RIAA at it again...

[sir archely]

go HERE (http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/06/25/download.suits.ap/index.html)

and then tell me what you think.

Myself, i think it's another scare tactic on their part. Sure they'll probably go after some of the high end people, but my guess is that the majority of this is to scare people away from sharing and p2p stuff altogether.

Anyway, more i could say, but we'll see where this goes.

[sir archely]

just been looking around the 'net at some of the different topics that have been started in response to this thing. and wow, i didn't think it was possible, but the RIAA pissed off even more people. here's something interesting i found.


Contrary to what the RIAA wants you to believe, it appears that making a copy of an audio recording may be perfectly legal in the US, even if you don't own the original recording, as long as it is for noncommercial purposes. The reason for this is the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA).

Since 1992, the U.S. Government has collected a tax on all digital audio recorders and blank digital audio media manufactured in or imported into the US, and gives the money directly to the RIAA companies, which is distributed as royalties to recording artists, copyright owners, music publishers, and music writers:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/ch10.html
[cornell.edu]

In exchange for those royalties, a special exemption to the copyright law was made for the specific case of audio recordings, and as a result *ALL* noncommercial copying of musical recordings by consumers is now legal in the US, regardless of media:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/1008.html
[cornell.edu]

"No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings."

The intent of Congress was clear when this law was passed

http://www.cni.org/Hforums/cni-copyright/1993-01/0018.html
[cni.org]

From House Report No. 102-873(I), September 17, 1992:

"In the case of home taping, the [Section 1008] exemption protects all noncommercial copying by consumers of digital and analog musical recordings."

From House Report No. 102-780(I), August 4, 1992:

"In short, the reported legislation [Section 1008] would clearly establish that consumers cannot be sued for making analog or digital audio copies for private noncommercial use."

Therefore, when you copy an MP3 the royalties have already been paid for with tax dollars in accordance with the law. If you are a musician whose recordings are publicly distributed, then you are entitled to your share of these royalties by filing a claim under Section 1006

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/1006.html
[cornell.edu]

Napster tried to use this law to defend their case, and the court ruled this law did not apply to them because they are a commercial company. But as a consumer it seems to me you are perfectly within your rights when you make a copy for noncommercial private use.

[almost crimes]

the RIAA are amongst the most ignorant, backwards people out there. like the cnn article said, they are alienating the consumer. i buy less cds now not because i don't want to support the artists but because i don't want to support the asshole major label they are signed to. i mean come on, they are still making a killing off cds and cds are still selling (a few weeks ago radiohead had their biggest selling release since 1997) millions of copies. because of the pigheadedness of the major label conglomorates and the RIAA i only purchase independant releases now for the most part. instead of embracing digital music, these idiots have attacked the people who subscribe to the format rather than use hideously flawed and outdated compact discs. if the RIAA had been smart and saw the potentials of mp3 files they could have made a killing off of it. but no, they decided to go the other way and alienate millions of people who are using p2p programs. well good for them. personally i'm not that worried and i'm not going to stop sharing the 2500 mp3s i have on my computer right now. the RIAA need to realize that there is no way of stopping file-sharing anymore. they can shut down one program and five more will pop up. the fact that they have taken such an offensive position has, i feel, made people even more determined to thwart them. rather than just saying 'don't file-share' they need to take steps to work with the consumer rather than against. they should drop cd prices (which are ridiculous), set up sales of cds in mp3 format and give more perks for people purchasing. i know my support of the corporate record industry didn't decline until i started reading all these articles about how stupid they were being. so in the mean time, i'm happy buying cds that released on independant labels. :)

[Anita Blake]

also, i'm not sure of this, but i heard that among the many things related to this is that they don't seem to know whether p2p file sharing is breaking civil law or criminal law. so, there's a lot of legal issues they need to sort out before they can go about chraging people or sueing them. And then i also wonder.... isn't the RIAA the recording industry of America association? do they have any jurisdiction internationally? would they in fact be able to file a suit in the American system against someone in say, Denmark? England? Canada? Can a non-US citizen be charged for committing a US 'crime' if they aren't even in the US, and committed the 'crime' while in another country? What is the jurisdiction that this so called 'crime' is committed in? is this copyright law recognized in all nations? is it international, or national? That's the problem with the internet.... jurisdiction. I have a sincere doubt that the government of any independant nation would allow the US government (or any foreign gov't dor that matter) to enter the country and physically restrain a citizen for any kind of internet-related activity. Wouldn't it really be up to the discretion of the government of the accused? does any of this makes sense? (no really, does it? i haven't eaten today yet, so i'm a little floopy).....


