Below is a post from George 'Azoz' Ziemann in our RIAA subpoena campaign item.

"Here's another copyright loophole that no one has mentioned yet. When we recorded our parody of Neil Young's 'Ohio,' we did some research to try and determine who actually owned the copyright.

"For one thing, we never found out who owns it now (because everything at the Copyright Office prior to 1976 is still on index cards), but we did find the original copyright for the album it was on which was a copyright for an ANALOG recording.

"This brings up the question of whether those old recordings are still protected after being converted to another (digital) format. The underlying words and music are, but if you post a digital version of a pre-1976 song that only has analog rights, there may be a valid court argument, just as there is potentially a viable argument that an mp3 is not CD quality, does not contain 90% of the original information and, although it is a derivative work, it is NOT a true copy of the original."

Good one, George.

VEEEEEEEERY interestink.

I don't see how the format matters in copyright. Copyright deals with "Intellectual Property". Not physical property.

For further clarification on this, for those that don't know these technicalities, each recording of a musical composition has two copyrights. One is for the words and music, which is filed with a PA copyright form.

The other is for the sound recording (SR form). These are distinctly different copyrights, used for completely different purposes.

Sometimes, you can get away with only filing the SR form, provided that each and every song has exactly the same authors. So if you make a CD of music for which you are the sole author of every song, you could get away with a form SR and the underlying words and music would also be covered.

But if you wrote 11 songs and, say, your bass player wrote the 12th song, you would need one PA copyright for all the songs you wrote, a second PA form for the song the bassist wrote and then the SR copyright for the sound recording as a whole, which also covers the artwork, any other information contained on the insert, etc. For a DVD, this also covers the video portion, which may then require a separate copyright to protect it as an individual work.

This is why a digital remaster (The Beatles' remastered box set, for example) gets a new copyright. It is not the same recording, even though it consists of all the same elements. They are distinctly different products, may have different producers, you could even go back and re-record a new guitasr lead or something if you wanted.

The original PA form still covers the words and music, but now you have a completely different sound recording, especially if the old one was analog.

In my opinion, an mp3 file is basically the same in reverse. Since the compression technology removes 90 percent of the original data, it is a derivative sound recording and is not the original.

It's like selling orange juice as compared to concentrate made from orange juice. They are simply not the same product.

In the case of mp3s, you must also factor in the fact that if the product has no commercial value (it is given away free), you have not caused any monetary damages as you have not duplicated the CD version, are not selling anything and, if anything, are merely promoting the original work. I would think that this is even more of an issue if you are the one who actually ripped the song from a CD into an mp3.

In essence, you have then created a derivative work. Compulsory royalties are 8 cents for each copy sold. But you haven't sold anything, which makes me question whether you have infringed upon anything, since you were the creator of the new sound recording, technically.

This is a distinct grey area and someone needs to drop this in the lap of a US District Court for a decision.

I have the copy of "The white Stripes" Album
"Elephant". Wich belongs to RIAA.
But it was ripped from the vinyl.
Thi article means that i can start sharing it again?
By the way here's a great site to find out if an arist belongs to RIAA.
http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/

I know this doesn't concern this article but I found this post from the AP through Yahoo concerning the follow up to Senator Coleman's request. If it has already been posted elsewhere, I apologize. Website: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030814/ap_on_hi_te/downloading_music_1

WASHINGTON - A Senate panel will hold hearings on the recording industry's crackdown against online music swappers, the chairman said Thursday.



Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., made the announcement in a letter to the Recording Industry Association of America (news - web sites). He had received information he had requested from the group about the campaign, which Coleman has called excessive.


The Senate Governmental Affairs' Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations is reviewing the group's responses and declined to make them available Thursday, as did the industry group.


The association announced plans in June to file several hundred lawsuits against people suspected of illegally sharing songs on the Internet. Copyright laws allow for damages of $750 to $150,000 for each song.


