http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=H4KLWRNIJZMZ0CRBAE0CFEY?type=technologyNews&storyID=2505231

Music Industry Group Sues College File Swappers

Thu April 3, 2003 05:46 PM ET

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A music industry group on Thursday said it has
filed lawsuits against the operators of private computer networks on three college campuses where it claims the networks are being used to illegally trade copies of digital music files.

The Recording Industry Association of America said its member companies filed suit against two students at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and against one student each at Princeton University and Michigan Technological University.

The RIAA has actively used the courts to pursue digital music pirates after a 9 percent dip in CD sales in 2002 that it blames for the most part on online file sharing.

In a statement, the association compared the file-sharing systems, which are open only to students on the universities' internal networks, as miniature versions of Napster -- the software and network that led to the explosion of music file swapping.

The four networks were offering nearly 2.5 million files, it said, including more than 1 million files on the largest network alone.

The complaints ask for the legal limit on damages in such cases, $150,000 per each copyright infringed.

The defendants named in the complaints are Daniel Peng at Princeton, Joseph Nievelt at Michigan Technical, and Jesse Jordan and Aaron Sherman of Rensselaer.

None of the four could be immediately reached by phone or e-mail. A personal Web site listed for Sherman on the Rensselaer site was not loading as of Thursday afternoon.

Last month the RIAA sent letters to 300 U.S. companies, across a variety of industries, warning them of specific evidence of illegal music swapping on their networks and the potential legal consequences of allowing it to continue.

The RIAA represents the world's major music companies, including Vivendi Universal, Sony Corp., AOL Time Warner, EMI Group Plc and Bertelsmann AG



Hal Bringman
HBPR, LLC
V: +1.323.650.1328
F: +1.323.372.3986
E: hal@hbpr.com
AIM: hbringman
MSN: halbringman
Yahoo: halbenz




_________________________________________________________________

2.5 million copyrighted mp3s? Holy crap....those people were just asking to be caught.

This should get interesting. How long befor the **AAs goes after a "Little Johnny" at a university that is some big Senators or contributors son/daughter (sic).

Silly me. This is America. The **AA's will "pick their targets" to avoid any such snafus.

"Equal justice for all!!".....Right..

M1 -- Just because a song is copyrighted does not mean they are unauthorized.

Finally, I was waiting for this. I thought the RIAA would do this sooner through.

Its intimidation. The RIAA knows if it can get a few uni users jailed it will scare the others. Time to use this against them through. They just got a significent portion of their customers hateing them, time to make sure it lasts.

2.5 million mp3s? Just like those 500 CD burners?

so they're just going on pure suspicion? they MUST have deep pockets to file suit over suspicion. unless they have access to that private network, they can't even see the files (unlike when their goons see files on kazaa, et al and immediately assume said files are legit and complete copies), and therefore don't know that they're even there. not to mention that in order to sue over infringement (at least logically, and i realize we're far from that with laws like the DMCA) you have to actually view (listen) to the file, but that'd be asking a lot of such an organization i suppose.

gdZiemann if the songs aren't owned by record companies in the RIAA, why would the RIAA be suing these people?

It seems like a lot of the people of this website are only anti-RIAA because they're intent on shutting down your illegal free music portals.

I don't like the RIAA and their monopolizing business practices, and overpriced CD's, but how can I fault them for being opposed to people getting their products for free?

P2P technology is a great thing for non-RIAA and indy artists to get their stuff heard...but lets not be delusional...99.5% of kazaa users are there for the RIAA owned copyrighted files.

On to the actual matter of this article...does this mean they will postpone going after individual home users for a while? Either way I'm sure more people will be setting their file sharing options to *Off*.

If these were indeed "private computer networks" that were "open only to students on the universities' internal networks," how did the RIAA get it's evidence without hacking? These students should counter-sue under hacking laws and request that any evidence gathered by these methods be disallowed.

Oh, but then again, counter-suits cost lots of money. Hmmm...let's see...who is involved in this suit that has a lot money to throw around?

I don't want to have anything to do with the RIAA or any of it's member companies, ever again. I just bought my first 3 CDs in over 2 years...all from unsigned indie artists I found through DMusic and CDBaby. I refuse to fund these idiots and their insane lawsuits any further.

M1,
my issues with the RIAA goes much deaper than just there wanting to shut down kazaa and other networks. There business models and attitude to sue everyone are a couple more reasons. Also what they are doing to verizon.
Thanks

M1,
Where does your 99.5 percent come from?

"The four networks were offering nearly 2.5 million _files_, it said, including more than 1 million _files_ on the largest network alone."

FILES! NOT MP3s! More then likely these 1 million files include papers, system files, user accounts, whatever is in the internet chache, along with multiple copys of MP3s (for each person who downloads it. 1 song = 40 copys/file) SO this is probly another case of 800 burners turning out to be 20 30x burners.

well....lets give them the benefit of the doubt for justa second. say that there were 2.5 millions mp3's. that means that the riaa is trying to squeeze 375 billion dollars (150,000 dollars per song), about the relative size of the budget of the us armed forces, out of 4 broke college students. how stupid are they. hell you cant get 375 billion from anyone let alone college students

This story should be posted everywhere and made as public as possible. This is what the RIAA and labels think of the music fans who made commercial music popular and desirable - if you are not buying the music from us, you are a criminal - as if their crap was worth $1.50, let alone $150K.