*runs away*

[sir archely]

yeah, i've seen discussion about the international end of this too. i don't see how the RIAA could do anything about someone in another country. at the very least i think they would have to go through both governments, and that would get messy i think. who knows. well, someone does i'm sure, but it seems weird to me. i think that they can probably charge people in other countries all they want, they just can't go get them.

[dark fuschia]

how veyr creepy, didn't I read somewhere that people can't take class action against cororations now? It seems very unfair if they can still take class action aginst single people... *shivers* how creepy

[sir archely]

i think what you're referring to is in Anita's post about Erin Brokovitch in the movie reviews thread.

Anyway, here's another thing i just stumbled across...

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,57048,00.html

Apparently the RIAA doesn't know jack about computers. I almost feel sorry for them. no wait, i don't. All i know is that since yesterday, i've done quite a bit of surfing around on various news sites, MBs, whatever about this RIAA thing, and if they've been hacked six times in six months, it's nothing compared to what is going to happen once they start suing people. Nearly every MB i've seen contains someone who wants to hack them if they go after this. The fact that they are completely clueless and apparently inept (left a hole open for 7 hours? jeez.) says a lot for their approach to this whole thing.

[LaughingTurtle]

While off topic I find vastly amusing is that on the news they reported that the Vatican's website is attacked at least 30 times a day from hackers or virus's and has yet to have been affected from them.

[almost crimes]

:D that wired article was gold.

fucking RIAA. hope their website gets constantly hacked once they start this legal bizness.

[sir archely]

if you go to the wired story, and click the link that says after Robert Ferrell that id's him as a security specialist, it'll take you to a decent short story in the hacker world.

More on subject, the following URL is to an article by Steve Albini, who, as it says after the article, "is an independent and corporate rock record producer most widely known for having produced Nirvana's 'In Utero'. " The article details a band's money exploits in the world of big labels. Even if you don't want to read the whole article, check out the chart he has near the bottom that details how much each part of the chain was paid, it's amazing.

http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

[Anita Blake]

damn arch! i read that Steve Albini one a few months ago, and it is great. i was going to post it but then i didn't. :rolleyes:

but, uh, good link. :D

[sir archely]

so what are you saying here anita? you hold your posts to a higher standard than i hold mine? :p :D

[almost crimes]

if you go to the wired story, and click the link that says after Robert Ferrell that id's him as a security specialist, it'll take you to a decent short story in the hacker world.

More on subject, the following URL is to an article by Steve Albini, who, as it says after the article, "is an independent and corporate rock record producer most widely known for having produced Nirvana's 'In Utero'. " The article details a band's money exploits in the world of big labels. Even if you don't want to read the whole article, check out the chart he has near the bottom that details how much each part of the chain was paid, it's amazing.

http://www.negativland.com/albini.html


yeah i read the albini article a while back. i love him. being the music freak i am the list of awesome bands he has produced is scary:

godspeed you! black emperor
mclusky
nirvana
pj harvey
the breeders
the pixies
mogwai
low
slint

....and the list goes on. the man is a fucking legend.

[sir archely]

well, i'm sure anyone vaguely interested in this topic has already found it, but www.eff.org is a good all-around site.

i mention it because they just started a "Let the Music Play" campaign that i guess is supposed to be counter to the RIAA's suing campaign. You can link to a short news article on it HERE (http://www.minskytux.com/images/photo/w512.jpg) or go to www.eff.org/share for the actual program.