In his letter, Coleman said he would look at not just the scope of that campaign but also the dangers that downloaders face by making their personal information available to others. Coleman said he would review legislation that would expand criminal penalties for downloading music.


The association said in a statement that "hearings are part of any oversight process and we always look forward to having the opportunity to present our position."


Coleman said he is concerned the campaign could ensnare innocent people, such as parents and grandparents whose computers are being used to download music by their children and grandchildren. He also said that some downloaders themselves might not know they are breaking the law.


Coleman has admitted that he used to download music from Napster (news - web sites), the file-sharing service that a federal judge shut down for violating music copyrights.


He wrote that as subcommittee chairman, he intends "to assist in the development of remedies that will be reasonable and narrowly tailored to fit the extent of infringement."


Coleman was on vacation Thursday and unavailable for comment.


Last month, Coleman asked the industry association to furnish him with a list of its subpoenas; its safeguards against invading privacy and making erroneous subpoenas; its standards for issuing subpoenas; and a description of how it collects evidence of illegal file sharing.

Superninerfan

Great posts on the loopholes. I'm sure that information could be helpful to anyone who gets subpoenaed and decides to fight it in court.

As for Senator Coleman, I remain skeptical. Let's see if he does anything or just accepts the RIAA's propaganda. I've sent him 2 emails. I encourage others to write him as well.

The fact that he would even consider making the punishment worse than it already is is a testament to his character. I guess they paid him before we got to him. Just push accops then. While some are arguing that offering on kazaa doesn't prove sharing, ACCOPS will assume that offering a song means it was copied 10 times. Share a song, go to jail. thanks mr. coleman, for offering to review some more 'legislation.' If all Senator Coleman cares about is "innocent people" (aka - those who are immune to RIAA's unethical raping under abuse of the DMCA), then who cares. I don't. Just change percentage of politicians that i hate from 99% to 100%.

Soulwax -- All this article means is that, in my opinion (and IANAL), there is at least room to question several areas of the copyright law and how it is being used.

Do not take my statements in this article as a blanket recommendation to DO anything. It was merely an opinion which was initially a response to another thread and meant to provide some additional food for thought.

To my knowledge, none of these angles have been tested in a court, and unless you want to be the legal guinea pig, I would not advise redistributing anything in digital form based on this supposition.

If I were to suggest any action whatsoever, it would be to stop buying, listening to, uploading or downloading anything that is on an RIAA label.

It's the only sure way to stay out of court because listening to RIAA music is obviously fast becoming a criminal offense.

Agreeing with everyone here.
How's this for a slogan;
"ZERO TOLERANCE FOR THE RIAA AND ALL THE MUSIC THEY CONTROL"
-bulkeraser

I hope this loophole is a valid one. I'm no lawyer, but i sure can't find anything wrong with your logic.

This is what this forum is all about putting minds together and brainstorming! Great accomplishments come from simple thoughts allowed to be expressed. Thats why you never attack the persons thoughts or ideas.....even when we think they are stupid!.......learned that from Mr. Deming's Quality control process

In my opinion all the article I posted states is that they are "looking in to it" which is a buzz word for we're thinking about it so its time for the lobbying groups to start presenting "gifts" for their cause. The only way any real change would get made is for candidates in the upcoming elections to understand that the people will not stand for any additional legislation against P2P and will vote out anybody supporting it and in addition, only individuals who support the repeal of the DMCA will get voted in. Remember their are 60 million people in the US using P2P software which is more than enough to have a major say so in politics, we just all have to unite.

Superninerfan

I would imagine that, sadly, Mr. Ziemann's defense would fail in court. It would be impossible to convince a judge who has no knowledge of technology that it does matter what format the song is in. "As long as the 'final product' is a series of musical tones it doesn't matter what format they take" is what the court would most likely decide. But what do I know...

