NEW YORK -- Universal Music Group, the world's biggest record company, is stepping up pressure against popular websites YouTube and MySpace, accusing them of infringing the copyrights of its artists' music videos.

Universal chief executive Doug Morris described video site YouTube and News Corp.'s social-networking site MySpace as "copyright infringers" during a Merrill Lynch investors' conference speech Tuesday that was closed to the press.

"The poster child for (user-generated media) sites are MySpace and YouTube," said Morris, according to a transcript obtained by Reuters. "We believe these new businesses are copyright infringers and owe us tens of millions of dollars."

He added, "How we deal with these companies will be revealed shortly."

"His remarks strongly suggested the company was planning to take legal action in the near-term to either prevent the illegal use of their content on these websites or to ensure the company is compensated for the use of its content," Jessica Reif Cohen, analyst at Merrill Lynch, wrote in a note Wednesday.

"This could be the first salvo from a content player against business models based on user-generated content, much of which relies on copyrighted material."

Universal, owned by French media group Vivendi, has been in negotiations with both YouTube and MySpace to offer its artists' music legally for a fee.

A spokeswoman for YouTube, a 2-year-old startup company that already boasts more than 100 million viewings of short videos uploaded by users, said, "It is our policy not to comment on our business negotiations."

MySpace declined to comment.

The runaway success of the free-to-view online video sites has raised the question of whether rights holders such as record companies and movie companies should be compensated, even if the clips are uploaded by users.

To date, YouTube has said it will take down any copyright-protected material illegally posted on the site once it has been alerted by the rights holder.

In February, YouTube was ordered by lawyers for General Electric-owned television network NBC to remove illegally posted clips of some of its television shows, though in June the companies agreed to feature some of NBC's shows legally on the site.

Last month, YouTube told Reuters that it is in discussions with record companies to offer its users the ability to watch virtually every music video ever made, but had yet to settle on a business model to allow viewers to see the videos for free.

YouTube also announced later that month it would be testing a new advertising model with Warner Music Group featuring celebrity hotel heiress Paris Hilton.

Record companies are keen to avoid repeating the mistake they believe they made when Viacom's MTV was set up 25 years ago -- allowing their artists' music to be aired for free.

Morris in his remarks to investors Tuesday said MTV "built a multibillion-dollar company on our (music) ... for virtually nothing. We learned a hard lesson."
Â

The record companies don’t get it! ”The times are a changing’”---They’re dinosaurs and will keep doing the same things over and over again expecting different results.

Seems as though myspace is receiving criticism for all kinds of reasons lately. Computer Which has criticised them saying they must do more to police their site due to bullying, pornographic images etc.

http://www.which.co.uk/press/press_topics/product_news/computing_which_magazine/social_networking_sept06_571_95122.jsp

I said this time and time again to people that sharing copyrighted content is immoral.

They can copy music and video for them selves, but they cannot give them away without paying copyright holders. For instance, if I bought a season of Star Trek, or if they bought Pirates of the Carribean, they should be allowed to make a copy of these movies free of charge and place them on their computer for streaming or their iPod for travel trips, but they can't illictly share them online without compensation to the artists.

In other words, Timeshifting a movie for later viewing once, that's cool. Making a copy of a DVD that you purchased and stream it accross a home network, that's cool. Making a copy of a CD for listening on your iPod when you are jogging, that's cool. If you can make a copy of a DVD for watching on your iPod for viewing during long trips, that's ccol. However Making a copy of a CD or a DVD and sharing them online or posting them online, that's NOT cool.

What's wrong with the DMCA laws is circumventing copy protection on DVDs I purchased to transfer them to my iPod or my computer. That's wrong with these laws these days and with online companies making people who copy for personal use into criminals. When it comes to making several copies and giving them away, That I know is wrong, but when it comes to making copies of my music and movies to my portable device or my computer for viewing pleasure is a totally different story.

"I said this time and time again to people that sharing copyrighted content is immoral."


Immoral? By what definition of morality? Its certainly not unchristian.

