By Jon Newton - p2pnet.net

Starting tomorrow [June 26] the RIAA will go all out to nail individual computer users who are, "illegally offering to 'share' substantial amounts of copyrighted music over peer-to-peer networks," said the record label mouthpiece in a June 25 press release to dmusic.

It says it'll use its scanning software to zero in on suspected transgressors and plans to start the "first round" of "what could ultimately be thousands of lawsuits suits" by mid-August.

The software's most notable success so far had the RIAA sending a nasty letter to to Penn State University alleging that one of its ftp sites was, "unlawfully distributing songs by the musician Usher".

Nonetheless, "Additional information that is publicly available from these systems allows the RIAA to then identify their Internet Service Provider (ISP)," say the big five labels - Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment, EMI Group, Warner Bros Music and BMG Entertainment, through the RIAA, (Recording Industry Association of America), a trade group owned by them.

They go on that the RIAA can then, "serve a subpoena on the ISP requesting the name and address of the individual whose account was being used to distribute copyrighted music. Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), ISPs must provide copyright holders with such information when there is reason to believe copyrights are being infringed. Almost all ISPs disclose this obligation in the User's Terms of Service."

In making the announcement, "the music industry cited its multi-year effort to educate the public about the illegality of unauthorized downloading, and underscored the fact that major music companies have made vast catalogues of music available to dozens of services to help create legitimate, high quality and inexpensive alternatives to online piracy," said the RIAA.

It was referring to industry download sites Pressplay (a joint venture by Vivendi Universal, Sony and EMI) and AOL Time Warner, Bertelsmann and EMI's MusicNet, both dismal failures.

"The law is clear and the message to those who are distributing substantial quantities of music online should be equally clear - this activity is illegal, you are not anonymous when you do it, and engaging in it can have real consequences," said RIAA president Cary Sherman, who's presently lobbying to replace outgoing chief RIAA fact realignment specialist Hilary 'Reach Out' Rosen.

Backing the RIAA are the National Music Publishers' Association (NMPA), the Country Music Association, the Gospel Music Association and American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA) as well as (and you may have heard of some of these people):

Richard Carpenter; Missy Elliot; Brad Paisley; Eve; Joshua Bell; Shakira; Mandy Moore; The Dixie Chicks; Peter Gabriel; Keith Urban; Sheryl Crow; Craig Nicholls; Sam Roberts; Vanessa Carlton; Anastacia; Steven Curtis Chapman; Steve Smith; Carl Sturken & Evan Rogers; Troy Verges; Art Alexakis; Martina McBride; Rivers Rutherford; Glen Ballard; Hugh Prestwood; Mary J. Blige; Dave Pomeroy; Stephony Smith; AIJUSWANASEING; Matraca Berg; Lamont Dozier; and, ZOEgirl Group, etc, etc.

If you want the whole shooting match, go here. If you want to add your support, call RIAA contacts Amy Weiss, Jonathan Lamy and/or Amanda Collins here: 202-775-0101.

So they are sueing there customer base and themselves? Lets prepare now for a one heck of a 2004 in the Recording business!! I'll add more later

All in all i see this as a wonderful advertisement for people all over the world to use kazaa and other filesharing venues. If anything, people will find these new programs, and begin seeing the vast music that is out there, not just music by the RIAA. That is why i await the opening of FAIRFORSHARE!!

"It says it'll use its scanning software to zero in on suspected transgressors and plans to start the "first round" of "what could ultimately be thousands of lawsuits suits" by mid-August."

UNCONSTITUTIONAL! They obviously haven't heard of our fourth amendment right, or of our bill or rights for that matter.

MP3user,
After talking to the RIAA's Lawyer, Mr. Marks, a young lawyer who will eventually reap the consequences of helping the RIAA, told me after bringing up the Constitution, said"If you not guilty, you have nothing to worry about", of which a friend told him as he walked away from me, "Thats what the Nazies (s?) said". The RIAA for that alone is why i will NEVER buy another CD!!!

Let me clarify, I brought up the constitution, The RIAA lawyer then said," if your not guilty, you have nothing to fear", then a guy standing next to me said to the RIAA lawyer," that is what the nazies said". The lawyer walked away really mad.

Bring it on! I got 4 large dogs, a shotgun, the APC's and the Power Cleaners to last and the Constitution hanging on my wall. I defy them to come and serve me up some papers. They'll wake up with their bank accounts wiped!

Its a good thing I still have my "Pocket Constitution" from middle school in my room. I say bring it on, I could use the fight! *_*

MP3user,
Another issue with bringing in the Constitution is our governments disregard of it by passing the DMCA!

Actually, don't use Kazaa anymore. They sold out. http://www.detnews.com/2003/technology/0306/20/technology-197745.htm

But yeah, this is a nice way to lose more customers. They think they're losing money now, wait till they start prosecuting thousands of people in a few months span. Those few thousand people could be potential customers, but by taking away their money, how are they going to pay for anything? I doubt the artists will see any of that money. Furthermore, all of their friends and families will learn about, and the news will spread like wildfire, only to enrage more people. Gee, I just love their business tactic.

kneo24,
You had said:"Actually, don't use Kazaa anymore. They sold out. "
I read that article, and i don't find that anywhere. Her comments about the Music industry and film industry are not indications of her selling out, if that is what you meant.

Thanks

"It's plain that the dinosaurs of the recording industry have completely lost touch with reality," said Fred von Lohmann, EFF senior staff attorney. "At a time when more Americans are using file-sharing software than voted for President Bush, more lawsuits are simply not the answer. It's time to get artists paid and make file-sharing legal. EFF calls on Congress to hold hearings immediately on alternatives to the RIAA's litigation campaign against the American public."

http://www.eff.org/news/breaking/archives/2003_06.php#000292

Great Comment Fred...

I sure do love those ppl over at EFF!

From a comment posted on Slashdot:

Contrary to what the RIAA wants you to believe, it appears that making a copy of an audio recording may be perfectly legal in the US, even if you don't own the original recording, as long as it is for noncommercial purposes. The reason for this is the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA).

Since 1992, the U.S. Government has collected a tax on all digital audio recorders and blank digital audio media manufactured in or imported into the US, and gives the money directly to the RIAA companies, which is distributed as royalties to recording artists, copyright owners, music publishers, and music writers:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/ch10.html
[cornell.edu]

In exchange for those royalties, a special exemption to the copyright law was made for the specific case of audio recordings, and as a result *ALL* noncommercial copying of musical recordings by consumers is now legal in the US, regardless of media:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/1008.html
[cornell.edu]

"No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings."

The intent of Congress was clear when this law was passed

http://www.cni.org/Hforums/cni-copyright/1993-01/0018.html
[cni.org]

From House Report No. 102-873(I), September 17, 1992:

"In the case of home taping, the [Section 1008] exemption protects all noncommercial copying by consumers of digital and analog musical recordings."

From House Report No. 102-780(I), August 4, 1992:

"In short, the reported legislation [Section 1008] would clearly establish that consumers cannot be sued for making analog or digital audio copies for private noncommercial use."

Therefore, when you copy an MP3 the royalties have already been paid for with tax dollars in accordance with the law. If you are a musician whose recordings are publicly distributed, then you are entitled to your share of these royalties by filing a claim under Section 1006

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/1006.html
[cornell.edu]

Napster tried to use this law to defend their case, and the court ruled this law did not apply to them because they are a commercial company. But as a consumer it seems to me you are perfectly within your rights when you make a copy for noncommercial private use.

What I don't understand is why they have to target users. p2p is the only way some people can get mix versions of songs. Plus for the fact that havent we the consumer fattened RIAA's wallets enough any way? Artist's make tons of money, granted maybe they wont be able to buy that new porche to go with last years slightly used one. But gone are the days of the starving artist. Did anyone ever stop to think people might by more cds if they cost less? That brings me to another point. Maybe the industry is hurting because of the economy and the fact that artists get boycotted for excircising thier freedom of speech (Dixie Chicks). If RIAA's latest trick succeedes then I guees I'll have to physically walk next door to my neighbor to "borrow" his cd to burn.