If enough recognition is given to this basic fact, fans will no longer be fans of commercial music controlled by arrogant cartels. They will begin to see the light of reason and purchase NOTHING, share NOTHING, and talk about NOTHING from the major label artists, and begin to look for the independent alternatives. Pass the word.

I don't think they really expect $150,000 for each infringed work...thats just the maximum penalty the government puts on ANY type of infringement..not just music. The judge will likely fine them, but it won't be anywhere near the maximum.

I really wonder why you guys are so upset about these people being prosecuted if you are anti-RIAA for legitimate reasons. They had a whole lot of copyrighted music for download, they didn't have permission to do it, and they got caught. This isn't your local nobody college kid getting busted for sharing a few files over kazaa.

Even half of 2.5 million is a LOT of mp3s guys...

M1,

Personally, I am for the persecution and prosecution of commercial music fans. This just strengthens the force against unfair business being practiced by the record industry leeches, and will put more people against controlled supply to the point where they hopefully will not buy anything, as I stated.

Funny how the industry does not tolerate music pirating, but have no qualms about pirating music from artists.

M1,
We'll have to see how the cases go and what the facts are, my response to only to the article, but we'll soon find out more.
Thanks

i have kazaa and when you open it it says how many files there are.
there are currenly about 926,237,261 files [6,873,000 GB].
and if they busted us all for each song, id own them a HELL of a lot of money.
like a few hundred million

M1 -- Let me answer your questions:

Q1 -- If the songs aren't owned by record companies in the RIAA, why would the RIAA be suing these people?

It's the only way they can force people to charge for advertising. Since the recording industry only releases about 35,000 titles a year, these kids would have had to ONLY publish every song ever recorded by the industry in the past 15-20 years in order to find 2.5 million songs.

2 - "It seems like a lot of the people of this website are only anti-RIAA because they're intent on shutting down your illegal free music portals."

Kazaa has my music, too. It is copyrighted. It is fully authorized.

Hence, it is not illegal. And neither are any of the songs written by the 50,000 acts on garageband.com. Before we uploaded, we checked a little box authorizing free distribution.

We have a lot more songs out there than the majors.

Our is completely legal and guilt-free.

3 -- I don't like the RIAA and their monopolizing business practices, and overpriced CD's, but how can I fault them for being opposed to people getting their products for free?

A - Because the RIAA has convinced people like you that mp3s, which are inferior copies of the originals, should be considered to be "CD quality", which is simply not the truth. They are substandard promotional copies.

Unless of course, you are willing to take collect calls from telemarketers.

Q4 - P2P technology is a great thing for non-RIAA and indy artists to get their stuff heard...but lets not be delusional...99.5% of kazaa users are there for the RIAA owned copyrighted files.

A5 - That's only because they don't know our names yet. If the RIAA has its way, they never will.

Q6 -- On to the actual matter of this article...does this mean they will postpone going after individual home users for a while? Either way I'm sure more people will be setting their file sharing options to *Off*.

A6 -- Leave your file sharing on.
Post our songs.

M1, let me be just a little more direct.

mp3s are advertisements.
I'm not paying to hear advertisements.
I'm not going to insult the intelligence of my fans (few they may be) by making them pay for the privilege for me to deliver an advertisement.

Why would the RIAA do this?
Because we do not need the record labels to reach the consumers any more. We can reach them just fine without them.

Unless mp3s are illegal.

And they think the American public is stupid enough to fall for it.

They government certainly is.

can u provide a place where i can download all of your songs easily so i can share then on kazaa.
Thanks

www.azoz.com

The entire Hayden's Wall CD is available at the bottom of the front page, along with a disclaimer authorizing royalty-free webcasting which quotes the language of the earlier webcasting law.

More authorized songs from my friends (who I am also trying to promote) are available at http://www.azoz.com/charts.html

The RIAA does not represent any of my artists.

One more thing.

If you don't like the mp3s, we'll refund your money.

Oh, damn. they're free. That's okay. I think it works out to about the same thing.

And there are two more songs available at DMusic (we only have short samples on azoz) which were written after the CD was finished.

Love Will Follow Me -- Kind of a Santana thing I wrote for a latin band that never used it

But I really like the other one.
Running Out of Time.
It's actually a very personal song about someone's passing. Came out sounding a lot like Dire Straits, even though we were actually going for J.J. Cale.

It could be the theme song for the RIAA.
Running Out of Time... Dire Straits...

http://haydenswall.dmusic.com/

See how this free marketing and promotion thing works?

I thought someone was never going to ask about my band.

Should all music be free? Hell, no.

But I'll be damned if I'm going to pay for a F***ING AD!!

Maybe it's just me.

Anyone else got a song that they wish people on Kazaa would listen to? And a name to go with it?

Because if not, I'll start pitching mine individually. Right here. Just to help you get the idea.

Show 'em what you've got.

Here's a little number called "Criminal Mind."
http://www.azoz.com/audio/CriminalMind.mp3

About 50% of the reviews at GarageBand mention Pink Floyd.
Some of them say it like it's a bad thing.

Hurt me some more.

Well, Thanks, Haydenswall.

Well, you were getting kind of embarrassing there talking to yourself.

Well, I was kind of hoping M1 would come back. I thought there was a debate.

Oh, well.

So let me pitch another song. This one is by a Canadian group called "Ignition." They are at DMusic, too. And GarageBand.

And actually, Ignition made a personnel change and renamed themselves The Shells, under which name they are currently working in the Ottawa, Ontario, Canada area.