Not related to copyright but very important nonetheless is another CALL TO ACTION:
We all know that Pac Bell is scheduled to have their case in court vs the RIAA sometime in mid September. The mainstream news media would most likely brush it aside in favor of footage of squirrels water skiing, so I am requesting of the boycott-riaa community a letter writing campaign to Court TV.
The odds Court TV would cover, live, a trial affecting 60 million Americans is very good. Obviously from a ratings standpoint they would salivate at the idea.

The Court TV website has a great and easy web form to fill out to request a trial on television. Point your browser to: http://www.courttv.com/contact/

Click on the very bottom of the "Court TV Programming" box which says "trial or story suggestions". Enter whatever comment you want to, just make sure they know it's a mid-September case in california with Pac Bell vs the RIAA. Or, if you're lazy like me, copy and paste this message:

Coming up in mid September in a California court, Pac Bell Internet vs the RIAA is scheduled to take place. At stake is the legality (and perhaps constitutionality) of the RIAA's legal methods of serving "rubber stamp" subpoenas to internet service providers. Should Pac Bell win, ISPs all over the country could become immune to the RIAA subpoenas already filed, and perhaps part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (199 could be struck down.
This is a very important issue since the RIAA's actions impact some 60 million Americans who use file sharing programs. With as many people being affected as there are, there is great interest in the public to watch the case live on television. I am requesting that you look into securing a courtroom camera and broadcasting the case on Court TV.
Thank you for your time.

We've got to let the Court TV producers know that this is a highly visible case. I bet that if enough of us write, they'll air it- if not with a camera in court, at least with legal commentary from their experts.

Off-topic but here's a couple of good articles in support of P2P by the singer-songwriter Janis Ian. They're about a year old but quite good:

http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html

http://www.janisian.com/article-fallout.html

Here's a quote:

"Our representatives are not in Congress or the Senate because they want to make a better living. They're there because they want power, and influence. Without the office, they have neither.
If they believe their actions will cause large amounts of the population to vote against them, no amount of money will be sufficient to buy their cooperation. If you let your representatives know, en masse, that you will not vote for them if they support ridiculous measures such as the bill allowing media companies to spread viruses on the computer of anyone "suspected" of file-sharing, and if enough of you tell them so, they will NOT work hand in glove with the RIAA.
We cannot possibly match the monies the record companies can devote to litigation, but we CAN threaten to vote those representatives who are in bed with them out of office. And ultimately, it's the votes they care about."

Another quote:

"I said that the research and information I've received over the past three weeks has made me hopeful, and I meant it. Because I know that although RIAA and their supporting companies can afford to spend 55 million dollars a year lobbying Congress and in the courts, they cannot afford to alienate every music buyer and artist out there. At that point, there will be a general strike, make no mistake. Just one week of people refusing to play the radio, buy product, or support our industry in any way, would flex muscles they have no idea are out there."

This supports my belief that we're not going to win by fighting the RIAA in court. We'll win by boycotting their music, and by putting pressure on congress to change the copyright laws. The only way we might win in court is if one of the telecom companies (Pac Bell, Verizon, etc.) prevail. Because they've got the money, lawyers, and motivation to go up against the RIAA. I say motivation because, if the RIAA kills P2P, that will take away the "killer app" of this decade, which is driving growth in broadband. We need P2P. The telecoms need P2P. Struggling new artists need P2P. It's only the established platinum artists and over-payed suits in the industry that fear P2P. Because they know their days are numbered.

basically, what you do is, throw away your tv, radio and too some extent your computer. and become amish.

I think that we are all fighting the wrong legal battle here. I believe that a very strong legal case can be made that since all digital media breaks down to digital code, and because code has been ruled to be speach protected under the first amendment that as long as we are crediting the original author with the work it is the exact same thing as quoting an author in a reaserch paper. Also since the code of an .mp3 is diffrent from the copyrighted code which the record label has put out we are not infringing on their copyright at all indeed we are making our own original works albiet something of a parody. All this requires is once again that credit be given to the original author in some form.