I don't think the RIAA will back down now. They are fueled by corporate greed and thousands of voracious, drooling lawyers who want a piece of what's in your wallet. Let's see... We can guarantee that there will be lawsuits filed mistakenly against people without RIAA-related crap on their machines, CD sales will continue to plummet (unrelatedly), and the lawyers will begin to look for more victims to take to court so that they can make payments on the Benz, mansion, and country club dues. God Bless the USA.

Aaahh, biting the hands that feed them. This should be good. Sue a bunch of people to try and make an example of them hopefully scaring the rest of us off. Then all of a sudden they think we'll all go rushing out to support their business partners since we're scared stiff. I DON'T THINK SO!!! Let's try this headline instead, "2004 IS WORST YEAR YET FOR RECORDING INDUSTRY AS MASS LAWSUITS BACKFIRE, CONSUMERS SHUN THE MAJOR RECORD LABELS/STORES, AND ONLINE TRADING EXPLODES EVEN BIGGER THAN BEFORE..." in other news, the RIAA is shut down by there parent companies for being incompetent...

I think that this could BACKFIRE BIGTIME!

I think this will result in congress listening to consumers if too many get sued. I bet it will also generate Outrage by groups such as ACLU, EFF, Digital Consumer and others to do something to change it.

Also, I bet this will cause a lot of customers to install firewalls, and block spies such as MediaForce, Ranger Inc, and MediaDefender. I also bet this alienation will drive down CD sales EVEN MORE.

Now is the time for RIAA and their member labels to start licensing to companies non-affliated with them. Napster, Grokster, MusicCity, KaZaa, Verizon, and others offered to pay artists and those proposals were REJECTED. It is so sad that the refuse to adapt to the times.

sorry about the typos...it's their, not there or they're...so many choices...=)

The odd thing is that "hundreds" of file-sharers would be sued.

Hehehe. Sue a small number of file-sharers, you ruin some lives, but you don't make a dent, because most believe it won't happen to them. Sue a LARGE number of file-sharers, word of mouth gets around.

I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that every family is going to have at least 1 person in it that gets sued in these lawsuits... and when nice Uncle Billy Reilly gets sued, you can bet your sweet ass that no one in the Reilly family will buy another CD from the major labels again.

God forbid they succeed - it'd be a humongous boon to dmusic.com, garageband.com, CDbaby.com, and especially FairForShare.

I know that when Fair For Share gets up, I'm going to have a computer devoted entirely to just sharing as much as the FFS catalog as I can, increasing reliability.

-- Funksaw

1,200 Posts in the first couple of hours on slashdot.

Good things will come of this. Think of the press coverage. It will lead more users to P2P. Also it will push P2P software to provide Anonymous File Sharing. Then they won't have anyone to sue.

I think the P2P makers should also encrypt the p2p communications (Searches, requests, etc) Then use the DMCA to sue anyone who try’s to decrypt it (RIAA).

This is going to backfire on the RIAA. They are not as big as they would have you believe. They hire temps to run their scanners. I work for a worldwide corporation that has over 40,000 employees, and we have something like 6 lawyers. Then when a lawsuit arises, they hire local help at around $250 per hour. Documents requested for discovery cost about $1/page to photocopy and enter into the record. (Think about what you could request from the RIAA) These lawsuits could get very expensive.

I also think there is a real chance once of these cases could make it to the supreme court and strike down all or parts of the DMCA. Wouldn’t that be great. 

I can afford to buy music and I do. What the RIAA does not realize is the fact that downloaders like me are more after the out of print music that companies no longer find profitable to keep in print...try to find Translator-Heartbeats and Triggers on CD and you will know what I mean. The RIAA might want to be very careful about who they decide to threaten.

We can always use "real-world" conter-measures. I say we frag some lawyers!

*agrees with Feisar*

anyway, this is a big invasion of privacy! I do share files, but usually just when I actually bought the cd. I usually use it as eddiespaghetti does, to find old and outta date stuff or foreign stuff that I can't get.

sadly, some of my fav country artists are on that list of people behind this stupid junk. *shakes head*

"sadly, some of my fav country artists are on that list of people behind this stupid junk."

And my favorite artist/band (Rednex) is foreign, so their label is restricting U.S sales, so I have to download so I can try, but I plan to buy the CD through Amazon.com. Unluckily, I feel they too are RIAa robots.

Last Friday, I wasn in Chicago to interview a charismatic businessman who serves as a rep for manufacturers of janitorial supplies. He commented on a misconception in that industry. A lot of professional distributors of cleaning suppliers have complained that retail businesses such as Walmart and Costco are stealing their marketshare by selling products that janitorial supply companies have traditionally sold. This would include bulk toilet paper (by bulk I mean a case of 300 hundred rolls or so) and various concentrated chemicals for cleaning bathrooms and kitchens.

Anyway, the man I spoke with explained that those products actually create greater awareness of the need for cleanliness. And, if the professional distributors look at it from another perspective, this greater sense of cleanliness is passed on from the way people clean their houses to what they expect in public places such as restaurants and so forth.

The same can be said for music. The RIAA doesn't see this because it's not a tangible line that can be drawn, but there's a reality that listening to music passed on from one user to another creates a greater interest in music. People are actually more likely to purchase an album if they have a greater interest in music.

To be quite honest, I've purchased only about three or four CDs in the past five years. This isn't because I downloaded every song I wanted to hear. It was because I didn't listen to music that often. Since I began using a peer-to-peer service, I've gained a greater appreciation for music. I've listened to African tribal drum beats and I've listened to 1930s jazz.

So, my interest in music has increased, and I'm now considering going each Friday to buy a CD from my favorite record shop.

Of course, I'm now also more likely to download a song. Why? Well, when a CD costs $16, people weigh things, such as the likelihood that they'll be sued by the RIAA and the likelihood that their child will want to eat dinner at night.

If the music industry wants to sue someone, they should try suing the fast-talking agents who can't seem to find any new talent worthy of an adult's dollar.

I agree the RIAA's planned lawsuits can and should backfire bigtime. I have used Kazaa personally to get two songs. I had a friend's son use Kazaa to get about eight others. I don't want to hurt any artist, however, every song was at least 10 years old and each one was by a different artist (referring to the "only one or two goods songs per album complaint).

I have an excellent idea for RIAA. Any song that has been "out" for a least 15 years can be exempt from their "no sharing" rules. Many groups are still going strong (the Rolling Stones, the Who) and probably won't mind this at all. The rules RIAA wants should depend, in part, on the artist(s), if still living, and their level of success overall. I plan to share this with RIAA although their lawyers will be talking to loud for anyone to notice.

RIAA said that they will scan computers for their IP address. Is there any way to completely block your IP address when sharing files? I have a firewall but I'm not sure if that blocks everything. We have to be able to protect ourselves somehow.

Judee11,

Sounds fair, but try and say "happy birthday to you" in a movie. The lawyers will come after you. The Chicago-based music publisher Clayton F. Summy Company, working with Jessica Hill, published and copyrighted "Happy Birthday" in 1935.

Under the laws in effect at the time, the Hills' copyright would have expired after one 28-year term and a renewal of similar length, falling into public domain by 1991. However, the Copyright Act of 1976 extended the term of copyright protection to 75 years from date of publication, and the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 added another 20 years, so under current law the copyright protection of "Happy Birthday" will remain intact until at least 2030.

WHERE IS THE BALANCE? (it was supposed to be a copyright balance that was struck between content creators and the public domain)

HOW DOES THE PUBLIC BENIFIT FROM THE MULTIPLE EXTENTIONS?

This country is in DESPERATE NEED OF COPYRIGHT REFORM!

jrzyguy, I believe there are new programs such as "Peer Guardian" that make you appear invisible to anyone trying to track you down. Worst case senario, we track down RIAA members with guns, lots of guns.

17 USC 101 provides:

''Phonorecords'' are material objects in which sounds, other than those accompanying a motion picture or other audiovisual work, are fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the sounds can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. The term ''phonorecords'' includes the material object in which the sounds are first fixed.


MATERIAL OBJECTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


'Copies'' are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. The term ''copies'' includes the material object, other than a phonorecord, in which the work is first fixed.


MATERIAL OBJECTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now, which of you guys want to explain to me how downloading an Mp3 file is getting an illegal COPY OR PHONORECORD under the United States copyright act, when they are defined as MATERIAL OBJECTS in the first section of the act?

I think we all knew this was coming someday.