And what about sharing public domain material that is wrongfully copyrighted?

And what about sharing copyrighted material that is not fixed in a tangible media?

And what about sharing copyrighted material that is not original?

These are questions for philosophers and legal scholars, not only for narcissistic artists.

(Hitler was an artist).

"However Making a copy of a CD or a DVD and sharing them online or posting them online, that's NOT cool."

Well, maybe if the global content cartels would stop region coding discs, selling them in select areas of their choosing at separate times, and if they offered content worth seeing or listening too, for a decent price, then maybe people wouldn't have to turn to the Internet and download anything.

The content cartels have a mindset that's prone to using inappropriate tactics. I could actually consider an analogy to be something like this:
What if a recently-hired elderly teacher stepped into a classroom of modern children expecting to control and instruct them as in bygone decades of long ago. Picture him/her using austere expressions, very stern tone of voice, applying a stinging ruler on the wrist of any child for so much as even an insignificant infraction against unreasonable rules the teacher has set up. You get the idea. These methods won't wash. They are passe.
Then, picture that same teacher not willing to adjust to the reality of the modern era.
(Goodbye, teacher.)

I guess the comparison of the RIAA to dynosaurs becoming extinct isn't too far off the mark, either.

When will they ever learn?

Note: I'm not saying content owners don't have the right to protect their copyrighted interests. I'm railing against their METHODS that stem from an inappropriate MINDSET. They've got an ATTITUDE problem across the board, big time. And while I'm at it, so does BMI and ASCAP, too.
Heck, if I were to write long enough, I could add some more groups to the list.
Grrr.

Morris in his remarks to investors Tuesday said MTV "built a multibillion-dollar company on our (music) ... for virtually nothing. We learned a hard lesson."

and MTV exposed many of their artists to the public and made them billions... for virtually nothing? whatever!

Following is a post on a similar subtopic about the RIAA over at Slashdot; I probably like it because its insight is close to mine, heh, heh.
"File sharers are not just breaking the law; they're pushing for change. See also the EFF page on alternative music industry business models.

The "File Sharer" position (which includes people who aren't engaged in copyright violation -- merely interested in fair use freedom) is that the RIAA *cannot win* this fight; the state of technology is such that some of us will share music and movies in such a way that we can't be caught. The technically savvy have been miles ahead of the **AA every step of the way. While they were tearing down napster, we were building Gnutella. At present, they're suing people using Kazaa, while we've moved on to bittorrent. They just killed eDonkey, but we've been using eMule for years.

If they follow us here, we'll move to encryption, darknets, and traffic obfuscation. Technology moves too fast. Copying data will always be easy. Copying it anonymously won't be much harder.

If they keep pushing like this, there will come a time where they can't reach us any more. Then they'll have to change.

So why don't they face reality? Give us what we want at a fair price!"


To the above post I could add: Okay, and independent music deserves to have their right to a level playing field so those alternative choices can have a fair shake for the artists and for their potential fans - both now and later.

Re: "Give us what we want at a fair price!"
. . . and most folks would want to purchase the music and support the artists, indie or big label.

I say, "WANT to support the big-label artists" . . . because that's more than the cartel does (they take unfair advantage of them whenever they can get away with it).

Okay, I may be going out on a limb here, but I'm thinking that sometimes new visitors would like a sample of what alternatives might be available to cartel music.
Naturally, let's start right here with Dmusic!
[dmusic.com]
and BoycottRIAA.com "Non-RIAA" List [boycottriaa.com]

Additionally, the following is from a recommended blog spot:


Association of Music Podcasting (AMP) [musicpodcasting.org]

Creative Commons [creativecommons.org]

Defective by Design's List of DRM-Free Music Sites [defectivebydesign.org]

Electronic Frontier Foundation List of "Artists Online" [eff.org]

emusic.com [emusic.com]

Fading Ways Records [fadingwaysmusic.com]

FreeCulture.org [freeculture.org]

harveydanger.com [harveydanger.com]

Janis Ian.com [janisian.com]

last.fm [www.last.fm]

Lime Light Radio [limelightradio.com]

live365.com free downloads [live365.com]

MagnaTune [magnatune.com]

Nettwerk Download Store [nettmusic.com]

R.evolution I.n P.rogress [myspace.com]

RIAARadar.com [magnetbox.com]

uncoolcentral.com [dand.net]

Vision Metal Records [visionmetal.com]

And, I guess we could mention
myspace.com [myspace.com]
for featuring a certain amount of indie music, but there's a lot of improvised RIAA stuff on that site as well . . .

