Britain's Dust Traxx, the largest producer, manufacturer and distributor of house music in the world during 2002, it says, doesn't think much of the RIAA's latest ploy to gain control of online music by dragging file sharers into court on the slightest pretext.

Promotions director Chuck Paugh says the RIAA "is deceptive in its claim to represent the recording industry" and only represents a handful of large record companies.

"Take a look at the songs they are claiming in their suites are being traded illegally," says Paugh in a July 21 PCPRO story. "Some of these songs are not owned or licensed by RIAA members making the RIAA claim to copyright infringement invalid."

Paugh says he's spoken to more than 20 other companies similar to his and they all are agree the RIAA's campaign will backfire. "The industry as a whole is against these lawsuits," he says.

Dusk Traxx represents 175 artists worldwide and, adds Paugh, is, "not opposed to peer-to-peer trading of music. We feel that the dinosaurs in the industry need to catch up with technology and consumer demands."

Dose the RIAA hold even one copyright?
Dose the simple fact that the RIAA represents companies that hold copyrights give them the right to sue for copyright infringement?

BadSyntax: Probably not. Doesn't stop them from trying though.

wow.. so now someone who is IN the industry is taking a swing at the RIAA... interesting turn. is there any way we could get Mr.Traxx's help? i.e. directly soliciting(however its spelt) his help? he might have some power in congress/D.C.

uh.. I don't know why that's a hyperlink.. it shouldn't be

something ive been saying for a while.

i personally am not opposed to buying music, thats why ive paid rediculas amounts of money for cds. but if i am to buy music i want to know if the cd is worth the 15 dollar investment.

with that said, suing the customer will backfire.

without a way to sample the new must-have CD, there's no reason to gamble on it. radio used to be a good way to hear an album, as they'd usually play a few additional tracks with the 'hit'; that's how 'hits' came about in the first place in fact. but as more and more conglomorated-control of radio stations occured, the playlists shrank, and unexpected free air-time was devoted to the biggest companies the conglmo. had interest in. today p2p is the ONLY way to hear other songs on the CD, and additionally discover even more of the same artist, or similar artists even. p2p is also a great way to discover unsigned and the poor (according to the RIAA) bastards that deserve no contract. equality must be held above capitalism if our society is to continue.

also, the reason so many arbitrary words become links: i think i know- if this site runs on a MS server. MS was experimenting with adding 'hotwords' technology to the new version IE a while back. consumers groups petitioned it because MS had the sole ability to hyperlink any word in any site to any other (sponsor/paid) site they wanted. i think they left the opposite of that intact in some features of their server- the feature simply works on a site-specific basis. i don't know if it's a good explanation but it makes sense to me

No, Microsoft abandoned the technology completly. Never even made a working alpha.

The campaign may backfire, or it may not. We will see.

Hell, yeah. Help from across the pond. What would be better is taking down Clear Channel as well. That's the sound of the death rattle I hear in background.

Yeah, we need all the help we can get Hooray for Dust Traxx! Down with CC! Sorry got a little carried away there.

Oh, k4dwi, are you referring to the links that appear whenever there is no "space" after a "."?

Nice to see another person in the industry attacking the RIAA.

The reason you see a hyperlink is that there's probably something in the code that say something like (just some very general pseudo code):

If xxx.xxx
then do hyperlink

It does have its uses.

'Take a look at the songs they are claiming in their suites are being traded illegally,' says Paugh. 'Some of these songs are not owned or licensed by RIAA members making the RIAA claim to copyright infringement invalid.'

In light of THIS statement, isn't it time and fair that we ask that the RIAA post ALL THEIR songs that they think they have free licence to? You know, the ones we're all supppose to be avoiding?

at summer sanitarium in montreal on sunday, in between songs, mudvayne said "LISTEN TO OUR NEW CD! download it, buy it, steal it from a friend, burn it, just listen to it!"

I think this probbaly pissed off Metallica who were backstage....hehe

I just had an epiphany(spell check). How can the RIAA prove that these people accused of downloading music didn't actually own the CD to the music in the first place. It IS legal to make backups for personal use. And what happens if you buy a CD, make a backup (on the hard drive or on another CD), then the original breaks? Do you buy another original, or do you use the back up.

