boycott-riaa.com - Article: Labels Planning Legal Attack on Individuals?

Labels Planning Legal Attack on Individuals?

Posted by Mike Darrah on July 3, 2002 at 8:48 AM (printer friendly)

The digital music world is about to get down right ugly with the rumors flying that the recording industry planning massive legal attacks on individuals participating in the various P2P file sharing communities.

Not satisfied with their current control over the distribution of music on-line (including their stranglehold control over webcasting with the recent CARP royalties rulings), record companies are about to turn their legal guns on specific individual Internet users who are sharing high volumes of music in publicly accessible peer-to-peer file sharing systems. The all out assault on these individuals illustrates the desperation the current corporate powers in the recording industry are feeling, quite simply they do not know what to do beyond suing whoever they can pin the blame onto for the existence of these free file sharing communities.

Previously, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) focused their legal attacks on the companies which enable the technology for peer-to-peer distribution, attacking and killing many innovative and potentially lucrative companies such as Scour and continuing to push companies like Napster, Morpheus, MP3.com and Kazaa to the point of either choosing bankruptcy or to give into the system and be bought out by the industry. It certainly seems the RIAA will not rest until they control what's left of independent music distribution on-line.

Word has it that the RIAA is in the early phases on planning out this legal onslaught, but is certainly already tracking and monitoring users sharing high volumes of music for future litigation to be brought up against them. The reports on-line mention some clear uncertainty on the part of a few major label companies involved in the RIAA which are quite hesitant to start an all out war directly with their consumers wisely, but with the non-stop pressure tactics so commonly used by the RIAA, it is almost certain we will see some sort of shift in the legal battle being brought on by the RIAA.

With world-wide music sales declining 5% last year, the RIAA has put the blame directly on the file sharing community rather then accept responsibility for not keep up with a changing world in which technology is the key driving factor for a successful relationship with their consumers. Never did the RIAA mention the many consumers which no longer choose to support them by purchasing music and now are boycotting them for their non-stop aggressive tactics in dealing with the new innovative technology enabling digital music to be shared world wide. Simply put, digital music enables people to obtain music directly without needing to "press CD's" or wait for a physical delivery to arrive. Digital music is the future of distribution, and the existing system wants to control it completely because it can see that is the evolution of it's current industry.

The recording industry also continues their tactics of pushing for legal backing by someone inside the U.S. political system, with House Representative Howard Berman proposing new laws which allow the direct attack of peer-to-peer file sharing services by the industry without being legally liable. Not surprisingly however, it should certainly be noted that Howard Berman has received the largest amount of money in donations from the entertainment industry totaling $186,891.

User Comments (These do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of this site)


milladrive	Date: July 3, 2002 @ 9:03 AM First post!!! :D I saw this comin'. Decentralized p2p leaves them no other choice based on their current attitude. And this'll serve to further alienate the music-loving public. This is really beginning to resemble the war on drugs more and more every day. At least until now Hilary's been goin' after only the major growers and suppliers. Now she's goin' after the street dealers and dopers. Come get me, you arrogantly manipulative cow.

Your-Mom	Date: July 3, 2002 @ 9:19 AM Right on milla!! Yeah this is getting ridiculous!

Svensta	Date: July 3, 2002 @ 9:27 AM Well said Milla. They have no choice now, but to go after their own consumers. They will have to file millions of 'cease and desist' orders and lean on thousands of ISPs. The legwork alone will total months and cost millions and millions of dollars. And it will only demonize them to the very people they are trying to sell things to. I will continue to hide in plain sight, amongst the millions of users. Find me if you can.

thumbtack	Date: July 3, 2002 @ 11:04 AM It's already been done to Scott Wickenburg an OSU student in Sept of 2000. He was the first, way back in Sept 2000. It got so much attention that the RIAA seemed to stop persuing individuals for filesharing for a while. Links: http://www.ocolly.com/issues/2000_Fall/001103/stories/mp3.html http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,38863,00.html http://news.com.com/2100-1023-245770.html?legacy=cnet

-wil	Date: July 3, 2002 @ 11:11 AM i've just opened kazaa to check something... 1.915.189 users online, worldwide. And sure everyone's not here... how will they attack them all ? (should say US all)

thumbtack	Date: July 3, 2002 @ 11:13 AM Oh and Lets not forget Jeff Levy who was actually the first, Scott was the second My mistake. Oregon college student Jeffrey Gerard Levy has been sentenced to two years of probation for violating the 1997 No Electronic Theft Act by illegally distributing copyrighted music, movies and software over the Internet. During that time, he has to relinquish his CD burner and home Internet account. He faced a maximum penalty of three years in prison and a $250,000 fine. http://www.grayzone.com/1299.htm (down near the bottom)

milladrive	Date: July 3, 2002 @ 11:15 AM I vividly remember that OSU student story, Bill. Seems like yesterday. Sven, even more well said. ;) Hiding in plain sight. Excellent phrase.