JDonahue - watch this video and then tell me if these grrlz should be sued for $150,000? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlhE4fKOv0k
If anything this video promotes the artist. YouTube and MySpace are deleting the copies of Mtv videos posted, that is of course copyright infringement. But are fans singing to a bad copy of an artist, dancing like idoits in front of a webcam actually criminals?!? No, they're groupies.

The problem isn't videos like this, the problem the RIAA has are the Independants who get free (or cheep) advertisements at these sites. YouTube and MySpace are helping artists to be RIAA-Free. One band who played Gasoline Alley here told me how they have perhaps 1000 fans who track their performances thur Myspace. Detroit to Chicago is still a jammin area in the bars, and trips to Redneckville are worth it. I of course wrote down Dmusic and insisted they visit to see if they wish to sell their CD here.

Perhaps if YouTube and MySpace had the same licence to play covers as Dmusic has then the legal problem would be covered. Im against the filesharing of copyrighted materails, but dancing on a webcam is fair use!

Alright, I was remiss in not including a certain significant website in my previous listings.
You tell the site below about big-label artists you like, and it points you to non-RIAA artists that are similar.
(For many folks, this is outstanding!)

http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/ [magnetbox.com]

OH MY FREAKIN GOD! THEY SAID WHAT ABOUT MTV?!?! Weren't they the ones who helped promote the Record Companies' artists and made them billions of dollars? MTV who is part of the RIAA? MTV Who has helped to create/promote music Pop Culture for the past 25 years, and for the past 25 years that pop culture has been ran by these record companies? If I was Viacomm, I would be discusted at these comments!

Moving on, didn't they just settle shit with P2P? Seems these people think like Bush, Can't be satisfied winning the war, gotta make new ones!

I think JDonahue should be more involved with the DM community, I'd like to get to know him/her better.

Guys, guys, guys. Enough allready.

I am talking about filesharing copyrighted works without the author's permission. There are legal file-sharing sites out there, where you can legally share copyrighted materials. That's the legal way of file sharing. Kazaa, and other non-copyrighted file sharing sites can be used to share non-copyrighted material, like some research.

But again, I think you should make copies of CDs and DVDs for your use of your iPod video.

"But again, I think you should make copies of CDs and DVDs for your use of your iPod video. "

Then why do you push so hard for the very thing that
will prevent you from doing that .. DRM
No DRM at all ...
Excercise you're fair use rights EASILY,
wihtout hassle.
DRM ...
Excercise your fair use, on a pay per right basis.
Which one of those is bullshit ?

"I said this time and time again to people that sharing copyrighted content is immoral."

That's the same "high moral ground"
argument the indistry tries to sell.
They are the LAST organization entitled to take the "morals" approach, and
they are bigger thieves than any downloader could EVER be.

"Kazaa, and other non-copyrighted file sharing sites can be used to share non-copyrighted material, like some research. "

Yes, and therefore are as legal as the VCR or cassette recorder. Still, RIAA goes after them and ignores those they have REAL legal authority to do something about, the mass copiers.

"Guys, guys, guys. Enough allready."

Yes really, enough.
DRM is koolaid for the sheep.

"Then why do you push so hard for the very thing that
will prevent you from doing that .. DRM
No DRM at all ...
Excercise you're fair use rights EASILY,
wihtout hassle.
DRM ...
Excercise your fair use, on a pay per right basis.
Which one of those is bull____ ?"