IFeelFree -- Janis Ian is the one who got me involved in this effort in the first place. It was the very articles you linked to (along with a salon.com article by Courtney Love) that first woke me up to the reality of what was really going on. Thanks for linking to them.

jodavis -- The real legal battle SHOULD be that the RIAA is restraining trade, stifling the arts and science and abusing the legal system. What disturbs me most is that it is 80% foreign owened and they are apparently capable of having influence over our government in a manner that threatens the very core of our Constitution.

If music isn't the pursuit of happiness, what is? But I guess it's not self-evident any longer as the legislative branch's lowest common denominator continues to plummet faster than the economy.

Look around at how things have changed. Germany is fighting for a free marketplace and the United States is allowing its market to be run by foreign terrorists using fascist tactics to beat the consumers into submission.

Somehow, I don't think this is exactly what our founding fathers had in mind at all.

If anyone tried to use that I expect the RIAA would call on its overused Napster precident to show that MP3s can violate copyrights dispite only retaining a small amount of the CD information. They really like that case, theyve been using it as their main arguement to shut down other p2p networks. Of course most of those networks are substantially different from napster, but the judges dont seem to understand the underlying technology, just the idea that any p2p network can be used for copyright infringement.

These SOB's would throw the book at ya even if the song was recorded on an Edison wax cylinder or punched into a player piano roll...If they could, they'd subpeona that part of your cerebral cortex which memorized the song and remove it for copyright infringement...it's almost that ridiculous.

I think the true problem will be getting a judge and a jury with enough technical savy to understand the difference. Maybe a good layer could dumby it down for them but does it then loose it's point???

There is an interesting report on the music business at: http://www.marketplace.org/shows/2003/08/15_mpp.html
click on the report: What will the music biz look like in 2010

You will need realone player.

you can also make a posting on

"What will the music biz look like in 2010"
at:

http://forum.mpr.org/WebX?14@236.JC9DaKpMjNn^0@.ee894a8/0

gdZiemann:

So this loophole actually means that you can: buy a CD/record/DVD/whatever, rip it, convert it to a portable format, claim copyright, make it available for download (mistakenly ofcourse, otherwise you cannot claim loss of income), make people download it few times (read: a lot) and sue the hell out of them...

New T-shirt logo. Reproduce as you see fit.
BE A CRIMINAL! USE RIAA PRODUCTS.

Frezzle: No, but if they dont know that you can theaten to sue the hell of of them unless they give you, say, $50. They would probably rather just pay up than go to the trouble and expense of getting a lawyer. Do that to 20 people and youve earned $1000 . Thats more or less what the RIAA do in a lot of their cases.

I'm with r0dr0ddy on this one. Enough constant chit chat. Brainstorming without action is pointless. I'm sick and tired of feeling like I'm talking to a wall, because that's what I might as well doing since we aren't getting anything accomplished nearly as often as we could. We have great great information here, but I would have much rather seen the last several posts rally behind r0dr0ddy's idea rather than having just read it and move on. I'm just being honest. I'm not trying to rip anybody. I'm just getting tired of talking. He even gave the link. If I didn't love everything all you guys said I wouldn't come here every day.

Here it is again: http://www.courttv.com/contact

Request the PacBell v. RIAA be aired on live television.

Did anybody see the show that Kisses Gene S. did on Music. He told about how they have been doing the artist. In the past and now. He told a lot of how dirty they are. If you didn't see it you should also ask them to run it again.

Sorry It was on Court TV.

jodavis:

Your argument has some logic to it, however, if you use that argument in court you will absolutely lose. Judges and juries are not technically savvy. As far as they're concerned, if it sounds like a Beatles song, it is.

I repeat, we're not going to win in court against the RIAA with their army of high-paid lawyers. We'll win by boycotting and by putting pressure on congress to change the copyright laws. They only ones who stand a chance to win in court are the big telecom companies (Verizon, Pac Bell, etc.) because they've got the muscle.