This song is from their CD "Timeline."

First of all, I know Eric doesn't mind because he's told me several times that he's "down with whatever I want to do." Frankly, they've already sold almost all of their CDs and, since the band broke up, they sure won't print any more.

This offer not available in stores.

http://www.primemm.com/audio/Try.mp3

Here's one that did really well at mp3.com for a while, at least in the Acoustic Rock category. It did really well in November. Was in the Top 20 for about a week and hit #4 for at least a day. Went past some big names both ways, Roger McGuinn, Bacon Brothers...

We were just starting to compete with the big boys when Vivendi limited all of us to one free song each. Otherwise we have to pay to advertise. I'll bet they deleted 60-70% of their free content in one day (Jan. 15, 2003). Just when people were starting to find us.

Hearts to Follow -- http://www.azoz.com/audio/hw/Hearts.mp3

Tell them about Jenn Hartmann.

This girl is awesome. Produced her own album and it is absolutely beautiful.

I fell in love with her voice by the time she did the first chorus.

http://www.azoz.com/audio/tired.mp3

You know, until recently, she lived in the same zip code as I did. We never met. Didn't find her until she moved to New York. She was on local TV like a day before she left.

Phoenix is the fifth or sixth largest city in the United States. But Jenn had to move to New York because no one here would pay any attention to her.

Here's her title cut.

I Admit -- http://www.azoz.com/audio/IAdmit.mp3

And if you think I'm just telling you glowing things because I'm trying to sell CDs for these guys, try this on for size.

Here's a band called BlackStorm, another defunct band that contained John Hayden, my bass player; Justin Diamond who designed the Hayden's Wall logo and a few other guys I've met once or twice.

These guys creep me out. I hate their CD. It's too damn something, I don't know, angry, demonic, mosquito-sounding guitars. I don't like it at all.

But you might. I'm an old fart.

As Black As Thy Candles Burn
http://www.primemm.com/audio/AsBlack.mp3

What you apparently don't understand, gdZiemann is that there could be thousands of authorized indy tracks on there...but if there is ONE RIAA owned song...regardless of the friggin quality/bitrate...the site is illegal and they are fair game to be sued. If you are totally against copyright laws and think everything should be free, I'm just talking to the wind apparently.

You think the mp3s are advertisements and should be free...the U.S. government and the RIAA disagree with you. Who wins?


If you really want to fight the RIAA, take the side of artists who want P2P preserved for legal methods, not to keep getting gobs of free music.

M1,
I am not sure why u mention this:
If you are totally against
copyright laws and think everything should be free

gdZiemann has said this:
Should all music be free? Hell, no.

i would first invite you to listen to the music that independents are offering.
Not that its better, it just puts the focus on what really matters, music and not money. The RIAA has made Money there driving force.
Thanks

M1,
I am not sure why u mention this:
If you are totally against
copyright laws and think everything should be free

gdZiemann has said this:
Should all music be free? Hell, no.

i would first invite you to listen to the music that independents are offering.
Not that its better, it just puts the focus on what really matters, music and not money. The RIAA has made Money there driving force.
Thanks

gdZiemann,
Got any more files or links to mp3's i can put in my kazaa folder. I have about 9 gigs of so of mp3s, would like to fill my hard drive with them.

I do listen to all sorts of independent music!

They are the whole reason why I agree with this site! If all P2P is shut down for good, thats one less avenue to obtain the music of unsigned artists who actually WANT their stuff distributed online without silly royalty payments and whatnot.

Like you said, its about the money not the morality or fairness. Since piracy is costing them money (maybe not what they claim..but it is hurting) they aren't going to stop going after methods of file sharing, regardless if unsigned artists get shoved out of the way.

Thanks M1, i agree

Check www.wired.com for another article about this topic. I am glad to see that the school was frustrated at the RIAA for the way they handled the case!!!
Thanks

M1 --
" What you apparently don't understand, gdZiemann is that there could be thousands of authorized indy tracks on there...but if there is ONE RIAA owned song...regardless of the friggin quality/bitrate...the site is illegal and they are fair game to be sued. "

So what you're saying is that for the sake of the minority, no, for the sake of one song, listening to advertising should be a criminal offense.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.

Do you really want me to talk about copyrights, M1?

directive -- Try http://artists.iuma.com/IUMA/Bands/Gene_Hilbert/

This guy just signed up with me today. I haven't even listened to his tunes yet. He tells me that "Music is all I do so I take it seriously."

Let me look in my magic bag and I'll see if I've got a few more for you.

I guess my question to you is this: How are people going to find us on Kazaa if no one knows ur name?

There's a space in that link that shouldn't be there.

http://www.darkhorseproductions.org

M1 -- Piracy is costing them money? Would you care to elaborate on that? An mp3 costs nothing to produce.

Meanwhile, the labels are shipping out between $2 to $4 BILLION a year in free goods, evidently (one person attempted to prove me wrong on this, but I haven't seen him for a while).

If someone takes a crappy mp3 copy of my song -- or one of Don Henley's songs -- they haven't stolen my song. I still own the copyright.

Unless they try to re-record it and claim they write it, my copyright protection is still intact.

The RIAA is attempting to institute a criminalization of a format and a delivery method.

That's a marketing problem. It's not a copyright issue.

Silly royalty payments? Royalty payments aren't silly. Even at my small scale they're already a bookkeeping nightmare.