- Why not put in a commercial DVD and there's the "Import to PC" button which instantly copies the content to your PC, or you go into iTunes and click on "import DVD", and it rips the DVD directly to iTunes as a protected MP4 format, which you can transferr it to your iPod and can be backed up on a backup hard drive. You can make copies of rented DVDs, but these copies can only be played back once within 24 hours. That's DRM, that's easy on the consumers but gives the pirates a tough time to deal.

Look. That can be done free of charge. The only time you pay is if you are transferring the movies to your friend.

"Yes, and therefore are as legal as the VCR or cassette recorder. Still, RIAA goes after them and ignores those they have REAL legal authority to do something about, the mass copiers."

- You've got that right. But what about copyrighted materials illegally shared over the Internet?

Gotta love it, they are steadily losing control and all they can do is complain, nothing more. The time they are a changin'...

"Look. That can be done free of charge. The only time you pay is if you are transferring the movies to your friend."

What makes you think for 1 second that
it will be free of charge ??
The honesty and integrity of the corporations involved ??
Give them exactly what they want,
they'll take everything and more.

"- You've got that right. But what about copyrighted materials illegally shared over the Internet? "

What about them ?

There is still absolutely no proof whatsoever that the INDUSTRY ( I stess
industry, because we both know the artists have nothing to do with this ) loses anything due to this.
None.

In fact,
If you ( as I do ) on a weekly basis compare the weeks most downloaded files, to the biggest sellers of the same period, you'll see that the lists are usually nearly in sync.
The most popular DL's are invariably the most purchased as well.
Who's lost what ??

Maybe you're one of those "Correlation does not equal Causation" folks, but you can bet your ass, if these stats showed
in the industry's favor, they would be shoving these numbers down
everyones throat screaming SEEE WE TOLD YOU !!!

Now look at MS choice to force DRM on those that DON'T want it ?
Isn't that a problem on the way ?

When they have close all of the free P2P avenues, new artists will be back at square one.
They will have to pay for the "priviledge" of being ... legally .. downloaded.

Pay to play, in BOTH senses of the word.

That's the reality of DRM, the real purpose of CONTROL.
All else is just smoke, and you have inhaled pretty deeply.

Unrelated but I wanted to get it seen quick.

http://www.computeractive.co.uk/vnunet/news/2164309/embedded-dvd-chip-fights-piracy

DVDs will soon be tracked with embedded radio transmitter chips to prevent copying and piracy, according to the company which makes movie discs for Warner, Disney, Fox and other major studios.

The technology, which can also be used for Blu-Ray and HD-DVD discs, will allow movie studios to remotely track individual discs as they travel from factories to retail shelves to consumers' homes.

Home DVD players will eventually be able to check on the chip embedded in a disc, and refuse to play discs which are copied or played in the 'wrong' geographical region, the companies behind the technology expect.

"This technology holds the potential to protect the intellectual property of music companies, film studios, gaming and software developers worldwide," said Gordon Yeh, chief executive of Ritek Corporation.

Ritek is the world's largest DVD maker, and its U-Tech subsidiary will make the discs.

U-Tech and IPICO, the company behind the RFID chips used in the discs, announced today that production of the 'chipped' DVDs will begin at U-Tech's main plant in Taiwan.

U-Tech's global network of factories stamps out some 500 million pre-recorded DVDs and CDs a month for major movie studios, recording studios and video games companies.

I still say the RIAA going after YouTube and MySpace has little to do with copyright infringment but with stomping Independants out of the big picture.

Also, simple question but no answer yet... Who thinks these grrlz should be sued for copyright infringment? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlhE4fKOv0k

"I still say the RIAA going after YouTube and MySpace has little to do with copyright infringment but with stomping Independants out of the big picture."

You would be right.

Sup all,

Everyone do yourself a favor

Order this, or check it out from your public library: http://www.amazon.com/Behold-Pale-Horse-William-Cooper/dp/0929385225

You will then see how DRM (and TPM, TCPA) fit into the larger picture of the true intentions of those that subvert, and pay off those with power throughout the world.

