Page 8 of 18 FirstFirst ... 456789101112 ... LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 259

Thread: Join RIAA Boycott

  1. #106
    Succeded in braking Windo TZ Veteran Dehcbad25's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    DE - USA
    Posts
    2,304
    cool pic

  2. #107
    Triple Platinum Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    827
    im late...but in

  3. #108
    Titanium Member efc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    North Central Arkansas
    Posts
    2,184
    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 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.
    Linux Mint Debian Edition

  4. #109
    Super Moderator Super Moderator Big Booger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    JAPAN
    Posts
    10,339
    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.

  5. #110
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    I totally second that!! I don't mind paying for live performances.

  6. #111
    Titanium Member efc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    North Central Arkansas
    Posts
    2,184
    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.
    Linux Mint Debian Edition

  7. #112
    Titanium Member efc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    North Central Arkansas
    Posts
    2,184
    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.
    Linux Mint Debian Edition

  8. #113
    Super Moderator Super Moderator Big Booger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    JAPAN
    Posts
    10,339
    Quote Originally Posted by 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.

    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.

  9. #114
    Titanium Member efc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    North Central Arkansas
    Posts
    2,184

    This one went against RIAA

    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.
    Linux Mint Debian Edition

  10. #115
    Head Honcho Administrator Reverend's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    England
    Posts
    14,064
    Quote Originally Posted by efc
    Justices won't weigh Net music lawsuit tactics

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

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

    =========== Please Read The Forum Rules ===========

  11. #116
    Titanium Member efc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    North Central Arkansas
    Posts
    2,184
    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.
    Linux Mint Debian Edition

  12. #117
    Super Moderator Super Moderator Big Booger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    JAPAN
    Posts
    10,339
    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.

  13. #118
    Titanium Member efc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    North Central Arkansas
    Posts
    2,184

    New RIAA Targets

    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.
    Linux Mint Debian Edition

  14. #119
    Succeded in braking Windo TZ Veteran Dehcbad25's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    DE - USA
    Posts
    2,304
    Can we see the names????

  15. #120
    Titanium Member efc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    North Central Arkansas
    Posts
    2,184
    Quote Originally Posted by Dehcbad25
    Can we see the names????
    I didn't find a list of names.
    Linux Mint Debian Edition

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •