Poll: Is the RIAA out of control?

[Geo]

quote:I personally think it is a good idea that they sued the 12 year old, and I'll tell ya why:If they only sued 20-something computer jocks with 10k or more songs, people still wouldn't be deterred. RIAA definitely is setting an example that it is ILLEGAL for all ages under ALL circumstances. ****, it made me stop downloading. I called everyone in my family and told them to erase the mp3's from their drives. NOBODY IS SAFE FROM THE LAW! oh yeah, and that video is hilarious!Oh yea, there's a problem with that. They are only going after people who are SHARING music, and only those that are SHARING MUSIC in the USA.That means if you are sharing music in Canada, you are free. If you are from a different country, you are golden. Mexico? NO problem. They can only get those users who are on American shores and are offering music.The RIAA believes by getting Americans to stop sharing that this will stop. Thing is, there are plenty of other people in the world who share music as well. What the RIAA cannot do is get you for DOWNLOADING music. They are not touching anyone who has just leeched off the general populace for their own good. I am not erasing anything, and I hope that you people don't either. There are other file sharing programs out there that are NOT Kazaa, use those. There is even work out there right now on developing file-sharing programs where one CANNOT identify the person sharing music by their IP (All the RIAA has to go on, actually. They get your IP from your computer after downloading songs from you, then subpoena your ISP for your info.) Or one can share music for IRC for complete safety (it works on a trading business there mostly) there will ALWAYS be ways to illegally get music, that's just a fact of life that the populace is going to face. So far every single DRM (digital rights management) ploy the recoord companies have used to stop people from ripping CDs into MP3s has failed, EVERY SINGLE ONE. People can crack DVDs, still hack into coorperate websites, etc. As of now, the RIAA needs to actually download music off your computer to issue a lawsuit, that way they know you are indeed sharing. Setup a firewall, don't share any files, or trade exclusivly with friends. You've already won the battle. See now, wasn't that easy?What the RIAA is doing now isn't even all that illegal, they are not a government body but they are trying to govern the way the general populace lives their lives. This isn't an elected body that has this kind of power, it's a coorperation that has way too much power for what it is. I just wonder when the RIAA is set to go after libraries for renting out all those CDs for free. Is it illegal for me to rent a CD, rip a copy and then listen to the music on my own? We've never had trouble with people lending out CDs and tapes to friends, or people making mix tapes ... perhaps that's next. *ramble ramble ramble*Eh, sorry bout that. I just can't wait till the RIAA and the big record companies lie on their back and die. ^_^Viva le revolution!

[MonotoneSatellite]

Here is some gasoline for the flames. From Cnet News:http://news.com.com/2100-1027_3-5072842.htmlThe story fo those who trust me:______________________________________________________Apple: Reselling iTunes songs 'impractical' By Ina Fried and Evan Hansen Staff Writer, CNET News.comSeptember 8, 2003, 2:54 PM PT An Apple Computer executive on Monday downplayed recent questions over the download resale policy of the company's iTunes Music Store, saying technical if not legal barriers would largely prevent such transfers from taking place. "Apple's position is that it is impractical, though perhaps within someone's rights, to sell music purchased online," Peter Lowe, Apple's director of marketing for applications and services, told CNET News.com in an interview. Lowe's comments came after eBay last week pulled an auction seeking to sell an iTunes download, saying the attempted sale violated the site's listings policies. Web developer George Hotelling had put the song up for auction Tuesday evening, hoping to highlight the question of whether Internet customers can resell songs they've purchased in digital form. Under the "First Sale" doctrine, the owner of a lawful copy of a work is allowed to sell it without the permission of the copyright owner. But legal interpretations of the doctrine, most recently from the U.S. Copyright Office, have found that the doctrine does not apply to digital goods, according to online copyright experts. Apple's store has been a hit with consumers, who have snapped up 10 million iTunes songs since the store launched on April 28, according to the company. Although iTunes tracks come with copy restrictions, Hotelling said he believed he could successfully transfer the file to a third party. One extreme solution would be to hand over his account information and password to the buyer, although he said he would rather not have to resort to that method. Apple's Lowe left unaddressed the question of whether a transfer would violate iTunes' terms-of-service contract, focusing instead on technical and other barriers to such a sale. "They would have to somehow give their account info to the person they were selling to in order to get their Mac authorized to play the music being sold," he said. Lowe also said that with songs selling for 99 cents apiece, reselling music could be financially impractical. "Economically, I don't believe there is going to be much of a market for resold music...We just don't see it as that much of an issue," he said. ______________________________________________Now my comments. I am a huge fan of the Apple Music Store. I am really excited that there is a legal we to buy the one song that I want to hear. In the past I have downloaded my share of music from various sources. However, I haven't stolen music via a file sharing network in months if not years. I dislike the RIAA and there business tactics. I hate the way the rape artists and dictate the terms about the way a group grows and expands. The RIAA has fouled up artistic creativity. They control every aspect of music creation. If you want to be big you have to play by their rules and they own the game. The RIAA assembles groups of talentles fools who look good in front of a camera, gives them songs to sing and parades them around like puppets on strings. After there stardom fades the are tossed by the dumpster forever known as a one hit wonder. Clearly there are many companies that are responsible for the current state of the industry. The RIAA is their public face and therefore gets brunt of the focus. In reality the individual companies are outdated businesses that are slow to respond to a changing environment. This stagnation is a symptom of lack of competition. Until the digital revolution, they held seats of unquestionable power and had nothing to fear. After seeing their profits slip due to a weakening economy, stale products and file sharing among other factors, they are lashing out. To quote Johnny Depp's statement on another topic "it's like a dumb puppy that has big teeth that can bite and hurt you" It will be interesting to see how the law reacts to the case posted above. No one will find a way to make any real money buying songs for 99¢ and trying to sell them, but it does raise some questions that are very difficult to answer. Is digital media ownership consistent with ownership of tangible goods? If I buy a device that contains digital media, am I legally able sell or destroy that digital media. In traditional terms, ownership was defined by possession. That may not apply anymore.I am not sure how the RIAA feels about selling digital media that has no tangible form. But I have a good idea that they will come out against it.

[yank dini]

quote:I am, often. But, I've been yelled at by people way more important than anyone on this site, so go for it. Well it's obvious that you were one of those people, and that my coment touched a nerve. Like I said anyone that supports these morons are just as bad as they are. I've been a music lover for decades and my 600+ CD collection proves that. I dont download music never have, but I dont think it's fair for these clowns to go after the consumer that's make them rich anyway. Even heard of the term "dont bite the hand that feeds you?" Well this is exactly what the RIAA is doing. But if you support this then so be it lets wait and see how you feel once one of those "important people" of yours get caught up in something you feel is unfair. Maybe then you'll see my point.

[yank dini]

quote:Joat, you are not the only one with these concerns.. I have heard from a few people that they are tired of the fighting and petty post bashing.I have to agree to this.. Some members do not come back because of this and it is sad.Doesn't bother me. It's only the internet ya know. But if he really wants to get it on he can comeover to http://www.okayplayer.com and join the GD Board. Better bring gloves.

[yank dini]

quote:It's obvious to me that you missed my point entirely.That's because you didnt have one.quote:However, I did vote no, and I am not ashamed about it. I personally have been on the losing end of software piracy, code cracking, illegal sharing. I have some pretty strong feelings about intellectual property rights. Ever heard of the expression "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time"?Well that's all fine and dandy but you do know that some laws are unneccesary, dont you? The reason why I say this is because they dont have to charge $20.00 for a CD when they are only giving the artists 10% of each unit sold AT BEST!. I buy CD's to support the artist not the record label or distributor. We've lost a lot of good music makers due to the practices of record companies and the way that they treat their artists. And I looks like they want to treat us the same way feel me? Maybe if they lower the prices people will decide to buy it rather than download it. I mean how many CD's do you have with only one or two good songs on it. (filler)quote:If you all are so adamant about opposing this RiAA action, what productive steps have you taken to change it? An invisible revolution by whining and continuing to steal music? Have you lobbied your elected officials to change the laws that allow RIAA to legally do this? Have you started any visible protest actions? Have you organized or contributed to a fund to help RIAA "victims" with legal costs? I mean, if it's such a big deal to you, what are you doing about it? Stand up and fight!1. I never downloaded music but I dont support the RIAA actions. If you dont stand for something you will fall for anything.2. I have sent a letter to my Michigan Congressman Joe Knollenberg. He responded to me in regards to this issue on Wed. ( but I know it's hot air anyway)3. Okayplayer is takin up a fund for her and I was the first person on the thread willing to donate.WHAT!

[ragingfish]

quote: I get really fed up with people who just complain about the way things are, but never do anything about it. It's easy to complain, hard to take action. I am really glad that you have done this! Now I know of two genvibers who know how to and have contacted their representatives to make their opinions known. Don't let them blow you off. Continue to stand up and be counted.I sent letters to my congresspeople and senators complaining about the excessive fees and BS charges we pay as wireless phone users...only one replied, saying he didn't realize there was such a problem, but unfortuantely, there wasn't much he could do about it...he continued to say if he saw any bills come up to add excess charges, he'd keep me in mind...I thought it was a decent response...quote:3. Okayplayer is takin up a fund for herWho?

[Vibe Rater]

NEWS - Disturbed Singer Blasts RIAA Lawsuits09/12/2003(9/12/03, 12 p.m. ET) -- Disturbed lead singer David Draiman thinks that the music industry should figure out how to distribute music on the Internet, instead of suing people who download songs.Draiman told the San Francisco Chronicle, "This is not rocket science--instead of spending all this money litigating against kids who are the people they're trying to sell things to in the first place, they have to learn how to effectively use the Internet." Draiman asserts that the actions taken by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) are protecting corporate profits, not artists: "For the artists, my ars...I didn't ask them to protect me, and I don't want their protection."On Monday (September 8), the RIAA filed suit against 261 people--including a 12-year-old girl--who allegedly had more than 1,000 music files on their computers. The RIAA is charging them with copyright violation, seeking as much as $150,000 per violation in some of the cases, and hopes that the lawsuits will help put the brakes on file-sharing.Disturbed will appear in a documentary called Get Thrashed, due out before the end of the year, which will examine the thrash metal scene of the '80s and its impact on today's heavy rock bands.A DVD of last spring's Music As A Weapon tour, featuring Disturbed, Chevelle, Taproot, and Unloco, is tentatively scheduled for release on October 22.

[yank dini]

quote: I get really fed up with people who just complain about the way things are, but never do anything about it. It's easy to complain, hard to take action. I am really glad that you have done this! Now I know of two genvibers who know how to and have contacted their representatives to make their opinions known. Don't let them blow you off. Continue to stand up and be counted. THIS JUST IN This is an email that I just received from Michigan Senator Carl Levin One of three Senator I contacted regarding this issue. So far 2 of the 3 have repliedDear Friend:Thank you for contacting me with your concerns about the Recording IndustryAssociation of America's (RIAA) recent decision to issue subpoenas to gatherevidence for potential lawsuits against Peer-to-Peer (P2P) file sharing softwareusers. I appreciate hearing your views on this matter.The P2P exchange, also referred to as swapping, of certain types of files overthe internet poses serious questions regarding existing copyrights. Digitalmedia files, such as MP3s, e-books, and digital pictures, often containcopyrighted material. As a result, the free exchange of these files raisesconcerns among copyright holders. Meanwhile, some consumer rights groups andcivil liberties organizations argue that P2P software promotes free expressionand is capable of substantial non-infringement uses.The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) announced on June 25,2003, that it will file suit against people who use P2P file-sharing systems tocreate unauthorized copies of copyrighted materials. Since then, the RIAA isreported to have won hundreds of subpoenas in order to collect information forcivil lawsuits that could be filed against individuals who are alleged to haveillegally used file sharing programs. I believe the recording industry has raised legitimate concerns about copyrightinfringement and, of course, that they have the right to take appropriate stepsto protect their legal rights. However, I also believe that the privacy rightsof individuals should not be compromised. I will continue to carefully review this matter as the Courts and Congressfurther addresses these issues. Thanks again for writing.Sincerely,Carl Levin

[Vibe Rater]

Looks like Carl Levin has the fence firmly planted where the sun don't shine. Privacy and freedom trump copyrights every time.

[yank dini]

Like I said earlier, HOT AIR Although I did find a prank call to those *******s. check it...It took hours of searching before I finally found a phone number and was able to get through to someone. I spoke with a young, mild-mannered executive who patiently answered my questions, which I delivered in my best "dumb guy" voice.JH: Hello. I just downloaded some illegal MP3s and my friend told me that the RAII is going to sue everyone who downloads music. What should I do?RIAA: Hold on just a sec.[There was a hold of about two minutes. I was desperately afraid they were tracing my call, and that Agent Smith would come smashing through my door at any moment, wielding the severed arm of Jimmy Carter. But I courageously waited it out.]RIAA: Sir?JH: Yes.RIAA: The best advice I can offer you at this moment is to go to dub-dub-dub-musicunited.org and you can learn there how to uninstall your peer-to-peer software or file-sharing service.JH: But I don't have a pee service. Someone just e-mailed me a song and I listened to it. Am I going to jail?RIAA: Sir, I don't know. I'm not in a position to offer you legal advice on this.JH: Legal advice? Do I need to get a lawyer?RIAA: You might want to. As I said, your best possible route is to go to musicunited.org. Beyond that, I'm not in a position to offer you additional legal advice.JH: Can I write a check to someone? RIAA: Has your service provider told you that you've been subpoenaed?JH: A (removed)?RIAA: [Long pause] What?JH: You asked if my service provider told me I have a (removed)?RIAA: Have you been issued a subpoena?JH: I just listened to it in my e-mail, is all! RIAA: Sir, I can't give you any specific legal advice to assist you in your situation. JH: My girlfriend listened to the song too. Is she going to jail? I'm really scared.RIAA: I can't give you any specific advice beyond what I've said.JH: How much do these songs cost? Can I just mail a check to you guys? I really don't want to go back to prison.RIAA: Sir. I cannot have these conversations. You should consult a lawyer if you think you might be at risk.JH: But I can't afford a lawyer! They're too expensive! RIAA: What I can tell you is to visit musicunited.org, which will tell you ways to reduce the likelihood that you will be a target.JH: A TARGET?! A target of who? Terrorists?!RIAA: A target of legal action.JH: You guys ARE going to sue me! I knew it! I never should have downloaded Beethoven's Ninth Symphony! Oh, NO!!!RIAA: That's the best I can do for you.

[yank dini]

quote:HEADLINES: Detroit Free Press Yank Dini Caught: RIAA catches their perp.... ***flips bird to photographers and RIAA spokesperson as officers escort him to crusiers, film at 11*****

[drunkenmaxx]

oh my hero! >

[yank dini]

This is getting out of hand now.... The little bit of respect that I had for these morons is out of the window........WHO DO THEY THINK THEY ARE THE IRS?http://www.hiphopdx.com/index/news/id.2020RIAA Goes After MixtapesFriday - September 26, 2003J-23In the latest move from a bunch, we feel are clueless as to how to evolve with the times, the RIAA has taken a break from suing 12 year olds in order to crack down on mixtapes. Of course, the mixtape scene has been booming for the last year and a half or so after 50 showed just how powerful they can be.The RIAA headed to Berry's Music in Indianapolis and began confiscating inventory from the mom and pops store. Berry's Music Store & Wearhouse were raided by RIAA agents and local for $10,000 worth of inventory. The mixtapes confiscated were the official copies put out by Green Lantern, Kay Slay and others – all of which are fully supported by the artists. So now, the artists are losing a viable means of promoting themselves without paying ridiculous advertising prices or payola to radio stations.

[ragingfish]

*sigh*Sometimes I just don't get the world we live in...we are often so petty about the dumbest things...just disgusts me...

[yank dini]

what sickens me is that these clowns keep messin with the little guy. Why aren't they going after the producer of this CD and or website that allow it if it's so damn threating. They are true real life p--sies.It's like beating the crap out of a dope fiend coming to buy crack from you. It just doesn't make sense.

[Vibe Rater]

quote:So now, the artists are losing a viable means of promoting themselves without paying ridiculous advertising prices or payola to radio stations. Ya see, that's the whole thing right there. It has never (ever) been about promoting the artists to the RIAA. This is about money, for the RIAA, not the artists. All this insanity by the RIAA has never had anything to do with the artists. The RIAA could care less about them and don't give a rat's @$$ if they starve to death. Never have. It's about the RIAA coroporation and fat @$$ hypocrite record company executives. This latest bonehead move by the RIAA is just more definitive proof of that.

[drunkenmaxx]

in the words of 3-6 mafia "f*ck that sh*t, f*ck that sh*t"the whole thing in a nutshell is that the artists don't actually own their songs

[yank dini]

MY GOD!you are so right I was trying to hammer this reason into the head of another member that I was debating with on this site........unfortunatley he didn't understand what I was saying. Hip hop has lost so many good artists and groups because the execs where cheating them in their contracts..... Still and the artists that support them are dumb as rocks.

[yank dini]

quote:in the words of 3-6 mafia "f*ck that sh*t, f*ck that sh*t"the whole thing in a nutshell is that the artists don't actually own their songsor their own lives for that matter

[Vibe Rater]

http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2003-09-07-1.html

[drunkenmaxx]

zzzzz

[Vibe Rater]

EarthStation5 thumbs nose at recording industryBased in refugee camp Mark EvansFinancial PostMonday, September 29, 2003The music industry's all-out assault on illegal downloaders has rattled a lot of people -- but not staff at fledgling EarthStation5.The firm, which launched a portal earlier this year featuring peer-to-peer software that allows people to download music anonymously, likes to boast that it is a prime destination for music lovers around the world -- and is far superior to giants like Kazaa. It's also proud of its militant anti-industry stance.Based in the West Bank's Jenin refugee camp, the company loves to thumb its nose at the Recording Industry Association of America's (RIAA) recent attempts to stop people from illegally downloading music on the Internet."Copyright is of no value to EarthStation5," proclaims spokesman Steve Taylor, who lives in San Diego. "The Palestinians are more concerned with daily life and living with a war.... Pleasing the [RIAA] means nothing to these people.""They wonder if they going to live tomorrow," Mr. Taylor said.EarthStation5's president, Ras Kabir, who claims to be Palestinian but spent much of his childhood in Manchester, England, with his mother, said that it is unlikely anyone with a legal beef will go after EarthStation5."We're in Palestine, in a refugee camp," Mr. Kabir said."There aren't too many process servers that are going to be coming into the Jenin refugee camp."The lack of a corporate headquarters would also make it hard to go after EarthStation5.Mr. Taylor said the firm does not have a corporate headquarters because the Palestinian communities are shut down by the Israelis during "flare-ups," which would make it impossible for people to get to work.Instead, most of the company's 561 employees work in Palestine and such foreign countries as Estonia, Finland and Russia.In August, EarthStation5 made it abundantly clear it has little respect for copyright when it rejected an e-mail from the Motion Picture Association of America for copyright violations for streaming free first-run movies.The company said that it was "at war" with MPAA and RIAA, and it would run even more free movies."The next revolution in P2P file-sharing is upon you," Mr. Kabir warned the MPAA and RIAA in a statement. "Resistance is futile and we are now in control."Mr. Taylor said EarthStation5 doesn't care what the music, movie and software industries think about its role in violating copyright."The Palestinians could care less what the Americans do or, for that matter, what other governments do," he said. "The copyright laws in Palestine are simple. If you don't violate the copyright of a Palestinian, it's legal."EarthStation5's bravado has attracted plenty of attention for a Web site that has been criticized by P2P users for its unimpressive interface and lack of features.EarthStation5 claims that rivals like Kazaa, Grokster, iMesh and Gnutella -- the giants of the business -- don't measure up."EarthStation5 is light year's ahead of other technology," he said, citing its superiority over its P2P rivals like Kazaa.Not surprisingly, EarthStation5 is attracting skeptics who believe it is more of a P2P rogue than a company with goals to become a global portal.Jorge Gonzalez, co-founder of ZeroPaid Inc., which provides information about P2P networks, said he has started to question EarthStation5's claims. He began to question the portal after it began advertising on his Web site.While EarthStation5's promotional strategy worked, it also resulted in some negative comments about its portal that were subsequently posted on ZeroPaid's Web site.After the comments were posted, ZeroPaid says EarthStation5 employees launched personal attacks on Mr. Gonzalez and his partner Chris Hedgecock."These guys are up to something," Mr. Gonzalez said. "They claim they have 15 million users on their network. What they are saying is they have three to four times as many users on the system as Kazaa."Come on, no matter what audience they are appealing to, that's sh--. It is a clunky, underdeveloped application."Perhaps.But as the music industry uses lawsuits to shut down P2P sites and scares people into stopping to download music, it is likely EarthStation5 could become more notorious as people seek out alternatives and underground file-sharing clubs.mevans@nationalpost.com

[yank dini]

they cant stop these guys from bombing... I doubt they will stop this ...This is what they deserve someone that can match them

