SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic - Anti-RIAA Thread

Posted: Jul 24 2007 10:00 pm

ross_rifle113 wrote:

dude, sweet. I think you should release it, because the more anti-RIAA songs, the better. But you gotta wait until your band is so popular that any song you release is sure to be a big hit. Because what will the RIAA do? Take the negative attention, or ban your song and risk losing the all-mighty dollar?

Hey, no such thing as bad publicity. If the RIAA wants to make a big deal out of it, let 'em. It'll show people that the RIAA has added "unsigned teenage metal bands" to its list of targets that haven't really done anything, along with grandmas, nuns, children, disabled people, and single mothers. And as for trying to ban my song, let 'em try. Like Suicidal Tnedencies wrote "You Can't Bring Me Down". In the digital age, getting your music out has never been easier, so if the RIAA says "I can't say this, I can't say that" when I'm not even on a label, I'll just give 'em the finger and release it on MySpace/Purevolume.
The RIAA must be really insecure about the size of its penis.

Posted: Jul 24 2007 11:07 pm

no kidding, I've heard so much of this crap now i see them as like a single element, like this giant monster made of dollar bills and 45s. He just walks around protecting his ass by sueing old ladies

Posted: Aug 02 2007 01:50 am

And now for an article about a non-RIAA organization:

The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) has launched a music-licensing crackdown lawsuit against over two dozen venues for allegedly failing to pay royalties to play copyrighted music in public.

In other words, they are suing clubs for playing music on their jukeboxes without paying royalties.

WTF?

So it’s official: the music industry is in dire straights and in such financial despair they are suing their own customers over copying music and now clubs and coffeehouses over the quarters they collect from jukeboxes. WOW.

Yes, technically, if they don’t have a special license, owners of bars, clubs and restaurants can indeed be sued for playing any one of 8 million recorded songs, even from their own burned CDs (which, of course, the RIAA and ASCAP think are illegal anyways).

ASCAP says that besides broadcasting songs over the radio, television and Internet, the definition of performing copyrighted music includes playing it "any place where people gather," with the exception of small private groups. FYI, that even includes playing background music, music played by a DJ, and music-on-hold. So on Monday, ASCAP filed 26 separate infringement actions against venues in 17 states to spread the word that performing such music without permission is a federal offense.

"I think it's absurd," said Abi Eshagi, owner of Seattle’s Ibiza Dinner Club, one of the venues being sued. "Not only DJs have bought that music, I also subscribe to an online music-use service, and I'm also paying the cable company for the same thing. I don't know how many times we have to pay for a song."

Good point. Especially considering most DJs get music free from record labels so they can play and promote it! Plus, Eshagi says he already pays for two music-subscription services.

ASCAP is seeking up to $30,000 in damages per infringement from Ibiza.

Posted: Aug 02 2007 02:00 am

When Paul McCartney made that deal with Starbucks, the music industry officially died.

Posted: Aug 02 2007 09:15 am

The difference between ASCAP and the RIAA is that the music that ASCAP collects actually goes to the people who wrote the songs where as the money that the RIAA collects goes to some douchebag in a suit and tie who couldn't care less about music.

Posted: Aug 02 2007 02:55 pm

Still fucking retarded, though.

Posted: Sep 29 2007 03:29 am

Despite how little effect it is having and how it widens the gap between the music manufacturers and consumers, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is carrying on with its ridiculous fight against illegal downloading with the release of 403 new pre-litigation settlement letters to 22 different universities inform them of a forthcoming copyright infringement lawsuit against its students or personnel. Among hr universities are Arizona State University, University Of Massachusetts and University Of Wisconsin.

This wave marks the eighth time the RIAA has issued such threats on behalf of the major record companies over the past three and a half years.

They call legal action against students "unfortunate but necessary"….hey, sort of like what many say about the war in Iraq!

But not everyone thinks the RIAA is doing such great work.

