24 CD that you buy...

I support Walmart in their efforts, despite the fact that they too put the little man out of business, against the RIAA. Walmart is seriously the lesser of two evils.

[efc]

By Tony Smith

The Register - Published Friday 29th October 2004 13:37 GMT

The Recording Industry Ass. of America (RIAA) this week filed almost
1000 lawsuits this week, all of them accusing individuals of sharing
unauthorised copies of songs on P2P networks

Some 750 people are unnamed, with 213 more citing alleged copyright
infringers' names. The latter had all received demands to cease their
activities and make some remuneration for their acts, but in each case
the deadline for settlement had passed, the RIAA said.


To date, the RIAA has issued over 6200 lawsuits against named and
unnamed individuals, most recently 762 complaints filed late September.
The first lawsuits were sent out in September 2003.

Earlier this week, it emerged that the RIAA had settled its copyright
infringement action against the operators of Spain-based MP3 seller
Puretunes.com for a total of $10.5m.

[Dehcbad25]

Can we see the names????

[efc]

Can we see the names????
I didn't find a list of names.

[efc]

By John Borland, CNET News.com
Friday, October 29 2004 10:08 AM

The Recording Industry Association of America filed on Thursday another round of lawsuits against alleged file-swappers, including students on 13 university campuses.

The 750 suits come just a few days after Internet researchers released a study that found peer-to-peer traffic had remained constant or risen up to the early days of 2004, despite the pressure of recording industry lawsuits.

But the RIAA said its lawsuits were helping build a foundation for the growth in authorized music services such as iTunes, Napster and others.

"In order for legitimate services to continue their growth, we cannot ignore those who take and distribute music illegally," RIAA President Cary Sherman said. "There must be consequences to breaking the law, or illegal downloading will cripple the music community's ability to support itself now or invest in the future."

The music labels' trade association is a little more than a year into its strategy of suing individual file-swappers for copyright infringement, a campaign it hopes will sharply curtail the rate of MP3-swapping on networks such as Kazaa and eDonkey.

The lawsuits have dramatically raised awareness of the legal problems with trading copyrighted files online, and some reports have found steep decreases in the number of people trading music.

A recent study by NPD MusicWatch Digital found that the proportion of MP3 files on people's hard drives, as compared to music formats used by Microsoft or Apple Computer software, was falling. Analysts said that people were still downloading MP3s quickly, but were deleting them even faster from their hard drives--possibly a sign of fear over the record industry lawsuits.

The recent peer-to-peer study was written by researchers at the Cooperative Association for Internet Data Analysis at the University of California, San Diego, along with several other universities. It found that a full analysis of peer-to-peer traffic, including protocols that masked themselves as Web traffic or were otherwise difficult to find, found that aggregate file-swapping traffic had not declined between August 2002 and January 2004.

"We find that, if measured accurately, P2P traffic has never declined," the researchers wrote. "Indeed, we have never seen the proportion of P2P traffic (on networks) decrease over time...in any of our data sources."

But the study did find that traffic patterns had shifted. As earlier reports have shown, the FastTrack network used by Kazaa had decreased substantially, while BitTorrent--a program used widely for very large files such as movies or games, rather than individual songs--had grown considerably.

The RIAA declined to comment on the study.

The latest round of RIAA suits brings the total number of people sued to 6,191. The record industry association also said that it had filed new suits against 213 individuals who had previously been sued as unnamed "John Does," after finding their identities through the litigation process.

The details of that process are still being worked out in some cases. Earlier this month, a court in Philadelphia ruled that the RIAA could issue subpoenas for the identities of anonymous file-swappers, but those people must be notified by their ISP of the RIAA's action within seven days.

[efc]

LOS ANGELES (AP) - Taking a cue from recording companies, Hollywood movie studios are preparing to file copyright infringement lawsuits against computer users it says are illegally distributing movies online, a source familiar with the studios' plans said Wednesday.

The lawsuits will target movie fans who share digitized versions of films over peer-to-peer networks, with the first wave of litigation planned for as early as Thursday, according to the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Like the recording industry, which began suing individual music file-sharers last year, the movie studios plan an ongoing litigation campaign, the source said.

The Motion Picture Association of America, which represents the major film studios, declined to comment Wednesday. But the organization issued a release saying its chief executive would be making ``a major announcement regarding illegal file sharing of motion pictures on peer-to-peer networks'' early Thursday.

The movie studios were still finalizing how many lawsuits would make up their initial filing, but it would probably be around 200 or so, the source said.

Videotaped copies of films in theaters often are digitized or burned off DVDs and then distributed on file-sharing networks.

The MPAA claims the U.S. movie industry loses more than $3 billion annually in potential global revenue because of physical piracy, or bogus copies of videos and DVDs of its films.

The MPAA doesn't give an estimate for how much online piracy costs the industry annually, but claims the health of the industry is at stake as the copying and distribution of movies online continues to grow unabated.

Along with the recording industry, movie studios have tried to shut down companies behind file-sharing software through litigation with little success.

The movie industry has also tried to battle piracy by running ads in movie theaters and elsewhere designed to dissuade people from file-sharing films by stressing the risks of identity theft and liability.

Up to this point, the studios have stopped short of taking legal action against individuals.

[Stevan]

I dont know how long ago this took place but i work in a music store and sales here have been great so i dont know whats going on with the boycott but it hasnt hurt sales here.

[Big Booger]

Stevan,
People in your area are morons or are oblivious to the corporate greed and devousness that make up the RIAA. Every dollar or yen or whatever currency spent in your music shop, is another dollar to line the pockets or the music robber barons of the 21st century. You should be proud that your area is full of such idiotic and out of touch people.

They don't care that the RIAA pays pennies on the dollar to artists, locks them into unfair contracts, tells them what songs are acceptable and what songs will make it on an album, how to dress, when and where to perform, and so on...

Not to mention these frivilous lawsuits against children and the parents, that target the poor and disinfranchised... It is loathesome to think that no one cares about what companies like BMG, Sony, Virgin and so on are doing, and how they've banned together under the RIAA to attack their potential customers...

Maybe if the knobs in your area were to wisen up you'd be out of a job?

[Stevan]

Well i dont know. I know my mom deals with Bmg Wea Fonovisa sony and many more companies. We buy the music from them and im not to sure on what the RIAA is all about i tried to click on that link in the first post but it sent me back to tech zonez. Well the only big hit that we have taken in the past few years in the internet. All of our artist that we distribute are mexican artist. And i dont know what they pay them but when they show up at our store in there BMW and Mercedes with there Stripper/Model girl friends or wives then makes me think thay arent being shorted out on the money .

sorry if subject got off hand but my mom isnt really a moron or idiotic.

[efc]

I dont know how long ago this took place but i work in a music store and sales here have been great so i dont know whats going on with the boycott but it hasnt hurt sales here.

I believe you that there has been no impact to music sales by boycott efforts. This is a very long thread but somewhere in it you will find a post by me that stated the war was over and that the RIAA had won. There was a period of time when a strong boycott with loss of revenues to RIAA may have made a difference. It did not happen. The RIAA found that they could be bullies, thugs, and general creeps, without consequence. The lawsuits are paying for legal cost and are keeping the issue in the press.

I continue to post news to the thread to focus on the larger issue. I long ago predicted that the lawsuits would move to movies, then to software. Stick around. People who think they hate Microsoft now should stick around. Wait until they start suing over illegal copies of Win.

The difference is that people have a place to go. Linux will become bigger when it happens.

[Big Booger]

The thing about a boycott is to be effective it has to catch on like a plague.. once enough people wake up and take on the issues (providing they care), then it can have a huge effect and change things...

But with today's braindead convoluted tards it's just not going to happen. In the 60's and 70's the RIAA would have been crippled...

[Full_Swing5150]

I believe the only leverage that individuals have in the RIAA/file sharing arena, is a boycott of music CD's. With that in mind, I pledge to my fellow TZ members that I will not purchase a music CD for a period of six months or until the RIAA fully retreats from the harassment tactics that it is currently using. Join me by adding a post saying "ADD ME TO YOUR LIST".
DAMN STRAIGHT, add me to your list

[efc]

I told you this was coming. Software is next.
***********************
From: Myway.com
Nov 16, 1:22 PM (ET)
By GARY GENTILE

LOS ANGELES (AP) - A trade group representing seven major movie studios filed a first wave of lawsuits against individuals they say are offering pirated copies of films using Internet-based peer-to-peer file sharing programs. The Motion Picture Association of America announced the federal court suits Tuesday, but did not say how many defendants were sued or where the lawsuits were filed. The group also did not immediately make available a copy of the complaint.

The lawsuits seek injunctions against the defendants. The copyright law also provides for penalties of up to $30,000 for each motion picture traded over the Internet, and up to $150,000 if such infringement is shown to be willful.

The MPAA said it would also make available a computer program that sniffs out movie and music files on a user's computer as well as any installed file sharing programs.

The MPAA said the information detected by the free program would not be shared with it or any other body, but could be used to remove any "infringing movies or music files" and remove file sharing programs.

The trade group said the program would be available for the Windows computer operating system on a special Web site established to educate consumers about copyrights. The name or exact nature of the program was not described Tuesday.