Who knows when the lawsuits will stop, maybe after another year or two of declining sales? Someday they might realize that piracy is only one of many problems for the music industry.

I have seen evidence that the best way to effect change when dealing with arrogant @$$holes like the RIAA is to contact their distributors (like WAL-MART, BEST BUY etc.)and tell them that as long as they sell RIAA member products that you will discountinue doing business with them. If enough people follow through, they will respond. And let's not forget that the recording industry was found guilty of price fixing and orderded to reduce the price of newly released CDs, at which time they promptly raised the price. I consider their current situation payback.

I too am sick of being constantly told that it's theft if I download music from WinMX. I refuse to buy the records & tapes a 2nd or third time an if I ca get them for 'free' then why the hell would I want to buy new at inflated prices? Besides, most of the tracks I want aren't available in the shops anyway! Over the last 4 weeks, I've managed to d/load every single to make the UK Top 40 from 1970 - 1975. It's my intention complete my collections. If the RIAA want to coe knocking on my door, let them. I'm a disabled man with no money to spend on CD's. My house is worth £65,000 so if they want a costly court case to get money that I don't have well, that's fine, go ahead bud.

Personally I don't affect sales of CD's because I refuse to buy them at those prices but (and here's a radical idea), if they maybe stopped paying over-inflated egotistical 'musicians' to make over-recorded music so that they can finally sing along to their own songs - they know who they are, then billions would be saved to help out with struggling bands. We don't need so-called celebrities from reality shows making music, we need good, committed musicians who will still be around the week after their hyped-to-the-number-one spot. Remember the good old days when a chart hit meant something?

Screw the RIAA, let them come and get me. Do the words 'blood' and 'stone' mean anything to you?

I agree that the RIAA is misguided, but besides any rationalizations or philosophical arguments about all this, sharing copywritten songs is still theft.

If you are comfortable being a thief, then you gotta be comfortable with the possibility of getting caught, so stop crying about it.

In fact, I may well blame p2p and filesharing folks for the rise of the RIAA and it's blowhard activities.

Thanks alot wankers.

gwm

I agree with every one of these posts... and here's my 2 cents...

screw the RIAA and the greedy bastards that think they have a right to a large portion of the money that each CD sale generates....

And screw the over rated, whining so called musicians who write checks for things that they cant cash without selling a buttload of cds...

If it wasnt for filesharing, I wouldnt know about taproot, or paul oakenfold, or some of the more obscure artists that I now listen to. And I wouldnt have gone off to spend the $20 on the cd that they have available.

I got blocked from Napster because a band got too big for thier pants, and now they sell Cd's to the masses with shit for music, and wonder why people want to download certain songs...

I dont know anyone anymore that is stupid enough to buy a cd for just one or two good songs...

well I am done rambling...

Total B.S. When the internet 1st came out to the public Pete Townshend said that it would change the way of music.Yet the music industry did not one thing to protect itself. Anyone who did not see piracy as a issue even back then has rocks in there head's.
Now Sony and others have teamed up with itoon. And the only way to make it work is to crush p2p.
Any musician who grew up in the late 60's, 70's and 80's cannot sit here and say they never copied albums of there friends to tape. Copied songs off the radio, etc..
Land of the free my a$$. When a goverment tells me who I can and can't share my music with. We're one step closer to communism.Look at the greatful dead they we're famous for the amount of bootleg and piracy around them. They did not whine about it and loss of money. They encouraged bootlegging. R.I.A.A come on after me you'll get a whopping sum out of my a$$

Kazaa want's to work hand in hand with the RIAA and MPAA. Tell me how that isn't selling out, directive.

Looks like the poor fat pigs sitting on top of their recording company offices are worried about making only a couple of million bucks next year as opposed to a couple of million bucks plus maybe an extra hundred thousand. Yeah I'm sure they're starving now that people are downloading music they probably wouldnt buy for $16 per CD anyway.

Sharing mp3s and music allows people to freely sample different types of music. Its a beautiful thing, having almost any song you want at the push of a button. Sure I download lots of mp3s, but guess what? if i really like the band I'm still going to buy their CD even if i have every single song of theirs on their hard drive.

I'm willing to spend my hard earned cash on a Sonic Youth album or a Soundgarden B-sides album because I support the artists, not the recording companies.

My point is that file sharing isnt going to hurt those corporate pig b@st@rds at all. It boosts sales by introducing people to more music that they will eventualy buy.

Of course these fat old cronies can't comprehend that being too lazy and stupid not to mention incredibly short sited and blinded by their blatant greed.

File sharing is here to stay, and if they want to stop it then they can bring it on because its a fight they cannot win.

Cary cary cary.
I thought we had a deal: I let you eat my shit last night and in return, you promised to stop harassing the consumer.
Did you lie to me?


anyways.
Their scanning software is stupid. All it does is it simulates a regular p2p user and logs the responses it gets together with the source IPs.
If you are still scared of it, switch to EarthStation5, it seems to take care of the tracing problem by using proxies.
otherwise, set up private DirectConnect networks and enjoy.
150Gb/week upload to 600+ ppl, how you like them bananas, Sherman you dirty whore?

And once they start upgrading all internet to 1Gbps, the RIAA will be losing millions of dollars every SECOND, until it fucking suffocates in its own legal feces and fucking dies.

Well, were into phase 2 of the ongoing saga, and it's going just as I had planned. Scratch one more point up for the predictablness of mankind.
Riaa's shallow grave is getting deeper, and we are prolly all going to pay, and then a war shall commence. Is that what those idiotic lawyers want ? A war with it's consumers !?!?!
Well, they will go poking around spider holes...

heh. And the funny thing is: CD sales have gone UP since P2p stuff appeared. I asked around in chat rooms, people I know, etc, and everyone said that they have bought actually MORE CD's since they got KaZaA then before. I don't what these IDIOTS think they're trying to do... -_-;;

And to think they havn't even looked at the counless thousands of ablums that go from system to system at your average lan party.

All this rationalization.

Regardless of what you all would like yourselves to believe, we all know that trading copyrighted music is THEFT.

If I tell you that I would prefer you not steal from me and you do, you are a THIEF.

Hello?
gwm

Let's see these idiots try and stop all the P2P users outside the U.S. (I live in Canada). They'll not only embarrass themselves in the country they try to sue P2P users, they'll further embarrass themselves in their own country.

Just because we maybe stealing doesn't mean it's morally wrong.

Remember, just because something is a law doesn't mean it's morally right or even sensible.

Technically, when you type the alphabet you have reproduced every novel and word ever written using the english language. Similarly, when you type a "one" and a "zero" you have reproduced every digital file ever created. The only difference is the length of the word, (whether alpha or numeric) and the sequence of the letters or digits. Since an MP3 is not an exact copy of a CD (it is a compressed file), it is not a copyright infringement unless you SAY that it is, because the sequence and length of the digital words are not the same. For example, if I sat down with a paint brush and copied the Mona Lisa onto a canvas and told you that it was painted by the original artist, I would be arrested for fraud. However, if I told you that I painted it and it was my own interpretation of the painting, I could do whatever I want with it. Therefore, it should stand to reason that if I make an MP3 version of a song, and say that it is not a copy of the original, but my computers digital interpretation of the song, I should be good to go and have no fear of reprecussion from the RIAA. So, I say that KaZaa posts a disclaimer that explains that MP3s are not copies of the original music, but merely an individual computers interpretation of the original, and thus, cannot be construed as an original. How's that for twisted logic?

Theft or not, I still want to be able to download MP3's. No one will ever stop it... the RIAA is a joke. Do they really think they can start logging on and taking names?

Please.

The only cases they can even afford to pursue are those people who have thousands upon thousands of mp3s in their collections. And it is not illegal to copy your own cd's to a hard drive. It is not illegal to run a program that let's people look at your hard drive (just like it's not illegal to leave your front door open).

Regardless, theft, borrowing, whatever, semantics bore me. I'm a thief only to them and perhaps some of you who have been 'convinced' by them. And what are they or you gonna do about it? History is written by the victor.

Bring it on.

I'm reading ctoyctoy's post about the royalty tax on blank media and all I can think is if regular Joe's like us can get this kind of info that easy then why didn't Jesse Jordan's lawyers have the same info??? Hell, just reading the section that says "No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings." I'm thinking that maybe it's time for Jesse to go back to court, this time with a lawyer with enough balls to fight the RIAA on his behalf for bringing harm to him by filing a lawsuit that is clearly forbidden under law. I pray to God that the next person who gets served with copyright infringement papers from the assholes does just that.

