|
RIAA is lobbying to make us all criminals
The RIAA is lobbying for no fair use and to make us criminals
By Stephen Hinkle
The RIAA is trying to make us criminals for doing everyday activites. They are even lobbying to control who can CREATE content. This is going way too far. They want to hack into every file sharers PC. They want to lobby this far because Gnutella, FastTrack, and other decentralized P2P systems cannot be shut down with a lawsuit, and many P2P providers are getting farther in their defense than the RIAA anticipated.
Next of all, the RIAA litteraly killed streaming audio and net radio. For what reason? Basically, to try and make more money off of it. They demanded fees that many webcasters could not afford. The RIAA does not realize that these changes are good for the industry, not bad. Net radio exposes us to a much more diverse artists than the "top 40" or "top 100" of each genre. This has even gone so far that Artemis Records dropped the fees for broadcasting their works.
Then, the RIAA wants to make general purpose computers illegal. Yes, the Fritz Hollings bill will do just that. It will require copy protection built into every digital device.
Many consumers, artists, and even some indepedent labels are upset about the RIAAs actions. Many consumers have bought more CDs as the result of free downloads. According to Janis Ian, she reports that her record sales have increased 300%, just because she put free downloads on her web site.
What needs to happen is for the RIAA and its member labels to start using technology to their ADVANTAGE. There is evidence that Net Radio, downloads, and the like boost sales. Also, it cuts the costs of delivery significantly because using P2P technology saves bandwidth, and no CDs need to be pressed for singles, since the users can do that with their own burner. Net Radio can be used to promote artists who would not be heard on terrestrial radio.
Think of a download site with all your favorite songs. If each cost a quarter, that would generate millions of dollars a day. At a quarter per song, you could get 20 downloads for $5.00, and 40 downloads for $10.00, or maybe the site would offer unlimited downloads for $25.00 per month. Even at a dime per song, the revenue generated would be significant. Most people would be willing to pay the small fee, if the format was unlimited play, burnable, and portable player usable (such as MP3 or OGG Vorbis).
I would like all the people to contact their congressman and tell them to oppose the Berman Bill and the Hollings bill. I am also asking people to contact the RIAA and tell them that you want to be able to listen to music anywhere without having to pay extra fees for it, and the future lies in AFFORDABLE LICENSING TO ALL EXISITING, NEW, AND EVOLVING MUSIC TECHNOLOGIES, not monopoly control and banning every technology that gets ahead of the industry lobby and oligopoly.
User Comments
(These do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of this site)
|
Abaris
|
Date: August 12, 2002 @ 7:13 AM
First post! |
|
ChillinBuzz
|
Date: August 12, 2002 @ 7:39 AM
I cant see them doing unlimited downloads at that price, they'd either whinge that they're not getting enough money or fill it full of crap that nobody wants. Or both.
Besides, these people don't want a compromise. Until they do, neither should we.
|
|
thumbtack
|
Date: August 12, 2002 @ 8:00 AM
There is a legal service of of Spain called Weblisten.Com. They have several plans, weekend, month etc. You can DL in MP3 or WMA. Monthly service is $27.42. Just visited. They have a free download of one of Bruce Springsteens new songs from "The Rising" available. At various times I've subscribed to Weblisten. They usually have the latest hot albums. Because they are in Spain and license the music from the Spain Right society they are legal. How come we don't have something like this in the US? Because of the RIAA, and the laws they have managed to get passed. Another reason? Most recording contracts label sales outside the US as "special Sales" and the artists aren't paid the same on those sales. So the labels get the cash, the artists get the shaft. |
|
thumbtack
|
Date: August 12, 2002 @ 8:02 AM
BTW the whole album is available for DL http://www.weblisten.com/en/asp_mp3/album.asp?id=8027 One free cut on the homepage. |
|
Svensta
|
Date: August 12, 2002 @ 8:09 AM
I think I realized something flipping channels in a stupor this weekend. I stumbled across pay-per-view ads and it hit me. This is what they deem as fair use! Absolutely NO manufacture costs, beaming it to you in a method that THEY control, and one in which you cannot control the 'copy' you purchased. You pay for a single viewing, a single experience and then it's gone forever, needing to be repurchased if you want to experience it again.
