Take a Stand Against the Madness; Stop the RIAA!

[psi29a]

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is on a rampage, launching legal attacks against average Americans from coast to coast. After over 18,000 lawsuits and counting against P2P users, file sharing has continued to increase rapidly. Meanwhile, music fans, like 12 year-old Brittany LaHara, college student Cassi Hunt, and parent of five Cecilia Gonzalez, are being forced to pay thousands of dollars they do not have to settle RIAA-member lawsuits, and many other innocent individuals are being caught in the crossfire.

This irrational crusade is not generating a single penny for the artists that the RIAA claims to protect. The RIAA should be working to create a rational, legal means by which its customers can take advantage of file sharing technology and pay a fair price for the music they love. With artists increasingly turning against the lawsuits, momentum may be shifting in favor of a better way forward.

Copyright law shouldn't make criminals out of more than 60 million Americans — tell Congress that it's time to stop the madness!

http://www.eff.org/share/petition/

Take a stand, if you live in the US of A, and believe in the right's of Artists AND Citizens then help the EFF by signing their petition. 95K so far, and they need 100K before they want to send it off to Congress.

[Eldo]

I remember an article about RIAA suing a family for file-sharing - when that family doesn't even own a computer. They claim it was a mix up with the previous owners. Still an embarassment though.

[Damien]

Signed because I don't like the way either the RIAA or MPAA handle things.

[Daedelus]

I'm split on this issue a bit.

On one hand, the RIAA is doing what it is designed to do - protect the copyrights of its members. The people being sued are often (however not 100% of the time it seems) willingly trading copyrighted songs, illegally. Then when they get caught, they use organizations like the EFF to complain. I know someone that was sued by the RIAA at the end of last school year, settling for about $4,000. She was trading on i2hub, a P2P program designed to exploit Internet2. I wasn't too surprised by it, as the RIAA was trying to stop illegal trading on I2. I suggested she talk to the EFF... instead she got some criminal defense lawyer who didn't know shit about fuck. The point is, these people are rarely innocent. They should be happy that the RIAA is even settling the cases... they could take it to court and get thousands more.

On the other hand, the practice is incredibly shady. If the RIAA were to actively try to educate people about pay alternatives to P2P (more on that later) I might be a bit more comfortable with their actions. Another bone I have to pick is that the artists being infringed upon don't see a dime of this money (as mentioned by the link).

Another thing is to consider is that some artists are turning against the practice of suing to stop P2P. The problem is, that's a fight for the artist and their label as the label is a member of the RIAA, not the artist themselves in most cases. Once they're on contract with that label, they're an RIAA member. Getting labels to quit the RIAA though would be just about impossible.

Copyright law shouldn't make criminals out of more than 60 million Americans — tell Congress that it's time to stop the madness!

Just because 60 million people do it, doesn't make it right (or legal). This is part of the problem I have with how the EFF is approaching things. While I agree that how the situation has been/is being handled is a bit rash, repealing copyright laws (as the EFF has sometimes suggested) is over the line.

[psi29a]

When a majority of the population says that something is wrong, their government needs to listen. Your definition of what is 'right' changes, and it's legality is then up for debate and the possiblity of change can occure.

You make it sound like an absolute right or wrong.

Prohabitionists said it was wrong to consume alcohol and went about banning it's production, sale, and consumption.

Time to stop the madness. *tongue in cheek*

[Daedelus]

The difference here is, how many of those 60 million went into it thinking "hey, free music - cool!" compared to "I'm breaking copyright law - cool!"

Think back to when P2P first took hold, a la Napster/start of Kazaa. Just about everyone I knew was totally ignorant to what they were doing was, in fact, illegal. It still is, and more people likely acknowledge that now.

So what should we do to copyright law, then? Abolish it? That'll be awesome. Why innovate when I can rip off the other guy for a lot cheaper, avoid those hideous R&D costs?

[Ayanami]

I buy albums, I don't download music. I could care less.