Now, as for what GWalkerM said, this whole royalty tax thing has been one of my many RIAA related pet peeves for quite a while now so I'm going to break this down and yes, I'll speak slowly so G can keep up with me:
-- We pay a tax on blank recording media
-- This tax is collected by the RIAA
-- The intended purpose of this tax, which nobody INCLUDING THE RIAA has disputed is to allow for copied recordings
-- Even though the RIAA is collecting this tax they are trying to stop us from making copies, going so far as to say the copies they have WILLFULLY ACCEPTED MONEY FOR are illegal and stolen!!!
If you walked into Wal-Mart, paid for something, then got stopped at the door by security accusing you of shoplifting the item you just paid for you'd be pissed, right? Then why aren't you pissed about the RIAA doing that very thing to every person who has ever paid the tax on blank media? It's time to get your head out of your ass (or is it Hillary or Cary's ass you've got your head up?) and see who the REAL thieves are.

"software's most notable success so far had the RIAA sending a nasty letter to to Penn State University alleging that one of its ftp sites was, "unlawfully distributing songs by the musician Usher".


if this is thier only sucess then yall have nothing to worry about it... i read an article where the Usher song that was on the computer was a professors. Whos last name was Usher.

FUCK 'EM

kneo,
The statement in question is just to work with the RIAA and MPAA, do u really think they would ever team up? They are enjoying sueing kazaa and others. Either way you look at the quote, it is not saying, lets make kazaa ONLY share RIAA files, Kazaa will always have all the files you need.
Thanks

Also, in kazaa's envoirnment, the RIAA will have to compete with Independents, which is one thing we are fighting for, the independents to compete with the RIAA artists.

That still doesn't explain how Kazaa is not selling out. They want to sleep with the enemy.

What do u think of Microsoft working with kazaa?

hey GWalkerM get your damn facts straight! Sharing copywritten songs is not theft it is unauthorized distribution. Theft occurs when you obtain the song without authorization
from the owner, which means you never had intention of paying for it. P and S! By the way, I thinking the RIAA and us people need to fucking grow up! It's starting to become boring now! If ya badly want music...just buy the cd ya kno thats gonna be a big seller....(cuse my foul language earlier)....in reality folks we want to see the riaa crumble...but not with us in the crossfire. They can go ahead and sue but it will have shocking effects..go ahead riaa protect your rights....at the expense of consumers....I don't advocate piracy .....but they will never sue me.....i don't post their music up for grabs...i share files that were created by me and only me and believe me I get a lot of downloaders that love to access my RIAAfree content!

Also,
I am sure kazaa wants to get the RIAA's music on altnet, they want the money.
Kazaa probably wouldn't mind having the lawsuits go away if the RIAA joined them. I am still thinking about whether this is a bad idea, considering, the world we want to live in is where the RIAA and independent artists can compete, that does not happen now. Though i would like to abolish the RIAA, so all of the above may be a contradiction

Hi GWM. Unfortunatly I cannot agree with anything you say and it's funny how you discredit people's thoughts as if they were "rationalization". With that said, I think your just rationalizing just how F*CKED the RIAA is by just saying they are misguided.

You say downloading music is simply theft and I ask whom was being robbed? Was it the Producer? The CD Press? The RIAA? The Artist? The PRomoters? The Marketing Department? Can you tell me exactly whom is taking a loss when a song is downloaded?

Perhaps before anybody trys to claim that downloading an mp3 is theft, there needs to be clear definition of exactly whom is at loss and who is to handle the theft on their own?

Did it ever occur to you that alot of what gets downloaded would not have been purchased in the first place? Did it ever occur to you that downloading the song may give one the notion to go buy the CD it came from?

Well guess what- you will never know the ectasy I feel when I look on a P2P network and see one of my own songs on other people's computers.

It really is amazing how the RIAA can blame economic crisis on the consumers for using P2P networks. Course it's even more amazing the amount of talentless garbage they claim is being stolen from the artists.

Theft is some company making almost 20 dollars off of me for buying a cheap 1 dollar piece of plastic. Theft is some company abusing contracts with the musicians. Theft is price fixing any item on the market.

And as for all the "musicians" who are being "robbed" - do they not realize that people are not downloading their items on the basis of monetary value! If they were real musicians they would embrace the notion that millions of people all round the globe hearing their tunes in everything from the computer to the CD player.

If these people were "artists" they would not give a damn about how much money they make on a CD statistic. If these people did it for the people they would not try to penalize us for listening to it.

Just goes to show me how sorry the state of affairs is for both the artists and the companies that commit THEFT to them.

Did you know that if you signed a contract your music could become property of the record labe; and that if you could reproduce it yourself, you would be sued for violating copyrright?

Did you know that most of these big time artists who are supporting the RIAA are probably the same chumps who cry when they don't get 250 threaded cotton sheets in jail? The same chumps who want rose petals in their toilet bowls? The same chumps who target teenagers because there are so many of them that getting them hooked does wonders on their sales?

The RIAA is maybe unintentionaly ripping of thousands of musicians by allowing the dupliaction and resale of music. Shouldn't that be the theft they should focus on combatting? Seems odd to me how they are doing everything they can to redefine music piracy as a downloadable theft while not saying a word about actual bootleg copies that are turned around and sold to others. Then again, alot of these bootleg CD reproductions are being Sold in stores elsewhere, not on the streets, so alas somebody is making money and I bet the bootleg copies aren't counting as a sale requiring royaly payment.

hehe welp that post is ripe with mistakes, not 250 actual sheets but sheets with 250 threads...

Many of us have been saying that mp3's are inferior copies but only a small percent of the ‘lowest common denominator’ understand that. Most people, (the LCD), don't care that the songs can’t sound as good as a CD or they just can't hear the difference. Personally I think they sound like crap, especially when listened to on good gear. But, as an independent artist, I can now home produce and offer 'free samples' of my songs to the world for almost nothing. And we can do it on better gear then the Beatles ever had. You won't find anyone on CNN pointing out mp3’s are inferior, because if they did, even if the LCD couldn't tell the difference, they wouldn't want to be uncool and the the RIAA wants to keep people downloading.

It’s their next business model.

But isn't the issue we’re talking about here about the RIAA going after the people that make copyrighted music available on their computers? If they stop the people sharing they stop the downloading, (or so they want the government to think).

"Starting tomorrow [June 26] the RIAA will go all out to nail individual computer users who are, "illegally offering to 'share' substantial amounts of copyrighted music over peer-to-peer networks".

They’re using this angle to make the Internet theirs, like they control the rest of the media. You people in bands out there - you know how hard it is to get your shit heard on the radio. You're doing well if you're heard at 3 am on some "homegrown" show at best.

I mean we're talking skull & bones here. It's all about the money and that’s where we have to hurt them.

The RIAA wants sole possession of the internet because they could sell inferior copies of product that cost them pennies to make for the same price point as a CD that costs them millions to mass produce and market, (including payola and price fixing). Their next step is signing songs rather than acts. The big artists have all signed away their copyrights for their ranches in Montana. They could have remained independent but wouldn’t have gotten any airplay or distribution deals. They didn’t have any other choice and now they couldn't share their shit even if they wanted to. I'm sure they all signed gag clauses too otherwise they would be cackling their ass off like they did with Operation Iraqi Liberation, (OIL). Don't you think if Bono could whip up a song in his laptop with ProTools in the morning and sell a million downloads by noon he would? Think about that. Why do you think Prince changed his name to something you can’t even pronounce? He didn’t own his own fucking name anymore!!! Why do you see old, supposedly ‘washed up’ rock stars still touring? It’s their only source of income now. They can’t re-release any of their old songs because they don’t own them and can’t afford payola.

I'm anxious to see what Pearl Jam does since they declined to resign with their label after their contract expired. Anything they write from now on they own.

Fair For Share is the ONLY way to go.

Keep the Internet out of the greasy meat hooks of the RIAA.