This is what they want, and it's goddamn sick!
Long live file trading. |
|
ChillinBuzz
|
Date: August 12, 2002 @ 8:11 AM
I stand corrected. At least until the RIAA hack the Spanish computers and get themselves wasted in our European courts. |
|
PetulaClark
|
Date: August 12, 2002 @ 10:04 AM
Yeah, Sven, knocking off file-sharing is just another bump in the road for for the media business. Giving up control over distribution will only allow the industry will gouge us more for poorly produced swill.
These people think they're too cool to watch or listen to their own crap.
|
|
Spica
|
Date: August 12, 2002 @ 12:52 PM
Some people here still haven't realized what the RIAA really wants. Once again, they (and also some artists) only want your money, as much as possible for as little work as possible.
If all drugs were legal, then the RIAA people would be selling crack to babies. Yes, such is their moral level.
We need a filesharing protocoll that would bypass all legal and technical barriers that the RIAA can put up. We need to start using every loophole in current copyright legislation; such that people can share Gbytes of files without the risk of getting caught, or even identified.
I think this is a good place for suggestions:
(1.) Clients could have a feature that allows a user to set aside some HD space for other users to upload things to, without his knowledge; after a certain time this space would be automatically cleared, like webbrowser cache. This way, the user "has no access to or knowledge of material being distributed", and is thus not legally liable. By dynamically moving the files from node to node, probability of detection would be decreased.
(2.) every time you request a file, you should be required to fill in and sign a form that states that you are not working for the RIAA (or whatever) and that you will not use that file against the user. This, being a legally binding agreement, would also put soem restraints on RIAA/MPAA snooping.
(3.) instead of P2P, we should have "P2P2P". This means, whenever a file is found, i do not get to see the actual IP it is on, the address is stored on a node in between. Then, when i request it, the file "explodes" in two or more numbered packets and is sent through a short route, over 1-3 random fast nodes, to avoid direct connections. This might be slower than P2P, but not much. Would be definitely more confusing to those (c)-loving dimwits. Let's see how their lawyers dig around in that! (assuming they understand what goes on). |
|
bastardsofglory
|
Date: August 12, 2002 @ 2:40 PM
ok, i agree with most if not all opinions expressed here. i have 1 thing to say: "stop buying cds from the record store". you are creating the demand from the record label (riaa) every time you walk into tower records or sam goody or the werehouse and spend your money. we are the demand, we are what makes them powerful, we are the $ that gives them the control.
for every blink 182 or hoobastank or jayz or eminem there are 10 equally good artists that are not heard. the trick is motivating the little kiddies out there and their parents not to become the puppets the marketing industry wants them to be, and that the internet is a perfect place to DISCOVER new talent and have instant access to it.
jeeeeezuz, it's a simple solution. now we have to slay the monster the listening public has created.
|
|
princess-angry
|
Date: August 12, 2002 @ 6:14 PM
sven you are soooooo right on..... it;s not dish on demand it's a cd!!! that means we can listen to it whenever we freakin want!!! and if you buy a stereo it's yours!!!! and you cna't limit what you hook up to it or what eq settings you are allowed to have!!!! you can'tcontrol that!!! |
|
princess-angry
|
Date: August 12, 2002 @ 6:17 PM
dang html won't work in news messages!!! |
|
deusdiabolus
|
Date: August 12, 2002 @ 8:22 PM
Maybe we should organize a massive blackout. Say, for one month, no music at all...no file trading, no radio listening, no music buying, nothing. We could make up T-shirts saying I HAVE BEEN SILENCED BY CORPORATE AMERICA or something like that. We could organize massive demonstrations where people just sit and read the Constitution or something, BUT NO MUSIC OF ANY KIND. |
|
princess-angry
|
Date: August 12, 2002 @ 8:33 PM
what about dmusic artists or independat ones??? is that allright dee??? |
|
EnwTheGood
|
Date: August 13, 2002 @ 5:39 AM
Sven: this is a bit OT, but my cable company now offers what they call "in demand Pay Per View". There's a channel on the digital cable box where you select what movie you want to see by genre or title, and you can start any movie anytime you want for $3.00. You can even use the VCR controls on your remote to control it, and you have something like three times the length of the movie with which to watch it. I also get free Showtime and Starz indemand. Hee hee... |
|
leflaw
|
Date: August 13, 2002 @ 3:32 PM
THE BEST THING WE CAN DO IS PUT THE WORD OUT CONSTANTLY AND POST GREAT NON_RIAA MUSIC right here.