W-B	Date: July 3, 2002 @ 11:40 AM The "war on drugs"? Sounds more like Prohibition to me. It is obvious, based on this evidence, that the RIAA HATES, LOATHES, DETESTS and DESPISES the consumer, considering him or her to be lower than pond scum (which can be interpreted as an insult to pond scum); and that the RIAA obviously considers "fair use" to be a privilege, not a right; something to be arbitrarily revoked if they, and they alone, deem it to be misused and abused. The ol' "elitist condescension" of "we know what's best for everybody" and "the public absolutely cannot be trusted." And of course, the Orwellian equation of "value" with money. Again . . . if they were to target Blacks, Latinos, Arab-Americans, Asian-Americans, gays, or any other ethnic or minority group in this way, the RIAA would be immediately -- IMMEDIATELY -- condemned as "racist." But in a way, the RIAA's agenda is not unlike the drive behind the segregationist "Jim Crow" laws that were in place in the Deep South throughout the first half of the 20th century. That, plus taking a cue from certain Communist dictatorships of the past. I could just imagine the Communist countries of old actually executing people for file-sharing. Unfortunately, we are fast heading down this dangerous road, and I could see death-penalty cases based upon this f***-the-consumer witch hunt. And I suppose that if the RIAA actually knew about this boycott over their anti-democratic, Gestapo-style tactics, I can see them suing to drive boycott-riaa.com out of business.

thumbtack	Date: July 3, 2002 @ 12:00 PM Actually boycott-riaa has been going a week shy of 2 years July 11th 2000 the day of the Senate hearing where Lars whined "Napster ripped me off" Lars should be congratulated for pissing me off enough with his half truths, and misunderstanding of the issues, to found boycott-riaa...I was contacted by the the RIAA within 2 days of launching the site, to discuss my position. This was from Karen Allen their former Internet Evangilist (who was let go with 15 other RIAA employees in Jan. However she still is showing up at Music Events like SXSW where I spoke with her. They've never threatened to shut boycott-riaa.com down, and believe it or not Hilary Rosen has actually answered e-mails from me. The disclaimer on the site, was written by the attorney representing a number of "Legend" artists, (and is also now the owner) and wouldn't flinch if they tried, and would probably start giggling if they did (with visions of dollar signs dancing in his head)..(Right LEFLAW?)

smelv1n	Date: July 3, 2002 @ 12:43 PM they'd never try to sue a boycott, that'd bring em down in a heartbeat.

DiscoProJoe	Date: July 3, 2002 @ 1:15 PM I'll keep sharing music files until you RIAA assholes pry 'em from my cold dead hands. Come 'n get me, you pricks. I'll have my entire 127-person assault-weapon-armed militia alongside me, ready to defend my life, liberty, and PROPERTY. From my cold dead hands -- come 'n get me, ASSHOLES.

ztpztpztp	Date: July 3, 2002 @ 2:14 PM im with you discoprojoe the only way the RIAA is gettin near my computer is with assault rifles because ill fight it to the death hell this cause needs a matyr already if the RIAA is ever gonna get shut down we need more than legislation we need the worst PR the RIAA could ever get. (killing a P2P extremist) maybe thats taking it too far but if i have to give away my life to let future generations have the 1st amendment then i am all for it

DiscoProJoe	Date: July 3, 2002 @ 2:20 PM Amen, Brothaa!

Alpha-Meta	Date: July 3, 2002 @ 4:44 PM So what is everyone doing? I haven't bought a cd in ages and I'm certainly not going to start now. But that isn't enough. I'm putting "Boycott the RIAA" and a link to this site in all my .sigs, and changing my avatars to the noRIAA logo. Who else will take up this practice? If this meme spreads perhaps the labels will reconsider their attack on the public.

ElmerFusterpuck	Date: July 3, 2002 @ 6:31 PM I don't advocate violence, but getting rid of dimdicks like Tweedledee, Tweedledummer and Tweedledipshit on the board below would be nice: http://messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=EV&action=l&board=7088120&tid=distributedfilesharingiprights&sid=7088120&mid=&start=9317 It's hard to believe 3 idiots like them exist, but they do. Sad.

jank0	Date: July 3, 2002 @ 7:07 PM I kind of remember that this OSU kid had a website where he actually uploaded all this stuff to? And then they also found Napster on his PC ...