Hiya, I'm a Kazaa Media Desktop user and I have an e.g. of a good failure or a lawsuit against a person in example.
Certain p2p programs like Kazaa isn't just in the U.S. but also in foreign country's as well. Without notice of the RIAA, file sharing with a foreign country cannot be denied because the RIAA can not determine if the artist/composer of the music that a person downloads is authorized to permit their sharing of their art. Another point is, since p2p programs like Kazaa is "world-wide" then the RIAA cannot just Knock on another country's door and say your not authorize to swap music downloads. Its none of the RIAA's business to go into other foreign countrys and tell them what they can't do. It is not in their power to deny access from p2p of another country to the United States. So the RIAA can be monopolized by other foreign countries that allow shared mp3's to foriegn nations. But if this gets too involved with another nation that shares mp3's and music with the US. then that could lead to World War III lol. But my main point is, If you download music through a different country, and you live in the United states, then the RIAA cannot file a lawsuit against you because they don't have authorized permission from the other countrys to place a lawsuit. And if they do do that to you, then they are out of their minds, thinking that they control what is shared across the world!..retarded dushbags!(RIAA)

When the war in Iraq ended, Hilary sent her lawyers over there to "help them establish new copyright laws" They're there as we type. Don't think they're not trying. The intenet makes things happen fast, too fast for the governments to control it by any means other than ramming laws through, (see the Rave Act).

I was in El Salvador 2 week ago, and there is no way they will sue people there, those people have nothing to be sued for.

I would like to read some comments about my point debate of foreign country p2p...lol I'm refreshing my page every minute to read what I wrote down...I'm eager to hear opinions about my statement^_^ and my choice of words at the very end*cough*

3rd world countries account for the majority of the old fashioned piracy, you know, actual bootlegged CD's. So far, only Jon Bonjovi has mentioned this publicly. He said he looses 50% of his worldwide sales to South America. The RIAA wants the internet bad. 3rd world piracy is only a hangnail to the the major labels.

By the way, the Rave act was pushed thru with the Amber Alert Bill. What politician seeking votes would even hint at not supporting the Amber Alert Bill?
http://www.metroweekly.com/gauge/?ak=438

Looks like we're not the only ones who think this is a total waste of time...I stand by my earlier post predictions...


From CNET.com

"I don’t think the lawsuits are going to put a dent in file sharing," said Fred von Lohmann, an attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. He noted that file swapping has grown despite efforts to rein in Napster, Grokster and others.

Instead, von Lohmann predicts the legal threats will spawn better file-trading technology that will make it even harder to track swappers.

"It really is unprecedented to sue your best customers," von Lohmann said. "It's plain that the dinosaurs of the recording industry have completely lost touch with reality."

I've read most of these posts and I think we've all came to an agreement, the RIAA can suck it.

I use Kaaza and share over 50,000 files total....from games, software, music and more. I download a song or two from an album, or even the whole album. If I like it, I get the CD for my music library.

In 2001, total recorded units shipped to all outlets and buyers declined 10.3 percent from year-2000 results, and 16.6 percent from the peak unit year of 1999. Retail unit sales declined 7.0 percent from 2000 and 15.7 percent from the 1999 peak. The total value of all recordings shipped in 2001, $13,741 million, was down 4.1 percent from 2000 and 5.8 percent from 1999.

$13,741 MILLION.

I make $35,000 a year, they make $13 billion.

cry me a fucking river.

another thing....

I don't see my downloading songs breaking the artists or the RIAA.

RIAA makes billions, the artist drives a porche or Hummer and ownes a few 20,000sq ft homes.

I struggle from week to week. sue me bitches, you'll get nothing.

What a bunch of idiots!

This action will convince any sensible investor that the corporations do not have a clue about adjusting the business model to cope with the internet or digital music.

I haven't read many business books called "how to achieve profitablity by sueing your customers"

I would assume that people are downloading music files all over the world. Is the RIAA really going to try to sue people in the 3rd world! or are they just going to pick on us rich americans.

I can't believe how dumb these idiots are.

Guess I better write Scott Adams and give him some new material for his Dilbert Strip

But our government won't defend our rights or protect us, not as long as these sons of cock whores known as the RIAA keep them in their pockets. Hey, if the government stands to make money off of this, which they will, somehow, trust me.....they will, they won't stop anybody from digging around in your computer. After all, they're still looking for those weapons of mass destruction aren't they?

Definition of WMD...small defenseless country with shitloads of oil. BUT THATS ANOTHER STORY.

My thing is, as much money as they and the "SO CALLED" artists that support them are putting into this big deal over a few shared files, imagine what GOOD the money could be used for. Education, cure for disease, food for people IN OUR OWN COUNTRY who go to sleep at night hungry, get homes for families living under bridges.

Hey, how does one go about getting the Feds into doing a little investigating into the financial backgrounds of a group like the RIAA or maybe the big shits at Sony Records etc.

We have the power to shut these bastards down, let's get busy and do something about it!

Oh yeah, and the fuckers whose albums I went and BOUGHT, AFTER I listened to the song from downloading it, can kiss my ass. If it weren't for the fact that I could listen to it on my own system first, not some crappy headphones in a record store aisle, I would NOT HAVE EVER BOUGHT THEIR MUSIC AT ALL. So they lose by denying me this ability.

Lastly, like everybody else has said, come fucking sue me bitch, you can't get blood from a fucking rock, and I am one poor ass, barely over poverty level rock!

I'm with Cody Ransom. Honestly, if anyone out there could answere me these two questions. How the fuck could they get money from me if i have nothing? And CtoyCtoy had a lot of good shit right there, can anyone confirm that stuff? Besides, they can sue us if they want. That will put US in the spotlight to give our opinions and make ourselves stronger. I have over 200 cds and apon hearing this announcement, I decided not to buy one more. in fact, i'm going to fuck the record companies over in every way I can. burn copy burn copy burn copy burn copy.....

Everyone's bravado notwithstanding, the RIAA's latest campaign probably marks the end of P2P as we know it. I hear a lot of people making good points (and some not so good points), but I don't hear a lot of people expressing a willingness to continue to share large numbers of files that could get them sued. We may not have much money, but we don't want to lose the little we have.

Fair for Share will be nice, but most people will still prefer commercial music for the most part (please notice my qualifiers), so it won't be a good substitute in the forseeable future.

There will be technological advances on both sides, but the bottom line is file sharing will be much harder. Casual or cautious folks (like me) will be driven away. There will still be file-sharing, but the golden age is probably at an end. The only thing that could stop the RIAA cold would be a supreme court decision, but this seems unlikely.

The problem for the RIAA is that it doesn't matter what they do or what they use to look iside you computer, the fact is that technology grows so fast that no matter what company they have to peek into your computer there will always be a way to stop them from doing it less than 24hrs after they start. There are already programs that make your IP address seem invisible online eg Peer Guardian.
My belief is that p2p networks will change the way they run and connect to each computer, because the programs that are doing the searching are just that programs. There is almost always a way to filter out automated search programs, and when they figure out how to get in then you will just go get some new p2p with different software maybee one that changes the names of music MP3 files and kind of makes it encrypted.

Ive only recently started filesharing so please excuse my ignorance stating the obvious in this matter but In my mind I am very clear on one point - Thank god for filesharing because we have all been screwed to the hilt by these 'fat cats' in the past and just 'cause they aint gettin' the cream anymore must make them a bit sick.

Let me just add that if they do go and start suing people I hope to God that we all stand up together with these people and help them out. I know that if someone started a fund to fight or pay for these lawsuits then I would gladly help out.

Lets see how sick they get of dishing them out every week when they know they are'nt winning.

Remember people - United we stand......