I think our time could be better spent than trying to think up clever little "loopholes" in the copyright law. You're not going to win there. Not against the RIAA.

This may be important.I haven't been here for awhile, but there is something I just noticed here..remember I'm in canada, but perhaps you can find something like this on your own US servers. file swapping may be more lenient in Canada but still suppose to be quite illegal. On the front page of one of our major servers shaw cable is this..go to http://www.start.shaw.ca you will find in the middle of the page a section called "In the Spotlight"..click there...and "free software downloads" comes up..click there and again find the "free software downloads" section, this will take you to "mp3 utilities", under which you should see "file swap" click there and it brings up sites such as napster, morpheous, gnutellas, etc....some dead, most live sites. NOW..because they are posting these sites, for all the world to see, Aren't they giving you permission to use these sites, even though in their fine print they say it's illegal? Wouldn't this be a major loophole?

pepe512000:

Shaw is just linking to a commercial website. They're not responsible for what's users do at that site. (In the U.S., there's a section of the DMCA that relieves ISPs of responsibility for what users do with their service. I suspect there's something equivalent in Canada.) If you make a stink about it, the most that would happen is that Shaw would remove that link.

I repeat, looking for loopholes are a waste of time. You will lose in court trying to be clever. Boycott. Write your political leaders.

There's no reason a person with a good case can't win against the RIAA. The analog vs. digital argument is weak anyway. It's nothing that will affect many people. Plus, even if somebody won using it, it could only be used as precedent in very few cases, since the artists most of the suboenaed have been sharing are very recent artists.

This analog vs. digital argument is only valid for those taken to court for downloading old music. Most of the 60 million sharers don't download oldies. Even those that have aren't being taken to court for any old songs anyway.

gilbd, did you email CourtTV and ask them to run it again & request the PacBell case be televised?

jodavis: I see your point, but that would never work. Personally, if I were in the jury and somebody tried that there's no way I'd decide in their favor.

There's a page on it there. I just went there. This is the name of the show.

"The Secret History of Rock and Roll"

We gave them too much power, when you have too much power you can get away with alot of stuff, and if the RIAA did cause the blackout(i really doubt it) the government will jus give them a slap on the rist, they are just like the police, now a police officer can shoot you in the back 20 times and say he thought you were reaching for a gun (when u never really had a gun and u were just walking away) and nothing happens to him. the RIAA can ruin millions of peoples lives and say you were sharing files "it wasn't our fault he shouldn't of shared that song, thanks to him we were making $99,999,100 instead of $100,000,000, it was self defense, we were protecting our rights". FIGHT THE POWER, the RIAA is just the tip of the ice berg

the digital vs analog argument is indeed a weak argument. everything digital has to be converted to an analog format to be heard.
It is in this digital to analog conversion that MP3's are made. The same goes with DVD's. Eventually the signal is converted from a digital signal to an analog signal. Only the media is digital, but not the hardware that plays it back (i.e. dvd players, cd players).

As a matter of reference,

CD's have a high end cut off above 20,000 Hz and FM radio cuts off at 15,000 Hz (with a stereo pilot carrier at 19,000 Hz).

The spectral analysis of MP3 encodings reveal that,

At 320 kb/s, cutoff = 20,000 Hz
At 192 kb/s, cutoff = 19,000 Hz
At 128 kb/s, cutoff = 15,000 Hz

Since most MP3 files are ripped at 128 kb/s, there is no way to recreate the original recording since much of song content has been stripped off. In a way it's similar to recording from the FM radio which, as far I know, is legal.

IMO, the RIAA should allow "FM quality" songs to be downloaded.

