Below you will find a suggested letter to send to your senator. Just type your zip code in the box and cut and paste the text into the form. Make your voice heard.

I want to encourage you to join Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman in his inquiry into the RIAA's latest campaign of intimidation against the American public. I feel strongly that the RIAA's latest actions in subpoenaing thousands of Americans, with the intent of suing and often bankrupting them, is outrageous and despicable. I hope you will gather input on the matter, not just from the RIAA, but unbiased legal and technological experts who can give you a balanced and clear perspective. Also, I hope you will speak with music consumers and file sharers who can give you another viewpoint.

Many of us feel that the music industry is failing to adapt to changing technology. They could, and should, make available music download services that would allow the consumer to obtain good quality music files at minimal cost, without unreasonable restrictions on the use of those files.

Consider this: There are about 4 million users on the popular free file sharing site, Kazaa, at any given time. Let's say the record companies charged 1 cent per download. If each user downloads, say, 10 files per hour, that's about 10 million dollars in revenue per day. The industry is missing out on huge potential profits. The current fee-based downloading services are charging about 1 dollar per song, making it often more expensive to download an album than to purchase the CD. This is completely unacceptable to the consumer and, as a result, the fee-base services have failed to make a significant dent in the music file sharing market.

The recording industry needs to change their business model and adapt to changes in technology. They must stop suing their own customers and alienating the public. Also, the copyright laws need to be overhauled, particularly the DMCA sections 512H and sections 1201. I hope you will continue to take the initiative in protecting Americans from the RIAA's campaign of intimidation, and change the outdated and biased copyright laws to allow the consumer "fair use" of digital technology and media.

---

Another letter prepared by CodeWarrior - Take your pick

People all across this country are becoming increasingly concerned with the loss of privacy, and the loss of civil rights and protections afforded us under the Constitution. One particular area of concern involves the actions of a group called the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America). They have employed companies that use robots to enter P2P networks, and act in direct violation of the user agreements of those services, and to do so without probable cause. If the government did such a thing, this would constitute a direct violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, and a violation of the Privacy Act of 1974.

The RIAA then sought to use the questionable information which their agents obtained through repeated violation of private company's user agreement, to seek over a thousand subpoenas, using the authority which they believe they have under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act). They flooded the Washington, DC, courts with paperwork and, apparently, as asserted in a case filed by Pac-Bell, they were filing the paperwork without proper regard to jurisdiction.

The RIAA has sought to induce terror, fear, intimidation, and are set to harass hardworking taxpayers across this nation, by dragging them into federal courts across the country. They have indicated that they do not care about the financial status of the people they sue, they do not care about their age or health status. All they seem to care about is initiated a national campaign of terror against everyone use peer to peer network systems, without regard to their guilt or innocence. Indeed, it seems as if the RIAA is assuming guilt that must be proven to be innocence, in a perverse reversal of the traditional structure of our judicial system. This seems to be done with a malice of forethought, and with careless indifference to those who may be innocently targeted. This type of action, especially at such a time of economic hardship and stress, to many of us, amounts to domestic terrorism.

And, does the RIAA approach these cases with "clean hands"? I assert they do not, not only because they are getting the information by repeated violation of the user agreements of these networks, but because this company has filed that it is a 501-C non-profit company when the records indicate that they have spent very large amounts of money on what appears to be political lobbying, in an apparent flagrant violation of their legal status with the federal income tax system.

As horrible as all this is, the draconian actions of the RIAA would not have been possible if it were not for the DMCA. The DMCA was passed without the public being made aware of its specifics, and the body politic have expressed very serious concerns about this ill conceived Act. The Copyright Act had been sufficient for almost two centuries, and we really did not need the DMCA to adequately protect the rights of those who invent and create.

One of the serious problems with the DMCA is: it allows companies to circumvent the proper and traditional methods of obtaining subpoenas. This circumvention acts in such a way to deprive good Americans of the rights which the founding fathers sought to provide us with under that wonderful document.

Many are also concerned with the almost monopolistic control over the music industry which the RIAA wields, with issues such as allegations of payola and price fixing.