Why was there an AOL banner on this site? LOL

u know,if the RIAA was smart from the get-go, they would had used p2p technology to their advantage & sell an p2p app. charge 10$ a month for unlimited d/l.Everybody would had made $.but greed is a powerful energy.........

gwm:
there are myriad examples through out history of people, as a group, doing something that was deemed "wrong" by the status quo, but that was actually accepted by the population at large. I can see your point believe it or not, but I don't think you have much to stand on here.
If we (as a group of filesharers) wish to "ignore" the law and download, because we have the right by law to do so, and we have the wish to "better" ourselves and our collections, are we wrong? Legally yes. Morally is another question.
I see how you said that p2p actually CAUSED the RIAA to begin coming down on people. Well, looking at it in that frame, wouldn't it make sense to say that p2p could (should)ALSO cause them to look at what people are actually DOING vs. what they are PERCIEVED to be doing? This isn't about downloading all of the metallica songs just cuz you don't want to buy them (for the most part, there are exceptions I'm sure), it's about not wanting to BUY the stuff cuz it's crap and it costs tooooo phucking much.
I download on a regular basis, probablyl 15 or 20 tracks a week. Not a lot. I can't FIND the tracks I want in a store w/o buying a bunch of OTHER crap that the RIAA and some other jagoff says should go with these tracks. I don't d/l entire albums and sell copies. The riaa is basically saying that since (because) I have found a viable (for me) alternative to spending 20 or more dollars on a cd I don't want that they have the right to snoop on my system.
fuck that
I've got two words, then my rant is done. You can take it or leave it, I don't really care.
4th Ammendment.
ttmmm

You know, my original Kix (A Baltimore club band that 'made it big') finally gave up the ghost in my cars cassette player last night...

And dorks like GWM have a problem with me replacing what I already paid for ?

Bloody hell, I can't even BUY a new copy on cassette these days, and since it was never RELEASED on CD, what is there to do but find it on MP3 somewhere and cut it to a new tape.

No way to consider it 'stealing' if it's something they will not sell you, since if they are no longer selling it, how exactly are they LOSING any profit, ehe ??

But if the RIAA wants a war, they'll get one, and folks will respond according to their nature, which means yes, some nice relatively-polite legal battles and whatnot, but in one case I can be fairly sure of, a certain car is gonna wind up on blocks because thanks to skyhigh CD prices, a certain young person can't afford new tires... and music company execs aren't exactly hurting financially, are they ?
Call it a hunch.

Declaring war on your own customers goes far and away beyond ordinary stupidity... darwin would be highly amused at this, I think.

-user

It never ceases to amaze me how dumb politicians really are. Once they have squandered all the "donations" given to them by the big businesses that run this country they sit back with the misguided notion that they can ignore their constituents and pass garbage like the DMCA.

Well hopefully we'll see history repeat itself here....

Back in the late 1960's in the UK the Labour Government passed a law that outlawed an extremely popular "pirate" radio station called Radio Caroline the rest is history...

"The government had forgotten or failed to consider that this election was the first in which 18 to 21 year olds could vote and that these people had been impressionable teenagers when Caroline was at the peak of its influence. It was not difficult to motivate them to strike back at the politicians who had so arrogantly ruined their enjoyment.

On the day after the election as the votes were counted, shell shocked Labour politicians found that against all predictions they had lost."

(for more info see: http://www.radiocaroline.co.uk/RCHistory/history4.htm )

Our US representatives ought to take a look at the history books before they kowtow to the media industry anymore.

Be afraid Senator, be very afraid .....

i allready said this in the wrong forum...
pop people listen to marketing based "music"...money and sales defines the music they are into and all this riaa shit should apply to them i spose..but there are still people who want to hear old/rare/discontinued/unsigned music..these are the people that truly deserve p2p, and the only ones who truly care im sure..i mean for the pop kids this is just like getting designer clothes on the cheap..for us it is the ONLY way to hear or aquire the music we love. fuck you riaa..and good luck sueing 10,000 unemployed teenagers.

...also, what about ebay!? i dunno for sure but do the artists get money from that!? and boot sales...is the riaa gonna sue granny's selling cd's out the boot of their car? and im sure a billion people have said it allready, but us poor unsigned bands wont get anymore free publicity! ..im still waitin for the day we all get issued cctv in our homes..fucking government scumbags!

im with foadriaa! disclaimer that shit and play them for fools

I'm looking at the list of artists who endorse this and am surprised that one of my favorites is backing the RIAA. I remember when Shakira was a not well known in this country, only famous to those in Latin countries. However, her music was distributed here via file sharing, thus she had a growing fan base here.

I'm wondering if this growing fan base led to her eventually signing with a record company, thus making her a celebrity in this country when exposed to the masses. Yet, it appears that she has turned on those who were her fans to begin with, the file sharers. Well, I won't buy another one of her CDs, or any other CD of bands who openly support the RIAA.

Chop off the hand that feeds you? Well, gone will be the days of music videos, concerts, overpaid record executives, and everyone else that will be touched by this. Hey RIAA...they call it the "domino effect" you might want to look into it...don't regret what you start. And us AMERICANS don't like the "Big Brother" concept that you are using. It is ashame that all we do in this country is SUE each other! As a VETERN of the military...I don't think I fought for the right of the RIAA to SUE people for the right of them getting RICH and the rest getting POOR.
The RIAA is NON-AMERICAN in my view!!

THE RIAA HAS JUST ATTEMPTED TO COMMIT SUICIDE

We knew it was comming, we have been waiting for this, let's hope they
don't chicken out or be stupid and drag the razor blade across the wrist
instead of up and downwise in paralel to the forarm.

If they want to take this drastic action, lets let them! We will be thier
Kevorkian!

YES, use the Home Recording Act as a defense if they come after you!
(The very reason FOR the Home Recording Act is to keep this kind of
oligopolistic bully tactic from taking place!) BY ALL MEANS, if YOU are
a target of the RIAA lawsuits, DO NOT settle! Let it go to the Supreme
Court. Keep appealing! Get better and better lawyers! WE WILL BACK
YOU as best we can! I think Jessie has already gained back
enough from supporters to pay his fine. (I am so tempted to log on and
share everything I can find with the HOPE that RIAA sues me so that I
myself can battle them in court, and more importantly, in the court of
public opinion!)


xaostica said above:
"Well guess what- you will never know the ectasy I feel when I look on a
P2P network and see one of my own songs on other people's computers."

I agree %100. I hope they try to sue me over MY music that I share using
p2p. Just like with the Usher issue, they will be embarrassed if they do.

Downloading or sharing music is NOT THEFT! Making $$$ against the
copyright holders wishes by using that holder's copyright IS THEFT!
It is that simple. The RIAA members are more guilty of this than the
general public. Just look at history! The RIAA claims to be against piracy,
and yes, they do have/should have the right to cause the bust of the guy
selling bootleg cd's on the street corner. But what the hell gave them the
right to spy on the p2p user and bust them? I will tell you... OUR OWN
INATTENTION to govenment. The reps in our own govenments are in the
industry pockets. We need to change this or we will have nothing to fear
unless we have done "something wrong" just as the nazi's said.

When I buy a CD/album/tape (VHS/DVD/etc. for that matter) I am NOT
buying the SONG! The SONG is FREE! I am buying the blank item and
packaging and most importantly the CONVIENIENCE of accsessing the
"content" of the CD or whatever. ALSO, I am rewarding the creator of
the intellectual "content." I already have sampled/heard the SONG and
it is already mine. If Fred gives Barney an apple, then Barney has the
apple, and Fred no longer does. If Fred TELLS Barney about an orange,
they now BOTH know about the orange. Now change the verbs to include
words like "sells" and "takes/steals" and think about it.

We do NOT buy the SONGS, we buy the physical media and the
service that put the SONG on that media. Any artist who thinks otherwise
is being greedy or misunderstands what is happening. A song is an
idea. Ideas are free unless you don't voice that idea and never share it.

If there is such a thing as intellectual "property" then I must let it be known
that I own the patent to oxegen. (I expect your check in the mail any day
now!)

All this silly crap should have ended a long time ago, but it is just getting
started. The public is waking up. Look at the outcry and response to the
FCC's misguided ruling on June 2nd and how the Senate heard our
outcry! (But we can't stop now! Congress is next! Hit em hard with your
e-mails/calls/snailmails!)

The internet is the ONLY media method we have left. TV, Radio, etc. were
all SUPPOSED to be in the public domain, but ask yourself who really
owns those pipelines of communication in practice. (Yep, the oligopolated
corporate conglomerates!) We MUST NOT let the internet be stolen from
us to. We MUST fight for the final hope of human idea exchange. DO NOT
let the bad guys turn the internet into the next TV or radio!

Lawrence Lessig and Creative Commons in general have the right ideas.

FAIRFORSHARE is comming!

The RIAA is on the ropes. They are bleeding. SHOW NO MERCY!

SUPPORT LOCAL AND INDEPENDENT MUSIC! GET INVOLVED!
Boycott RIAA, Tell WAL-MART and BEST BUY/OTHERS that you will NOT
buy from them if they continue to sell the RIAA products that you not only
will not yourself buy.