SurgeDude	Date: July 3, 2002 @ 8:39 PM Hillary (FATCOWBITCH) really needs to retire....doesnt she have enough money that she has raped from consumers? Fuck her and the RIAA.

debart	Date: July 3, 2002 @ 8:48 PM I second the motion of adding a sig to boycott the RIAA, and doing whatever I can. I just picked up a half-dozen CDs USED! and not one red cent of the money went to anyone other than the guy behind the card table.. I think I'm going to burn or tape them, scan the covers and re-sell them back to the guy so someone else can buy them! Y'know, I think that's a good plan... ;) Deb.

backmann	Date: July 3, 2002 @ 9:42 PM How can they stop us all?? Very simple: they can't!!!

APlusC	Date: July 3, 2002 @ 9:46 PM Keep in mind that the RIAA is just an industry group, not a law enforcement agency! All they can due is sue! But you can't just go to your local DA and say "uh, the ip 123.45.67.89 is sharing illegal MP3's". The justice system clearly has better things to do. Don't expect ISP's to pony up either. Most ISPs state in their privacy policies that they will not give out your personal info to anyone, unless it's a real criminal investigation. In the two cases you provided, the situation was different since it occured on a college campus. The schools don't really like their bandwidth being abused, neither do they like to face lawsuits.

Alpha-Meta	Date: July 3, 2002 @ 10:12 PM debart: I'm glad you're supporting the idea. It doesn't look like many people are taking the RIAA seriously. How about putting an anti-RIAA across the top of your web page, for everyone who has a web page, and linking back here. I'm going to. I'll let everyone know when it's up and make it available.

RyanS	Date: July 3, 2002 @ 10:30 PM I only have around 50 shared when I connect. Most of mine are rare stuff, except the most recent stuff I have downloaded. But those get moved fairly quickly.

deviantangel	Date: July 3, 2002 @ 10:46 PM maybe if the RIAA would get their heads out of their asses and think for a minute, they might realize something. P2P is actually free advertising. if they stopped trying to shut down all P2P and pissing people off then maybe something productive could come out of all of this. they could work with P2P and agree to have a few of their artists songs available to share. common sense tells us that if we like the music then we will buy it to get all the songs and in better quality.

APlusC	Date: July 3, 2002 @ 10:59 PM The easiest solution would be for P2P services to allow their user to opt out of the "See my files" feature. AG used to do this. If the RIAA cant count the files, they can't say you're a "super user". Also they should allow annonymous users, and not require everyone to register. With those two simple suggestions in place, it makes RIAA's idea even more ridiculous. BTW, no P2P service actually offers an option to see a persons IP. They would need to do a trace of their ports to find active connections. With a P2P service, they are likely to dozens of them. Seriously, from a technical standpoint it seems to be even more bull then from a legal one.

thumbtack	Date: July 3, 2002 @ 11:00 PM There are some buttons and banners for boycott-riaa.com at http://www.boycott-riaa.com/links/link.php

shoshidge	Date: July 3, 2002 @ 11:04 PM Scare tactics, pure and simple. The threat of sueing individual p2p users is their way of scaring the casual p2p user into not downloading for fear of g-men kicking down their doors. It's the same as those FBI warnings that they put at the beginning of rented movies. They may try to hassle the guys sharing massive amounts of music,(2000 files or more), but even in America, there are not enough lawyers to sue everybody,(and I'm in Canada can they even mess with me here?). As a musician, I believe that the record industry as it exists today is a parasitic growth on the metaphorical ass of musicianhood and the sooner it goes down the better.

deth-ID	Date: July 4, 2002 @ 12:14 AM Well, personally, this outrages me. What a bunch of assholes. They just think that they own the world...I mean, seriously, stooping down to that level? Idiots. They're just attacking the people they want money from :( I have only 200+ files of "rare, popular" copyrighted music and share every sinlge file on bearshare. Oxymoron lol :P

Alpha-Meta	Date: July 4, 2002 @ 3:33 AM Thumbtack, thanks for pointing out the links. I've already made and posted a banner and a statement on my site and linked to this site as well. If you'd like to check any of it out, it's at www.shizit.net/alpha. If you like the banner feel free to add it to your others, it's hereby officially counter-copyrighted.