Hi guys & gals ...I just spent all day today sending letters to congress on the congress.org site. I read some very good letters probably from a lot of you here. I say KEEP FLOODING them with your comments! Express your concerns....and by all means boycott.

id like to go further with what pepe512000 was talking about. ive noticed that alot of isp's advertise their broadband service with something along the lines of "incredible speed, ideal for filesharing." they know damn well that people are not only going to download songs that available to download legally, yet still they flaunt this is a MAJOR benefit. not to point any fingers...roadrunner...ive especially taken notice in doing tactics like this. they know potential customers are going to download songs that are illegally being offered, but they still tell you in the ad as it being ok. that is the only reason i switched from 56k to dsl, to download music, as they also said in their ad. i would be ready to kill if they told me i could download, then they go and give the riaa my name. of course if you go and ask them that, they would tell you something like, "its your resposibility as the customer to make sure the songs you download are legal to download."

xao216:

That's why some of the ISPs are going to court to fight the RIAA over this subpoena nonsense - they know damn well that P2P is their growth engine. Without P2P, the the telecoms are screwed. It's good to have them on our side, even if it's mostly for the wrong reason ($$$). The government also wants to encourage the widespread adoption of broadband so they're in a quandry - kill broadband or kill the recording industry? Of course, everyone's hoping that the public will just come their senses and start downloading music from the crappy, overpriced fee-based download sites, but get real, that's not going to happen. It will be fascinating to see how this mess will get resolved.

There are several bills currently on the floor for the expansion of broadband. Here is a link to one such bill through the House of Representatives (bill H.R. 267):
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:1:./temp/~c108HLHtgd::
Anyone can also find out about other broadband and digital media bills on the floor at:
http://clerk.house.gov/floorsummary/floor.php3
Just use the text search to find any particular bill.
There is also a bill on the floor stating that the RIAA and other affiliates have to produce an adaquate Copyright Warning Label, kind of like what you see on DVD's and VHS. The bill states that their has been consumer confusion on what is copyrighted and what isn't. I wonder if a good defense to these subpeona's is to state "there is no labeling on the package or cd stating otherwise". Ignorance doesn't mean innocence. But if their were no speed limit signs, their wouldn't be no speed limit to obey.

xao216

Yes yes yes..that is exactly the point I was trying to get across... the isp's, by posting these file sharing sites, even if they are just linking to these sites, have still set themselves up as a PROMOTIONAL tool!

SonOfLiberty:

The first link doesn't seem to work. The 2nd link works and I did a search under "broadband" but came up with nothing. Which bill is it?

This is a rough idea that I came up with. A lot of people have said how action, rather than talk, needs to be taken on the issue. I know a couple of people have made proposals about what to send to Congress, but I thought I'd put in my $0.02. I'm not trying to step on any toes, but here it goes:

(I'm sure the formatting looks weird, but it's good on my computer. Goal: fix it up, post on a petitions web site on Monday, and send in signatures after 30 days--that's why 9/18 is mentioned.)

A RESOLUTION URGING THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS TO HOLD HEARINGS ON PEER-TO-PEER (P2P) FILE SHARING AND THE RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA (RIAA)’S LEGAL FIGHT AGAINST IT