JDonahue, I'm suprised you still hang around here.

Perhaps Alex Jones is in fact correct, when he states in his documentary; Terrorstorm, that much of the American public enjoys, albeit relishes, being lied to. Noone will be affected by your choice to allow your own mind to be poisoned, except you.

"JDonahue, I'm suprised you still hang around here."

He's very welcome here.
I do my very best to not be abusive or
unreasonable to his PARTIALLY dissenting
viewpoint.

He seems very much with us on most things, except the 'benefits' of DRM , and he is intelligent and articulate.

It's his DRM stance that bothers me, but I think I understand it.

It has always been my belief that die-hard DRM supporters fall into 2 categories ...

1. people who don't know any better.
2. people who have a vested finacial
interest in DRM.

JD, an obviously intelligent person, knows better.

That leaves category 2.
When JD came here the very first time,
he stated openly that he was a software
developer, working on DRM ....

it is in his best financial interests to win us over to DRM support.

Unfortunately, most of us know better.

respect to JD for his continued visits,
and his much needed disention.

" That leaves category 2.
When JD came here the very first time,
he stated openly that he was a software
developer, working on DRM .... "

Just to show I am not talking out my butt ...

from ..
http://www.boycott-riaa.com/article/17834

Jdonahue wrote ...

" Date: August 18, 2005 @ 12:12 AM
That's why my DRM is open source. This is their fault that there DRM is so closed source and so restricting that it just tick off consumers.

My proposed DRM will still give consumers complete freedom. The only losers in this DRM are the dirty thieves that copy 30,000 songs and give them to other people. Why? Because you can still make as many copies as you want, but the fingerprinting technique blocks people from giving copies to other people who don't have licenses to mess around and play with the song.

And, My DRM is open source, supports MP3 formats as well as OGG, AACs, WMAs, and even Sony's ATRAC and WAV files. Why do people have to put up with bad DRM while my DRM is unrestrictive to the consumers while it throws the pirates to the lake of fire. "

Just wanted to point out something that HAS ben said before ...

DRM and open source are by their very
nature incomaptible.
The mechanics of DRM must be secret
or it is useless.
Open source is by design .. well .. open.
Secret Free.

See the conflict.

Interesting thread here.
But I'd be remiss not to interject a devil's advocate excerpt that I viewed from a previous forum:

"And no effective DRM system can ever be open source.
If it's open source, it's easy to circumvent."

"That's a foolish comment. Do you know anything about Cryptography? It can be used in somewhat DRM controlling fashion. Good crypto is always peer-reviewed. A good crypto algorithm won't be weaker simply because you know how it works."

The other thing I wondered about is if a watermarking method could be defeated even on an open-source software system.

If Im welcome here then so is JDonahue
Im against the filesharing of copyrighted materials. Im not against p2p as you can find webcam videos Ive shared (all groupies are 18 or older). Im anti- RIAA because of unfair contracts, unfair pricing, unfair control, forced DRM, oh my the list can get long...

All opinions are welcome to reach my ears

In reading thur some of what JD has to say I relised that it's corperate owned material, the corperate can do as they wish to it. Lock it away to try and make it more valuable, fill it with DRM, try and sue their customers, get themselves boycotted....
Soon DRM will lead to having to buy a Disney DVD player to watch Micky and an AOL/Time/Warner DVD Player to watch Bugs. I wont buy either.

When the RIAA attacks P2P, YouTube and other sites that Independants can use to promote and sell themselves, it has nothing to do with copyright infringment. When the RIAA trys to push internet law forcing ALL to use DRM, it has nothing to do with copyright protection. This is a cartel trying to bully everyone under their control.
P2P is the Boston Tea Party of Musical Freedom, online homemade videos are Mtv's replacement, and Dmusic is a part of the future of Music.

hmmm,
Some more research ...
I would appear that JD has a larger
stake in this new bluray DRM than we
realize ... interesting.

It's all easily findable, but I can't post
too much of it here.

It points to too much of JD's personal
information.