For every copy of my CD sold and paid for, I have to split out 8 cents per song and make sure the author(s) of each individual song get their legally mandated portion.

We'll never collect royaty payments from the radio. The radio won't play any of us. Something to do with independent promoters...

"You think the mp3s are advertisements and should be free...the U.S. government and the RIAA disagree with you. Who wins?"

I'm so glad you asked that one. From what I've seen, the U.S. government does not exactly agree with the RIAA. I recall Orrin Hatch saying that he didn't think they were going to stop P2P. And a bunch of lawmakers think this payola thing should just go straight to the Justice Department.

Yeah, I know. That has NOTHING to do with the RIAA or the record labels.

Who wins?
Given the current global political climate, who do you think the United States Government should work for?

The French? Vivendi-Universal
The Germans? BMG
Japan? Sony
Great Britain? EMI

Or the United States? Yes, Warner Music is a U.S. firm. What do they have? 2,000 acts?

Or do you think they are more likely to support the tens of thousands of American independent artists? You may not have noticed this, but each one of us is a small business. We pay taxes on our sales.

With the definite exception of Lenny Kravitz, many of us vote. The Senators and congressmen work for us, not Vivendi or Sony or EMI or Bertlesmann Group.

" If you really want to fight the RIAA, take the side of artists who want P2P preserved for legal methods, not to keep getting gobs of free music."

I thought that's what I was doing. They can have both.

It's still legal. So far.

And we're getting more powerful every day. Natalie Merchant is one of us this week. So is Simply Red. Jewel won't be far behind.

Don Henley told Congress that the RIAA didn't speak for the Recording Artists Coalition.

The RIAA does not speak for ANY creator of copyrighted works. They speak for the copyright OWNERS.

That would be Vivendi, BMG, Sony, EMI...

I know it's the weekend, so some of these guys might be wasting their time on things like concert tours or something.

Like Blues Traveler
http://bluestraveler.dmusic.com/

They're giving away five songs for free listening. No, It's not the entire contents of their most recent album. They don't have to do that. People know who they are.

But some of their songs are authorized, or DMusic wouldn't be able to post them.

Maybe Blues Traveler is so independent that they've never allowed any of their tunes to fall into the hands of the RIAA. I don't know.

Here's one the RIAA will probably claim is illegal. One of those labels probably still owns the publishing rights.

Remember the Coasters?
http://thecoasters.dmusic.com/

Seems like at least two of their songs are authorized for download.

Tell me, M1, how are these poor, uninformed college students supposed to know which songs are authorized? How is the FBI supposed to know?

It would be ever so helpful if someone would publish an official list of the artists who wish their music banned from P2P. It would be so much easier for all of us.

I see a few listed at musicunited.org, but it seems like a dozen acts or so.

So we know we should delete Elton John and Britney Spears and Sheryl Crow.

What we need is a list of the illegal music. Because I'm stupid. I can't tell the difference. I don't know which artists are willing to send me to jail.

Thanks for the info, feel free to give any links to other music.
My kazaa name is directive@kazaa
Thanks

In fact, I'm going to go ask the RIAA for such a list. Right now.

Thanks

You are right. Maybe we should out these suckers, George.

HOW LONG YET ...

HOW LONG YET will we be seeing those fascist buffoons from RIAA going after more and more folks like those?

The answer for this question is one:
It will last as long as we will FUEL THEM WITH OUR MONEY. Stop giving them money (legitimately, by abstaining from buying their products), and this train of usurpations and abuses will STOP.

As for what RIAA is now, I WOULD LOVE TO see their whole 'business' gone bankrupt; their whole 'industry' destroyed; all by the use of the legitimate means - - THE CONSUMER CHOICE.

I know, that most of you here support this BOYCOTT (after all, it's a BOYCOTT site). But, dear folks, what would we do to spread our ideas like flame? For example, what to do to put our ideas eg. on the P2P clients? or the FTP clients (and other things the common folks use; not everyone has a private website). Try to put this address into bookmark/favorites list of your web browser eg. at school, university or library; get to this address and leave the webpage open for others to know; give others the leaflets with the ideas of boycott.

Ah, someone here claimed that 'they [RIAA, MPAA and co.] are not totalitarian, because all they want is MONEY, not power". First, money misused leads to POWER, which is the old and wise truth. Second, do all y'all know, that ALL totalitarians want MONEY, too ?? They are not ideologues, just the pragmatists who want to EARN at the expense of somebody's else freedom.

For instance, some of the commie officials in the Soviet Bloc were extremely rich, while making whole populations to starve. As were the nazi officials in the nazi regimes.

What kind of America (today America, tomorrow the Whole World; one RIAA, one folk, one leader are those four-letter organizations (RIAA and MPAA, and sometimes even 3-letter BSA) willing to see ? America, in which MP3s as such are outlawed (THEY WANTED TO MAKE IT;it's a FACT; but they LOST, for our sake); in which every nosy bureaucrat (both governmental and corporate) is allowed to view your private data (is the RIAA's motion against VERIZON anything different?), and thus you lose your privacy; in which some folks ASSUME that you are a 'criminal', and you must prove that you are not (it works in the 'war on drugs'; why not in the 'war on piracy'? when are you expecting the new,extended asset forfeiture laws?); in which the ignorants make the cryptographic protection and the wise men and women who break it for the sake of science and security are treated as criminals (see Dimitry Sklayrov's case; he's free only because he's not an American citizen; he was threatened with 25 years in jail -- a term most murderers and rapists do not get); in which even SPEAKING openly about security matters is outlawed (see prof. Felten's case). In short: all they want is TOTALITARIAN America, and -- given their expansiveness -- the totalitarian world tomorrow (see the European Union Copyright Directive, or EUCD; see WTO's and WIPO's actions). ALL IN THE NAME OF "MONEY" -- it's an idol as good as everything else (eg. some gods, commons, public goods and so on).