goldenpi	Date: July 4, 2002 @ 4:07 AM Largely scare tactics, but could be quite effective. It would be easy for the RIAA to put together a bot to compile a list of everyone sharing large ammounts of music, then just mail it off to the ISPs every month. Its easy to find the IP a file comes from. I can do it in about 30 seconds using netstat or a packet sniffer. Hiding the list of files would complicate things for the bot. It could still build up fairly accurate lists over time, or they could just start threatening everyone. The RIAA is getting rid of file sharing networks through three different attacks. Legal attacks on companys and users, plans for technical attacks on networks and, in the long term, SDMI and watermark systems.

ztpztpztp	Date: July 4, 2002 @ 10:30 AM shoshidge Canada by international treaty follows us copyright laws. if you are listening to US music. now canadian bands im not sure of. i think its what country the band has its contract in that matters so sum 41 and nickleback are probably gonna get you in trouble too. so when is ben ladin gonna attack something that idolizes coporate america say like an RIAA building

goldenpi	Date: July 4, 2002 @ 2:41 PM He cant. Too many paranoid people now. He needs to wait a few months for people to forget, then blow up buildings. I suggest microsoft HQ. It will be far more damaging than the white house :-) Everyone seems to follow that WIPO treaty. There are countries whos names cant be writen in out aphabet ruled by those laws. Do I have to set up a station in the antartic to work from? Or is that covered too?

DiscoProJoe	Date: July 4, 2002 @ 3:11 PM Hey, what's wrong with Microsoft? The only people who hate it are competitors, not consumers. Most consumers are totally satisfied with most of Miscrosoft's products. Plus, Microsoft would never imagine waging a war on consumers like the RIAA is doing.

APlusC	Date: July 4, 2002 @ 3:58 PM Yeah Microsoft did some loony things before, but I can't actually remember any case of where it went out to get individual consumers.

Alpha-Meta	Date: July 4, 2002 @ 4:58 PM Microsoft: I could dig up a million examples of Microsoft acting against consumer interest but here's the most relevant one to this forum: Who trusts Microsoft's Palladium? Not me By Matt Loney http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1107-939817.html Sorry if you have to cut and past that link, I don't know how to make them in this forum. I'd like to point out this quote in particular on Microsoft's planned "Digital Rights Management OS:" "Now I have a major problem with this, not least because I don't like the idea of a company that has been found guilty of criminal activity providing technology that will be used to police laws. For a start, it looks for all the world like Microsoft is introducing technology which does not benefit the consumer, but which is designed to prevent crimes being committed. And in the process, consumer rights could actually end up being curtailed; it appears that limitations built into Palladium could redefine "fair use" of digital media from a legal right, to a technological grant from a company."

slain666	Date: July 5, 2002 @ 2:55 AM well i'm nearly done ripping my 75+ cd's, 30 of which were cdr's, and I got 500 more mp3's on my comp already, I'll have a good thousand or so songs to trade, all of which is heavy/grind/death METAL, and I'm sure the "fuck the world destroy religion" attitude of many of those bands is proof enough that they probably don't mind at all, but that's what it's all about, trade the good music, and not just metal, which I specialise in, but just to overshadow all that pop music bullshit, we wouldn't wanna give em any extra exposure, but the teeny bopper wheeny can d/l pop music if they want, just so long as they don't buy any of it.

goldenpi	Date: July 5, 2002 @ 4:22 AM Microsoft doesn't often go after individual consumers itsself. It has the Buisness Software Allience to do that. The self-appointed Lords of Copyright. They come to your company with little or no warning and ask to see your licenses. If you cant find every single license you get fined. (The police got fined by the BSA once :-)) Palidium doesn't do anything for security at all. Iv been through everything microsoft has said and details of the TCPA system it will probably use. The purpose of TCPA is not security, its tamper-proofing. To stop you doing anything not approved by microsoft, such as installing linux. And to add some more strength to the obstrusiforcation in WMP. There are some security-related things at first site, but a quick check shows they arn't very effective, and are in there more for PR than any real purpose. RIAA wont bother with lawsuits against fans. There are easier ways. One threat letter will stop most people. If they ignore it just ask the ISP to close their account. No publicity.

debart	Date: July 5, 2002 @ 12:14 PM SDMI and watermark systems will only work for music that is ripped directly from a CD, and kid with a portable boom box and a headphone jack line out, can play the CD into their computer's microphone 'line in' and record it as a sound recording, no diffrerent than if they were burning a vinyl LP from a turntable. It's called the 'analog gap', that will be impossible, barring a major technology change, to overcome. Deb.