"Many parents are concerned about what their children have downloaded and where they've downloaded it from," MPAA president and chief executive Dan Glickman said in a statement.

The trade group said it would also join with the Video Software Dealers Association to place educational materials in more than 10,000 video stores nationwide. The materials will include anti-piracy ads that are also playing in theaters.

The trade group said that the lawsuits, together with software and educational programs, are necessary tools to fight the small but growing number of films that are available on the Internet, often before a movie has even opened in theaters.

[ashish]

welll you guys can add me..... they have shut down so many sites during this year.. its actualyl very disappointing.. as far as the question of sales and why they are down.... i dont think thee are many good songs coming out at the moment...

[Big Booger]

I told you this was coming. Software is next.
***********************
From: Myway.com
Nov 16, 1:22 PM (ET)
By GARY GENTILE

LOS ANGELES (AP) - A trade group representing seven major movie studios filed a first wave of lawsuits against individuals they say are offering pirated copies of films using Internet-based peer-to-peer file sharing programs. The Motion Picture Association of America announced the federal court suits Tuesday, but did not say how many defendants were sued or where the lawsuits were filed. The group also did not immediately make available a copy of the complaint.

The lawsuits seek injunctions against the defendants. The copyright law also provides for penalties of up to $30,000 for each motion picture traded over the Internet, and up to $150,000 if such infringement is shown to be willful.

The MPAA said it would also make available a computer program that sniffs out movie and music files on a user's computer as well as any installed file sharing programs.

The MPAA said the information detected by the free program would not be shared with it or any other body, but could be used to remove any "infringing movies or music files" and remove file sharing programs.

The trade group said the program would be available for the Windows computer operating system on a special Web site established to educate consumers about copyrights. The name or exact nature of the program was not described Tuesday.

"Many parents are concerned about what their children have downloaded and where they've downloaded it from," MPAA president and chief executive Dan Glickman said in a statement.

The trade group said it would also join with the Video Software Dealers Association to place educational materials in more than 10,000 video stores nationwide. The materials will include anti-piracy ads that are also playing in theaters.

The trade group said that the lawsuits, together with software and educational programs, are necessary tools to fight the small but growing number of films that are available on the Internet, often before a movie has even opened in theaters.


Obviously instead of using the technology they want to delete it? What the hell is up with that?

I fully support an ISP fee for downloadable content. Imagine if at the ISP end these corporations took in even 10 cents per customer.. per month...

What a bunch of morons.

[BobSmith]

use bittorrent. How are they going to stop that? They only seem to know about kazaa.

[Big Booger]

Well the bad thing about bittorrent is that is broadcasts your IP to every node you connect to.. :D But the good thing is they cannot see your "share" only the file you are currently leeching.

But as I only use it for games demos and freeware, movie trailers, and other free content, I don't worry :D

[Mousesk]

[size=2]The MPAA said it would also make available a computer program that sniffs out movie and music files on a user's computer as well as any installed file sharing programs.


This would be a program you would 'willingly' download or what? It says that parents could download this program to see what thier kids have been downloading. How long do you think it will be before they start 'giving' this away with free java games or apps? Spyware! Ahhh

[fatalfury]

sounds good. i'm too broke to buy cds anyway. :cool:

[piaqt]

RIAA sues hundreds more over swapping (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6531127/)
LOS ANGELES - The recording industry has filed copyright infringement lawsuits against 761 computer users, the latest round of litigation in the record companies' effort to stamp out unauthorized trading of music online.

The bastards are at it again.

[Big Booger]

How much is it costing them per suit? I wonder...

[piaqt]

How much is it costing them per suit? I wonder...
1. Not nearly enough.
2. Not to mention the shirt and tie.

[efc]

RIAA and DMCA loose one. Judge rules against them in their suit against Charter Communications. Charter Communications has filed a motion in St. Louis, Missouri, to block the RIAA's requests for the identities of about 150 Charter customers in the St. Louis area. So far Charter is the only major ISP that has not provided the RIAA with information concerning its members.

[Dehcbad25]

Humm, I better change ISP them :p

[piaqt]

'Bout time someone got it right. Who cares what their motives are!

[ashish]

yeah thats the way to do it ... kik em vere it hurts..... give them a taste of their own medicine....

[efc]

Friday, January 28, 2005 · Last updated 4:57 a.m. PT

Norway court upholds Napster conviction

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

OSLO, Norway -- Norway's supreme court ruled Thursday that a student whose Napster.no homepage was linked to free Internet music files must compensate the music industry.

The country's highest court upheld a lower court ruling that ordered the student to pay $15,900 in compensation. The published version of the court ruling withheld the student's name.

The student was learning computer engineering in the southern Norway town of Lillehammer when he set up the Napster.no site as part of a school project in 2001. His site had nothing do with the widely known Napster.com music site in the United States.

The Napster.no site provided links to music files in the MP3 format that could be downloaded for free. The site was online between August and November 2001, and provided links to about 170 free music files on servers outside Norway, the ruling said.

The music industry group Tono, Sony Music Entertainment Norway AS, Universal Music AS and others, saw the case as an important test of principle, and filed a legal complaint for copyright violations.

A lower court found for the music industry, while on appeal the Lagmannsetten court in Oslo cleared the student, saying any copyright violation occurred when others posted the music and not when he provided links to it.

In a summary of its ruling, the supreme court said the music was clearly published in violation of copyright law.

"The supreme court decided the case based on responsibility for abetting (an illegal act)," the summary said.

It said the student violated the law by showing people where to find the illegal music and that his actions "were premeditated and worthy of criticism."

Cato Stroem, managing director of Tono, said the industry was happy with the ruling, because it shows that music piracy won't be accepted and that copyright laws apply even on the Internet.

"The ruling will help build confidence in the Internet as a medium for the legal distribution of music," he said.

[Reverend]

RIAA files 717 new file-trading lawsuits (http://www.techzonez.com/comments.php?shownews=11906)

[ashish]

Friday, January 28, 2005 · Last updated 4:57 a.m. PT

Norway court upholds Napster conviction

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

OSLO, Norway -- Norway's supreme court ruled Thursday that a student whose Napster.no homepage was linked to free Internet music files must compensate the music industry.

The country's highest court upheld a lower court ruling that ordered the student to pay $15,900 in compensation. The published version of the court ruling withheld the student's name.

The student was learning computer engineering in the southern Norway town of Lillehammer when he set up the Napster.no site as part of a school project in 2001. His site had nothing do with the widely known Napster.com music site in the United States.

The Napster.no site provided links to music files in the MP3 format that could be downloaded for free. The site was online between August and November 2001, and provided links to about 170 free music files on servers outside Norway, the ruling said.

The music industry group Tono, Sony Music Entertainment Norway AS, Universal Music AS and others, saw the case as an important test of principle, and filed a legal complaint for copyright violations.

A lower court found for the music industry, while on appeal the Lagmannsetten court in Oslo cleared the student, saying any copyright violation occurred when others posted the music and not when he provided links to it.

In a summary of its ruling, the supreme court said the music was clearly published in violation of copyright law.

"The supreme court decided the case based on responsibility for abetting (an illegal act)," the summary said.

It said the student violated the law by showing people where to find the illegal music and that his actions "were premeditated and worthy of criticism."

Cato Stroem, managing director of Tono, said the industry was happy with the ruling, because it shows that music piracy won't be accepted and that copyright laws apply even on the Internet.

"The ruling will help build confidence in the Internet as a medium for the legal distribution of music," he said.


how idiotic.. how is that guy gonna come up with that much money... its B.S.

[efc]

Posted on Thu, Feb. 03, 2005
http://www.miami.com/images/common/spacer.gif
French Criticize Music Download Crackdown

http://www.miami.com/images/common/spacer.gif
CECILE ROUX
http://www.miami.com/images/common/spacer.gif
Associated Press
http://www.miami.com/images/common/spacer.gif

PARIS - Dozens of French musicians, intellectuals and politicians are criticizing what they call a "repressive" crackdown against those who download music illegally over the Internet.

The campaign is believed to be one of the first of its kind in Europe to unite musicians and consumers in a backlash against the music industry's tactic of filing lawsuits against illegal downloaders.

Hundreds of Web surfers across Europe are facing legal action for downloading music files with peer-to-peer, or P2P, sharing networks.

"We denounce this repressive and disproportionate policy, whose victims are just a few scapegoats," said signatories of the campaign, led by weekly Le Nouvel Observateur in its edition published Thursday. "Like at least 8 million other French people, we also have downloaded music online and are also potential criminals," the open letter said. "We demand a stop to these ridiculous legal pursuits."

Well-known artists including Manu Chao, Matthieu Chedid (M) and Yann Tiersen, score composer for the hit French film "Amelie," added their signatures to the campaign entitled "Free up music!"

French Industry Minister Patrick Devedjian said he agreed that "every campaign of blind and brutal repression is not only ineffective, but harms all people concerned."

However, he told TF1 television that "the concept of everything for free is an illusion."

Brian Molko, singer for British rock band Placebo, expressed opposition to the campaign, saying, "Who ever said that we musicians would be the only people in the world who work for free?"

On Wednesday, a criminal court in the Paris suburb of Pontoise fined a teacher about 10,000 euros ($13,000) in damages for counterfeiting after he was found guilty of downloading nearly 10,000 tracks.