"RIAA is definitely missing the point on what's going on with illegal downloading. They aren't exploring the reasons why so many students download music this way," says Nate Honoré, general manager at WSUW Whitewater, one of the schools at the top of the list. "Who can afford [buying CDs] anymore, especially with rising cost in tuition? These pre-litigation letters are not the solution to this so-called 'problem.' Can so many people be wrong about this?"

Posted: Sep 29 2007 03:36 am

"unfortunate but necessary"??? BULLSHIT! I'm in the middle of trying to pay my tuition, and it's emptying out my mom's bank account, my dad's bank account, my bank account, and the spending money I get for mowing my aunt's lawn! "Unfortunate bu necessary" You knows what's unfortunate but necessary?? Assassination. And rape. Especially corporate suit rape. That's real unfortunate. But reeeaaaal necessary. Go choke on a dick, you polesmokers!!

By the way, I am totally against illegal downloading and any music downloading for that matter, but this is fucking ridiculous!

Posted: Sep 29 2007 02:47 pm

I think punching the head of the RIAA in the balls is unfortunate but necessary.

Posted: Oct 04 2007 03:48 am

The first trial of a person accused of illegally sharing music online in U.S. history is happenning in Duluth, Minnesota (at first I thought it might've been here in Georgia).

Yes, a gal named Jammie Thomas is being accused of having illegally downloaded 1,702 songs back in 2005 through Kazaa. Of course, her attorney, Brian Toder, says there's no proof she illegally shared any music. But Richard Gabriel, lead attorney for some of the record companies after her, is calling witnesses to document every way the record companies say she ripped them off.

Toder's cross-examination has been centered around whether the record companies can even prove that she downloaded and shared the songs, as the record companies allege she did in 2005. He says that for all they know a serial downloader with a wireless router coulda done it. Or a nefarious dirty-doer hooked a computer up to her Internet connection and downloaded the tunes. Either ways, he says, these possibilities are as likely as the ones the record labels are presenting, as none of them can actually be proven.

Sure, the labels have backed up their claims with tons of data, log printouts, and dates and Internet addresses on a screen in front of jurors…but none of it actually PROVES this Thomas was the one who downloaded the material…just that it was downloaded on her computer. So it’s like saying we think this girl murdered someone in her house, but all we can prove is that someone was murdered in her house. We don’t actually have any evidence she was in the house or had a motive.

The action against Thomas is the first to get to trial because most defendants have settled by paying a few thousand dollars. So this trial is important as it could set the standards in the court as to what constitutes illegal downloading and how liable the accused downloader is.

"It is imperative for Sony BMG to combat this problem," a Sony insider said during the testimony. "If we don't, we have no business anymore."

Joined: Apr 14 2006 Location: Lake Michigan Posts: 3332

They would still get decent business if they didn't charge 15 bucks for a cd. Geez, I can get a decent movie on dvd for five bucks now.

Posted: Oct 04 2007 06:23 pm

So how serious is the record industry about this whole “if you share files, you are stealing music” stance?

This serious: Yesterday, Sony BMG's head of litigation testified before the jury (in the Duluth trial) that making copies of purchased music is just "a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy.'"

That’s right, according to Sony, even if you legally purchase the music, you are not allowed to makes copies under any circumstance. That means, Sony considers transferring songs to iPods and Zunes “stealing.” They would prefer you re-buy the music for every format you want it in. So you buy it on CD, then re-buy it as an mp3 for your iPod, then re-buy it for your Zune, then re-buy it if you want to copy it for a friend, re-buy it to stick on a personal mixtape CD, and so on.

Does that makes sense…or make Sony a bunch of greedy bastards?

Posted: Oct 04 2007 07:23 pm

Hey, Sony!

Posted: Oct 04 2007 11:45 pm

lordsathien wrote:

The first trial of a person accused of illegally sharing music online in U.S. history is happenning in Duluth, Minnesota (at first I thought it might've been here in Georgia).