Anyone is free to speak as they wish here. My observation was just that why would someone repeatedly over a long period of time continually make known a specific viewpoint about DRM in which noone else on this entire site agrees with. What's to be gained? What's the point? Why bother wasting keystrokes on it?

It would be like me like me bringing the Satanic Bible into a Christian church, what's it going to achieve? Nothing.

I remember DRM starting as far back as the inception of the Commodore 64 (it may have existed earlier for all I know, in some form). Anyone that has accumulated a knowledge of history pertaining to technology and computers can clearly see that it has been a failed legacy, even up to now, and very likely for the next 10-20 years.

The only way DRM could be successful from the cartels point of view is:

ALL PC's, and all standalone/console based digital and analog playback devices worldwide, including all "legacy" hardware, would have to be confiscated and destroyed.

All these devices would have to be replaced with something like how DirecTV works, where it is impossible to have ownership at all, and its all controlled, pay per play/view, worldwide.

DRM has taken it most insidious advancement in the form of the new Intel chips (which they denied for awhile as you are well aware).

Intel has also been working on a DRM protocol to be used to re-engineer the entire Internet as we know it. Your children, or certainly their children's only option in the future to use a computer will be one that greets them with retinal/voice/fingerprint scanner that sends your info to your new backbone Internet service provider housed in the J Edgar Hoover Building.

"Jason Ziller, the Digital Home Ecosystem Manager at Intel, says DTCP-IP is similar to Windows Media Connect, but that Microsoft's solution is proprietary for Windows-based DRM. Intel is working with companies (including Microsoft, which has pledged future support for DTCP-IP) and groups like the Digital Living Network Alliance (DLNA) to perfect DTCP-IP for home network content protection."

http://www.wi-fiplanet.com/news/article.php/3454961

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viiv

read Behold a Pale Horse, written 15 years ago, don't be detracted from the talk about UFO's in his book. Understand the significance of a man having the perception and vision to write what he writes, even before the 1st attack on the WTC. Then combine that with your knowledge of the RIAA, MPAA, WTO, WIPO, IFPI.

"I remember DRM starting as far back as the inception of the Commodore 64 (it may have existed earlier for all I know, in some form). "

My first taste of it was when I boght my first Sierra PC game, "SpaceQuest", when it first hit the store shelves.
Myself and a friend split the price ( 50.00 in 1986 was pretty pricey ), got it home and found out it wouldn't copy properly ( FDD based protection ). It took about 25 minutes on Compuserve to find out about the protection, and 15 minutes on a BBS to dl it . Copy problem solved. We each had our copy to play at home.
We shared the cost, we shared the game.
Had we not been able to do that, it would have been a lost sale

..Happy "1984," y'all! Again, the right of the cartels to completely control all artistic content with screaming lawyers and suited thugs is, and has always been, a flawed business model, even in the "clamp-down" years when they did, seemingly, have control over the virtual media industry.. no longer.. sometimes the locusts in the field are too many, and you gotta sit and watch your crop die.

Their crop can die, it's OUR crop Im worried about. The RIAA's attack against YouTube and MySpace is an attack against Independant Artists. Wait and watch, soon the RIAA will find a reason to go after CDbaby, Dmusic, and other sites that reject the RIAA's control.

"Wait and watch, soon the RIAA will find a reason to go after CDbaby, Dmusic..."
...Which is why I'm glad Leflaw is a lawyer

Wayne's got a good point though, The RIAA has a habbit of finding companies they think are a threat to them and either destroy them, or take them over. I predict that sometime in the future, DMusic, as well as other music sites like us, will be facing the RIAA, calling us immoral copywrite infringment supporters. Just hope that we have enough smarts, $$, and support to prevail.

By the way all, if anyone has any doubts that the RIAA is really going after Youtube, take a look at a small except of my IP log from Protowall when I try to visit:

http://www.youtube.com

2006/09/18 11:22:26 [

2006/09/18 11:22:28 [

Ok for whatever reason it wont let me post the log, Ill narrow it down to one line: BLOCKED [!] - Destination is UNITED STATES, MX Logic, Inc, riaa.com.inbound30... (208.65.153.149) [Protocol: TCP - src: 2019 / dst: 80]

Crap damnit. Here's some really BAD news:

YouTube signs deal with Warner - vids to be ad supported.

