This is a reprint of GeorgeZ's post of May 14. Since the September onslaught, we are republishing some of George Z's prescient posts.

To: US Dept of Justice and US Copyright Office

I have just returned from today's (May 14) DMCA rulemaking hearings at the UCLA Law School.

I would like to bring to your attention the false statement made at these hearings by the RIAA attorney (whose name I missed) on the third panel of the day.

A review of the transcript, when it becomes available will reveal that said RIAA representative made the following statement:
"127,000 albums have been released in the past three years."

While this may seem insignificant at first glance, this is another example of the RIAA's willingness to provide false information as testimony to the government. I offer the following data as proof of this.

From the RIAA website (http://www.riaa.org/MD-US-7.cfm) in an article titled "The Cost of a CD," which was released at the beginning of 2002, the RIAA stated that in the previous two years (2000 and 2001) an average of 27,000 new releases were issued.
In order for today's statement and the referenced article to both be true, the industry would have had to release 73,000 new releases in 2002.

However, the 2002 statement has already been proven false by BusinessWeek.com, after I used the RIAA's figures to show that the cutback in releases would have accounted for the current sales decline as a natural cause and effect. Jane Black, a writer at BusinessWeek, contacted the RIAA for verification.

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/feb2003/tc20030213_9095_tc078.htm
"The RIAA disputes Ziemann's analysis, saying it hasn't released an official tally of annual new releases since 1999. Industry-research firm Nielsen SoundScan has run the numbers, however, and the RIAA doesn't dispute its findings. According to SoundScan, new releases in 2001 totaled around 31,734, still a 20.3% drop."

Additonal data from SoundScan provides the new releases for the past three years, as follows:
2000 -- 35,516 releases
2001 -- 31,374
2002 -- 33,443
Total -- 100,333

As you can easily see, the RIAA has overstated reality by approximately 27,000 releases.

Additionally, a complete review of the RIAA's data will reveal that there have never been 127,000 releases in any 3-year period since the inception of the recording industry.

I realize that the panel members did not swear to tell the truth under penalty of perjury. However, this is just one more example of the deception and fraud being employed by the RIAA to further their monopolistic activity.

I was not involved in this particular panel so I did not have an opportunity to rebuff this falsehood.

I also made my accusation of antitrust at this government hearing.
I spoke the truth. The RIAA lied.

Again.

George,
Please post the pictures and your talk asap.
Thanks

I was there and will post an article shortly, though i am not as familiar as George is with these issues, i will voice my opinion.
In short, the RIAA many more times during these hearings, it made me sick. Mr. Marks was the RIAA lawyer.
Thanks

In short, the RIAA LIED many more times during these hearings, it made me sick. Mr. Marks was the RIAA lawyer.
Thanks

May I suggest sending Press Releases to various sites.

In this instance, just past, including a rebuttal.

But, as an ongoing program of correction of RIAA lies.

What a breath of fresh air.

As has been shown time and again, the Rich Idiots Abusing Artists will say just about anything to further their cause. You're right this is not exactly a monumental fib, but it indeed goes to once again show that their "facts" are rarely factual.

George,
What is the status on your writings about this?
Thanks

Okay, just woke up. Basically hadn't slept enough for the last few days and really had to catch up on zzzz's.

After I drink some coffee, catch up on the 300 new e-mails and the moon comes back out, it'll be time to get back to business.

If directive is right, and I have absolutely no reason to believe he is not, the transcripts should be available soon.

And so will mine.

George,
The RIAA said the 7 percent lie over and over.
He also couldn't make up his mind whether there copy protection on CD's was either "copy protection" or "access control" i would say the later, i'll explain why later.

I think it was proven in the earlier panel that all copy protection is access control.

It's legal to bypass copy protection, but illegal to bypass access controls. However, they are one and the same.

George,
If anything, i saw first hand the control the RIAA and others are trying to put on out future.
I listened to your speech probably 7 times or so already, and loved when you said: "This is ludicrous", in reference to an HONEST librarian having to ask the copyright office to save programs on LEGACY Formats!
Please post that asap, your speech was AWESOME!

In my last post, it should read:
"to save and decrypt programs from LEGACY Formats (5 1/2 Inch disks and others) for our future and not MONETARY Gain!"

It's next on my agenda.

Okay, here it is.

Gotta tell you that, unfortunately, the tape stops just before I mentioned the antitrust word. I probably pressed the "stop" button accidentally.

There should be a transcript soon.

Listening to this play back, it's kind of a bad recording because I kept moving papers and stuff like that. But I spoke loudly enough that you'll get most of it.

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

The RIAA has always lied, this is nothing new. It's just all the more embarrassing for them that it can be proved they are lying out in the open, again. Inflating their statistics. Milladrive is right about Rich Idiots Abusing Artists. I haven't ever heard RIAA put better than that. The RIAA will lie about anything and everything they can. They are trying to beat on consumers with any method: bullying Congress, slapping college students with lawsuits, aggressively moving to shut down p2p, creating an arsenal of trojan horses and hacking software to spy on people, raising CD prices to ridiculous levels and agreeing to fix them there.....and lying. The list goes on and on.

One day, the RIAA will disband. Why? It will have ceased to serve a purpose.

Hopefully that day is not far off.

Down with the RIAA.

George,
The file is missing the rest of your talk.
What happened to the WAV file i sent u?
Thanks

While directive is busy finding part 2, here's a little tidbit.

One of the US Copyright representatives at the hearing spoke to me briefly in the hallway.