Methods of distribution of products and ideas are changing as the internet is turning us into a global community. Online models of music sales and distribution are definitely the wave of the future. The old method of distribution and promotion which the RIAA is desperately trying to lock the world into, allowed them to exploit musicians and songwriters, and to take a larger piece of the overall cost of each sale. I believe most folks would not mind a system by which they could purchase those songs they wish, directly from the artist. Most music enthusiasts want their favorites to continue to write and produce the kind of music they want to hear. And, ultimately, we believe that a solution will be found.

But, in the interim, we cannot let our nation be dragged terrorized, have their rights violated, and have their entire lives disrupted by a greedy corporation who, pursuant to violating a private corporation's entrance and usage agreement, develops some idea that someone MAY have files which are copies of copies of a song which may be under the copyright of one of their label members or artists. There needs to be some balance with regard to the damage they are doing to hardworking, taxpaying voters around this country, and the possibility that they MAY encounter the ccasional de minimis violation.

We are supposed to look to our congress people as our advocates as citizens.

We are supposed to have the ability as citizens, to redress the government for grievances.

Here we are asking for your help. Our grievances include the need for the repeal or modification of the DMCA, and for a serious investigation of the actions of the RIAA and their associates, and the immense damaging effect which their actions are going to have on the courts by overloading them, and on the American public.

Thank you very much for your attention to this very serious matter.

---

Pick one of the above letters and send it to your Senator.

good letter and great post!
We could possibly have a few of these for folks to pick from, because from my experience from reading the Letters to Leaders, if you have several people sending the same letter over and over, I believe the screeners or whoever is in charge of the reading of letters (probably an aide) will just quit reading after the first line or two, since they can tell its the same letter. But, it is a good letter and does get into the major areas we need to get them to pay attention to.
We definitely do need to keep hammering the point to EVERY congressperson home that the constituency in their district is against the RIAA and DMCA, and also, that people from other states are writing them to say they are upset as well. I think it makes a stronger statement when even the lesser known congresspeople are getting a host of letters about this topic.
In closing, I congratulate the author for the letter.
LOL..I've written so many congresspeople now, I think I will be on my second trip 'round if I write any one of them.
GREAT POST.
If no one minds, I will write a sample as well and post it in this thread later to give an alternate letter that can also send as a variation on a theme.
~code

It might also be usefull to encourage those to whom you write to support House Bill 1066 found here:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.1066:

It's in subcommitee right now where lots of things get killed or made toothless at the behest of paying Congressional customers like the RIAA. This bill seems to at least be a good start in rolling back some of the DMCA's bullshit. For instance:

(c) CIRCUMVENTION FOR NONINFRINGING USES- (1) Notwithstanding any other provision in this title, a person who lawfully obtains a copy or phonorecord of a work, or who lawfully receives a transmission of a work, may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to the work or protects a right of the copyright holder under this title if--

`(A) such act is necessary to make a noninfringing use of the work under this title; and

`(B) the copyright owner fails to make publicly available the necessary means to make such noninfringing use without additional cost or burden to such person.

`(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b), any person may manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise make available technological means to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title or protects a right of a copyright holder under this title, if--

`(A) such means are necessary to make a noninfringing use under paragraph (1)(A);

`(B) such means are designed, produced, and marketed to make a noninfringing use under paragraph (1)(A); and

`(C) the copyright owner fails to make available the necessary means referred to in paragraph (1)(B).'.

Someone tell me if I am interpetting this law right:
When any person is convicted of any violation of subsection (a), the court in its judgment of conviction shall, in addition to the penalty therein prescribed, order the forfeiture and destruction or other disposition of all infringing copies or phonorecords and all implements, devices, or equipment used in the manufacture of such infringing copies or phonorecords.

If all "devices, or equipment used in the manufacture of such infringing copies" must be destroyed, does this mean that the internet as we know it may be at risk? Consider: I download a file from a user in Australia. In order to do this, a copy is sent through modems, satellites, and phone and cable lines. If I am sued and convicted, must not these "devices" which were used in the "manufacture" of the copy, therefore be destroyed?

See how vague all of these laws are . Everyone who can't stand to see people exercise freedom through the internet wants to add their two cents in for control.

The RIAA will fall soon. This will all be over in no time.