To win, we have to hit them in the pocket, in the courts, and in the public
domain (which they seek to CONTROL!)

--Shmoo, of the band Electric Gypsy

I seriously doubt that Hilary would ever read this, but here goes, Hilary how the hell can you,being Jewish, support the same kind of action/inaction that ultimately resulted in the slaughter of millions of innocent lives? You remember when Rome turned it's head while Hitler acted with impugnity? Remember the U.S. knowing what was up but never said anything? Now you are paying off U.S. politicians to turn face from your own brand of Nazi tactics? You are one disgusting and Evil bitch, and I hope in the apocolypse, you suffer the worst of all tribulations, and take your boy whore Orrin Hatch with you. You are both slime. What a Schlamiel!! OY!

Just download pgp from www.pgp.com and encrypt your files. That'll teach'em.

Fortunatly, i use irc, which they DONT track (i even have a no-govt notice, and if they access my fserv, there liable for a lawsuit, since that would be considered hacking and wirefraud.)

This is just another lame ass scare tatic. I don't buy it. The RIAA doesn't have enough money to do this.

If I could curse, I would...

who do these jerks think they are???? If there were decent music being put out there, they wouldn't have anything to complain about! I've been using a file sharing site for over 2 yrs, and it's great that I can find demo versions of songs and unreleased items that you can't buy in the stores. What will they do next, go on Ebay and make everyone pay them a fee for buying used music????

GO TO HE(double toothpicks) RIAA!!!! Why isn't the ACLU getting involved in this????????????????????????




Diana

iH8RIAA,
IRC and Newsgroups, arn't they places to get the best software from? Even better than kazaa?

Well shit, how about this, musicians agree to put out a cd that isn't shit, and I'll agree to buy it. CDs i buy have 16 or 17 good songs, maybe a few bad ones, but for 16.99, thats 1$/song, not bad. a cd with one good song for the same price, thats 17$/song, and its a load of crap.

"Chat with Tom Morello on AOL

"AOLiveMC3: Welcome to AOL Live, Tom Morello and Hilary Rosen. Hilary, are
you ready to start answering questions?

Hilary Rosen: Yes I am. Hi, everyone. I am glad that AOL is doing this. It
is awesome to have Tom Morello online with us. What we want to do tonight is
talk about how music affects young people's lives because in Washington, they
are playing the blame game. There are congressional hearings taking place
tomorrow where music, video games and movies are going to be blamed for the
shootings in Colorado. We wanted to know what you think. RIAA is the music
representative in Washington. The Recording Industry Association of America.

Tom Morello: Hello, everyone. I'm Tom Morello. To those of you that don't
know, I am the guitar player in Rage Against the Machine. I find it shocking
how the media has attempted to blame music for the tragedy that happened in
Littleton, CO. If you all have any questions regarding or comments, regarding
that event, or how music, violence and the media are related, let's talk
about it.

Comment: Our society is hypocritical in the sense that our government is
killing overseas and making themselves look righteous for doing so, but when
kids are desensitized to violence, we blame pop culture.

Tom Morello: Yes, it was shocking to see President Clinton come on TV the
day after the shooting saying that violence was no way to settle disputes,
while nightly, American bombing is pouring terror on the people of
Yugoslavia. If you want to talk about negative influence on young people, you
need look no further than the US government and Yugoslavia. Clinton is
clearly demonstrating that he believes the way to solve problems or
disagreements is through overwhelming violence. It should be noted that Eric
Harris was very excited about the war in Yugoslavia and had talked about
signing up with the Army. Interestingly, yesterday American planes again
accidentally targeted a civilian bus in Yugoslavia, killing almost twice as
many children and elderly people as were killed in the Littleton shooting.
This is in some ways a far greater tragedy because it is a premeditated act
by our government using our tax dollars.

Question: How do you feel about politicians and parents constantly using
Manson as a scapegoat?

Tom Morello: Marilyn Manson is an easy target and scapegoat for politicians
looking to score huge points. The [question] we have to ask ourselves [is]
why is America more violent than other countries? It is not that our popular
music is any more violent than say, European heavy metal. It is not that
there is not enough religion in the US, religious sentiments are probably the
greatest here of any industrialized nation. It is not that we have more
violent video games than say, Japan, where there is very violent crime. What
we do have a lot more of in America is inequality and guns.

Question: What do you think about repealing the Second Amendment?

Tom Morello: Regardless of what one thinks of gun control, it is clear that
the Littleton shootings, as well as the innumerable violent crimes across
America, simply could not be committed if guns were not so prevalent and so
easy to access.

Question: Do you believe that it's all in the mind of the beholder or all in
the message of the music?

Hilary Rosen: People definitely react to lyrics differently, but that is a
far cry from whether they are reacting with their feelings or actions; there
is a major difference.

Tom Morello: If you want to look at the subculture those two young men were
involved in, clearly their interest in neo-Nazism is more dangerous than
their interest in Goth music. Given a choice between young people becoming
obsessed with Bauhaus or Adolph Hitler, obviously, one of those has more
violent implications. The music like Goth or heavy metal or rap, which speaks
to people who feel alienated and helps them feel like part of a community and
makes sense of their world, is very positive. Whereas the Fascist leanings of
these two young men are much clearer warning signs that something was very
wrong.

AOLiveMC3: Wow!! Where did all of the time go? We are out of time. Thank
you, Tom Morello and Hilary Rosen, for your in-depth thoughts. Do you have
any closing comments?

Hilary Rosen: If people want to send a message to Congress about this issue,
they should write to webmaster@commerce.senate.gov.

Tom Morello: Don't let the politicians scapegoat you or your music. You have
to get involved and fight for the music you want to hear and your own rights.
Or they could very easily be taken away.

AOLiveMC3: Thank you again for joining us tonight. Thank you, audience, for
your excellent questions. Good evening, everyone."


ah.. the ironies. Consider the closing words of Tom Morello and apply it to this situation.

To all of you who are saying that sharing audio is theft:

What exactly do you call copying albums to tapes? All of those people that are crying theft are the same ones that have a huge collection of tapes that they copied from friends. Tell me, did you pay for this copy? Of course not but that's still ok according to you. Freakin hypocrite.

RIAA is an abomination to mankind; it should die and suffocate on its own vermin ... (I could fill pages, but have better things to do that to waste time on the RIAA)

There. That's all I've got for now.

Question...on Kazaa..you have the option to not share at all right? Why not just download and stop sharing immediately afterward?

Here's a better idea, how about Kazaa or WinMX (or any of the other p2p's) puts in their "terms of use" agreement that you can't use the software or network created by the software to engage in "spy games" on it's users. Put it in the terms of use that the only legitimate use for the software is for legitimate file sharing for personal use. If you're working on behalf of the RIAA or any law enforcement agency you're not allowed to access the network. If you access the network in a way that violates the terms of use then you're subject to a HEFTY fine. And enforce it when you find out one of your program's users is being hit with a lawsuit from the RIAA for trading files, after all, there's no way for the RIAA to know what you're sharing without violating the terms of use. Then after you enforce the fines, give them back to the person being sued for their legal defense and/or fines. Wouldn't that just bite the RIAA's ass to have their money pay for the legal defense of the person they're suing?

Doesn't seem to have scared the 4.2 million users on right now.

Just two quick questions/statements about this whole thing after reading the RIAA's "testimonials" from famous artists.

1) Why do they say that sharing is going to take away a future artist's opportunities? Is "music" suddenly going to disappear?

2) They talk about it being their full-time jobs, but I know plenty of people, myself included, who manage to produce their own music, and play gigs, while holding onto 9-5 jobs. I'm not fried out from it or anything. We love music, but we don't want people to have to pay to hear it...it's music for cryin' out loud! It's there for everyone.

The whole thing just stinks of the RIAA wanting more money, and to control what goes out on the airwaves, like they have some "superior" intelligence of what is good and what isn't. If they truly wanted to open up the doors for more "future" artists they should support sharing, so everyone has a fair chance to be heard by the masses.

Thank you for your time.

Is anyone confident that the latest version of PeerGuardian will protect you from the hundreds of RIAA spies?

(sorry for the crossposting - it was accidental)

Another Idea...........