The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, an industry group based in London, and its affiliates have filed thousands of lawsuits against those who allegedly shared music illegally.

In the United States, the recording industry has sued more than 7,000 people over illegal downloads.

[FastGame]

"We denounce this repressive and disproportionate policy, whose victims are just a few scapegoats,"
"We demand a stop to these ridiculous legal pursuits."
"every campaign of blind and brutal repression is not only ineffective, but harms all people concerned."


Sadly thats the attitude this world is headed....

Yes lets stop all the worlds repression, put an end to all the repressive prisons around the world.

Why should we repress another humans sexual desires, shouldn't we be allowed to rape ? Just because some of us think sex with children is repulsive does that give us a right to use repression on those who think its ok ?

What about murder ? If someone does you wrong shouldn't you be allowed to kill them so they can't wrong anyone else, what if they kill out of anger ? doesn't that fall under "Freedom of Expression" ? how dare those repressive governments...

I'm tired of my government repressing me. I don't want music, I want a BMW, I think I'll go to the car dealer and drive off in one. Shouldn't the people that make BMW's donate one to me ? Deduct the cost from their pay check, hey what the heck ! if they need money to pay the bills can't they go take it from the bank ? I'm sure the bank won't mind because they could deduct it from its employees pay check.

I know what your thinking "WTF FastGame" "We have to draw the line between right & wrong some where" your right the line has been drawn. We can't Murder, Rape or Steal and downloading music is illegal plain and simple.

I guess the uproar is really over who gets to draw the lines between right and wrong.

The music industry idiots already have the plan in front of their faces, it was provided by the software industry. There's Freeware and Open Source, and there's software you pay for. If the Musicians want their music to be freeware they could put their name on the list of Open Source, if they want to be paid then they'll be on list of music where its stealing if you don't pay.

Yep I can't wait for a non repressive world. I'll drive my BMW over to Best Buy and grab a bunch of music CD's & PC games and walk right out the door. On the way home if I see a Hot Babe I'll pull over and do her right on the street even if she says no! Oh and if her husband doesn't like it...well I'll use my "Freedom of Expression" and kill him...of coarse he could do the same to me which is cool.

Until that day comes I think I'd rather download music and take my chances with the Internet police, seems to be a safer bet than having city police chase me & my BMW down the streets of Detroit.

BTW I just checked the Worlds Repression Index, seems like Canada has the best deal this week. We can all move there if we don't like the repression our government provides.

[piaqt]

BTW I just checked the Worlds Repression Index, seems like Canada has the best deal this week. We can all move there if we don't like the repression our government provides.
But baby, it's COLD outside!

Further idiocy from the RIAA: This one's been slashdotted, but still....

Deceased woman named in file-sharing suit (http://wvgazette.com/section/News/2005020358)
By Toby Coleman
Staff writer
Gertrude Walton of Fayette County hated computers, her daughter said.
That did not stop the recording industry from accusing the now deceased 83-year-old Mount Hope woman of illegally trading music over the Internet.

[Big Booger]

Burn in Hell RIAA!

[efc]

The Village Voice is carrying a piece describing what it is like being on the receiving end of an RIAA John Doe lawsuit.

LINK (http://www.villagevoice.com/music/0510,mamatas,61813,22.html)

[Big Booger]

The Village Voice is carrying a piece describing what it is like being on the receiving end of an RIAA John Doe lawsuit.

LINK (http://www.villagevoice.com/music/0510,mamatas,61813,22.html)

Inciteful. I think they are wasting tax payer money, court time, and so on.. these type suits time up the court system that is already overburdened... rapists, pedophiles, drug dealers, pimps, and their like should take priority over this piddle paddle crap.

I say you should fight the RIAA.. sure you could settle, but that is exactly what they want you to do... Imagine if all 1800 that have settled so far chose to fight it in court... that is 1800 court cases.. could take months if not years to clear...

I mean especially if you are below the poverity line.. you might as well fight it all the way. then if you lose, file bankruptcy.. (chapter 7) there goes their settlement :D

[Uncle Nasty]

Way to go egghead, if the music industry is to thrive the work of the Artists must be paid for, Are the overpaid??? well perhaps a music site will take that thread...

[efc]

Published: 24th March 2005 17:47 BST+1

First Swede prosecuted for sharing files on net

A man in Västerås has become the first Swede to be charged with illegally sharing files via the Internet. But prosecutors say that unless the case results in a prison sentence, other cases of web piracy might never get to court.

The 27-year old at the centre of the case is accused of having the film Hipp Hipp Hora on his computer, which he allowed others to download. If convicted, he could face up to two years imprisonment.

The case was brought after a tip off from Antipiratbyrån (APB), a lobby organization set up by the media industry to combat illegal downloading in Sweden. Since the man was reported APB has found itself in hot water, with an Internet company accusing the organization itself of illegally downloading films and games.

Uppsala prosecutor Katrin Rudström says that this is a vital test case, and that the result will have big implications for future prosecutions. She told Aftonbladet that if the case resulted only in a fine, it was unlikely that other file sharers would be prosecuted in the future. This was partly due, she said, to the fact that police would not have the right to demand information about which computers were sharing their files if the crime was only punishable by financial penalties.

“As these cases do not involve criminals, but instead quite ordinary people who share their files, any prison sentence would certainly be suspended,” Rudström said.

The case comes as Sweden’s legislators prepare to debate a new copyright law that would make it clearer that unauthorised downloading of copyrighted material is illegal. Yet Justice Minister Thomas Bodström has made it clear that enforcing the new law will not be a priority area for the police.

Meanwhile, the opposition Center Party has said that downloading should be allowed, and the law should focus on those who spread material rather than those who download it.

“It is, for example, a breach of copyright laws to copy a music book, but it is not illegal to receive or use the copied book,” said the party’s legal affairs spokesman, Johan Linander. “It should be no more complicated than that in the digital arena,” he added.

The Center Party will not be able to block the law on its own, although Linander said that he would argue his case when the centre-right alliance to which the party belongs meets in April.


Sources: Dagens Nyheter (http://www.dn.se/), Aftonbladet (http://www.aftonbladet.se/), SVT (http://www.svt.se/)
and Slashdot

[piaqt]

Millions swap music files, skirt legal issues: survey
Fri Mar 25,11:17 AM ET Technology - AFP
WASHINGTON (AFP) - Some 36 million Americans have downloaded digital music or video files, with many finding alternatives to the legally questionable peer-to-peer (P2P) networks, a survey showed this week.

The Pew Internet and American Life Project survey said downloaders are now more likely to say they use online music services like Apple's iTunes than P2P services like Kazaa and Grokster.
The percentage of music downloaders who have tried paid services has grown from 24 percent in 2004 to 43 percent in the most recent survey, Pew said, but added that people "may now be less likely to report peer-to-peer usage due to the stigma associated with the networks."

With legal challenges intensifying against P2P networks and people who use them, Pew said people have been turning to paid services like iTunes, but other methods as well -- such as trading from a friend's iPod or through e-mail and instant messaging.

"Some 19 percent of current music and video downloaders, about seven million adults, say they have downloaded files from someone else's iPod or MP3 player," the Pew report found.
"About 28 percent, or 10 million people, say they get music and video files via e-mail and instant messages. However, there is some overlap between these two groups; nine percent of downloaders say they have used both of these sources."

The survey, released the week before the US Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments one the legality of file-sharing networks, found 49 percent of all those surveyed and 53 percent of Internet users believe that the firms that own and operate file-sharing networks should be deemed responsible for piracy.

Up to now, the courts have held that the networks -- as suppliers of technology that can be used for both legal and illegal purpose -- cannot be sued for copyright violation by users of the services. But that is being appealed to the Supreme Court.
Source (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1510&e=1&u=/afp/20050325/tc_afp/usinternetmusic_050325161741)

[efc]

ZDNET Blog and Slashdot.org
Posted by Joe Brockmeier @ 11:35 pm

General (http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/index.php?cat=1)
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in MGM v. Grokster. The Grokster case, for those who haven’t been following it, concerns the liability of distributors of P2P software. As we all know, there are legitimate uses for P2P software (think BitTorrent and distributing Linux ISOs, which are legally free and clear for distribution) and infringing uses (distributing MP3s of Dark Side of the Moon on a P2P network). The question is, whether a distributor should be held liable for infringing uses when there are substantial non-infringing uses as well.

The case is a test of the famous (or infamous, if you happen to be on the recording industry’s side of the fence) Betamax standard. (See the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s Betamax Case page (http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/betamax/) for an excellent summary of Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios.)

The ramifications of this case are huge: A loss for the Grokster could mean disaster for P2P filesharing systems across the board, as well as other technologies. If Grokster is liable for infringing uses, would the ProFTPD Team (http://www.proftpd.org/) be liable when someone grabs a copy of Star Wars from a server running ProFTPD? Would Microsoft be liable when someone uses IE to download MP3s from websites? Since almost any file transfer software could be abused to infringe on copyrights, where would the line be drawn? A loss for Grokster could have a serious chilling effect for all sorts of software.