[psi29a]

The difference here is, how many of those 60 million went into it thinking "hey, free music - cool!" compared to "I'm breaking copyright law - cool!"

Think back to when P2P first took hold, a la Napster/start of Kazaa. Just about everyone I knew was totally ignorant to what they were doing was, in fact, illegal. It still is, and more people likely acknowledge that now.

So what should we do to copyright law, then? Abolish it? That'll be awesome. Why innovate when I can rip off the other guy for a lot cheaper, avoid those hideous R&D costs?

That thought has come up for time to time, but is a pipe dream. The objective of the EFF is to stop the under-handed practices of the RIAA. There is no need to abolish, but there does need to be change and hopefully for the better for the citizen/consumer that also respects artists.

RIAA is there to make sure it's members make money, with new content delivery systems that their members don't even want to deal with, they will be doomed and while they are struggling to come to grips with reality, they are sueing people who don't even have anything to do with the 'crimes' they are commiting.

There is a problem that needs to be addressed when the consequence of pirating a copyrighted work is greater than that of being a pedophile.

So... I'm not sure why we are debating this. I don't advocate rampent copyright violation when it comes to music and movies.

[LordMune]

I buy albums, I don't download music. I could care less.

[OMGGRAMMARNAZI]couldn't[/OMGGRAMMARNAZI]

[Ayanami]

Whoops, oh wells. I do understand that the RIAA is getting out of hand and I do not agree with their enforcement of things. Sign a petition though....

Will the petition actually get the message across that new ways have to be found to punish the copy right violators or will it just send a "people want free shit" message?

[psi29a]

To The United States Congress:

We are the customers and former customers of the member labels of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). We love music and will gladly pay a fair price for it, but we are outraged by the RIAA's tactics in suing ordinary Americans for filesharing.

We condemn the RIAA's choice to force the family of a 12 year-old girl to forfeit $2,000 - money that could have gone to feed, clothe and educate this honor student. We stand with the retirees, parents, children and others who have been caught in the RIAA's line of fire.

We respect reasonable copyright law, but we strongly oppose copyright enforcement that comes at the expense of privacy, due process and fair application of the law.

We urge you, as our representatives in Congress, to stop this madness.

We oppose the recording industry's decision to attack the public, bankrupt its customers and offer false amnesty to those who would impugn themselves. We call instead for a real amnesty: the development of a legal alternative that preserves file-sharing technology while ensuring that artists are fairly compensated.

In signing this petition, we formally request that the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), as representatives of the public interest, be included in any upcoming hearings regarding the proper scope of copyright enforcement in the digital age.

We sincerely thank you for your time.

That is what it says, and that is what I signed.

[Daedelus]

So... I'm not sure why we are debating this. I don't advocate rampent copyright violation when it comes to music and movies.

Didn't mean to imply that you did, sorry. I saw it more as debating how the problem should be approached.

96540 P. DontWork Nowhere, AK

Bam, another online petition bites the dust. No, it wasn't me. Yay for getting people to join in and sign, but crap like that just mucks up the works.

[panasonic]

edit: wrong thread, my bad

[psi29a]

Did you post in the wrong thread?

Seems that is net-neutrality, not RIAA related.

[Arresty]

I signed it.

I both buy and download music, but the recording industry needs to give us incentive to buy over download. For example the new Tool album has the coolest case in the world, that alone is enough to make me by the album, but since the music kicks ass I would have probably bought it anyways.

[Killfile]

Abolistionist said it was wrong to consume alcohol and went about banning it's production, sale, and consumption.

Uh -- Psi? Abolitionists wanted to get rid of slavery. Prohibitionists wanted to get rid of alcohol.

Those who don't know their history are doomed to repeat it -- or at least do badly on state required high stakes tests.

Now I'm gonna have to sic Femto's Sodomist Monkey on you.

[psi29a]

Abolistionists good, Prohibitionists bad!