Remye	Date: July 5, 2002 @ 3:48 PM Here ya go.. straight from the horses ass..er.. mouth.. http://www.wired.com/news/mp3/0,1285,53662,00.html?tw=wn_ascii

poobear	Date: July 6, 2002 @ 12:37 AM People, this is not like the war on drugs for one simple reason: independent music artists are not at all criminals like people who make drugs. Don't you see? The blame here really lies with the artists who decide to go corporate. Smart artists would be selling their wares online independently and encouraging people to trade their music. This is happening somewhat via MP3.com. But THIS WEBSITE could easily host artists wanting to do the same. Don't you see though, at the heart of this problem is not just the greed of the corporations, but the greed of everyone involved.

goldenpi	Date: July 6, 2002 @ 12:17 PM Filling the analog whole does not need a magor technological change. A small technical change backed by either a few large companys or law like the CDTBPA would do it. The small technological change required is a semi-robust audio watermark. Verence has one that CPSA and SDMI are planning on using, so thats solved. All thats needed then is a way to make sure every sound card detects it. CDTBPA would work. Alternativly, Microsoft could force watermark detection into the OS. Now as part of media player, that could lower its merket share, but directly into the sound APIs. That way no card could record watermarked sound and no player could play it without first getting authorisation with a secret key. A really secure watermark is not important. Because any removal must be done before it reaches the sound card any hacking is going to need very complicated hardware, probably a full DSP setup. The occasional electronics genius removing the watermark that way wont be a problem for the protection, as long as noone is able to write a downloadable dewatermarker. There is a reason it is like the war on drugs through. Its all a publicity thing. If the majority of people hate the RIAA then music sales fall, their lobbying fails because the polititions wont lose votes, and we win. If the majority ignores or is unaware of this (seems likely as the entertainment industry controls/is the media) then their lobbying works, CD sales are unaffected and we all lose.

canadafan101	Date: July 6, 2002 @ 5:35 PM This is a bunch of bullshit blaming it on the on-line p2p sharing sites. It is THEIR OWN FAULT THEY ARENT MAKING THE MULTI-MILLIONS THEY EXPECT TO MAKE

shoshidge	Date: July 6, 2002 @ 7:15 PM ANy attempt to fill the analog gap by altering new hardware could be thwarted by using an old computer right? You can get a used PII PC for under 200 bucks in my town. You could use that for your music and your shiny,new computer for everything else. Or am I missing something? If the RIAA had something other than shit for brains it would know this isn't a hill worth dying on. They would concentrate on DVD audio. Let's face it, most folks who don't have a DVD player now will probably be getting one in the next few years. With the right amp and speakers DVD can do amazing things with surround sound that will make regular stereo sound like poo by comparison. If more artists can be compelled to do 5.1 mixes of their music, all if the audiophiles will be tripping over themselves to get their lonely hands on it, the record industry will have a captive market again. But what the hell do I know?

Jprime	Date: July 7, 2002 @ 1:00 AM The more the riaa does the more people it pisses off and then more people boycott it. After the first or second lawsuit against individual fans, millions will know about what the riaa is doing and will start boycotting it. They will destroy themselves because they don't realize that the fans give them money.

ChillinBuzz	Date: July 7, 2002 @ 2:33 AM I don't they will attack consumers directly; there's too many of us for them to make any decent examples of. Our internet service providers will get it instead and as the RIAA will have less targets to aim for, will place greater pressure on the ISPs. What we'll end up with are ISPs taking the customer out and risking its own reputation with the RIAA standing in their shadows, urging them to shoot themselves in the foot. There are already ISPs providing services that block file-sharing tools but what's the point? Someone's bound to have the songs on a site somewhere. It won't stop illegal file trading, just slow it down a little. Besides, plenty more ISPs where they came from...

goldenpi	Date: July 7, 2002 @ 3:40 AM The analog gap can be filled with watermarks. Old computers work, but would be hard to find replacement parts and still record a watermarked file which wouldn't play on new hardware unless someone managed to remove the watermark. Watermark removal is not an easily automated operation.