However, there’s been another interesting development in the case that no one was expecting. Timothy K. Armstrong was at the MGM v. Grokster hearing and caught MGM making a surprise concession in response to a question from Justice Antonin Scalia: (Emphasis added)

At least some of the Justices, Scalia in particular, seemed troubled by how an inventor would know, at the time of inventing, how its invention might be marketed in the future. How, some of the Justices asked MGM, could the inventors of the iPod (or the VCR, or the photocopier, or even the printing press) know whether they could go ahead with developing their invention? It surely would not be difficult for them to imagine that somebody might hit upon the idea of marketing their device as a tool for infringement.

MGM s answer to this was pretty unsatisfying. They said that at the time the iPod was invented, it was clear that there were many perfectly lawful uses for it, such as ripping one s own CD and storing it in the iPod. This was a very interesting point for them to make, not least because I would wager that there are a substantial number of people on MGM s side of the case who don t think that example is one bit legal. But they ve now conceded the contrary in open court, so if they actually win this case they ll be barred from challenging ripping in the future under the doctrine of judicial estoppel. In any event, though, MGM s iPod example did exactly what their proposed standard expressly doesn t do: it evaluated the legality of the invention based on the knowledge available to the inventor at the time, not from a post hoc perspective that asks how the invention is subsequently marketed or what business models later grow up around it.

Hat tip to Ernest Miller (http://www.corante.com/importance/archives/2005/03/30/remind_me_of_the_reason_for_the_dmca_again.php) for pointing out Armstrong’s post. Miller also points out that, if it’s OK to rip MP3s to your iPod, shouldn’t it be legal to rip DVDs to another medium for personal use?

What about using DeCSS to watch DVDs on Linux or other platforms? It should be interesting to see MGM try to wriggle out of this, since I doubt that the company is going to champion any expansion of fair use.

[efc]

Letters to the business editor: 5/3/05

Tuesday, May 03, 2005

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette


Music stealing all around


Cary Sherman's opinion piece on Sunday, "Mellifluous Discord: Universities' High-Speed Internet2 Used by Students to Pilfer Music," (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05121/496886.stm) was as one-sided and illogical as the whole Recording Industry Association of America he represents, as president.

Sherman suggests that universities should remind users of "the necessity of responsible use of network resources." In my computer science class at Carnegie Mellon, "Introduction to Computer Music," I spend a little time doing just that. I teach students how, historically, the major recording labels have dominated the recording industry, refusing to record some of America's greatest artists, including Louis Armstrong. (His first recordings were manufactured by a former piano company in Indiana, which was sued by the major labels of the day for patent infringement.) Mr. Sherman, is this an example of "a climate where creativity is valued" that you are seeking?

My students also learn how the broadcasting industry, dominated by NBC and CBS, ignored recording technology until the NBC monopoly was broken up by the FCC. The innovations in magnetic recording for broadcast introduced by the struggling ABC were a major step forward, enabling the modern recording industry and even modern computer technology. Mr. Sherman, was the monopolistic suppression of innovation the "responsible use of network resources" you are seeking?

Mr. Sherman, you say that stealing "is not OK," and yet I have musician friends who cannot get RIAA members to pay them the royalties they are due. While you are asking universities to address your problems, please don't forget that you too can be a "powerful leader in curbing theft of copyright materials on campus." If you'll stop your members from stealing from my friends, and then study some history, maybe I can help you.



ROGER DANNENBERG
Squirrel Hill



http://www.post-gazette.com/includes/images/blank.gif

[Big Booger]

The RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) began their lawsuit campaign against alleged music pirates in June of 2003. When the first RIAA lawsuits began rolling off the assembly line, an enormous media frenzy accompanied this event. Since that time the lawsuits have become second-rate news, as the chances of becoming another RIAA statistic is relatively low – very low.

So what exactly are your chances of being sued by the RIAA? In our news story last Wednesday, Slyck reported the number of online file-sharers was approximately 9 million users. Among other networks, this number did not account for the BitTorrent, WinMX, Manolito, Warez/Ares, Gnutella2 or SoulSeek populations. If we did include those users, we would be looking at a much larger population – perhaps as many as 15 million users. For the purposes of this article, we will split the difference and approximate there are 12 million P2P users online at any given moment.

With this number in mind, there have been 10,037 people sued by the RIAA since June of 2003. According to the web log “ RIAA Watch”, 6,523 people were sued by the RIAA in 2004. What exactly does this mean?

If we divide the total population of the P2P community (~12 million individuals), by the total number of lawsuits in 2004 (6,523), we get 1,840. In other words, your chances of being sued are 1 in 1,840 for all users (regardless of network) per year. How does that stack against all other odds of dying from an intentional or non-intentional injury? According to the National Safety Council, one’s yearly chances of dying from all external causes were 1 in 1,755 in 2002.

Basically, your chances of dying from all causes of external injuries, whether from a car accident, motorcycle accident, plane crash, murder, etc was 1 in 1,755 – fairly remote odds. Although the odds were remote, they still were not as remote as specific causes of death – such as lightening strikes, suicide, “fall on and from stairs and steps” or being electrocuted. In some cases, your chances of dying from contact with a sharp object were 1 in 2.8 million.

So let us examine the chances of being sued by the RIAA a bit further. The main focus of the RIAA lawsuits have been against the FastTrack network. The effects of this campaign has crippled FastTrack, dropping its population from ~4.5 million to ~2.5 million users. From the last capture of the proportion of networks under the RIAA’s gun in November of 2003, 150 users of FastTrack were sued, compared to 5 Blubster users. Since the RIAA cannot subpoena individuals anymore, we unfortunately cannot provide a more current proportion. However, common knowledge dictates that FastTrack remains a priority, and on November 13 of 2003 it represented ~96% of those being sued.

If we were to eliminate 96% (proportion of FastTrack users) of the 6,523 sued in 2004, the odds of being sued changes dramatically. If we consider only those using a non-FastTrack P2P network, the total number of lawsuits drops to only ~261. In other words, you then have a 1 in 45,977 chance of being sued if you do not use FastTrack. Comparatively, according to the National Safety Council, you have a better chance of being killed in a transportation or non-transportational accident, death from suicide, death from assault or death by legal intervention (such as execution or being shot by a police officer.)

However this assumes the RIAA has remained consistent in which network users are being sued from. Let's say the RIAA was more diverse in which networks they pursue. If we assume half of those sued in 2004 were using FastTrack, that leaves us with 3,261 non-FastTrack related lawsuits. You would then have a 1 in 3,679 chance of being sued. That still places you above all external cases of mortality (1 in 1,755), but below all transportational accidents (1 in 5,953.) However, you would still have a better chance of being killed in an unintentional accident (1 in 2,698), then being sued by the RIAA.

Although these numbers are hardly an exact science, they do reflect the odds of being sued are little different than the risks one takes by simply living day-to-day life. But if we were to get real specific, the odds of being sued by the RIAA for non-FastTrack users (1 in 3,679) is still much greater than death by contact with a venomous snake or lizard (1 in 95 million.) So just watch yourself.

SOURCE:
http://www.slyck.com/news.php?story=769

[Big Booger]

Despite fears that internet piracy would dent its profits, Hollywood has had a buoyant year.

Worldwide revenues from cinema tickets, videos and DVD sales, as well as television rights, reached a whopping $44.8bn (£24bn) last year, up 9% from 2003.

Record DVD sales fuelled the increase, up 14% in the US and 46% worldwide, but most other sectors did better than last year. The only exception was cinema ticket sales outside America. These did fall, but by a relatively modest 1%.

The figures are from a report by the Motion Picture Association, part of the Motion Picture Association of America, which represents Hollywood studios.

For the past year, the MPAA has mounted an aggressive anti-piracy campaign in the US, claiming that studios lose around $3.5bn (£1.8bn) in potential earnings each year.

In February, it launched its third wave of lawsuits in four months against anyone illegally up- or downloading movies through internet file-sharing programs. The MPAA has also taken to sending guards sporting night-vision goggles into cinemas, in a bid to catch the pirates red-handed.

SOURCE:
http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,12589,1475482,00.html

[efc]

I have begun to mix music news and movie news in this thread due to the similarity of the issues.


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/misc/logoprinter.gif http://graphics8.nytimes.com/ads/fox/melinda_pf.gif (http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&page=www.nytimes.com/printer-friendly&pos=Position1&camp=foxsearch-emailtools09-nyt5&ad=melinda_pf.gif&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efoxsearchlight%2Ecom%2Fmelindaandmelinda%2Findex%5Fnyt%2Ehtml)
May 6, 2005

Court Blocks TV Anti-Piracy Technology Rules

By STEPHEN LABATON (http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=bylL&v1=STEPHEN%20LABATON&fdq=19960101&td=sysdate&sort=newest&ac=STEPHEN%20LABATON&inline=nyt-per)

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/dropcap/w.gifASHINGTON, May 6 - A federal appeals court handed a major setback to Hollywood and the television networks today when it struck down an anti-piracy regulation that required computer and television makers to use new technology that would make it difficult for consumers to copy and distribute digital programs.

The unanimous ruling by the three-judge panel, in an important case at the intersection of intellectual property and technology, was a stinging rebuke for the Federal Communications Commission. The court said the commission had exceeded its authority when it approved the rules in 2003.

It was an important victory for libraries, consumer groups and civil liberties organizations. They had maintained that the regulation, known as the "broadcast flag" rule, would stifle innovation in technology and make it more difficult for consumers and users of library services to circulate material legitimately.