1. Whereas: An estimated 60 million American citizens utilize peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing
2. Software, and,
3. Whereas: The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) asserts that said software
4. is a violation of United States copyright laws, and,
5. Whereas: The RIAA has begun a legal campaign against users of these P2P networks, filing
6. administrative subpoenas in the United States District Court in Washington, D.C., and
7. Whereas: These subpoenas violate due process rights by forcing Internet Service Providers to
8. turn over personal information about their subscribers without the consent of the
9. subscribers, and,
10. Whereas: These subpoenas also create an undue burden on the American legal system, are a
11. frivolous waste of American taxpayer dollars, and do little to address the underlying
12. copyright, fair use, and legal ramifications of peer-to-peer file sharing systems, and
13. Whereas: The RIAA refuses to hold dialogues with the creators of the P2P software, the users
14. of said software, and the artists whose music is being transmitted on such networks, and
15. Whereas: The RIAA refuses to present a viable alternative to the P2P software that is similar in
16. scope, features, usability, and that is offered at a reasonable price to consumers, and
17. Whereas: The RIAA refuses to present an alternative that also does not infringe on a consumer’s
18. right to use the music purchase as they see fit, by placing unnecessary and improper
19. restrictions on content downloaded from a pay-music site, and
20. Whereas: American consumers pay a two-percent (2%) tax on all blank recording media, and said
21. tax is then given in reimbursement to the RIAA and its artists as compensation for home
22. recording of music, as required under the AHRA regulations, and
23. Whereas: The need has arisen for the United States Congress to intervene in this matter to ensure
24. that the rights of consumers are properly protected and that the American taxpayers do
25. not face an undue burden because of the RIAA’s behavior., be it:
26. Resolved: That the consumers, voters, and American public as a whole, by signing this petition,
27. demand and request that the United States Congress hold hearings on P2P music sharing,
28. the RIAA’s issuance of subpoenas to users of these networks, and the need to update
29. Copyright laws in the United States to ensure that fair use is balanced with the needs of
30. artists in this increasingly digital world, and further be it
31. Resolved: That any hearings involve consumers, consumer-interest groups, programmers and
32. creators of Peer-to-Peer file sharing software, members of Internet Service Providers, the 33. Recording Industry Association of America, and any other party who wishes to take part,
34. and further be it
35. Resolved: That on September 18, 2003, a copy of this resolution and any and all signatures
36. accompanying it be sent with a cover letter to, but not limited to: George W. Bush,
37. President of the United States, Rep. Dennis M. Hastert, Speaker of the United States
38. House of Representatives, Rep. Tom Delay, Majority Leader of the U.S. House, Rep.
39. Nancy Pelosi, Minority Leader of the US House, Sen. Bill Frist, Majority Leader of the
40. United States Senate, Sen. Mitch McConnell, Minority Leader of the US Senate, Sen.
41. Norm Coleman, Chairman of the US Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations,
42. Cary Sherman, President of the Recording Industry of America, Shari Steele, Executive
43. Director and President of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Nikki Hemming, Chief
44. Executive Officer of Sharman Networks, Jack Valenti, President and Chief Executive
45. Office of the Motion Picture Association of America, Irwin Robinson, Chairman of the
46. Board of National Music Publishers’ Association, Richard D. Parsons, Chairman and
47. Chief Executive Officer, AOL - Time Warner, and Ivan Seidenberg, Chief Executive
48. Officer, Verizon Communications.

Action is indeed what we need. Sherminator is right.

So action we will have. Got a new story submitted to describe the next phase -- raising money for the legal offensive.

bo340002:

I haven't actually seen any propositions aside from yours here (though I don't read all threads, all the time). I, for one, am eager to know if you are actually planning to follow through with submitting this. If so, where do I sign?

IFEELFREE....
It is bill H.R. 267 IH. Use the "Search Legislation on THOMAS" Section, under the "Search by Word/Phrase" box (this is the Search box directly above the calendar on the right). The bill is called the "Broadband Internet Access Act of 2003."
The other bill I mentioned in my previous post was bill H.R. 107 IH. It is called the "Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act of 2003." This is the bill that forces the RIAA and affiliates to create adaquate labeling on their products warning of copyright protection. (Similar to warning messages all ready seen on DVD and VHS).

For those of you just joining the game, here is the link:
http://clerk.house.gov/floorsummary/floor.php3
It is a link to current proceedings on the Senate and House floors. Just type anything into the "Search By Word/Phrase" section and if there is a proposed bill for whatever you typed, it will show it.

does anyone have any good links for this 2% tax that the riaa has on all blank recording media? i know this has been said, but ill say it again, shouldnt this make americas so called downloading "debts" already been payed for in full? i had absolutely no idea that something like this was ever inacted. its suprising how i think i couldnt get anymore pissed of at the riaa, then i find out something else theyve done and i get even more pissed off. true 2% isnt alot for one person to pay, but add that up in millions of people and millions upon millions of cdrs and thats alot of fucking money. the riaa has no right to impose some shit tax on MY cdrs that i payed for with MY money. they dont know that im going to download their music and burn it on a cd, they dont know much of anything for a matter of fact. would you stand for your city government taking money out of your hardearned paycheck for a "speed tax"? "we know your going to break the speedlimit sometime while driving your car and most of the time we wont be able to have an officer there to give you a ticket, so were just going to go ahead and charge you for it in advance because we know your going to do it anyway." i think everyone will agree with me when i say "fuck you riaa".