These laws are much too broad. No wonder the RIAA is having a field day. (I've tried reading the DMCA but working through all the legal jargon gives me a headache.) Ultimately, copyright law has to be changed to give back the public some rights. I recently read postings (on another site) by someone who supports the RIAA's actions as being perfectly legal, and even he admitted that the copyright laws are screwed up.

By the way, thanks to whoever posted my (slightly modified) letter.

The reason that the average citizen cannot comprehend what is written in those dammned laws, is because the writer(s) has been trained to write at a higher level. I have a decent education, and I had a tough time reading Constitutional Law books. They use their unique jargon, that you have to consult many time the Black's Law Dictionary and Webster's. I have not attempted to read the dammned DMCA, because I know I won't be able to make heads or tail of the whole thing, so I just sit here and read what you guys post. I am not a lawyer nor a cop. I just took some elective courses.

THIS SHOULD BE A PERMANENT LINK!!! As well as our previous letters!!!!!

Rightoshare: I do not agree with the RIAA's stand. I was merely pointing out a potential problem with the RIAA's campaign.

Yeay! Norm is actually doing something, unlike the guy that he has replaced. I'll still send him a letter though!

"Been Blasted yet?" "Yep twice, then I got smart and started using my firewall, ha ha ha ha!"

P.S. anyone using ATT dial-up internet... you are suceptable to the blaster virus/worm every ten min it is braudcasted by the servers (att doesn't know this yet) but that's what i've found by trial and error.

What ever happened to the flood of subpoenas scheduled to be served this month? Has anybody been the recipient of one or if you know someone that has been the lucky winner? I am just wondering. To serve 2,000 subpoenas is no chicken fee. Imagine the logistics involved, money, time, etc.

done deal now every one else do it

who said that they stoped this shit

IWT Bans RIAA From Accessing Its Network

August 19, 2002

Information Wave Technologies has announced it will actively deny the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) from accessing the contents of its network. Earlier this year, the RIAA announced its new plan to access computers without owner's consent for the sake of protecting its assets. Information Wave believes this policy puts its customers at risk of unintentional damage, corporate espionage, and invasion of privacy to say the least.

Due to the nature of this matter and RIAA's previous history, we feel the RIAA will abuse software vulnerabilities in a client's browser after the browser accesses its site, potentially allowing the RIAA to access and/or tamper with your data. Starting at midnight on August 19, 2002, Information Wave customers will no longer be able to reach the RIAA's web site. Information Wave will also actively seek out attempts by the RIAA to thwart this policy and apply additional filters to protect our customers' data.

Information Wave will also deploy peer-to-peer clients on the Gnutella network from its security research and development network (honeynet) which will offer files with popular song titles derived from the Billboard Top 100 maintained by VNU eMedia. No copyright violations will take place, these files will merely have arbitrary sizes similar to the length of a 3 to 4 minute MP3 audio file encoded at 128kbps. Clients which connect to our peer-to-peer clients, and then afterwards attempt to illegally access the network will be immediately blacklisted from Information Wave's network. The data collected will be actively maintained and distributed from our network operations site.

The placement of this policy is not intended to hamper the RIAA's piracy elimination agenda or advocate Internet piracy, but to ensure the safety of our customers' data attached to our network from hackers or corporate espionage hidden by the veil of RIAA copyright enforcement.

If you have questions, comments, or concerns regarding this policy, please e-mail riaa@informationwave.net.

this is just a reminder of what the riaa was oing in the past,and is still doing now....

i say we take what they have done and do it again...time to fight fire with fire,just i think doning more than blocking is needed.

giant-goliath: I agree with what you pointed out. What I meant was that the laws they are using are too vague to be interpreted as meaning one thing or the other. Just like the OLD copyright laws and fair use act. Too old to accurately apply to todays world.

seraphielx...I empathize with your feeling. But, I must stress that those of us on the battlelines, must stay as street legal as possible. Let the RIAA break the law and violate their status as non-profit. Let their toadies violate KaZaa user agreements. We all will be better off if we are the ones who are law abiding, but fighting to change the laws which serve to hurt and not protect citizens.
I shall also write to support 1066
(hmmm, wasn;t that the Battle of Hastings when the new technology of the day (English longbow) also brought a big win to a battle>?)
~code

Every states law books are full of outdated and unapplicable laws that no longer are enforced because of changing times and circumstances. This is what the real problem is concerning our fight.