[Killfile]

Abolistionists good, Prohibitionists bad!

Sadly, that's about the level of familiarity necessary to pass under No Child Left Behind.

See how I routed that back to Politics and Current Events? Pretty slick eh?

[psi29a]

der-de-dir, SMRT!

edit: Anywho, fixed.

[Daedelus]

der-de-dir, SMRT!

[Arresty]

And it swayed back off course.

Sadly your right Kilfile.

[psi29a]

RIAA to XM: "All your base are belong to us."

The recording industry's lawyers never stop looking to squeeze more money out of everyone, do they? The latest, submitted by Petréa Mitchell, is that they're quite upset about XM launching a mobile device that will let subscribers (yes, the people who already pay) actually record music. So (surprise, surprise) the recording industry is suing XM for not paying them another license on top of the licenses they already pay. They're now asking for $150,000 for every song that a user recorded. All this because XM has helped more people listen to the recording industry's music. If some of this sounds familiar, it's because it's related to what's being discussed in Congress to force satellite radio providers to pay more just because the content can now be recorded to devices. Once again, this is about the recording industry looking to squeeze more money out of a dying business model rather than recognizing these new services help make the recording industry's product much more valuable. XM is positioning this as a new Betamax-style case, with them simply providing the VCR -- which clearly has legal uses. The RIAA's best response, it appears, is "well, we convinced other suckers to pay up, so XM should too." Not particularly convincing.

source

Looks like XM(tm) has answered the call with this statement:

Everything we've done at XM since our first minute on the air is about giving you more choices. We provide more channels and music programming than any other network. We play all the music you want to hear including the artists you want to hear but can't find on traditional FM radio. And we offer the best radios with the features you want for your cars, homes, and all places in between.

We've developed new radios -- the Inno, Helix and NeXus -- that take innovation to the next level in a totally legal way. Like TiVo, these devices give you the ability to enjoy the sports, talk and music programming whenever you want. And because they are portable, you can enjoy XM wherever you want.

The music industry wants to stop your ability to choose when and where you can listen. Their lawyers have filed a meritless lawsuit to try and stop you from enjoying these radios.

They don't get it. These devices are clearly legal. Consumers have enjoyed the right to tape off the air for their personal use for decades, from reel-to-reel and the cassette to the VCR and TiVo.

Our new radios complement download services, they don't replace them. If you want a copy of a song to transfer to other players or burn onto CDs, we make it easy for you to buy them through XM + Napster.

Satellite radio subscribers like you are law-abiding music consumers; a portion of your subscriber fee pays royalties directly to artists. Instead of going after pirates who don't pay a cent, the record labels are attacking the radios used for the enjoyment of music by consumers like you. It's misguided and wrong.

We will vigorously defend these radios in court and before Congress, and we expect to win.

Thank you for your support.

source

Wow, finally... someone with a backbone AND the cash to back it up. Fight on XM!

edit: something interesting

“When I was the head of the RIAA, I knew that trying to regulate technology is not a good strategy,” said Hilary Rosen, who now is a consultant to XM. “In the end it was always better to get as much money as you could upfront.”
(emphasis mine)

source

For those who didn't know Hilary Rosen, she was the head of the RIAA awhile back... turns out she is now a consultant for XM.

[Killfile]

For those who didn't know Hilary Rosen, she was the head of the RIAA awhile back... turns out she is now a consultant for XM.

Damn - this is reading more and more like a bad episode of GI Joe.

I'm showing my age here aren't I?

[psi29a]

For those who didn't know Hilary Rosen, she was the head of the RIAA awhile back... turns out she is now a consultant for XM.

Damn - this is reading more and more like a bad episode of GI Joe.

I'm showing my age here aren't I?

No, GI Joe was part of the staple diet of cartoons for those who grew up in the 80's... Pro Military Industrial Complex cartoons. yoooo, joe!

[Arresty]

Wow, just wow.