WMG may have just saved its' ass. (Meanwhile, I don't think indie vid creators get the option of sharing any of the advertising revenue for their own content.)

CRAP! :fume:

Damn, I think I'll copywrite my college films and have my friend upload them, then threaten to sue YouTube, and see if they'll sign a deal with me. (Chances are they'll just delete the videos instead, sucks I'm not all big and famousy)

I believe in listening to one or two songs off the net to see if you like the band or artist before forking out money for the cd, but I don't agree with downloading whole cd's!!! Just my opinion and I'm sure people will agree with me and also disagree with me.

But in saying that alot of bands websites now play samples of there songs so maybe that is a better way to do it??!!??!!??!!

"The RIAA has a habbit of finding companies they think are a threat to them and either destroy them, or take them over."

You don't have to be a threat to them. If your business involves (or may involve) music in any way, that's enough for them to come after you. Music players, hard drives, blank CDs, there's probably a hidden tax on guitar strings.

"(Meanwhile, I don't think indie vid creators get the option of sharing any of the advertising revenue for their own content.)"

Sharing advertising revenue? That's hilarious, Shmoo. If you're independent, then you are receiving free promotion. If you're with the majors, they're stealing your stuff.

Different rules for the different classes of people.

"Different rules for the different classes of people."

Well, duh.
Some ARE more equal than others, and we have to just accept it, I guess.

"Wait and watch, soon the RIAA will find a reason to go after CDbaby, Dmusic..."
...Which is why I'm glad Leflaw is a lawyer ... Just hope that we have enough smarts, $$, and support to prevail."

I still have all that ammo left over from when Y2K didn't happen. I had great plans also, when the Y2K power goes out I wuz gonna take Scottville as my own. King Wayne, leader of the Scottvillians!
As soon as a Dmusician sells 100,000 CDs you can bet the RIAA will attack.

JDonahue -- The biggest DRM issue is how to tell the stuff that wants to be protected from the stuff that wants to be shared?

Those who want our music to be shared aren't going to use DRM because it is not necessary. Any system that requires DRM or ignores the existence of garden variety mp3 files is anti-competitive to millions of unsigned artists in order to "protect" the interests of the 1000 or so signed artists.

There certainly is no security issue. Overwhelmingly, all of the p2p sites are geared to Windows users. Windows has (and has ALWAYS had) such severe security problems that worrying about p2p is kind of like being concerned about getting stung by the bee that's flying around the head of the grizzly bear in your tent.

There is no moral issue. There is a marketing issue. They're trying to sell the digital equivalent of bottled water. You can get water out of the tap for relatively free or you can pay a buck a bottle.

"You can get water out of the tap for relatively free or you can pay a buck a bottle."

And people DO pay a buck a bottle, don't they. So somehow, you CAN compete with free, maybe even profit.

Consider also, just what strict, overbearing laws, controls, and security measures on music will create.
Jow sixpack will get sick of paying for each listen. He will get tired of his new DVD player calling to confirm his legitimacy, his right to hear or see what he paid for. What will happen ??
He will look for an alternative, won't he ?

DRM will CREATE a new market.
A whole new group of people, who would
never have considered anything else.
They will find DRM free content out of frustration with your rules and controls.
The creation of an even LARGER demand for DRM free stuff, whether it is
copyrighted, or free ( from independents ).
When there is such a large demand ..what happens ??

You'll just push them in the very direction you don't want them to go,
encourage them, some may say even FORCING them into the behaviors you
are trying to stop. The Prohibition Era is
NOT such a bad example , really,
Neither is the "War On Drugs".

Keep it up guys.
Push us farther away.
Squeeze ever tighter and forever wonder why you still couldn't hold us.

Why dont these companies get it... They wont ever beat illegal music. They have to join them.