The only thing we should abstain from is to compare RIAA, MPAA and co. directly with the bandit-like nazi and soviet practices of maiming and killing people; after all, a thief (stealing our freedom) is not a murderer (yet).
As for their anti-market lobbying efforts, their propaganda and willing to exercise the mind control and spread their propaganda lies, they are the same as NSDAP or KPZR (Soviet Union Communist Party). As with MPAA willing to force us all to use ONLY the PCs with the special anti-piracy chips on board (it could be compared to forcing us all to wear shackles (handcuffs, leg irons, slave collars, slave belts) and chains while outdoors in the name of 'improving the public security' (after all, it's more difficult to rob, break in, or even rape or murder while
in chains).

Well, there's another good comparison that comes to my mind: SLAVE OWNERS. All they wanted was MONEY, too. They didn't specifically want to harm the slaves, they just didn't care for them at all, willing to extort their labor, and feeling free to hunt them, sell them and guard them forcing them to work.

And, as the history teaches us, SLAVERY HAS BEEN ENACTED BECAUSE OF THE HEAVY LOBBYING (see for instance the http://foundingfathers.info, and then the information on Georgia Colony/State) -- as are the DMCA-like acts today, which constitute the blatant usurpation and abuse of the balanced and reasonable idea of copyright (trampling on the Fair Use rights is too much alone).

Ah, one more thing. Do you know, that in Poland we have much broader Fair Use doctrine (which is called Permitted Use, or "dozwolony uzytek" in Polish) ?? For example, in Poland noone is forced to prove that ey was not using a work against author's interests; it's taken automatically for granted if the use is non-commercial (and, especially, not used in the ads),and for the specified uses (specified means only for those uses, not for 'all those considered by court as legitimate', which include: scholarship, research, critical analysis, and the 'rights of the kind of creativity' (I can't translate this well).

Nobody ever asks for permission when quoting various authors in the scientific work or a review in a newspaper or magazine,because ey is assured that ey's not obliged to (only to mention them in Bibliography); neither is anyone forced to pay any money for such use of course.

Of course, as you know, all the
unconstitutional acts like the DMCA are the effect of the heavy lobbying of some interest groups.
(well, they are Constitutional (yet) according to the verdict of the APES and goblins from the US Supreme Court, who rape the Constitution at their will at every occasion; see what they've done with 1st Amendment (outlawing the 'obscene speech'), 2nd Amendment (establishing the 'gun control'), 9th and 10th (claiming that states are subjected to the Union which is not true), and more). If the constitution in USA was really obeyed, such verdicts would be impossible, and the judges who make them -- prosecuted as criminals.

I've been living under a totalitarian yoke and I know the smell of this system. I'm not gonna be fooled by the slavish creed 'they only want money'. Yes, that's what they want, but their doctrine is NOT free-market one; it is a slavish doctrine of subjugation; of 'smarts' (those smart enough to lobby for the laws that fit them) v. the 'jerks' (those not smart enough to lobby; those, who believe in the rule of real LAW, which intent is not to fool and rob people; those who want to live freely and peacefully, without being forced to fight against the crawling totalitarianism). It's the most ugly thing to do to use the name of CAPITALISM to justify those slavish practices; all that CAPITALISM stands for is FREE market, and not the common control of the whole aspects of human life.

Yours in Liberty,
Critto, http://www.libertaryzm.prv.pl
critto@wp.pl

m1 must be a RIAA employee, spyin or somethin

leflaw,
Feel free to use my name.

Bashir,

Surely the RIAA has a better argument than that.

Major artists with an mp3.com page. Where is the line? What's legal and what's not?

* Bon Jovi
* Carmine Appice
* Christina Aguilera
* Christopher Cross
* Cowboy Junkies
* David Bowie
* Eric Clapton
* Foo Fighters
* Four Tops
* Godsmack
* Gregg Rolie
* Jerry Lee Lewis
* Jimmy Buffett
* Jimmy Eat World
* John Mayer
* Linkin Park
* Little Richard
* Madonna
* Mariah Carey
* Pat Travers
* Peter Gabriel
* REM
* Rod Stewart
* Roger McGuinn
* Sinead O'Connor
* Spencer Davis Group
* Wallflowers
* The Who
* Tom Jones
* U2
* Van Morrison
* Ziggy Marley
* Michelle Branch

Wow...all I can say is if the owner of this website ever wants to have an ounce of credibility, he needs to weed out the people who are only here to hate the RIAA for trying to stop them from stealing music.

Those idiot college kids who got busted should have known that something that large scale wouldn't be allowed. It's their own fault...don't try and turn it around on the RIAA.

M1 -- I asked the RIAA to provide a list of the illegal songs. I looked real hard and I could only find 52 artists asking us not to download.

I found 37 who have pages at mp3.com. List above. They are authorizing SOME music for downloads.

I never download music that is not authorized. I think the government needs to weed out the people who are trying to deny me access to the marketplace.