kgnally	Date: July 7, 2002 @ 9:43 AM I disagree. Watermarks- ANY watermark- can, has, and will continue to be defeated. Remember, the RIAA didn't think their public challenge would be met; they thought their encryption was so strong no one could hack it. They were- predictably- proven wrong. Look at the so-called "protection" built into WindowsXP. That's been defeated. So have the serial number systems for 3D Studio Max, Adobe Photoshop, and other software. Breaking an mp3 watermark is peanuts by comparison. Mp3, p2p, file sharing, and encryption hacking are here to stay and will never go away. Even if the watermarks are done via hardware, the files are still digital in nature. In other words- bring it on, I have no worries. None.

milladrive	Date: July 7, 2002 @ 5:40 PM poobear, in no way did the analogy to the war on drugs parallel the artists. It paralleled the major p2p networks and isp's, then paralleled the individual sharers and the inividuals downloaders. The artists are merely the patsies in this whole scenario. They're the ones who truly lose out when the "industry" goes after the very people who give life to the flow. I agree that smart artists will try to help innovate a new way of creating financial success for themselves without the need for Hilary's promotive and distributive carrots on a string, but treating the music lovers like criminals is, imho, _not_ the answer. As soon as the RIAA learns how to differentiate between the pirate (making money) and the sharer (not making money), the closer we'll be to humbling Sampson.

poobear	Date: July 7, 2002 @ 7:44 PM Milladrive, thanks for the comments. I'd agree that the drug analogy is entirely bogus. But I'm not sure artists are mere patsies, since most who play more than the local bar/coffeehouse want fame and wealth. But, this is ironic because I know from having read about the music industry that artists who get signed with a big label don't make money until the second album, because they have to pay the record company to rent studio time, the sound engineer, etc. Perhaps what is really needed is an improved type of MP3.com service where consumers have a better guarantee of quality, for instance requiring artists to have played a gig somewhere, or a service that hires music reviewers to find the good stuff that needs emphasizing. Last time I visited MP3.com, it seemed to me they had dropped the ball.

poobear	Date: July 7, 2002 @ 7:50 PM On National Public Radio today they had a story about Naxos, which sells high-quality classical music for < $10 per disk and always has. The story's main was simply that the music industry has grown fat and complacent, and Naxos has shown that a company can be very profitable and hire good talent (musicians and engineers) and yet not price-gouge the consumer. At least, this is the case with regard to classical music.

poobear	Date: July 7, 2002 @ 7:58 PM less than $10 per disk. The point of the story was that the extra money charged by big labels is to support the extravagant business atmosphere behind the scenes. Naxos has a very consumer-friendly attitudes, and is trying to bring quality music to the less wealthy masses.

shoshidge	Date: July 7, 2002 @ 9:34 PM What I'm hoping for is a day when musicians/bands record a song or whole record without any expectation of direct financial return. This is how it used to be. The motive for recording a song was to promote your live show, and the more people heard it, the more people liked it enough to go to the gig, and playing gigs was the way you developed yourself musically as well as your primary source of income. The recording industry was a necessary evil in the days when a quality recording cost heaps of money to make but those days are gone. The RIAA is right when they state that file sharing will devastate the recording industry but the recording industry is not the musicians or their music, it is a parasite on the very artists that it claims to serve and just because one in a thousand,(or less) bands get lucky once and a while does not justify the plethora of good music that goes unheard and the majority of artists who get ignored, supressed or jerked around due to the way the record industry operates. As for older computers requiring parts and service, there is so much surplus computer gear cluttering up the shops these days maybe a demand for older hardware would be a blessing, otherwise all of this once cutting edge technology will end up on a trash heap.

goldenpi	Date: July 8, 2002 @ 5:53 AM I agree no watermark will survive very long once its been digitised and people are free to use complicated DSP tools on it, but if it becomes hard to find sound cards which dont recognise the watermark then you will need to either get an old card or remove it in the analog domain. Old card could get difficult with the CDTBPA which will almost certinly pass, and the analog removal will degrade the sound far more than digital processing. Scapegoats are part of politics. When something goes wrong there is finger pointing. The internet is a favourite because not many people defend it. When there is a shool shooting it was because of violent computer games. When a terrorist blows up two buildings they have been using cryptography to communicate on the internet. Never mind the minor problem that the terrorists probably dont know how to use a computer and have never sent anything encrypted, just a few plain text emails. Just leave that out the news and rush through some legislation to spy on more people. The RIAA and MPAA are worried about the internet because of what it could do in the future, not what it does now. If the next generation of consumers thinks information should be free and expects all information to be easily copyable it would probably destroy the RIAA. They cannot allow people to think like that.