Although an appeal is possible, lawyers involved in the case said the fight would shift in the near term to Congress, which is already weighing legislation. Hollywood executives and their lobbyists warned that if the rule was not resurrected by Congress, studios and broadcasters would sharply limit the digital programming available over the airwaves, focusing instead on channels limited to cable and satellite services, where they have other means to control what can be copied.

For years, the movie studios and television networks had urged the commission to adopt the rule, citing the recording industry's experience with companies like Napster (http://www.nytimes.com/redirect/marketwatch/redirect.ctx?MW=http://custom.marketwatch.com/custom/nyt-com/html-companyprofile.asp&symb=NAPS) and saying restrictions on copying and distributing programs by consumers were essential to the transition from analog to digital television. They maintained that without the imposition of the broadcast flag, shows would be copied and then transmitted limitlessly through the Internet, much the way music is.

But the critics said that the studios and networks were unduly alarmist and that the new rule, which was to have taken effect July 1, would prevent consumers from copying and using programs for legitimate reasons.

Research librarians submitted affidavits in the case, contending that the broadcast flag rule would make it impossible to distribute broadcast clips and other research material over the Internet to researchers and students.

Critics also maintained that the commission had overreached and had moved to regulate the Internet more tightly, ridiculing the agency in the aftermath of the rulemaking as the "Federal Computer Commission."

Under the rule, manufacturers would have been required to install special technology beginning later this year in new computers and televisions that would enable them to recognize specially embedded computer bits in the programs created by the studios and the networks. The new equipment would then restrict redistribution and reuse of the programs.

The rule was challenged from the moment it was issued in November 2003. The case was filed last year in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the usual venue for challenging commission rules.

The outcome of the case was signaled during oral arguments in February, when the judges aggressively questioned F.C.C. lawyers about whether the agency had exceeded its authority by setting technical standards having nothing directly to do with broadcasting transmissions.

"You've gone too far," said Judge Harry T. Edwards during the oral arguments, as he pressed a government lawyer to justify how the agency could possibly set standards governing computers and the Internet. "Are washing machines next?"

But the breadth of Judge Edwards's opinion was more than many lawyers had expected.

"In this case, all relevant materials concerning the F.C.C.'s jurisdiction - including the words of the Communications Act of 1934, its legislative history, subsequent legislation, relevant case law and commission practice - confirm that the F.C.C. has no authority to regulate consumer electronic devices that can be used for receipt of wire or radio communication when those devices are not engaged in the process of radio or wire transmission," Judge Edwards wrote.

"And the agency's strained and implausible interpretations of the definitional provisions of the Communications Act of 1934 do not lend credence to its position. As the Supreme Court has reminded us, Congress 'does not ... hide elephants in mouse holes.' "His opinion, in American Library Association v. Federal Communications Commission, was joined by Judges David B. Sentelle and Judith W. Rogers.

The commission's top spokesman, David Fiske, said that the agency did not have a comment about the decision and that the government had not decided whether it would seek an appeal either to the full court of appeals or to the Supreme Court. Some lawyers said they did not expect the Supreme Court would consider the case, as it did not satisfy the criteria for such review.

Were the high court to take the case, it would not be considered until the next term, which begins in October.

The justices are expected to issue a ruling soon in another closely watched case involving digital rights and intellectual property, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (http://www.nytimes.com/redirect/marketwatch/redirect.ctx?MW=http://custom.marketwatch.com/custom/nyt-com/html-companyprofile.asp&symb=MGM) Studios v. Grokster Ltd. In that case, the court is considering whether the online services that enable copyright songs and movies to be shared freely over the Internet can be held liable themselves for copyright infringement.

The broadcast flag rule was adopted at the urging of Michael K. Powell, the commission chairman at the time. It was supported by Kevin J. Martin, a commissioner who became chairman this year.

In recent weeks, both sides in the lawsuit have been talking to lawmakers in anticipation of the ruling.

"Without a 'broadcast flag,' consumers may lose access to the very best programming offered on local television," said Edward O. Fritts, chairman and chief executive of the National Association of Broadcasters. "This remedy is designed to protect against unauthorized indiscriminate redistribution of programming over the Internet."

Dan Glickman, president of the Motion Picture Association of America, offered similar warnings. "If the broadcast flag cannot be used, program providers will have to weigh whether the risk of theft is too great over free, off-air broadcasting and could limit such high-quality programming to only cable, satellite and other more secure delivery systems," he said. "It is important to remember that this decision is only about the F.C.C.'s jurisdiction, not the merits of the broadcast flag itself."

But Gigi B. Sohn, president of the digital rights advocacy group Public Knowledge, which led the fight against the broadcast flag rule, warned that intervention by Congress could create a new set of problems for consumers and innovators.

"If Congress starts to go down the road of giving the F.C.C. broad power over new applications and technologies, who knows what comes next?" Ms. Sohn said. "This case is about the future of technology."

Government officials and industry executives report that digital television has slowly been gaining in popularity. Nearly 1,500 stations, or about 90 percent of the total, now broadcast some digital programs. Industry executives project sales this year of about 15 million television sets able to receive digital programs, about half of all sets sold. Indeed, some sets already being sold are equipped for a broadcast flag.

Cable televisions now have the ability to sell digital programs to as many as 90 million homes, and about 300 hours of digital programming is available each day in many markets.

http://nyttechnology.112.2O7.net/b/ss/nyttechnology/1/G.6--NS/0

[efc]

WASHINGTON -- Despite Monday's Supreme Court decision allowing copyright holders to sue peer-to-peer services wholesale, the recording industry launched yet another round of litigation against individual downloaders Wednesday.

More (http://www.variety.com/VR1117925317.html)

[lynchknot]

http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?riaawar

[lynchknot]

give me an effen break: Executives in the music industry believe the increase in legal music downloads has to do with the 14,000 odd lawsuits the Record Industry Association of America (RIAA) has initiated in 12 countries It's the advent of new technology and convenience - not their stupid tactics.

News post by Michael@HWG.com (http://www.hardwaregeeks.com/comments.php?shownews=3390)

According to the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) there have been over 180 million legal music downloads this year sold through services such as emusic and apples iTunes.

The IEPI does not directly measure the amount of pirated music available but said that only 900 million tracks a rise of only 3% from the same time period last year.

Executives in the music industry believe the increase in legal music downloads has to do with the 14,000 odd lawsuits the Record Industry Association of America (RIAA) has initiated in 12 countries. The majority of the people sued by the RIAA are men aged 20 – 35. Although some elderly women and young girls have also been targeted.

Click Here
"We are now seeing real evidence that people are increasingly put off by illegal file sharing and turning to legal ways of enjoying music online," IFPI Chief Executive Officer John Kennedy said.

As services such as emusic and iTunes continues to grow they expect the number of legal music downloads to increase ten-fold.

[piaqt]

give me an effen break: It's the advent of new technology and convenience - not their stupid tactics.

News post by Michael@HWG.com (http://www.hardwaregeeks.com/comments.php?shownews=3390)
Since when does being an industry hack equate with intelligence?

[Big Booger]

:view: View: RIAA WEBSITE HACKED SCREENSHOT (http://ufies.org/archives/riaa-hacked.png)

Check it out. Some hackers hacked the RIAA website and put up links to many popular file sharing applications like edonkey, Kazaa, etc.. LOL

Quite comical. Screw the RIAA, SONY, VIRGIN, and all the other oppressive companies who want to shove your green in their pockets.

[PIPER]

I agree Egg....:msnmad:

[piaqt]

Don't you just love karma?

[Big Booger]

The digital equivalent of homemade tapes are the next target of the Recording Industry Association of America.

After asserting that the RIAA's educational and lawsuit strategies were working to stall the illegal downloading of music, the organization's president and chief executive Mitch Bainwol told music retailers Friday that burning and ripping is a greater threat to the industry.

Speaking at the National Association of Record Merchandisers convention in San Diego, Bainwol said 12% of all households are burning CDs and 17% are burning more than ten CDs per month.

Ripping is the process by which a computer user imports music files from a CD to a computer. Burning is the process of moving those files to a new blank CD.

He cited data from the New York-based market research group NPD that stated more than 7 million 50 Cent songs have been burned this year. Mariah Carey, the Beatles, Green Day, Metallica, the Game and Eminem have each had more than 2 million of their songs burned.

:view: View: The Forbes Article (http://www.forbes.com/digitalentertainment/2005/08/15/riaa-targets-cds-cx_variety_0815riaa.html)

What a load of crap... now they want to control how users back up their media??? WTF is that??? I am not using a crappy ass Kiosk to burn my media... piss on the RIAA... they have a convoluted agenda and it all involves stripping users rights down to nothing... and then charging them up the ass for crap music that no one wants to own (one song on a whole album is all you want to hear).

[Big Booger]

http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/

The RIAA Radar. :D I don't know if this has been posted or not but it makes searching for non-RIAA related groups.

[Jeric Hikari]

While downloading group x from p2p is illegal charging a three figure sum PER SONG in cort for 'damages renered' is obscene.