Yes, a gal named Jammie Thomas is being accused of having illegally downloaded 1,702 songs back in 2005 through Kazaa. Of course, her attorney, Brian Toder, says there's no proof she illegally shared any music. But Richard Gabriel, lead attorney for some of the record companies after her, is calling witnesses to document every way the record companies say she ripped them off.

Toder's cross-examination has been centered around whether the record companies can even prove that she downloaded and shared the songs, as the record companies allege she did in 2005. He says that for all they know a serial downloader with a wireless router coulda done it. Or a nefarious dirty-doer hooked a computer up to her Internet connection and downloaded the tunes. Either ways, he says, these possibilities are as likely as the ones the record labels are presenting, as none of them can actually be proven.

Sure, the labels have backed up their claims with tons of data, log printouts, and dates and Internet addresses on a screen in front of jurors…but none of it actually PROVES this Thomas was the one who downloaded the material…just that it was downloaded on her computer. So it’s like saying we think this girl murdered someone in her house, but all we can prove is that someone was murdered in her house. We don’t actually have any evidence she was in the house or had a motive.

The action against Thomas is the first to get to trial because most defendants have settled by paying a few thousand dollars. So this trial is important as it could set the standards in the court as to what constitutes illegal downloading and how liable the accused downloader is.

"It is imperative for Sony BMG to combat this problem," a Sony insider said during the testimony. "If we don't, we have no business anymore."

Well, the jury has settled on this case. According to the BBC:

Quote:

A court in the US has ordered a woman to pay $222,000 (£109,000) in damages for illegally downloading music.

The jury ordered Jammie Thomas, 32, from Minnesota, to pay for offering to share 24 specific songs online - a cost of $9,250 per song.

Full story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7029229.stm

Posted: Oct 10 2007 12:37 am

The attorney for a woman found liable for illegally sharing copyrighted music says she will appeal the verdict.

Jammie Thomas of Brainerd was found liable by a federal jury last week and ordered to pay $222,000 in damages.

Attorney Brian Toder says he and Thomas plan to be record companies' "worst nightmare." He says they'll base their appeal on Judge Michael Davis' ruling that merely making recordings available violates copyright law.

Record labels have sued more than 26,000 people for alleged improper downloading and music-sharing in recent years, but Thomas' case was the first to go to trial.

Posted: Oct 11 2007 11:22 pm

One band had decided to skip the RIAA all together with the release of thier new album. Like them or hate them, Radiohead is going against the grain. Thier lastest album, "In Rainbows" is now officially available online directly from Radiohead. (www.radiohead.com or www.inrainbows.com)

Not only can you purchase a CD or Vinyl of the album, but you can buy it via direct download. And, if that is spiffy enough, if you purchase it via direct download you get to NAME YOUR OWN PRICE!!!

That's right. You can choose to buy it for a penny or $100, it's up to you.

Radiohead decided to go this route, as after "Hail To The Thief" their contract with Capitol Records ended. They really did not want to sign with another label, especially with all the RIAA bullshit going on. So they took thier time, recorded the album at thier own pace, and decided to sell it on thier own.

More Info: (From arstechnica.com)

"When Brit-rock veterans Radiohead decided to self-publish their next album online, it was a bucket of ice-cold water over the heads of EMI, Sony BMG, Warner Music, and all the rest of the old-school industry elephants. It was also the starting shot for other artists to do the same, inspired by a respected band's first leap of faith into a brave new world.

It's already a trans-Atlantic phenomenon. Trent Reznor of Cleveland-based Nine Inch Nails is calling his band a "free agent, free of any recording contract with any label," and envisions a more intimate relationship with his audience as a result.

And it doesn't stop there. Now with two top-notch acts in the game, others are sure to follow as their contracts expire or come up for renegotiation. Jamiroquai and Oasis don't have contracts at the moment, and rumor has it that these acts might be the next to follow Radiohead and NIN out of the established record industry traditions. The new era likely won't have the plethora of the restrictions that give both consumers and bands migraine headaches today."