[Vibe Rater]

What will the RIAA stop at? Nothing. DO NOT use Earthstation.EarthStation 5 P2P application contains malicious codeES5 infoEarthStation 5 (aka ES5, aka ESV) (http://www.earthstation5.com and http://forums2.es5.com/) is a P2P application first released about 6-12 months ago. The people behind ES5 claim that ES5 is the most secure P2P software in the world. They also claim that they are security experts, and that they have more than 15 million simultaneous users on-line 24/7. In comparison Kazaa, the most popular P2P application, only has about 4 million simultaneous users on-line at any given time of day.Malicious codeThere exists malicious code in ES5.exe's "Search Service" packet handler. By sending packet 0Ch, sub-function 07h to the "Search Service"'s IPort, a remote attacker could delete any file the user is sharing. If the remote attacker uses "filenames" with a relative path in them (eg. "......WINDOWSNOTEPAD.EXE"), the remote attacker could also delete files in eg. the windows and windowssystem32 folders, or any other folder on the same partition as any of the shared folders. Since most users using Windows are in the Administrators group, a remote attacker could also delete the C:BOOT.INI file which is a required boot file used by ntldr.IMPORTANT: This is not a bug! They intentionally added this code to ES5.VulnerabilitiesThere also exists a lot of other vulnerabilities in ES5 (eg. DoS attacks, buffer overflow bugs, and so on), but these all seem to be unintentional. Another advisory may have more info on these vulnerabilities, but I'm not their beta tester so don't hold your breath.ConclusionThe people behind ES5 have intentionally added malicious code to ES5. If you have followed the ES5 discussions on message boards and read what the ES5 people have said and done (eg. DoS attacking BitTorrent sites), this comes as no surprise. The question then is "why did they do it?" I'm sure they won't tell us, but here's a theory: They could be working for the RIAA, MPAA, or a similar organization. Once they have enough users on their ES5 network, they would start deleting all copyrighted files they own which their users are sharing. The users wouldn't know what hit them.Tested ES5 buildsES5 build 1266ES5 build 2180 (latest version)MD5 sums of filesMD5 sum (using RFC 1321 source code) of tested files (just in case the ES5 people will remove the malicious code w/o changing the build number)e35838ef6668abe883344e3a7e734794 *es5beta1266.exece44a1f0542b9132f2debd9866febc65 *es5beta2180.exe373c30ba0e8b1dce05dcab2acce94a77 *es5_build1266.exe915de0f8e72be40bf071a86bc9dc2626 *es5_build2180.exe2,244,663 es5_build1266.exe (ES5.exe - build 1266)2,347,063 es5_build2180.exe (ES5.exe - build 2180 - latest version)4,436,309 es5beta1266.exe (ES5 installer - build 1266)4,553,325 es5beta2180.exe (ES5 installer - build 2180 - latest version)The official ES5 installer download URL is http://download.es5.com/es5beta.exe , but check its MD5 sum before installing it in case they changed it.Creditsme for discovering it (randnut@yahoo.com)Exploit codeGo to http://www.geocities.com/esvuln to download the exploit binary if you don't want to compile it yourself.Source code to esv ("ExpoitStation 5" or "EarthStation Vulnerabilities", you decide) but first a little FAQ...Uninstall Instructions 1. Kill all ES5.exe processes with task manager (taskmgr.exe) 2. Try ES5's uninstaller 3. Delete registry key HKEY_CURRENT_USERSoftwareHelmuthSpeakingForBosko ne 4. Delete registry key HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINESOFTWAREEarthStation5 5. Remove the ES5 entry from HKEY_CURRENT_USERSoftwareMicrosoftWindowsCurre ntVersionRun to stop it from running after reboot 6. Remove the ES5 entry from HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINESOFTWAREMicrosoftWindowsCurr entVersionRun to stop it from running after reboot 7. Delete all files in the ES5 folder (usually in "Crogram FilesEarthStation5"). If files can't be deleted, boot into safe mode and delete them. 8. Restart computer

[joatmon]

Food for thought, (not intended to be fuel for the fire) this editorial at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... 3Oct3.html is arguing that the real problem is not the RIAA suing file sharers, but the law that makes their actions legal.