Like you said, M1, "even if it was just one unauthorized song..." (probably not an exact quote but I don't think I twisted your words.

Someone just needs to tell us which song it is.

Otherwise, how are those "idiot college kids" supposed to know the difference?

Because I certainly don't want to listen to anyone's music that doesn't want it heard.

You should go look up copyright laws.

The artists don't own their songs...their record company does. If that company is a RIAA member...the RIAA owns the songs.

You may disagree with that (I do, the artists should have control) but thats how it is. The record execs give you permission to download it for free, not the artists.

You already know what songs are illegal to get for free. Go look at the RIAA's list of member record companies...and if an artist is a member of that company, its unauthorized.

M1,
I think your missing the point that gdZiemann is trying to make.
They say there songs are illegal to dl, but then they offer mp3's on MP3.com
Your trying to say they have said all there songs are not authorized, when this is clearly not what the facts are showing.
What do u think gdZiemann?
Thanks

Also,
"Who at the RIAA has said this:
You already know what songs are illegal to get for free. Go look at the RIAA's list of member
record companies...and if an artist is a member of that company, its unauthorized."
Especially when they have free downloads on MP3.com
Thanks

I still haven't seen any factual arguments by either of you that says the RIAA is wrong for busting those kids.

And you accuse the RIAA of being spin doctors.

And as for mp3.com, they might be authorized to distribute the songs....but alas...these 4 college students were not. Hence the lawsuit.

Gee, M1, I thought that in America, people were innocent until proven guilty.

If someone gives me something for free, can I not give the same thing away for free? Can I share it with my friends? Or has it somehow gained value after passing through my hands? If so, can I sell it and take advantage of the added value?

I thought you wanted to "weed out the people who are only here to hate the RIAA for trying to stop them from stealing music".

I don't want their damn music. I hate the RIAA for a totally different reason.

As a musician, they are the greatest obstacle to my success. I don't need them or EMI or BMG or Sony or Warner Music or Vivendi/Universal, who is now suddenly too damn good to allow us to offer our music unless we pay for it.

We don't need them any more.

I haven't seen any factual evidence that they WERE guilty.

And I missed your earlier post. Some of the artists have been retaining control of their copyrights, as I understand it. Their royalties are reduced as a penalty.

I've retained my copyrights. I'm my own publisher. I know full well how the copyright laws work.

Which is why I'm now wondering if I want to ever register a copyright for any of my songs again, much less register with ASCAP. I certainly don't want my attempt at protecting my work under the copyright law to in any way be misconstrued as a license to prosecute my fans on my behalf.

Sure, they'll be deleted from the record of our culture, but it's worth the price.

I'm not assuming that those kids are guilty until proven innocent...but usually the copyright holders win in suits like this.

I hope people here dont see me as pro-RIAA....I am totally NOT that. I just want the piracy to stop so they get their precious money and leave P2P alone.

Like you, gdZiemann...I have really no interest in the mainstream artists that are owned by the RIAA..but as long as other people do and pirate the tracks..the RIAA won't leave anyone alone.

M1,
"Like you, gdZiemann...I have really no interest in the mainstream artists that are owned by the RIAA..but as long as other people do and pirate the tracks..the RIAA won't leave anyone alone."

And what if we will actually DESTROY their businesses and industry with our boycott? If the flow of money towards them will stop, or at least, will be significantly lower? It's what the boycott action may lead us and them to. It's perfectly legal an legitimate. They have no tool against such actions, and will never have (except changing their policies). And, WHAT then will they do ? If RIAA's budged is lowered from, say, 5 billion to 50 thousand because NOBODY simply buys their music anymore? Yes, somebody out there had a good idea to stop

And, by the way:
You know, some people stick to the concept of 'law' too heavily. Why to do it? What is 'law' worthy, when nobody obeys it? Can't a 'law' by tyrannic, unjust and unworthy to be obeyed? In Poland, we have the same word for 'law' and 'right'. So, I simply put that a tyrannic law is LEFT (means wrong), not right.

Thomas Jefferson once said, "Law is often the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual." Doesn't the 'law' as DMCA violate individual rights to study, to exchange ideas? And the granted rights to use the work fairly (which doesn't mean 'insignificanty', but 'in a manner that may not be prohibited in a free society', eg. for study or discussion)? Shouldn't it be violated then?? Those are question that each individual should answer for emself; some have done it already. It's obvious, however, that NO individual should be on "their" side in any case. "They" [RIAA,MPAA] are our enemies and enemies of freedom; "they" are proto-totalitarians, and proto-slavers, too. They want to bring the train of usurpations and abuses back to American soil, and to impose it on other countries (which they are failing to do; see Jon Johansen's case for example).

And YES -- their pursuit of those guys is ILLEGITIMATE. Why? It's not that it's legal or illegal, but based on the wrong law, which rapes the individual rights. And so, it may NEVER be LEGITIMATE, even if it's perfectly LEGAL.

Yours in Liberty,
Critto, http://www.libertaryzm.prv.pl

Oops, I've forgotten to finish my sentence here:

"Yes, somebody out there had a good idea to stop"

Of course, it was meant to sound like:

Yes, somebody out there had a good idea to stop the RIAA. "Simply stop uploading their music. Fill P2P with a good, INDEPENDENT music. They [RIAA] will lose in this fight forever, for nobody will listen to them anymore". It's right. Anybody said it, ey is a genious.