You know what would be damn cool? If somehow the middle man in music were eliminated. Maybe that's why the RIAA is fighting file-sharing tooth and nail. So many opponents of their strategy say that they could have embraced it and made money with it, instead of fighting. Well, i hope that this just leads to artists getting money directly for their work. How hard would it be to sell ad space on a p2p program, and then give profit to artists who share music with that program? I've been saying this since napster, why didn't napster just sell some ad space and then pay a lump sum to the RIAA for rights to distibute? I forget if this is earlier in the thread or not, but the estimate is that 60 million americans use p2p programs. The stat often put with this number is that it is more than voted for dubya. Is that not a good base for an advertiser? It seems like all the RIAA really cares about is the supposed loss of money anyway. But if the middle-men could be cut out somehow, that would be very cool.

Yeah, i know this is far from perfect, but still...it would be cool.

[King Albert]

Wow, thats some interesting information about the Audio Home Recording Act. The RIAA has created this problem themselves by not staying with the times and alienating their consumers.

RIAA's Audio CD product:
-CD format
-Anywhere from 8-17 songs
-Less then 80 minutes total music
-Usually only 1 or 2 song you actually like meaning only 7-10 minutes that you will play over again
-$20 price tag

Home Theater Movie:
-DVD format
-1.5 to 3 hours of a movie that you actually like.
-Depending on the type of DVD, as many extras as they can fit on it
-Many different audio (DTS, Dolby Digital 5.1,etc.) and video (widescreen,fullscreen,etc.) options that you can choose
-Usually older movies are remastered with better quality and color.
-A minority of DVD lack any extras but the extras on most DVDs are amazing (behind the scenes, cut scenes, extended parts, directors cut, alternate endings, commentary, trailers, photos, extra audio, too much to list)

I totally support the movie industry as they provide a product that is well worth my $20. It does not make sense that I can buy a relatively new TWO or even THREE DVD set for about $20 providing more substance that I can view in one sitting while a $20 audio CD provides enough songs that I like that I will probably be finished listening to it by the time I get home from the store.

[Anita Blake]

well, my bf found some interesting news yesterday, reinforces my proudness to be a canadian, that's for sure.



The Copyright Board of Canada administers the Copyright Act and sets the amount of the levies on blank recording media and determines which media will have levies imposed. Five years ago this seemed like a pretty good deal for the music industry: $0.77 CDN for a blank CD and .29 a blank tape, whether used for recording music or not. Found money for the music moguls who had been pretty disturbed that some of their product was being burned onto CDs. To date over 70 million dollars has been collected through the levy and there is a good possibility the levy will be raised and extended to MP3 players, flash memory cards and recordable DVDs sometime in 2003.



While hardware vendors whine about the levy, consumers seem fairly indifferent. Why? Arguably because the levy is fairly invisible - just another tax in an overtaxed country. And because it makes copying music legal in Canada.


the rest of the article can be found here. kinda nifty! (http://techcentralstation.com/081803C.html)

[sir archely]

see...i think it's suppose to make copying music legal in the us too. Just that the people who want to make money off of selling music didn't realize that they wouldn't have complete control. ie-with file sharing they could no longer control what music you copy, and lose power over what sells and what doesn't.

[QuirkyTemplate]

I second that ad campaign. It wouldn't catch every file sharing program, but I bet a lot would try to cash in.

[sir archely]

i suppose this thread could use a real update....

http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,60345,00.html

That article is the start of their lawsuits. If you just go back to wired's homepage and do a search for 'RIAA' you'll find a lot of other stuff. Much of it details a few specific people who have been accused. It's rather absurd really. You get the distinct impression that the RIAA is flailing like a tired swimmer about to go under, willing to pull at anything to stay afloat. And yet, despite that feeling, you still know they are making tons and tons of money anyway. the thing on their "amnesty program" is really interesting. apparently if you are a file-sharer, come forward, promise to delete your files, and never do it again, you'll be immune from being sued by the RIAA. *cough*entrapment*cough*

oh, and i have a further question. i've only ever seen them talking specifically about "sharing" files. So...if someone decides to just download files, and not share them, are they okay? wtf?