[yank dini]

quote:Food for thought, (not intended to be fuel for the fire) this editorial at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... 3Oct3.html is arguing that the real problem is not the RIAA suing file sharers, but the law that makes their actions legal.True but just because you have a gun on your waste doesn't mean you have to always use it

[ragingfish]

Quote » Take a Stand Against the Madness; Stop the RIAA! The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is on a rampage, launching legal attacks against average Americans from coast to coast. Rather than working to create a rational, legal means by which its customers can take advantage of file-sharing technology and pay a fair price for the music they love, it has chosen to sue people like Brianna LaHara, a 12 year-old girl living in New York City public housing.Brianna, and hundreds of other music fans like her, are being forced to pay thousands of dollars they do not have to settle RIAA-member lawsuits -- supporting a business model that is anything but rational. This crusade is generating thousands of subpoenas and hundreds of lawsuits, but not a single penny for the artists that the RIAA claims to protect.Copyright law shouldn't make criminals out of 60 million Americans, and it's time for a change. Tell Congress that it's time to stop the madness!Sign the petition here:http://www.eff.com/share/petitionThey need 100,000 signatures to send the petition to congress.The currently have somewhere in the range of 67,700. Sign the petition, get your friends to sign!

[msmyer]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/ne...feb17

[ragingfish]

Update:Artists feel file-sharing doesn't threaten them...Quote »Net File-Sharing Doesn't Hurt Most Artists -SurveyWASHINGTON (Reuters) - Most musicians and artists say the Internet has helped them make more money from their work despite online file-trading services that allow users to copy songs and other material for free, according to a study released on Sunday.Recording labels and movie studios have hired phalanxes of lawyers to pursue "peer to peer" networks like Kazaa, and have sued thousands of individuals who distribute copyrighted material through such networks.But most of the artists surveyed by the nonprofit Pew Internet and American Life Project said online file sharing did not concern them much.Artists were split on the merits of peer-to-peer networks, with 47 percent saying that they prevent artists from earning royalties for their work and another 43 percent saying they helped promote and distribute their material.But two-thirds of those surveyed said file sharing posed little threat to them, and less than one-third of those surveyed said file sharing was a major threat to creative industries.Only 3 percent said the Internet hurt their ability to protect their creative works."What we hear from a wide spectrum of artists is that, despite the real challenges of protecting work online, the Internet has opened new ways for them to exercise their imaginations and sell their creations," said report author Mary Madden, a research specialist at the Pew Internet and American Life Project.The nonprofit group based its report on a survey of 809 self-identified artists in December 2003. The survey has a margin of error of 4 percentage points.

[futseal04]

This is the first time that I have seen this thread, so I will weigh in on what I think:I agree with a lot of you in saying that I won't pay $20 for a CD with one good song. I have lots of files (almost 6400 music files, along with many TV shows, movies, etc.) but haven't been on KaZaa in almost a year. I found out that if I do go on KaZaa, share my TV shows only (Space Ghost C2C and SNL.....I have about 200 files on these alone). If I want music, often I will just go to a used CD store, rip the CD, and then sell it back to the same store.Movies are different. I won't pay $10 bucks to see a crappy movie, so I dont' think there is anything wrong with previewing it first. I always delete it, and if I like it, go see it in the theater.It is interesting to see how the RIAA and MPAA have shifted their focus over the years. At first, the campaign was that artists weren't getting paid. When the consumer didn't care if artists got $9.9 million a year instead of $10 mil, they started saying that the support people didn't get paid, like band members, road crews, etc. Well, we all know that this is complete crap, and most see it for what it really is.......the CEO, who doesn't put any fans in the stands, gets a smaller bonus. And they have the nerve to accuse US of profitting off of others work.I remember listening to Man Cow one day in 98 or 99 on the way to work. It was in the midst of the whole Napster thing, and he asked Kid Rock what he thought about it. Kid replied with the best answer any celebrity could have: "I don't give a f***. I have enough money."Lastly, about software. I have no problem with free Windows products. If Windows was a car, it would have been lemon-lawed years ago. Again, I don't mind paying for quality software, and I would if it was worth it. And, there are ways of getting around the electronic registration.......Just my .50

[ColonelPanic]

Quote, originally posted by futseal04 »I have no problem with free Windows products. If Windows was a car, it would have been lemon-lawed years ago.(removed)! Nothing like a blue screen of death every time you pull your car out of the friggin' driveway.