Another Tidbit from Rolling Stone:

"We wondered what repercussions Radiohead’s In Rainbows independently released, pay-what-you-want maneuver would have on the record industry. Let this serve as Exhibit A: After years of disagreeing and downright bad-mouthing his record label, Nine Inch Nails’ Trent Reznor has finally been cut free contractually from Universal Music Group, allowing him to reach his avid fanbase as an artistic free agent. Recently, Reznor attacked how his record label boosted the price on Year Zero CDs in the foreign market, telling fans during a concert to just download his music illegally, a move that likely foreshadowed the fallout. Reznor posted on the official NIN blog today that after eighteen years of being signed to a label, it gives him “great pleasure to be able to finally have a direct relationship with the audience as I see fit.” Reznor also told fans to “look for some announcements in the near future regarding 2008.” Will we see the sequel to Year Zero (and the resurrection of its alternate reality game?) The real question now is, who will be the next artist to follow Thom Yorke and Trent Reznor down this new, unbeaten path?"

Posted: Oct 15 2007 01:24 am

In 2004, a student named Zachary McCune Brown co-founded Brown University’s chapter of Students for Free Culture, a national organization across college campuses that “advocates loosening the restrictions of copyright law so that information — from software to music to research to art — can be freely shared.”

McCune started the organization after paying$3,000 to settle an illegal file-sharing claim by the Recording Industry Association of America. But the experience made him interested in changing intellectual property regulations because he “was stunned by the extremity of the punishment for taking songs I could have bought for a few cents,” he said. “It seemed grossly out of proportion.”

“The technology has outpaced the law,” added McCune.

The members of Students for Free Culture believe that the internet “has made it necessary to rethink copyright law, and they talk about the group’s goals with something like the reverence that earlier generations displayed in talking about social or racial equality. Chapters have organized demonstrations in front of major record stores and held ‘iPod liberation’ parties where students have downloaded software together that makes it possible to swap songs. Many chapters have held forums to discuss legal decisions and developments in copyright, frequently debating what it means to ‘steal’ something as amorphous as a digital file.”

Of course, no one in the industry seems to be listening to these kids, and the RIAA seems even more hell-bent on persecuting so-called “pirates,” but the cause is still worth fighting over…

Posted: Nov 13 2007 05:17 am

An education bill recently introduced into Congress contains a provision that would force colleges and universities to offer "technology-based deterrents" to file-sharing under the pain of losing all federal financial aid.

What the hell does that mean, you ask?

It means that Section 494 of the College Opportunity and Affordability Act of 2007 is entitled "Campus-Based Digital Theft Prevention" could force schools into signing up for subscription-based services like Napster and Rhapsody. The bill would also force "top 25 piracy schools" to adopt anti-P2P technology and be penalized if students still manage to share files illegally.

Under the terms of the act, which is cosponsored by Rep. George Miller (D-CA) and Rep. Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX), schools must inform students of their official policies about copyright infringement during the financial aid application and disbursement process. In addition, students will be warned about the possible civil and criminal penalties for file-sharing as well as the steps the schools take to prevent and detect illicit P2P traffic. The bill essentially forces schools into signing up for music subscription services in order to keep their federal aid money coming in.

Of course, the Recording Industry Association of America and Motion Picture Association of America love the idea, but others aren’t so gung-ho. For instance, the Association of American Universities doesn't like it at all and expressed its "grave concerns" about Section 494 of the bill.

"We urge the Education and Labor Committee to reject the entertainment industry's proposal as it crafts its bill to reauthorize the HEA," reads their letter. "The proposal would mandate a completely inappropriate role for the Secretary of Education to single out individual institutions based on information under the control of the entertainment industry, force institutions to seek an unachievable goal of preventing illegal P2P file sharing, and risk the loss of student aid for countless students innocent of any illegal file sharing activity."