[Anita Blake]

yeah, the RIAAs case has more holes than a block of swiss cheese. I read that there's one guy suing them because of the whole entrapment issue. ~shakes head~

[QuirkyTemplate]

i suppose this thread could use a real update....

http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,60345,00.html

That article is the start of their lawsuits. If you just go back to wired's homepage and do a search for 'RIAA' you'll find a lot of other stuff. Much of it details a few specific people who have been accused. It's rather absurd really. You get the distinct impression that the RIAA is flailing like a tired swimmer about to go under, willing to pull at anything to stay afloat. And yet, despite that feeling, you still know they are making tons and tons of money anyway. the thing on their "amnesty program" is really interesting. apparently if you are a file-sharer, come forward, promise to delete your files, and never do it again, you'll be immune from being sued by the RIAA. *cough*entrapment*cough*


What entrapment mean Rambo?

[sir archely]

well, okay, so that isn't exactly entrapment, but i still say it's pretty fishy. You're apparently required to give them all this personal information (including, i think, a photocopy of a photo id) and then they say they won't sue you. 'cept...what the hell are they doing with all that personal info? It just looks like they are trying to get people to come forward and then want to nail them for something. They say something like "if someone comes forward, and then after they promise continues to engage in illegal behavior, they'll be charged more." So i can see a lot of these people coming forward, and maybe not being aware of what was actually needed to be deleted for them to be "clean" and then getting nailed since they've just told the RIAA they were sharing. Seems like half the people the RIAA is suing are parents of kids who do this on their comp without them knowing. Just seems like a Very Bad Idea.

[Malcor Sylverwood]

OK, I'm admittedly on the other side of the fence on this issue than most of you. Don't get me wrong tho, the RIAA is pretty messed up, but they do have some right to protect themselves.

Yes, if you turn in your name for amnesty...they are going to watch you for further violations...in which case I'd image you're toast.

Also, you're last point. Things are definately moving towards holding parent's responsible for their children's action. But, this is a point that probably needs be argued seperately from this.

~realized he didn't make much of any point~

lol...nevermind

-Malcor "Wha?" Sylverwood

[sir archely]

well, holding parents responsible for some of their children's actions i have no problem with, i'm just saying that someone could sign up for the amnesty, delete all the files they thought they had to, and then the RIAA checks them out and finds a couple songs that they missed. So they get sued. Despite an effort and attempt to get rid of it.

The children thing was just an example because a lot of the stories are about computer illiterate parents who have no frickin' clue what's going on with their computer, and they get sued and to them it seems out of the blue.

The RIAA is attributing loss of CD sales to p2p sharing software. Gimme a break, the entire economy is suffering. Who remembers the figures from the napster court case, that actually showed an increase in CD sales after the advent of napster? In addition, there are legal music downloading options. Are they trying to include that too? If the RIAA would just realize that this is the way the music industry is headed, and turn their boat around, they'd be doing a hell of a lot better. Not to mention that with this move they're alienating even more potential customers. Do they take their own heavy-handed tactics into account when they report the decline in sales? Do they really expect to be able to sue the 60 million people that are using these programs?

[Anita Blake]

It's unfortunate, because the RIAA and the music industry in general is really just clinging on to an antiquated method of doing business. Their industry is changing day by day, and they are refusing to accept/meet that change. The film industry has been dealing with change in the industry and copyright violation making a dent in the profits continuously. That's one of the reasons that so many movie these days are big action movies with huge soundtracks that deafen you in the theatre. It's attempting to make a product that just own't be as good at home on your TV, and sure, there's a certain amount that slips through the cracks, but one of the solutions to that has been to make DVDs with so many extra features that it's almost not worth it to NOT buy it. And movies these days are selling for less than music. It's insane. The music industry needs to grasp the fact that the world is not stuck in 1950, and old business tactics will do nothing but destroy an industry that could be vibrant with only a change in attitude and business tactics.

/end rant :)

[lam sam]

LOL. I'm sorry, and this is serious and all, but my friend created an sn called RIAA Employee or somehting, and he'd do random searches online and say he was going to sue a the people he found. hehehehehe..good times good times.

[sir archely]

Did anyone else notice what Pepsi is doing with iTunes? Finally, i say, FINALLY, someone caught on.

[Buck]

Yea I saw the commercial during the super bowl. *secretly supports the movement*