Molybdenum	Date: July 8, 2002 @ 9:47 PM Painters don't seem to want a monopoly on distribution of their art. I suppose music cannot be considered art nowadays, so maybe RIAA has a pint (-: w00t!

obi11kinobi	Date: July 9, 2002 @ 10:04 AM no matter what the Ratbag Internet Arseholes of America do, there will always be a new file sharing program to come out. And if they get too smart for their boots then everyone will start doing what some of us on the IRC network do, go 'underground', in the sense that it is >VERY HARD< (not impossible) to connect to the network unless you are a certain IP and enter in the right passwords. The only way the RIAA could connect in my eyes are if they do what most hackers do (and end up getting busted) is flame their IP address. However if we all could keep a very big secret from the RIAA then file sharing will remain. I'm sure in their 5% decline in sales, 4% are from people absolutely pissed off by the RIAA, and the other 1% might have just lost interest in music for awhile. Either way, RIAA are losing and the only way they can try to wriggle back is thru suing everyone. One day them too will run out of cash :)

goldenpi	Date: July 9, 2002 @ 12:58 PM Give them an excuse and they will ban IRC.

DesiredOne	Date: July 10, 2002 @ 8:09 AM I am new to this site so bare with me if this comment has already been made. This is my two cents...I just don't get it have you seen some of these peoples Homes? Cars? Net Worth? PLEASE! This has nothing to do with enforcing the LAW. This is purely GREED! Hell half the time they (the labels) cringe at the fact that they actually have to pay the musicians. Pathetic! They need to quite wasting their precious time and money...it will never change.

Ramamageesh	Date: July 10, 2002 @ 3:50 PM You know, the RIAA is the only organization on the planet that I can think of that will sue the consumer because of bad decisions they made on what to shove down our throats. Here's a little tip for any RIAA exec who may "lower" himself to read the comments of such a common peon: STOP MARKETING SHIT! YOU'LL SEE YOUR PROFITS GO UP WHEN YOU MARKET SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE ACTUALLY WANT TO HEAR!

Jestorian	Date: July 10, 2002 @ 7:44 PM Perhaps if the millions of us out here, got together we could vote in a constitutional ammendment making owning a copyright of music a capital offense.. or at least illegal :)

inakus	Date: July 10, 2002 @ 11:55 PM K... Why don't you just go to ALL the kereoke clubs and bars and ban them from singing "hit me baby, one more time..." And while you are at it come to my house and confiscate ALL of my "Recorded off Radio" music tapes, and since you are doing that, why don't you wipe my ASS...? P. Diddy...what? HUH?

inakus	Date: July 11, 2002 @ 12:00 AM Metallica...What? Who?

inakus	Date: July 11, 2002 @ 12:12 AM Neil Young What? Who?

inakus	Date: July 11, 2002 @ 12:22 AM Hilary Rosen... Yes, I'm talking to you Bitch... Please, For the love of Richard Simmons... Lose that 18-wheeler ASS of yours... And one more thing...DON'T BREED. (...yes, it's called douch. You can purchase this product at any pharmacy D-O-U-C-H) Got it there, Hil?

cb3rob	Date: July 11, 2002 @ 7:04 AM Jestorian: i fully agree... why dont we make some new laws and get those RIAA (and other organisations like it world wide) suckers behind bars for (what looks like

magnuspraeda	Date: July 11, 2002 @ 5:35 PM The problem with putting such "suckers" behind bars is that they have the cash. Money buys things like protection. And another problem is that despite the millions of people using things like Gnutella and other pTp servers, many are outside the US and still more are unable or unwilling to vote. Try making the campaign for the freeing of music more public.