Well, one more thing ... What if some artist is NOT a member of RIAA, is 'self-labelled' (ie has eir own label or 'non-labelled' (has no label at all)) and wants to public his/her own MP3s on a website or on a P2P server? Who is to stop 'em? AFAIK, an author has the supreme legal right to do with eir own works what ey pleases unless ey had signed a contract with a label before ... So, what's RIAA talking about in this case (I've read it somewhere else)? Don't they know, that if they accuse somebody of 'pirating' such a work they will be WRONG and made to pardon this person (they would accuse em of pirate copying Linux as well ??

Ah, and last thing -- for the things as PRO PONO ACT, LET US BOYCOTT DISNEY FOREVER !!! They have lobbied for it and won this time. I've always loved the cute cartoons with Mickey & friends (Donald Duck, Pluto, Goofey), I love them still, but I will buy them no more. In fact, I may buy some VHS cassettes and even DVDs "from a second hand", what gives NO money to Disney anymore.

M1 -- That's why we're asking everyone to delete the music from the major labels.

That's what the RIAA has asked for.

I'm just trying to help.

Critto -- Don't stop reminding us that our freedom in the United States is fragile and must be protected and fought for every step of the way.

I go to Michigan Tech, have met this person, and have used his network. He is being charged for all of the files on everyone's computers, not just his own. The flatlan search simply searched all users shared directories and allowed the user to download directly from whatever computer had what they wanted. Shared directories are redily visible to everyone connected without this search, but it made it more convienient. This is just wrong on so many levels. I plan to try to start some campus wide protests, with lots of local media there. I'll be sure to send pictures.

"This is just wrong on so many levels."

That's the truth. Same thing with the Verizon case. Taking an Internet service provider to court for providing Internet service.

It's like suing the Postal Service because someone used the mail to send anthrax.

let's face it, we all know that downloading free music without permission from the artists is wrong and illegal. Of course the RIAA will go after everyone they think is causing this because they're losing money on every song.

But suing college students who in most cases don't have a dollar to their name is not a good thing to do. If anything, it'll just make us hate the RIAA more than we already do.

The fact of the matter is people don't want to buy a CD for 15-20 bucks and find only two or three good songs with the rest being fillers.

these P2P file sharing services will never go away, they shut down one and two will pop up to take its' place. It's a futile effort to stop file sharing. Instead of suing everybody, maybe they should come up with a better alternative to P2P, like a paid subsciption service of some sort that doesn't charge an arm and a leg. Otherwise, people will never stop downloading music because noone wants to waste money on a CD that's not even worth listening to, especially broke college students.

I would love to see more news coverage of this so i could hear both sides of the story. Let's hear what the public has to say about this. Spread the article everyone.

"Of course the RIAA will go after everyone they think is causing this because they're losing money on every song."

Really? Then why to they pay to get songs played on the radio?

*slaps M1 for working for the RIAA*

filesharing is not an ethical issue. Jailing people for TRADING FUCKING SOUND is neither natural, nor is it necessary.
It is a purely financial issue. The RIAA is waging war against the consumer in attempt to get MORE MONEY.

This is a real war, with casualties, prisoners, and, most importantly, PROPAGANDA.

I mean, COME ON, what the hell, it is FREAKING SOUND FILES, FUCKING SEQUENCE OF BITS on computers that THE PEOPLE OWN; what the fuck is the RIAA doing trying to tell me how to use MY OWN FREAKING TECHNOLOGY!?

hey, one more idea today ...

the P2P swapping (even of copyrighted (come on, everything is copyrighted, even GPLs, only various authors define various terms of use, be it GPL or for-sale), and 'unauthorized' files) is nothing more than sharing the music with your FRIENDS.

Let us all face it. And, let's make RIAA face it (with a mass-letter action to them). Are they legally able to go after folks who put their records on a home CD-set and make a party? NO (at least, in Poland). It's perfectly LEGAL to use the songs with your friends, for non-commercial use (by contrast, if you started a for-fee disco club, you HAD TO sign a respective deal and pay royalties).

Now, WHAT IS P2P ?? The name means 'Peer To Peer'. And peers=friends. We have a network of FRIENDS, no matter that there are billions (or at least few hundred millions) of them. one may exchange files, and one may chat (MOST, if not ALL P2P services allow it). So now, RIAA is going to tell us, that it's ILLEGAL to use those files with FRIENDS !!! When they will be going to tell us that it's ILLEGAL to play our CDs in our homes if there's more than one person there? WHEN are they going to tell us that it's ILLEGAL to hear a CD in our cars if we give our friends a ride?? WHEN are they going to tell us that it's ILLEGAL to play a CD in the park, on the beach or at a camping place, because there are many OCCASIONAL HEARERS, who don't pay any royalties???

Well, RIAA, go ON !!! There are millions of people to enslave. There is a brave new world before ya. NONE of them knows that, and when, you are gonna to make em "criminals" ...

Yours in Liberty,
Critto, http://www.libertaryzm.prv.pl (I've updated the links section today; now I have more than 300! and boycott-riaa.com banner is in the visible place on the beginning.

Thanks for all your comments, gdZiemann please continue to send links where i can find independent music to fill my hard drive with, i have about 9 gigs of it right now.
Thanks

Don't worry, directive, I'll do as much to let you know about as many acts as I can.

Here's one. It's an international site.

http://www.vitaminic.com/main

Thanks

thatz full of #### artists are losing money .
but then on the other hand cd prices are outrages.