She was shocked to hear how many independent artists there really were. I don't think that's an exaggeration. Her jaw involuntarily dropped when I told her. She said she had no idea that there were so many.

I just hope she told the other 4 USCO reps that were there.

The most valuable lesson learned at the hearing -- The US Copyright Office has absolutely no technical clue whatsoever. Not a speck. They openly admitted that they didn't understand what Brewster Kahle (from the Internet Archive) was trying to tell them.

They were there to decide on an issue of which they had no intellectual grasp and were responsible to advise Congress on their analysis, which will potentially effect the law.

It is a travesty.

George,
There is a 2nd file, but the file you posted, its not correct because the file cuts off before you end. Why don't u just put the Wav file on here and share the whole thing. Its only 3 meg.

WHAT GEORGE IS SAYING ABOUT THE COPYRIGHT OFFICE IS ABSOLUTLY RIGHT!!! NOT ONE PERSON ON THAT COMMITTEE KNOWS MUCH OF ANYTHING ABOUT COMPUTERS! IF YOU KNOW HOW FILESHARING WORKS, THEN YOU KNOW MORE THAN MOST OF THEM! They have no vested interest in TECHNOLOGY, though they support the DMCA!
From what i saw, the DMCA is BS, get rid of it! One way it goes to far, is in regards to the Subpeanas that the RIAA wants to do. It says the He** with the Constitution and getting a court order. I CONFRONTED the RIAA Lawyer on this, MR. MARKS, and he said the DMCA is ineffect, so he doesn't need a court order. Then he said: "If your innocent, you have nothing to fear" Then a gentleman next to me, whom i can only say is on our side though he doesn't frequent this website, "Nazi Germany said the same thing!"
Let the truth stand, The DMCA and RIAA are anti-constitution.
Good Night!

"If your innocent, you have nothing to fear"
Since the introdution of DNA into our courts as evidence more innocent men have been released from prison then convited by it. Laws need to make sense, so far boycott-riaa and Dmusic .coms have been great places to disuss the theories involved and hear differant opinions from various people. I can barly spell let alone write in legalese, but its not hard to find compermise in the ideas presented here. By opposing the RIAA wants things their way only.
At the bar last wed netless people were shocked that college kids were getting fined $10,000+ for file sharing and that it was NOT the police busting them made more then one angry.
Go get 'em George!

Some copyright holders groups, includeing the RIAA, MPAA and BSA, are still pressureing the DOJ to take a more active role in their "war on piracy". Not much happening so far through, the DOJ has more important things to worry about than people downloading files.

goldenpi,
I would agree.

This is such a fuckin scam. These people don't want MP3 downloading to stop. There is too much money being made (by too many people) for it to stop.

This is NOT a question of theft (morality), this is a ploy to seperate people from their money. It is also a way for greedy corporations to acquire and maintain control.

I pay damn good money every month to have access to the servers that are used for MP3 downloads.......
I AM NOT STEELING.......I AM PAYING FOR EVERYTHING I DO

What the RIAA does is what is immoral...and should be made illegal.

I am telling you people that this fight WILL change the face of the internet.

they most likely only produced the numbers that they had to account for on their books. I think an audit of them will raise even more surprising numbers, as every signed artists that hasn't ever gotten a second check can account for.

$20.75

what is that an hour 5 ways? in 3 months? Oh yeah, cultivization....

Sounds more like we suck...

prndll said:

I am telling you people that this fight WILL change the face of the internet.

I TOTALLY agree with you! Microsoft is also in on doing more than changing the internet! They (and other big companies) want to control our computers! With what they are wanting to put inside ALL new computers, we can only use them the way they say we can, and if a person were to put things like "illegal" mp3's (which I will never believe are illegal) on their computers, they will shut down and not start back up, and Microsoft will be able to know just what you did and can notify "authorities" on you! Just look up two things and read about them. One is called a "Fritz chip", and the other is Pallidium (Microsoft's doing, I believe). The scam will be them claiming these new computers are "more secure" when in reality, it is only for them to make sure WHATEVER a person wants to put on their own computer is not going to violate ANY copyright measures, and if it does, computer goes off, authorities notified!

Watch what you buy in the future! FRITZ CHIP, and PALLIDIUM ARE A SCAM!!!!

oh also... they will be able to delete ANY file on your computer they want! They will have access to whatever they want!

all i can say if the dark day the fritz chip or pallidium becomes real. i will be making a significant invesntment in all forms of hardware that do not have the chip installed yet. then i will later resale on ebay for all us hax0rs to buy.

It's a load of crap the AHRA doesn't mention computers so instead of adding computers to the AHRA they make them illegal so they make more money they get paid in every freaking way. We get a tax every year so we can record music and movies without breaking copyright, we pay a hidden tax for them when we buy CDR's and some of those companies make the CDR's. We should have the legal right to download they just screwed us over. I think downloading is legal still anyway because Uploading is breaking the copy right... I mean think about it when you purchase a CD it's like signing the copyright contract but until you actually have the song the copyright should have nothing to do with you and that's why they are after people who are SHARING 1000's or more files not people who HAVE 1000's or more because if your not sharing then how can they prove you have it? except for when you download from them and they trace it but can't you just say they broke their own copyright or if a bogus file... well this isn't copyrighted so what lw did I break and counter sue for invasion of privacy. If the RIAA was so worried about sales then instead of copy protection shouldn't they make a scratch resitant or scratch proof CD? if they did that much I'd buy CDs again but $20 or $12 is a rip off for somethin so easily scratched