CodeWarrior: are you familiar with the"Muckrakers" of Teddy Roosevelts time?

It's interesting how history always repeats itself. Corporate America has fallen under the fire of consumers before. It's getting ready to happen again.

http://www.privacyresources.com/

How many Muckrakers do we have enlisted here? Are you good at digging up dirt?

The RIAA's non-profit status may be just one smudge on their faces. What else is there?
Does the Sherman act of the early 1900's apply to their price fixing?

hmmmm...

hey righttoshare click on the above site

click on "who's watching" and read some of the comments

more kool links (remember to take off the at the end)

http://noriaa.the-erm.com/

http://bbspot.com/News/2001/10/riaa.html

http://www.evilsite.org/evil/RIAA/

http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/archives/000360.html

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/newsarticle.asp?nid=18053


http://www.antimusic.com/

http://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/01/26/riaa.mp3.suit.idg/

http://www.azoz.com/music/features/0008.html

http://www.azoz.com/news/psa.html

http://utterlyboring.com/blog/archives/000818.php

http://www.neilturner.me.uk/entries/001097.html


its all old news,but remember what you have not learned in the past will come and bite you on the ass....or something like that

hey isp-privacy non of your links ever work!

Hello everyone, I’m new to these “forums” but I will admit I have been reading through this website ever since I was informed about the RIAA suing the world. I know you all like KaZaA and so do I, but wouldn’t it kind of be their faults instead of ours for providing free file sharing service? If not, why does Wal-Mart sale CD/DVD burners? You know, here’s something I thought of today, and please correct me if I’m wrong. Do you think Microsoft will be pissed off if people stop buying computers over this issue, I mean isn’t this the reason why we buy them for? High Speed, File Sharing, Gaming, and most of all Resources. Hmm, I bet Mr. Bill Gates himself would be mad over the fact we the people decides to stop buying computers. Maybe I’m talking in cave man style here LOL, but the truth is I don’t see how (The RIAA) could sue the world???? That’s in possible I mean that truly would be killing Today’s (2k3) Technology right? Just my opinions, later Rex21

isp-privacy - you need to sue ETC. They Suck.

CodeWarrior oh im staying "street legal" in this....im just ranting cause i havn't had that much time to lately.

just tring to get more people hyper in this nice war we have going

The abuse of internet snooping is sooooooooo out of control! Privacy will be a joke of the past

I remember about the muckrakers. The current scapegoatting of P2P users by the RIAA to blame them for their crappy record sales is the same scenario that has been played for millenia. You'll remember how Nero allegedly set fire to Rome, and then blamed it on this upstart group that he was having a hard time controlling, called Christians. Adolf Hitler allegedly had the Reichstag burned, and then, after claiming that the Jews did it, further insured his power base by "leading" the fight against the "enemy". The Salem Witch trials and the Inquisition were other historical precedents where large numbers of average people were attacked for alleged wrongdoing with little or no real evidence, as well as the McCarthy red hunts of the 50s. But, every one of these examples give us an historical precedent of exactly what is going to happen with the RIAA...i.e. they are going to go just one inch too far in this, and that will spell the end of this charade.
In the Salem trials, it wasn't until
they accused the wife of the Governor of Mass, of being a witch, that it was stopped. With McCarthy, one line from an attorney in front of the public pretty much ended the intimidation of the red scare of McCarthyism. Joseph Welch ,an attorney, said to McCarthy during the 1954 Army v. McCarthy hearings "Have you no shred of decency, sir? Have you no shame?"
These eleven words brought a halt to the intimidation,fearmongering, and terror which Joe McCarthy had infected the American landscape with. I foresee one of their attorneys doing a merciless cross examination on a child "accused" of filesharing a New Boyz on the Block song, and having a line issued to a reporter by a defense attorney, that will have a similar effect.
And to paraphrase Vonnegut...
"so it goes..."
~code

Code-

EXXXXACTLY !