If they come lookin for me they can listen to me all they like in court. I have no money, I doubt i'll ever get money. there is no justification for p2p downloads of copyrighted material that will evade the law. In short I'd be screwed if they decided to phone me up, I know this, hence i have nothing to lose in court. I'm sure I could come up with something...entertaining...as a defense so that even though i'd go to jail or whatever, the judge still has to figure just how big fo a loss the riaa actually takes.

Not a chance in hell it'd be listened to, but can't blaim a guy for thinkin he'd at least try stabbing the dragon in the mouth while going down its throat.

[TestMAD]

the perfect defense...buy a wireless router.then play dumb about being being able to password it or even turn it off.

[piaqt]

So they'll come to your home and physically remove it.
Next....

[efc]

Recording industry sues more U.S. file-swappers
Wed Aug 31, 2005 1:45 PM EThttp://i.today.reuters.com/images/spacer.gif
Reuters

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The recording industry on Wednesday filed its latest round of copyright infringement lawsuits, targeting 754 people it claims used online file-sharing networks to illegally trade in songs.
The lawsuits were filed in federal district courts across the country, including California, Colorado, Georgia, Missouri, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Washington, D.C.
The world's major record labels, represented by the Recording Industry Association of America, have filed more than 14,000 such lawsuits since September 2003.

[Big Booger]

http://www.godwinslaw.org/weblog/archive/2005/08/29/runaround-suits

MAKE SURE TO READ THE WOMAN'S TRANSCRIPTS FROM COURT:

http://riaalawsuits.us/elektra_santangelo/transcript050506.txt

LOL

[efc]

July 6 was 60 days. I would like to know what happened.

[efc]

Here is more. LINK (http://www.stereophile.com/news/082205riaa/)

[strand2k]

I believe the only leverage that individuals have in the RIAA/file sharing arena, is a boycott of music CD's. With that in mind, I pledge to my fellow TZ members that I will not purchase a music CD for a period of six months or until the RIAA fully retreats from the harassment tactics that it is currently using. Join me by adding a post saying "ADD ME TO YOUR LIST".

I haven't bought a CD in years. I buy legal CDs. I am a big CD collector and
have 2,400 songs library. That is not a lot, except that they were all transfered from my CD collection or bought on the net. I think the record industry is really worried for a good reason. They can't get it together. I support your boycot (It is easy because I don't have to do anything). Good luck.

[efc]

Two more mothers have decided to fight the RIAA instead of paying. Let's wish them luck.

LINK (http://p2pnet.net/story/6283)

[slapdaddy06]

I just joined the forums in order to reply to this one...definitely boycot them! add me to the list..

I'm not going to buy another CD for a while actually...the RIAA really gets me angry

[Big Booger]

I just joined the forums in order to reply to this one...definitely boycot them! add me to the list..

I'm not going to buy another CD for a while actually...the RIAA really gets me angry
Stick around. :D I've been boycotting since the beginning of this thread. I refuse to buy a CD from an RIAA backed company. SCrew them.

[efc]

Slashdot.org reports that RIAA has finally lost a case. Details (http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/05/09/26/2111227.shtml?tid=188&tid=17)

[cooljoebay]

Yeah count me in.

Hardly anyone in my town buys a cd. The only place to get them here is Walmart and they never sell. Mot people who don't know how to get music through downloading will ask a family member to get it for them. It's common practice nowadays. Of course I have never agreed with buying music anyways. You shouldn't have to buy it. Musicians who play for the love of music would agree, and the ones who need fame to feed their ego onlyh care about money and that is the mentality that has created this mess in the first place.

We play in a club about 20 miles away and its hidden away in the sticks but its a large club. Well, some rat tipped off ASACAP over paying fees to play copyrighted music. He had to pay like 20,000. They tried to tell him this bull**** that even if a customer was singing an ASCAP song they could be sued for it. NOT. The record business is full of nothing but mafia criminals just like the White House. GOD gave us freewill and everything in this world is a gift as long as we dont abuse it. To give up this born right for money makes us no better than the crimes commited by RIAA.

I will never buy music ever again and I suggest you make sure you are running the best firewalls, proxies, and take all necessary steps to not get caught so their business can crumble down.

**** RIAA BMI & ASCAP

[efc]

Another brave soul fights RIAA.

LINK1 (http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/05/10/02/1612238.shtml?tid=188&tid=17)

LINK2 (http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2005/10/oregon-riaa-victim-fights-back-sues.html)

[efc]

Slashdot reports story from p2pnews/p2pnet revealing that there isn't any depth that RIAA lawyers will not go. When a suit fails against the mother, go after the child. Story (http://p2pnet.net/story/6485)

[Evil_Tapeware]

I'm in to progressive music, therefor I listen to underground mixtapes (live and radio shows), and I collect hard to find vinyl from small independent record labels. Therefor I haven't bought a music cd in at least 4yrs - and I only listen to FM radio for Stern. SO COUNT ME IN!!!

[Bee-Jay]

I respect egg, and support Big B.

As always;)

[efc]

This is not new news, however I had not run across it until this morning. Sony is including code on approx 24000 CD titles that install rootkit software on your computer. Everyone who has played a sony CD on your computer in the past year should download and listen to Security Now Podcast No. 12, Sony's "Rootkit Technology" DRM. This is a major security issue that allows the script creep to take over your computer. Leo Laporte and Steve Gibson discuss the danger and how to remove a rootkit once it is installed.

LINK (http://www.grc.com/securitynow.htm)

[GimieGimieGimie]

Yeah count me in.

Hardly anyone in my town buys a cd. The only place to get them here is Walmart and they never sell. Mot people who don't know how to get music through downloading will ask a family member to get it for them. It's common practice nowadays. Of course I have never agreed with buying music anyways. You shouldn't have to buy it. Musicians who play for the love of music would agree, and the ones who need fame to feed their ego onlyh care about money and that is the mentality that has created this mess in the first place.

We play in a club about 20 miles away and its hidden away in the sticks but its a large club. Well, some rat tipped off ASACAP over paying fees to play copyrighted music. He had to pay like 20,000. They tried to tell him this bull**** that even if a customer was singing an ASCAP song they could be sued for it. NOT. The record business is full of nothing but mafia criminals just like the White House. GOD gave us freewill and everything in this world is a gift as long as we dont abuse it. To give up this born right for money makes us no better than the crimes commited by RIAA.

I will never buy music ever again and I suggest you make sure you are running the best firewalls, proxies, and take all necessary steps to not get caught so their business can crumble down.

**** RIAA BMI & ASCAP

I totally agree with this statement, it's my sediments exactly.

Music is about human communication and sharing that communication, it should not be sold, and given freely, like freedom of speech.

That being said, we would have to live in a money free world for this to happen, i hope we achieve this one day, the whole human race would be much better off.

[Curio]

Nuke Sony.:boom:

[Reverend]

however I had not run across it until this morning.Shame on you for not reading our front page. :Poke: :D

Sony Issues Patch As Hackers Pounce On Rootkit (http://www.techzonez.com/comments.php?shownews=15788) (3rd Nov)

and a follow up story claims that the patch is itself spyware because it installs without notice and permission, and it can’t be removed.

Sony Copy Protection Called Spyware (http://www.techzonez.com/comments.php?shownews=15872)

[efc]

Shame on you for not reading our front page. :Poke: :D

Sony Issues Patch As Hackers Pounce On Rootkit (http://www.techzonez.com/comments.php?shownews=15788) (3rd Nov)

and a follow up story claims that the patch is itself spyware because it installs without notice and permission, and it can’t be removed.

Sony Copy Protection Called Spyware (http://www.techzonez.com/comments.php?shownews=15872)

Yes, shame on me. I am lower than dirt. I should have known that you had already posted on this subject. ;)

I now remember the post. It just didn't register as being something that might impact me. However, listening to the Security Now podcast made it clear that we should all be aware of the danger. It also let me know that it should be included in this thread. This is one more method of deceit from the music industry.

[efc]

Seems to be a lot of activity on the Sony issue. California has filed against Sony for virus-like techniques which create management rights on the users computer. This leaves the computer vulnerable to attack. Hackers can take total control of the computer.

California is contending that Sony has violated three state laws.

Go A r n o l d!

[efc]

Also today, the Register is reporting that the first trojan taking advantage of Sony's DRM rootkit copy protection has appeared.

[Devil]

Yeah count me in!!!

[efc]

First RIAA case to go to trial. LINK (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051130-5650.html)

I hope Mrs. Santangelo wins a big judgement. RIAA, the organization we love to hate.

[efc]

Movie company sues man for $100,000. It seems that someone downloaded a movie via his wireless network. No matter. They have conficated his four computers and sent him to court.

Thugs are thugs, regardless if it is in the movie business or music business.

More (http://www.channelcincinnati.com/health/5520020/detail.html)

[efc]

This is a good Christmas present for me. Stick it to the RIAA.

More (http://www.latimes.com/technology/la-fi-warner24dec24,0,3015790.story?coll=la-home-headlines)

[efc]

Patricia Santangelo's legal costs have reached $24,000 and she has not gone to trial as yet. She has run out of money and will have to proceed without one. Just goes to show that you can be crippled financially trying to defend yourself. MORE (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051225/ap_on_en_mu/music_download_suit;_ylt=AsYenh2oTWpr6JAd6esP63qs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3ODdxdHBhBHNlYwM5NjQ-)

[lankan_man]

Add Me To Your List ;)

[efc]

More action of the RIAA lawsuit front. More (http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2005/12/programmer-challenges-riaa.html)

[efc]

Australia is considering legalizing recording of television shows and ripping music from CD's. Three cheers.