The people at the top must be really thick.
All they have to do is offer legal downloads in MP3 format. instead of this DRM crap, then people wont be limited to where they can play it so they wont need to download illegal copies.

There are a small selection of players that can play WMA with DRM and then obviously the Apple have their own format.

Car MP3 players... mobile phones... wheres the market for getting music for them? P2P there is no legal way of getting MP3 compatabile with these devices. the sooner these companies give us what we want portable music people will continue to obtain compatible files from where ever they can.

I feel that it is an abuse of power on UNIVERSAL MUSIC's part; these are user content sites. People are not selling for a profit, they are expressing themselves and using music as a medium.
I will not buy any Universal Music products, I feel that they are abusing their power.
We as consumers can send them a strong message.

"All they have to do is offer legal downloads in MP3 format. instead of this DRM crap, then people wont be limited to where they can play it so they wont need to download illegal copies."

Exactly.
Without any hoops to jump through, most normal folk won't BOTHER hunting
for circumvention methods, as long as
they can enjoy the same free uses they
always have. Without DRM, it's easier to
buy.

But, Bobby, the industry already knows that.
This isn't about the money.
It's all a smokescreen.
They are after control.
The same kind of control they have over
"free" radio.
They want it locked up so that if you aren't
one of the signed acts, you won't get heard.

That's the real truth.

"They want it locked up so that if you aren't
one of the signed acts, you won't get heard.
"

And that's the bottom line in a nutshell. It's not about artist rights as it is so much as control. Many know this, many more are learning it.

Sadly, I've found some cds are now "out of print"; which gives me no choice but to find them online, which means I won't be able to have my group release them

For the sake of arguement, I shall ask here:

Does *anyone* know a legal place where I can buy George Carlin audio cds? I'll settle for used, as long as the cd isn't scratched to hell. They are needed for ripping...

Also!

If anyone out there wants to do some online sort of trades with me, let me know. My group is dieing for more material to process; We are reaching out to you! Have an independent cd you'd like to see all over? Contact me! thanks.
raidslam@yahoo.com

Nice to see you again Raid

"My group is dieing for more material to process; We are reaching out to you! Have an independent cd you'd like to see all over? Contact me! thanks. "

Hmmm, Niiiice idea.
I wonder how many other ripping groups
would participate in something like that ?

No legalities to worry about ,
and viral marketing ( in it's most positive
sense ) by the folks that do it the best

The record companys are really not that stupid you see check this out how many people remember when MTV was new? back then the record companys were all over them too.then they take MTV over then what?MTV stays true to itself for only so long now look what it is.fast forward to today they hardly ever play videos anymore Hmmmmm.

So now todays here we have youtube and myspace So what do you think would happen to youtube or myspace after the record companys take over these two social networking sites in say ten maybe twenty years?Hmmmm.
My guess is they won't be nothing like they are today.

Too bad everything is a threat to the record companys.

They just don't get it.
Shareings good not shareing is bad

How do people think linux,firefox or thunderbird E-mail or anyother open source app gets around and builds up popularity. it all comes down to shareing.

Just would like to add to my above post music is no different and should be shared.

Just wanted to say hi to everyone here I've missed comming here alot like I used to.But just so everyone knows I've kept my word at boycotting the record companys.

"after the record companys take over these two social networking sites in say ten maybe twenty years?"

It's gonna happen much sooner than that. MySpace is already owned by Murdoch (which is just as bad) ...and this article, plus the news about Universal suing YouTube is a sure indicator that they won't be around in present form much longer.

I give YouTube 6 months to a year before they are effectively dominated (if not outright owned) by the RIAA and/or MPAA.

Better enjoy it while it lasts folks.

ya know it's funny the porn industry thinks differently about the internet they strive to keep their customer base by staying on top of whats new that hits the net,they must learn from the idiots that work for the RIAA/MPAA.
I mean you could literally write an entertainment business manual titled:What not to do using business tactics that the RIAA/MPAA uses and how to keep your customer base in the information age.