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 fe