When you see someone downloading from you, check to see if they are sharing. If not CANCEL THE DOWNLOAD - they could be an RIAA spy.

Good idea krispie. But this means that you can't walk away from your computer...

Also keep in mind that the spies might share public domain music. Perhaps they could even get special permission from some artists to share copywrited music so no one suspects they are spies.

I've got to address GWM. What kind of moron would post to these forums just to be argumentative dick? Have you ever heard of Robin Hood, you fuck? If I ever heard a musician who wasn't loaded with dough whining about getting heard for free, I might have a speck of sympathy. When Gandhi used non-violent resistance, he was still breaking the law! I bet you'd still bitch him out because he knew he was. The fact is, any significant change is the establishment has ALWAYS been by revolting and circumventing the laws. The laws have always been misused and corrupted by rich bastards(A.K.A politicians and record company moguls and their cronies(read:bitches). When will you get tired of being one?

sort of OT, but it is somewhat relevant anyhow.

Just being curious I decided to see how many IP's are within one hop of my computer using traceroute. Then doing A port scan for 1214(default Kazaa) and 6346(default Gnutella), I found 106 Kazaa(1214) responses and 6 Gnutella(6346) responses, this does not count the people such as myself who have their P2P set to use a random IP. Who knows how many more this could account for.

So, since I have found in my own town, a total of 112 computers(people) using some form of P2P, the RIAA has one big task on its hands. I know that P2P is very popular because most people I personally know with a computer and broadband internet, avidly use P2P.


I know this all might seem stupid to some, but I was just curious.

So the question of the (week) is, how many files shared is too many? 100? 500? 5000?

I normally share around 5000 music files in addition to the other files that I share,(game demos, game patches, freeware, shareware, etc).

Is 5000+ files too much? To the RIAA, even one is too much.

If you have a fat pipe, 5000+ is probably running a high risk. Even if they don't sue you right away, they might put you in a database so they can sue you at some later date (for example, if you publicly criticize their policies). Or maybe I'm just being paranoid.

I have tried to read the whole thread here , and I have a solution, somewhat.

PeerGuardian is a good start. But also I have an alternative to WalMart, BestBuy and other retail outlets. I used to, and can get back into, sell for a MLM called Quixtar, which has name-brand stuff that those retail sites sell. You name it, it has it, from food to clothing to sites to buy CDs online. Including Lands-End, Gateway, etc. Alot of people do not like MLMs, but that is an option.

But beyond all this, I think the only leg RIAA has a stand on is the fact that you make it available for other people to download. Yet , saying that also saysthat since you own the gun, you are responsible if someone else uses it.

No way. That don't fly in my book.

I am a user of Kazaa, and basically I have under 250 shared files, and of the 150 or so music files, alot of them are either remixes you can not get in stores, and alot more are stuff I can simply record off the radio anyway, what are they gonna tell me I cant record off the radio?

As a writer, I always run the risk of your work being pirated, you know this going in. Talk to J.K. Rowling about that one. Furthermore, like alot of the posts here, I have considered actually buying CDs off of artists I heard on my Kazaa Downloads.

Furthermore, I am not your typical P2Per, I am 30, am a Christian, and am DISABLED!! SUE ME FOLKS, I dare ya!! Bet you'd like to see a guy in a wheelchair roll up to your courtroom and tell you why your RIAA policies are forcing suit upon me. What are you gonan do, take away my Income so I starve to death, real wonderful answer. Plus, I have more than a few tricks up my sleeve to render these suits harmless.

Oh, and I do have to say something, for those of you who want to go Rambo on the execs, get a life. There are more effective ways to kill a movement than martyrdom. Anyway, as of now, I dislosged my Kazaa and am searching Grokster (or will be shortly) for a file I know exists but cant find.

Thank you for reading.

I run the risk of my work being pirated that is

Can somebody please explain, when refering to Matrix Reloaded for example. How a film can "Break All Box Office Records" and then the pirating of it on Kazaa be accused of killing the film industry?????

i just finished downloading a movie on cleaned imesh, catch me if you can... oh and screw U riaa..........

This is so Much BULLSH*T, we already have the DVD Burners, The CD Burners The MP3 Players The VCR's and even The DUAL Deck DVD/VCR Combination. Its like Donald Rumsfeld and The Senior Bush Regime selling Arms & weapons of MASS Desatruction To Iraq in the past then starting a war to rid them of the stuff that they sold them to begin with.
http://www.counterpunch.com/nimmo0919.html

Next They are going to Put a Governor on the entire net to restrict the type of Information that we can access. Whatever happened to our Amendments and civil rights, they are being PISSED on right before our eyes, before you know it we are going to need level 1 clearance to by certain music from the stores in fear of duplication.

To jackass:
I'll explain why that is, it's because the industry is too f**king STUPID to realize that they're contradicting their own sad sob story and proving that they're liars every time they brag about this movie or that album breaking all previous records!

To krispie:
cancelling the dl sounds like a good idea but aside from the already mentioned downsides to that, a bigger problem that I see is that you've already been hooked up with that user, you could already be "hotlisted" and browsed, which is really all they need to come after you, it doesn't matter if the file actually transferred or not. Simply cancelling a connection that's already been made is kind of like closing the barn door after the horse is already out.

I know most regulars here will condemn my cowardice, but I've stopped sharing my files (believe me, I hate doing it). Does anyone if people will be sued for their past sharing of files - or is it only if you're caught (scanned, etc.) after this ominous June 26 deadline?

oldtomfrost: That is a good question that I've been wondering about myself. Legally, they are under no obligation to refrain from suing those who no longer share. They could have gathered evidence months ago, for all we know.

However, it doesn't make much sense for the RIAA to announce that they would "start" to collect evidence on the 26th if they intend to sue people for sharing before that date anyway. Moreover, it would serve no useful purpose (even from their standpoint) to sue someone who has stopped sharing as of the 26th. They can only file so many lawsuits, and it is only logical that they would focus on those who are still sharing after the announcement.

What scares me is the thought that our livelihood may depend on the RIAA being logical...

From past experience investigating what is needed to sue someone, one of the requirements is that the person filing suit is able to prove that they were damaged in some way. This means that the RIAA would not only have to prove that the file you downloaded was a legitimate copy of their song (or whatever), they would also have to prove that the download actually cost them something(i.e.-lost CD sale). Since some of the downloads that are available on P2P networks are not what they say they are, the RIAA would have to verify that the material that you downloaded was, in fact, a copy of their copyrighted material. In order to do this, they would either have to hack your hard drive and have some way of proving that the file you downloaded is the one they claim it is, or offer the material online in order to catch you. The first approach would expose them to possible criminal action if, for some reason, they were to hack the wrong hard drive or access protected material themselves or whatever. The other way would be to offer the download on a P2P network themselves and record you downloading it(i.e.- get your ip address). If they began offering music for the purpose of catching you, they would have a hard time defending this position in court, because one could argue that the were not taking reasonable precatuions to safegaurds and protect their copyrighted material. More than likely, this is the reason that they are going after people that are sharing files. This provides them the opportunity to download the file, verify that it is a copy, trace the person that offered it, and then file a law suit against them, with all evidence against them in hand. Based on prior decisions by the courts, they will more than likely side with the RIAA whether they are right or not(read-$$$$-money-cha-ching).

Another point that shouldn't be overlooked: In order to protect a copyright, the law requires that the copyright holder be diligent in the protection of the copyright. One could argue that offering material in a digital format does not constitute due diligence, and therfore, the record comopanies are quilty of contributory negeligence. No one is forcing the record companies to release their music-etc. in a digital format. Since they claim that it is so easy to copy, they are trying to put the burden of protecting their copyrighted material on the public, infering that we should be honest enough to respect their rights, yet nowhere else in the law is this arguement acceptibale. For instance, if I leave my car unlocked with the keys in the ignition, would it be reasonable to claim that I didn't think it would be stolen because I trusted the public to respect my property? No. Which is why it is not reasonable for the RIAA to expect the public to protect their copyrighted material, so sueing the public will probably not pan out for them. Even though they are trying to go to a DVD-A Or SACD format to help protect their material, they are still offering it in a format that has been proven to be easy to defeat. I think the RIAA needs to accept their participation in the erosion of their ability to protect their copyrighted material, find some other way to screw us, I mean protect it, or leave us the *uck alone!