Also, we are in the process of mounting a sales/domations drive to get some revenue to hire a FULL TIME PR FIRM AND LOBBYIST in WASHINGTON! ( and a few programmers....) |
|
staples600
|
Date: August 13, 2002 @ 6:35 PM
Are they going to come to my house and arreste me if play a cd loud enough for my neighbours to hear? I say bring down prices so that it is no longer attractive to DLoad from such sites. Can anybody tell me why I need to pay nearly $35.00 for an album!! yep thats right, I'm from the UK...land of the stupid. |
|
PetulaClark
|
Date: August 13, 2002 @ 7:46 PM
Maybe I'll supplement my file-sharing with a new hobby:
burning copies of my CD's for free.
Music burning party anyone?
Put an ad in the paper, bring-your-own box, booze. We can rent out a big house and have a room for each genre.
Burn! Hollywood Burn! |
|
PetulaClark
|
Date: August 13, 2002 @ 7:49 PM
...Of course, how do I know you're not a back-wards baseball cap wearing RIAA narc? |
|
ixfingers
|
Date: August 14, 2002 @ 12:15 AM
The RIAA has a list of its members at http://www.riaa.com/About-Members-1.cfm
Check what label a CD is produced by, and if it's one there, don't buy it. Hell, if we could get a decent number of people to take that list into the store when they buy CDs, and check every wanted purchse against it, it might make an impression. It is, however, a lot of work either way: the vast majority of CDs are indeed by those labels. |
|
ChillinBuzz
|
Date: August 14, 2002 @ 12:34 AM
Ouch. Several artists I like have labels on that list.
Where's my p2p software? :D |
|
ChillinBuzz
|
Date: August 14, 2002 @ 12:37 AM
And I see MTV stuck half-way up the RIAA's ass too. Mind, I haven't given much time to that channel of late, thanks to broadband and streaming videos.
|
|
mp3manlou
|
Date: August 14, 2002 @ 9:24 PM
all of this makes me so mad. many people will back down to the riaa, but now theyre just plain ridicioulous. i cant make my own music??? singing is illegal? fuck that. if many back down and few are left, they will be arrested and laws will pass. if everyone on gnutella with a connection not to tie up phone line stays on with p2p programs and windows xp's basic firewall, they can not shut us all down, so everyone stay on!!! for the sake of this network!!! riaa is just plain insane, they said cds r not expensive, they r tryin to shut down indie artists, they are mean pieces of shit. i tried to reason with em, lets see if it works. |
|
mp3manlou
|
Date: August 14, 2002 @ 9:26 PM
and songs would have to cost a dime each if i was to pay, which i wont. |
|
mp3manlou
|
Date: August 14, 2002 @ 9:28 PM
"Then, the RIAA wants to make general purpose computers illegal. Yes, the Fritz Hollings bill will do just that. It will require copy protection built into every digital device." the riaa could never do that, and if they do, people will kill over this. |
|
Spica
|
Date: August 15, 2002 @ 12:08 PM
i know people who will kill for the stuff they already did ;) |
|
W-B
|
Date: August 16, 2002 @ 8:55 PM
Hollings bill = Big Government / Communism / Third-Worldization / Tyranny / Oppression.
Just remember that. |
|
JimsMyName
|
Date: August 22, 2002 @ 1:38 PM
P2P is wrong. It's piracy and that is stealing. No matter how much you want to deny it. |
|
JimsMyName
|
Date: August 22, 2002 @ 1:38 PM
P2P is wrong. It's piracy and that is stealing. No matter how much you want to deny it. |
|
NeoFlash
|
Date: August 22, 2002 @ 10:15 PM
jimsmyname, get a life, and stop advertizing porn here. |
|
|
Navigation