Yes, we can take action. Cheap..as in free. Available..as in get of the computer chair. Immediate..as in a surge of registrations would get congress' attention. Equal..everyone here over 18 has the automatic right to it. REGISTER. VOTE. now THAT'S action! Sweeten the pot by organizing three friends who agree with you to do the same. Go to the polls as a posse..ready to pull the lever and fire the assholes who put in these "laws" in the first place!

ARE YOU REGISTERED AND READY?

Is CodeWarrior still embarrased for what he said about Asians? Please don't be, come back, we enjoy your comments. I least I do.

I'm very willing to go forward with this--that's why I posted the idea. I wanted to see first if any changes/deletions/additions needed to be made, and whether or not the statement is well-put, gramatically correct, and is what the community wants to see. Once we know that, (hopefully by tomorrow pm), I'll post it to an on-line petition site, and let people know here what site it's at.

bryan

xao216...
Here is the link you requested in regards to the 2% tax on all CDR and RW. It also has another tax on all CDR and DVDR drives. Seems like the RIAA should be well reimbursed by now for lost profits.
http://www.virtualrecordings.com/ahra.htm
You can also google the search. It is called the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992. The information you are looking for concerning taxes is about halfway down, under Subchapter C "Royalty Payments".
Hope this helps.

cool, thanks for the link. i think im going to go rip my hair out now.

The Post Office never got like this when people started "emailing" instead of buying so many stamps. I don't know if they suffered any sales loss or not, but you would think they had to of.
How about when I check out a book, cassette tape, CD etc. from my local Public Library? The copyright holders are not making one red cent off of me, yet I am enjoying their "work" in the privacy of my home if I want, and even copying it in anyway I can if I want to. Does this mean the RIAA will target libraries in the future? Or will they have "police" waiting for you to walk out the door of one and arrest you because you DID NOT PAY FOR THAT!
Then what? Ban radio station from distributing "free music" to millions of listeners? Cars without radios? Or maybe a fine if caught listening to the radio? Unbeliveable! The RIAA is out of control, and we must stop them! Talk about biting the hand that feeds you!

"If I were to suggest any action whatsoever, it would be to stop buying, listening to, uploading or downloading anything that is on an RIAA label.

It's the only sure way to stay out of court because listening to RIAA music is obviously fast becoming a criminal offense."

--it already was an offense to do anything with RIAA music, and it is a "crime" to have anything to do with RIAA music now!

boycott

Support Local and Independent Music ONLY!

Shmoo, of Electric Gypsy

"Does this mean the RIAA will target libraries in the future? Or will they have "police" waiting for you to walk out the door of one and arrest you because you DID NOT PAY FOR THAT!"

Emeraude, the groundwork for all that has being layed in the "Patriot Act" which gdZiemann knows a thing or two about.

--seriously,

wish I were not kidding
like the power blackout being the RIAA (or even CodeWarrior & Friends) fault thingy on a recent thread

(now THAT was a funny!)

I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS A LOOP HOLE-- BUT EVERY PUBLIC LIBRARY OR SCHOOL LIBRARY FOR THAT MATTER, I HAVE EVER BEEN TO HAD COPY MACHINES FOR THE PUBLIC TO USE----EVERYTHING IN A LIBRARY IS COPY PROTECTED...

I FEEL THIS IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS INTERNET FILE SHARING