But copying music should be legal cause burning cds are legal right ?? right so music online thatz passed around through kazaa and mp3 should be free 2.

The artists certainly are losing money. Just think how much money they would make if the labels would stop handing out billions a year in free product (that is deducted from the artists' royalty) and passed out cost-free mp3s instead?

I've gotta ask M1 this question. I see that earlier you said: "You already know what songs are illegal to get for free. Go look at the RIAA's list of member record companies...and if an artist is a member of that company, its unauthorized.", but please explain to me how we're supposed to know if the label is covered by the RIAA or not if they're hiding it? Example: I have Rik Emmett's "Raw Quartet" disc and it says it's copyright 1999 Open House Records, a division of Rockit Sounds, Inc. Now I've searched the RIAA member label list several times and nowhere on it do I see Open House Records or Rockit Sounds. HOWEVER, after doing some digging, it appears as though Open House Records is affiliated with EMI, and if you look up Raw Quartet on Amazon.com you will find that they have the album's label listed as EMI International! As far as finding out that EMI is even associated with the Raw Quartet album I actually had to type "EMI" into Google along with the album title. Had I not already been aware that there was an affiliation between EMI and Open House Records I would not have known to type "EMI" in along with the album name to come up with any site showing the association between the two, yet this is the only search I've done on Google for Open House Records or Raw Quartet that yielded any results showing the association. Given that I found it only because I was already aware of the association, how is anybody who doesn't already know supposed to find this information other than inadvertently stumbling on it as I did some months ago? After inspecting the CD itself the only mention of EMI I have been able to find ANYWHERE on the disc and/or packaging is a very brief blurb in the Rik Emmett Artist Biography on page 6 of the disc booklet that says "Public demand, critical reaction and Rik's unique artistic personality convinced EMI to provide national distribution in an arrangement with their prestigious Artisan label." There you have it, the one and only mention of EMI ANYWHERE on the disc and/or it's packaging, buried in the middle of the booklet in the artist's bio. To be fair, the particular disc I have is the Japanese import version released on Bareknuckle/Avex (also absent from the RIAA member label list), but as I said before, it bears the name "Open House Records (a division of Rockit Sounds, Inc.)" as copyright holder. So what does this mean? The booklet says EMI distributes Open House Records but since everything I've found concerning the copyright says Open House, not EMI owns that, does that give EMI any say in matters such as file trading? Also, if I rip tracks from my Japanese copy of the disc, which appears to be distributed by Avex, Inc. can the RIAA still come after me on behalf of EMI, even though I ripped the tracks from a legitimately distributed CD that EMI apparently did not distribute? Or how about the extra two tracks on the Japanese version that EMI did not release on the "domestic" version? Are those covered or not? Another example: Zebra's "No Tellin' Lies/V.3" disc released by One Way Records. Back of the jewel case says (in small print) Manufactured by Rhino Entertainment Company (RIAA member), Produced under license from Atlantic (RIAA member), yet it's COPYRIGHT One Way Records (NOT on the RIAA member list). So does this mean since a non-RIAA member holds the copyright on this recording the RIAA can't do anything about it, or does the fact that it's produced and manufactured by RIAA members give them authority to step in even though they don't own the copyright? And if One Way (who according to the RIAA is not a member) owns the copyright then why does this disc have to be licensed by Atlantic (an RIAA member)? If I own a copyright, I am not obligated to get a license from another company in order to produce the material I own copyright on, so why does One Way have to be licensed by Atlantic to produce a recording they claim to own the copyright on? The only logical conclusions I've been able to draw are that either One Way does NOT own the copyright to this disc, in which case they're committing fraud by claiming they do, or One Way is a division of Rhino (the disc manufacturer) in which case they ARE a member of the RIAA whose membership for some reason is being hidden, similar to the Open House/EMI case. In any event, how are we supposed to know if the labels themselves are not being clear over what they do and do not own the copyrights to?

My apologies to everybody for being so long winded!

@ furball316

Gee, guess you’re not boycotting RIAA (LOL).

But, I think you raise a very good point.

@ furrball316

Perhaps, on a more positive note, efforts should be made to “label” all non-RIAA works as NON-RIAA (where ever possible).

I'm TRYING to boycott the RIAA, but sometimes one of their discs slips thru when they don't make it clear which labels they actually represent. I had already bought the Rik Emmett disc before I knew EMI was associated with it. There's absolutely nothing visible on the package that indicates any RIAA member involvement with that particular album, and none of the company names made visible on the package are listed on the RIAA's member list. As far as One Way, at least they have it visibly marked that they have some kind of association with RIAA members, it was just my oversight that I didn't think to actually read the fine print since One Way was not listed on the RIAA member list. Oddly enough, I have another One Way released disc that lists Universal instead of Atlantic and makes no mention at all of the manufacturer, again, has the copyright owner listed as One Way. I'm just wondering if this whole "hide & seek" game with the labels RIAA affiliation is a sign that the boycott is working and they have to trick us into buying them now? Probably not, but it's a pretty sweet thought!

justed,
it's a great idea to label the NON-RIAA products !!! I dream of a slogan "[some_label]. this is NON-RIAA label, and proud of it". would you like to tell some business people about it ?

Screw the business people. I'm asking the U.S. Copyright Office how to make this clear to the public. Do we have to revoke our copyrights to prevent punitive damages from being pursued on the artists behalf?