Posted: Nov 13 2007 12:17 pm

lordsathien wrote:

In 2004, a student named Zachary McCune Brown co-founded Brown University’s chapter of Students for Free Culture, a national organization across college campuses that “advocates loosening the restrictions of copyright law so that information — from software to music to research to art — can be freely shared.”

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Lousy hippies.

If there are no copyrights, eventually there will be no meaningful media. MGM isn't going to spend $200 million dollars to make a movie if people can steal a screener and upload it to BitTorrent without fear of vicious repraisal.

Posted: Nov 13 2007 09:51 pm

Just slap a GNU license on your own shit and shut the fuck up about the people who actually want to make money, you pot-smoking dumbasses.

Posted: Nov 14 2007 12:16 am

I do have to say though, the other part of article was scary. Cutting off kids' financial aid for filesharing? That's, well, facist.

You have to go after the problem at the source, and the source isn't individual users. P2P networks have fallen out of favor, and BitTorrent is the latest greatest thing. They should be going after the tracker sites, not Billy the CS major.

Posted: Nov 14 2007 09:34 pm

If the RIAA would just stop with the eighteen-dollar CDs, I'm pretty sure music pirates would stop stealing. They are just bringing it upon themselves with greed. I'm not a big fan of piracy, but if a college student wants both books and music, and actually needs to be in college for a better life (and would therefore not have much money), his or her college shouldn't cut off financial aid just for file sharing. To do so is just like cutting out the feet from under social climbers who also want to have a little fun.

In fact, this is kind of counter-productive. Take the hypothetical example of a college student who, between his iPod, his CD collection, and his other forms of music, would spend about 1000 dollars a year on music if he obtained it all legally, and gets $10,000 in financial aid to help him achieve his goal of completing college and being richer than his non-college-educated parents. This student gets, oh, let's say about 15% of his music (that's $150 of his $1000 per year music budget) from illegal file sharing, over his dorm computer. His college finds out and cuts off his financial aid. To complete his goal, this student must now cut costs as much as possible to help pay for his education. This applies to his music collection as well, so now, instead of spending the $850 per year on CDs and legal mp3s, this student uses this money for annual tuition. Now he will get all of his music from piracy, and instead of losing $150 per year because of him, the RIAA is losing $1000 per year to free illegal downloads. This case may be a bit extreme, but if such a bill were to become law, something similar would most certanly happen.

By the way, I haven't posted before, so allow me to introduce myself. I am Kylapharos. I was led here originally by the kind of search that belongs in the Fun With Search Engines column, and soon came to love this site. And now I have come to post here in the Forums.

Posted: Nov 14 2007 11:59 pm

Wait, this can't be constitutional. Can it?

Posted: Dec 13 2007 03:16 pm

Oh, in case you were wondering, the Recording Industry Association of America recently stepped up their definition of "unauthorized copies" to include any mp3s and AAC you've ripped from your own CD collection.

Yes, in a brief filed late last week, the RIAA said that the mp3 files housed on a PC owned by a file-sharing defendant who had admitted to ripping them himself were considered "unauthorized copies."

Jeffrey and Pamela Howell were sued by the RIAA in August 2006 after an investigator from SafeNet discovered evidence of file-sharing over the KaZaA network. The Howells are defending themselves against the recording industry's lawsuit without a lawyer and have denied any copyright infringement on their part. They say that the mp3s have "always have been" for private use.

"The files in question are for transfer to portable devices, that is legal for 'fair use,'" reads their response.

Damn straight! But the RIAA feels differently…

Making "a copy" of a song you own is just "a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy'," according to the RIAA's lead counsel in Atlantic v. Howell. "When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song,"

So ripping your own CDs is stealing? Making a copy of a CD you bought for your own personal usage is wrong? Are you f'ing kidding me? It’s kind of amazing that nearly 20 years after CDs hit the market and a decade after music started going digital NOW they tell us we can’t make copies!

Posted: Dec 13 2007 07:06 pm

These bastards seriously need to fuck off.