Anyway, my point being, as long as the people accused don't admit to not owning the original CD, or say that the original was lost/stolen/broken/whatever then aren't they in the clear? The RIAA, based on my vast knowledge of computers, has NO proof whatsoever that a song downloaded from a p2p network is illegal.
Can anyone say "loophole"?
Or just prove me wrong and make me look like an @$$.....

well what the hell!....if you dont know what songs they are claiming as theirs how are you going to know what not to download? they say ignorance of the law is no excuse but the law as they say it doesnt even have the ink dry on the paper yet! if they can hound isps for info on customers and fire off subpoenas
in every direction surely they can give us a list of their property that they say is being infringed upon....or are they saying that they own ALL the music and there is no need for a listing? something is rotten in denmark and it aint the fish!

hamjay711:

Actually, the RIAA is not just arbitrarily searching everyone's whole hard drive...that would be illegal. (wink, wink, nudge, nudge)

They get you by searching your "shared" folder on a p2p system, like Kazaa. They don't nail you for having the file...they nail you for sharing the file on the internet.

Because of this, it doesn't matter whether you own the original or not, it only matters that you made it available to millions who don't.

Also, it doesn't help to claim that you didn't know you were sharing the files. This does not seem to be recognized as a valid defense by the courts. Ignorance of the law and ignorance of the "share" seem to be synonymous.

One last point: They don't seem to be going after downloaders at all, only those that upload or share. If all you do is download, don't sweat it.

zellium1:

Yes, they are saying that they own ALL the music. They don't...they just like SAYING that they do.

This (among many, many, many other things) is one of the fundamental things that make them look like foolish a$$holes.

What do you mean "look like" foolish assholes?

Filing all these lawsuits will only make them go bankrupt faster. Eey Haw!

The artists aren't behind this, the manufacturing sectors aren't down with this, the distributors aren't with this. Can the RIAA not take a hint? I went a saw Spineshank before Napster became the first victim, and the lead singer said "If you can afford it, buy our CD. If you can't, fucking download it off of Napster man. We want you to hear our shit!"

Henry Rollins said something to the effect of "I don't care HOW people here my music, just so long as they hear it." in an interview that was printed in the newspaper.

In regards to smelv1n mentioning that tour, Limp Bizkit were HUGE supporters of p2p. Fred Durst even said he was suprised that they were invited on the tour because of the opposing views on p2p.

OOOPS! I meant to type "I went to see Spineshank...." lol

The police authorities require a warrant to go through someone's possessions don't they? And they can only search for whats detailed in the warrant, and if they find something else they must go back and get another warrant right?

And yet the RIAA is looking at the contents of shared folders on many computer and attempting to sue people for the contents.

eh?

No, I believe that the RIAA is just looking at the transfered data that the enternet provider has record of. These records can show if a copyrighted song has been uploaded or downlaoded. I think that's how they are going about it.

ISPs dont keep records of what goes through their system, but they do record the logon, logoff and IP assignments for each user. The RIAA runs bots to find people shareing files and notes the files, time and IP. The time and IP are sent to th ISP who then informs the RIAA of the customers name and address (often encouraged by some legal threats).

Here is something to condiser..anyone who is currently subpoenas, SUE someone NOW!! If you are already in mist of a lawsuit, a new one cannot be placed. Being subpoened just means they want to have a chat with you. So I saw this, if you have the money, get a lawyer and before you go to the "chat" have your lawyer draw up papers to sue. First thing sue them for punitive damages and then sue them for damages and then sue for any type of trama, whether mental or physical by you or anyone you know. Just beat them at their own game. If they are in the middle of this suit, they cant file others. All they will say is No Comment. Hey you are just beating them at their own game. Puntive damages goes for the millions. Damages are also in the millions, and well trama myabe a million or up to a million. Granted you cant sue them to make them go bankrupted [you can only sue up to a certain percentage which i think is around 70%] You cant put them out of business, but you can get as close as you can. If they want to target college students, then we should target them back.

Boycotting RIAA might or might not work. I am just weary because they control things that you dont necessarly buy. IE MTV. You boycott MTV, some 16 yr old kid wont. As for their bought products..i say hell ya boycott them. Put the fuks out of business. It might do the trick, but then again it might not. You have to goto the source. GOVERNMENT. Run for office, or just vote and let your vopice be heard. But dont just sit here and click your mouse and your on yahoo.com or another webpage and just say well other pple are taking care of it.

TAKE CHARGE! STAND UP!

I don't see why the RIAA is even bothering to sue all these people..they have NO support from the musicians or the distubitors, as it has so often been pointed out. So then, as napstersghost so wonderfully put it, aren't they just wasting their money?

The RIAA has a few musicians that support hem like Madonna. I mean Madonna does have to support her 2 million dollar house.

I can't see why all these lawsuits can't be lumped together. Then the lawyers who are representing the people can ask the court to have the RIAA post a bond. The bond would cover the costs of the lawyers people had to hire if the RIAA loses in court. The RIAA would never do that cause it's faster to try people seperately. Also it would show that the RIAA has been lieing all along.