northernligh...	Date: July 12, 2002 @ 5:13 AM The recording companies deserves the reputation they have. For years they have been ripping off the talent,all the way back to the 40's and 50's (remember the story about the composer of "Louie , Louie" , paid a few hundred dollars for a song that grossed over 100 million). For many years they pushed poor quality vinly LP's on the US market , every audiophile knew to buy German records when possible,they would lease the music tracks to companies that would produce "Half Speed Mastering" LP's that were superior to the American versions. Compact Disc's prices were kept artifically high for many years. The performers were still signing away the publishing rights to their songs as a matter of cor-pirate policy. Please check out the King Crimson website and learn about their own record company ,DGM Records (stands for Dicscipline Global Mobile). The back of each record states,and I quote"the phonographic copyright in these performances is protected by DGM on behalf of the artist,with whom it resides,contrary to common practise in the recording industry. Discipline accepts no reason for artists to assign the copyright interests in thier work to either record company or management by virtue of a "common pratice" which was always questionable,often improper,and is now indefensible." end quote. Now that a few companies control 95% of the material on record stores shelves ,a lot of good music is being pushed to the side in favor of Brittney Spears or the flavor of the month boy band because this is where the big profits are. The performers get about 1/60th of the purchase price of a CD. If Sony does not think they can sell 1.5 million units they won't bother with you. If all companies treated the talent as well as DGM did,I don't think the record buying public would mind paying a FAIR price for a CD knowing the artist is getting a FAIR percentage without signing away thier first born,and the rights to their art in perpetuity. Not paying $16 dollars for a CD that costs $1.50 to produce.P2P is no different than in 1973 when I taped Led Zepplin IV off the radio during the "Friday Night Feature Album"....KING CRIMSON ROCKS DGM THE WORLDS BEST RECORD CO.... ..............................P.S. Metallica , You suck ...You guys only have one good song,and I just downloaded it off Blubster....So Lars,,,where would you like me to mail the 17 cents worth of royalties ,because I feel so bad about stealing food from your baby's mouth.But don't forget to split it with the rest of the band.

northernligh...	Date: July 12, 2002 @ 5:14 AM The recording companies deserves the reputation they have. For years they have been ripping off the talent,all the way back to the 40's and 50's (remember the story about the composer of "Louie , Louie" , paid a few hundred dollars for a song that grossed over 100 million). For many years they pushed poor quality vinly LP's on the US market , every audiophile knew to buy German records when possible,they would lease the music tracks to companies that would produce "Half Speed Mastering" LP's that were superior to the American versions. Compact Disc's prices were kept artifically high for many years. The performers were still signing away the publishing rights to their songs as a matter of cor-pirate policy. Please check out the King Crimson website and learn about their own record company ,DGM Records (stands for Dicscipline Global Mobile). The back of each record states,and I quote"the phonographic copyright in these performances is protected by DGM on behalf of the artist,with whom it resides,contrary to common practise in the recording industry. Discipline accepts no reason for artists to assign the copyright interests in thier work to either record company or management by virtue of a "common pratice" which was always questionable,often improper,and is now indefensible." end quote. Now that a few companies control 95% of the material on record stores shelves ,a lot of good music is being pushed to the side in favor of Brittney Spears or the flavor of the month boy band because this is where the big profits are. The performers get about 1/60th of the purchase price of a CD. If Sony does not think they can sell 1.5 million units they won't bother with you. If all companies treated the talent as well as DGM did,I don't think the record buying public would mind paying a FAIR price for a CD knowing the artist is getting a FAIR percentage without signing away thier first born,and the rights to their art in perpetuity. Not paying $16 dollars for a CD that costs $1.50 to produce.P2P is no different than in 1973 when I taped Led Zepplin IV off the radio during the "Friday Night Feature Album"....KING CRIMSON ROCKS DGM THE WORLDS BEST RECORD CO.... ..............................P.S. Metallica , You suck ...You guys only have one good song,and I just downloaded it off Blubster....So Lars,,,where would you like me to mail the 17 cents worth of royalties ,because I feel so bad about stealing food from your baby's mouth.But don't forget to split it with the rest of the band.

shadyslimeminem	Date: July 15, 2002 @ 7:38 PM that is utter bullcrap! the fact that these artists get millions of dollars for doing something FUN is bull. They should get an hourly rate just like everyone else. or charge only ten dollars for every cd. 16 for a cd that MIGHT be good? hell no. What about the american citizen who only gets maybe $500 if that every week or two weeks? Answer that one you sorry record execs and maybe then it'll be worth $16 for a cd.

shoshidge	Date: July 16, 2002 @ 12:53 AM The thing that pisses me off, Shady, is that the average record company employee makes considerably more money than the average musician/songwriter. The last person to get paid in the recording industry scheme is the performer and/or composer, as a musician myself, the current way by which the recording industry works depresses me so much I'm almost ready to get a bluddy real estate license.

dachsiegirl	Date: July 17, 2002 @ 2:46 PM I've also recently discovered used cds. I ran across half.com, which is run by ebay. Its users offer "used" cds for really cheap prices, and again, no profits to the companies (yay). I've recently spent $25 total to get 6 CDs, all of which are of great quality and some of which were still in the plastic wrap. Not to mention, it lists the songs on the CDs, and I have found quite a wide array of music available. Just another alternative to mortgaging your home to buy a CD. Too bad they're not in jewelry-style cases - "I'd like to see something in a Hank Williams, please."