[piaqt]

How will they do that without copyright infringement?

[efc]

Here is article discussing issue. LINK (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051229-5866.html)

[efc]

The creeps are still at it. The RIAA/MPAA and even some members of Congress are trying to roll back tech advances. In all cases it is the consumer that is impacted the most. More (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060121-6025.html)

[piaqt]

They're in bed with each other, but we're the ones getting screwed.

[efc]

The sleeze squad had been caught with its pants down. LINK (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060124-6036.html)

[piaqt]

And justifying it with, "He started it."

[Big Booger]

The sleeze squad had been caught with its pants down. LINK (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060124-6036.html)


That's just funny. I mean, they suck. Stick it to the man! Yeah!

[efc]

RIAA believes that it is unlawful for someone to rip music from your own CD to IPOD. LINK (http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004409.php)

Damn it, people. You keep buying music, they will keep gouging you. This bunch has to be punished financially to get their attention.

BOYCOTT!

[cash_site]

I just saw that news article Efc... that is crazy!! they are going backwards!! :mad: Forget about supporting them.... and i think its about time artists started standing up for their fans too!! get rid of the stupid middle-man recording company!!

[rik]

The Big Four record labels are escalating their attack on Patti Santangelo, the New York mother who's so far the only person to stand up to them.

And they'll be using her children as weapons against her.

http://p2pnet.net/story/7942

[piaqt]

In case anyone had any doubts, what a bunch of bastards.

[cash_site]

In case anyone had any doubts, what a bunch of bastards.
I was just thinking that!! What A$$-holes.... i wish you all the luck Pia :p

[efc]

I will continue my past practices of posting motion picture industry items to this thread because they are using the same strategy and often the same tactics as the RIAA.

From the Korea Times:
US Film Makers Sue Samsung Over Glitches on DVD Players


By Kim Tae-gyu
Staff Reporter

Samsung Electronics, Asia’s most valuable high-tech company, is scrambling after multiple U.S. movie studios reportedly took the Seoul-based firm to court, alleging glitches in its DVD players.

Over the weekend, Bloomberg news reported Walt Disney, Time Warner and three other major film makers filed the lawsuit against Samsung in U.S. court.

They claimed that Samsung’s DVD players allowed consumers to avoid encryption features that prevent unauthorized duplication and demanded a recall of all the problematic products, Bloomberg said.

The Motion Picture Association of America estimates that the movie industry lost $5.4 billion last year due to piracy.

In response, Samsung refused to confirm the high-profile suit that involves Paramount Pictures, 20th Century Fox and Universal Studios on top of Disney and Time Warner.

``In fact, we do not exactly know the contents of the lawsuit and the intention of the plaintiffs. We have yet to receive the complaint,’’ a Samsung spokesman said.

He guessed that the film makers take issue with DVD-HD841, which Samsung had sold in the United States between June and October 2004.

``If so, I do not know why the movie studios are complaining about the products, of which production was brought to an end more than 15 months ago,’’ the spokesman said.

``We stopped manufacturing the model after concerns erupted that its copy-protection features can be circumvented by sophisticated users,’’ he said.

In this climate, he said Samsung would react to the lawsuit after the outfit recognizes its real intention.

Samsung Electronics is the flagship affiliate of Samsung Group, the nation’s foremost conglomerate. It is the world’s biggest maker of memory chips and flat-panel displays.

[Big Booger]

One thing that's become clear in all of the recording industry's lawsuits against file sharers, is they feel they pretty much have free reign in what they should be allowed to do. That's why they originally wanted ISPs to just hand over names without having to file a lawsuit, and why they tend to take a "guilty until proven innocent" point of view. However, it appears some courts are finally pointing out to the RIAA that they don't have the right to do some of these things. The latest example involves one of the lawsuits, where the accused claims she never was involved in file sharing. The RIAA demanded full access to her computer -- which she rightly felt was a violation of her privacy, as there was a lot more on her computer that obviously had nothing to do with the case. A judge has agreed and told the woman she can hire her own forensics expert, and bill the RIAA for any expenses.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060320/0216205.shtml

[efc]

DRM is CRAP. Read what ZDNET has to say. LINK (http://news.zdnet.com/html/z/wb/6035707.html)

[jugador]

One thing that's become clear in all of the recording industry's lawsuits against file sharers, is they feel they pretty much have free reign in what they should be allowed to do. That's why they originally wanted ISPs to just hand over names without having to file a lawsuit, and why they tend to take a "guilty until proven innocent" point of view. However, it appears some courts are finally pointing out to the RIAA that they don't have the right to do some of these things. The latest example involves one of the lawsuits, where the accused claims she never was involved in file sharing. The RIAA demanded full access to her computer -- which she rightly felt was a violation of her privacy, as there was a lot more on her computer that obviously had nothing to do with the case. A judge has agreed and told the woman she can hire her own forensics expert, and bill the RIAA for any expenses.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060320/0216205.shtml
As far as the woman goes I'm all for her. That is an invasion of privacy. I hope in the meantime that she changes her hard drive as that's the only way to protect her info. The wipers that some people use don't do a thorough job so the best bet is to replace the hard drive. Friend of mine was warned by Paramount to stop copying their movies or face civil action. He did stop. In this great age of copying can see where the problem lies and that's in the music and motion pic industry,actually it's with the equipment manufacterers so that the units can record. I remember when the VHS tapes had a jamming signal in them to stop pirating. Being into electronics at the time I just bought an anti-jamming circuit and turned down the vertical output which contained the signal. Copyright laws usually apply to music(15 yr. limit),as far as the movie industry goes I'm not sure about the limit there. In my opinion if it's there it should be free and open to copy for personal use. Maybe like other monopolies it's just GREED al over again. Fred

[bionicblond]

add me to the list. I was never a big buyer of cds, casettes etc. I also have issues with paying for radio. I can understand specialized talkshows, but just plain music, no way. Musicians should be able to make money off their tours and so fourth. What happened to the days when cds were given away for free as ways of promotions. I mean they certaintly don't charge radio stations for them.:(

[jugador]

Add me to your list. The RIAA's nothing but a money making organization. Most music copyrights run out in 15 years and then the music is supposed to be free.

[Senninkai]

Funny i joined boycott-riaa just earlier today :D

[efc]

RIAA now suing XM radio for new service that allows customers to record, retain music downloaded to Inno device. Read more below.

Satellite radio in recordings row

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41653000/jpg/_41653464_inn-getty203.jpg The Inno gadget lets listeners save broadcasts

US satellite radio firm XM is being sued by record labels over a gadget that lets listeners record songs. The recording industry said XM's Inno device, which stores music and divides it into tracks, infringes copyright.


The lawsuit seeks $150,000 (£79,537) in damages for every song copied by XM customers to an Inno gadget.


XM defended itself by saying that music stored on the device cannot be moved elsewhere and only lasts as long as a customer is a subscriber.

Royalty talks
The Inno device turns a radio broadcast into a download service that resembles Apple's iTunes, said the Recording Industry Association of America in its lawsuit.


The RIAA represents record labels such as Vivendi Universal, Sony BMG, Warner and EMI.


XM said it would defend itself vigorously against the legal action.
It added that the Inno does not let people download music on demand like iTunes and only lets listeners record radio shows as the law has allowed for "decades". The device went on sale in early May.


The lawsuit comes after talks between the RIAA and XM on licence agreements for the Inno device broke down.
The RIAA and XM are currently re-negotiating royalty contracts for radio broadcasts.


XM's rival Sirius Satellite Radio recently agreed to pay the RIAA licence fees for its S50 recording device.


Source: BBC News

[rik]

RIAA now suing XM radio for new service that allows customers to record, retain music downloaded to Inno device. The recording industry said XM's Inno device, which stores music and divides it into tracks, infringes copyright


Sorry but that statement is complete and total http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/576/bs7cu.gif (http://imageshack.us).

If that was truly the case then the RIAA will have to sue all the manufacturers of cassette tapes, old blank 8-track tapes, blank cd's and USB memory keys (You know that car radios are out that can play audio files from those).

[efc]

Response from XM Radio.

Statement to XM Subscribers - The XM Nation

Everything we've done at XM since our first minute on the air is about giving you more choices. We provide more channels and music programming than any other network. We play all the music you want to hear including the artists you want to hear but can't find on traditional FM radio. And we offer the best radios with the features you want for your cars, homes, and all places in between.

We've developed new radios -- the Inno, Helix and NeXus -- that take innovation to the next level in a totally legal way. Like TiVo, these devices give you the ability to enjoy the sports, talk and music programming whenever you want. And because they are portable, you can enjoy XM wherever you want.

The music industry wants to stop your ability to choose when and where you can listen. Their lawyers have filed a meritless lawsuit to try and stop you from enjoying these radios.

They don't get it. These devices are clearly legal. Consumers have enjoyed the right to tape off the air for their personal use for decades, from reel-to-reel and the cassette to the VCR and TiVo.

Our new radios complement download services, they don't replace them. If you want a copy of a song to transfer to other players or burn onto CDs, we make it easy for you to buy them through XM + Napster.

Satellite radio subscribers like you are law-abiding music consumers; a portion of your subscriber fee pays royalties directly to artists. Instead of going after pirates who don't pay a cent, the record labels are attacking the radios used for the enjoyment of music by consumers like you. It's misguided and wrong.

We will vigorously defend these radios in court and before Congress, and we expect to win.

Thank you for your support.

[efc]

MPAA allegedly hired hacker to steal email addresses and trade secrets from a company it accuses of conducting copyright infringement.


http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-6076665.html

[Reverend]

MPAA allegedly hired hacker to steal email addresses and trade secrets from a company it accuses of conducting copyright infringement. [/url]

http://www.techzonez.com/comments.php?shownews=18224 ;)

[rik]

http://www.p2pnet.net/story/8906

That's New York lawyer Ray Beckerman's view on a decision by judge Richard Owen where two John Does, one from the Southwest the other from New York, teamed up in Manhattan to fight back against the Big Four Organized Music cartel's RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America).

Beckerman represented both Does.

[rik]

DRM is CRAP. Read what ZDNET has to say. LINK (http://news.zdnet.com/html/z/wb/6035707.html)


http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/4276/nodrm2tq.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


Fair use under assault
EFF co-founder John Perry Barlow argues the case against DRM
By Steve Gillmor for InfoWorld

InfoWorld: What is the message that you feel needs to be made about DRM?

Barlow: I think that anybody who cares about the future of technology --
anybody who cares about the future, period -- ought to be awfully
concerned about this. But people who work in technology have been
agnostic on the subject so far. They need to recognize that they're
going to be faced with a fairly stark choice, which is a gradual
concentration around certain trusted platforms that cannot be broken
out of and are filled with black boxes that you can't code around and
can't see the inside of.

You have to get politically active and stop it from happening, because
Congress has been bought by the content industry. The choice is being
made at a very complex and subterranean political level. It's being
done in standard settings, with the FCC, in amendments to obscure bills
in Congress, in the closed door sessions to set the Digital Broadcast
Standard. It has very significant long-term effects [for] the technical
architecture of cyberspace, because what we're talking about embedding
into everything is a control and surveillance mechanism for the purpose
of observing copyright piracy, but can be used for anything...


*[i]Much more at the link*

[efc]

RIAA has changed strategy. No longer will they attract the wrath of the public by sueing 800 people at once. They have decided to spread it out over the month. Same slime. Just different trick.

http://www.slyck.com/news.php?story=1237

[Dehcbad25]

This way also 12 year old won't know which day of the week the certified letter will show at their house

[efc]

Celebration time. Not many victories so we better enjoy this one.

LINK (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060713-7257.html)
:thewave::Party::cheers::cheers2::music:

[efc]

Another victory.

Link (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/03/industry_drops_filesharing_case/)

[efc]

Just when you think that the RIAA cannot look worse, this story appears. Please tell me that this is a fake story. No one could be this stupid or cruel.

On second thought, it is the RIAA.:mad:

LINK (http://www.boingboing.net/2006/08/12/riaa_to_grieving_fam.html)

And

LINK (http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2006/08/riaa-wants-to-depose-dead-defendants.html)

[zipp51]

Just when you think that the RIAA cannot look worse, this story appears. Please tell me that this is a fake story. No one could be this stupid or cruel.

On second thought, it is the RIAA.:mad:

LINK (http://www.boingboing.net/2006/08/12/riaa_to_grieving_fam.html)

And

LINK (http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2006/08/riaa-wants-to-depose-dead-defendants.html)

Great finds efc.All of their efforts to maximize profits by sueing everybody is the lazy fat wealthy man's way.Those same people they are sueing could be buying the copyrighted songs if the price was right.A well packaged famous artist's latest cd would sell well @ $5.Sell more,make more,keep people employed,heck I'd buy several for myself and give more birthday presents,Christmas presents,buy an extra for a friend etc.But alas,I can't make those f***ing decisions.:mad:

[efc]

Thanks to /. and deffectivebydesign.org and archive.org. The recording was made in July yet this is the first most of us have heard of it. It is a dire warning that RIAA is attempting to rewrite the copyright law in a way that will hurt every consumer of music.

http://www.archive.org/download/DefectiveByDesignCallWithRayBeckerman/DefectiveByDesignCallWithRayBeckerman_64kb.m3u

[efc]

I can't tell you how much I despise this organization. I have not bought a CD in more than two years. I may never buy another. Not one red cent from me to the RIAA.

Why am I so worked up? Link (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061219/121441.shtml)

[efc]

Time is running out. People have continued to buy music CDs, so the RIAA has had little reason to stop the use of DMA. LINK (http://polishlinux.org/gnu/drm-vista-and-your-rights/)

[efc]

Mother of ten year old sued by RIAA. She is fighting back.

http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2005/10/oregon-riaa-victim-fights-back-sues.html

[efc]

I find this to be a compelling read about the many missteps of the RIAA.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/05/opinion/05sachsnunziato.html?ei=5090&en=4e2f9295623fb736&ex=1333425600&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

[efc]

The Democratic party has appointed The Director of Communications for the RIAA as Deputy CEO for Public Affairs. This is a job that she must be totally qualified for. After all, the RIAA is known for its public relations.:p

From the press release:
Jenni Engebretsen, Deputy CEO for Public Affairs
Jenni R. Engebretsen is currently the Director of Communications for the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), the Washington, DC-based trade group that represents the U.S. recording industry. Before joining the RIAA, Engebretsen spent eight years working in Democratic politics, most recently as a Regional Communications Director for the Kerry-Edwards for President campaign, where she was responsible for developing campaign communications strategy for top-targeted states including Florida and New Hampshire. During the 2004 presidential cycle, she also served as Deputy Communications Director for the Democratic National Convention in Boston and as Press Secretary for the Edwards for President campaign during the primaries. Before that, she worked on Capitol Hill in the communications offices of Senators Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and in the White House press office during the Clinton Administration. She is a graduate of Northwestern University's Medill School of Journalism.

[rik]

:rolleyes:

[efc]

As posted to slashdot.org this date. Some information came from recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com. The RIAA has dismissed its case against the handicapped mother, Tonya Anderson. The dismissal relates to Tonya Anderson only. It does not relate to her counterclaim or her claim for attorneys fees.

Hope she prevails on those also. In my opinion, is a woman that has been unjustly hounded for the past two years.

[efc]

From ARS Technica, a report of a New Mexico federal judge rejecting a RIAA John Doe lawsuits associated with the University of New Mexico's network. This will make it much harder for RIAA lawyers to obtain identifying information. More (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070620-judge-deals-blow-to-riaa-says-students-can-respond-to-john-doe-lawsuit.html)

[efc]

This appeared on Slashdot this morning. It is wonderful news. German prosecutors will not assist RIAA in clogging up the courts with criminal cases for minor file sharing. Sanity at last. http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/

[efc]

Looks like there are more problems at the RIAA. A writer interpreted this report as a funds shortage at the RIAA. It is also possible that they are testing this judge. Don't see how they can do anything except continue to make the world angry with them.

Of course, I have no problem with lawyers not getting paid.

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/14/2027231&from=rss

[efc]

Truely a red letter day. A federal magistrate judge awarded Tayna Anderson attorney fees for her previous win in a suit brought by the RIAA. Take a moment and celebrate. :cheers2:

more (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070924-victorious-riaa-defendant-gets-attorneys-fees-turns-to-class-action-plans.html)

[efc]

DrudgeReport.com reports that album sales are down 14% from a year ago. I am sure that the the industry blames that on music downloads. Although that can be a significant reason for the decline, it could also be the result of people like me that don't buy for two main reasons. The first is that I so object to this industry persecuting the young and weak with litigation, I have no sympathy with any bad news that comes to the industry. The second is the quality of today's music. Produce "GREAT" music and it will sell. Produce trash and you get paid what it is worth.

[efc]

The long awaited Jammie Thomas Kazaa file-sharing case is expected to go to jurors today. Six recording companies have accused her of sharing 1702 songs online in violation to companies' copyrights.

There were two days of testimony. There were eleven withesses testifying for the record companies. The defense rested without calling anyone to the stand. Closing arguments are scheduled to occur later today.

Ms. Thomas contends that she did not download the songs in question. She further testified that she never had Kazaa installed on her computer. The oposition had testimony that copyrighted mater was found on a kazaa account that was later tied to Ms Thomas.

more (http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/071004/downloading_music.html?.v=3)

[Dehcbad25]

I agree with you EFC. My music is quite old, and I used to get CDs quite often, but it has been a couple of years since I bought a CD, and even the CDs that I bough were from Japan (Utada Hikaru)

[efc]

It was a bad day for Ms. Thomas. The jury awarded 6 record companies $222,000. The verdict was for downloading 24 songs. That is a whopping $9250 per song.

I don't condone downloading of copyrighted music. If Ms. Thomas did actually download the music in question, she was wrong. Now the issue is the amount of this award. It is absurd. Only in the U.S. legal system could 24 songs be equated with this much money.

[Dehcbad25]

Sad news for us common folk

[efc]

RIAA to die in 2008?

One could only wish.

http://www.winextra.com/2007/12/29/is-2008-to-be-riaas-death-knell/