"Potential Problem with RIAA Campaign." Which one?? Raping and stealing from your artists, whom you can not survive without. Alienating and bankrupting your fan base, whom you can not survive without. The only thing they got right is to pay off crooked politicians and that is the norm these days for falling businesses (i.e. ENRON). Sounds like a "successful" business campaign to me. I'm sure they will make the Fortune 500 companies NOT TO BY STOCK FROM!!!
I've always thrown rocks into the ocean, but never knew how deep they went. I think the RIAA will soon find out.

the problem is they won't pick a 13 year old or granny! they will won't be that dum! they will pick someone who will fit their mold and portray him like the D.C. sniper so everybody not educated about this bunk will say OH YES HE IS A CRIMINAL! They will use the media to their advantage because they know a lot of people are not educated on terms lik P2P, DMCa and so on

They may attempt to "stereo type" us with this image , but at some point they will run out pieces to fit the mold. It will have to be cast down and broken. There are to many different people that they will try to include in this mold for that to work. With severe criminal cases you may have a habdful of individuals who "fit the profile". But not in this case. To many members of the populace to make one picture with.

We are not criminals, and I think we will be seen as victims and outraged consumers when this really begins to unfold.

out of all the news networks which one do you think will be fair and balanced?
when the coverage starts?

isp-privacy:

Got to go . continue the boycott and spread the word !

If any of you use my letter, please change "ccasional" to occasional (I want you to have fewer typos than I do ) It is found near the end...
"MAY encounter the ccasional"
thanks and sorry for the typo.
~code

The RIAA hires criminals to terrorize innocent people who do not fall in line with thier nefarious programs... they lie, cheat, steal and set innocent Americans up. I have been a victim of all of this and more. I have not one shred of respect for thier industry or the way in which they conduct themselves. it is no wonder the souls of the collective have now decided to speak.

They should not be allowed by our government to function as legitimate players on the American playing ground because they are not.

I hope Norm Coleman doesn't sit on his hands about this (that is unless they have already been stuffed with fat wads of cash).

It may seem okay now for these Senators if they are being bamboozled and lied to and bribed, but I guarantee it is a dangerous path that these people are leading our country down.

The monopoly that these people have enjoyed in the past cannot be extended into our private lives and if these Senators have any loyalty to the original vision of this nation they will most certainly see the duty at hand that they have been afforded the priveledge and responsibility to oversee and enact.

How can we bow to the wishes of corporations owned by foreign interests and in the meantime sit back and allow Americans to become targets of this regime of financial and personal terror?

The American government wishes to fight terror but does not care what happens to it's own citizens on it's own soil.

If this is truly a country founded on the cornerstone of "divine intervention" we cannot continue to support such satanic and downright criminal actions on the part of an industry which refuses to "evolve" with the changing times.

Otherwise I fear the spirits who have enabled us through so many other trials will abandon us in our most pressing and "illusionary" time of need. Please dont destroy this country! It's a model for what could be man's destiny!

ps:

It's too bad the record industry is too stupid to realize that they must "overcome" as we SHALL.

You know there is another way to wage war against the RIAA. It is known as a Proxy fight.
When you buy stock in a RIAA affiliated company (one share of each of the big 5 will do) it allows one to attend shareholder meetings AND have motions put on the shareholders proxy.

This means that "Joe RIAAhater"(sorry about the name) who owns stock in the RIAA affiliated company can put forth a motion to be voted on by all of the shareholders to do such things as suspend their membership in the RIAA. It also allows Joe RIAAhater to question the chairman of the board of the RIAA member company at shareholders meetings. Maybe he could ask why they are suing their customers. The sky is the limit.

Sony - symbol SNE $31.99
Time Warner symbol AOL $16.00
UMG, Seagram (bet you didn't think they made booze too) symbol SGSLP.PK $25.35.

you get the picture...

Great idea. Don't buy thier products and then buy a couple of shares so one could show up at the meetings to be heard.

CodeWarrior...

The piece you submitted was so good that I have decided to post it in several newspapers' forums, including The Chicago Tribune, the Des Moines Register, the Omaha World Herald, the Storm Lake Pilot-Tritune, and the Storm Lake Times.

I submitted it as an "open letter" to Congress regarding changes needed in our copyright laws.

I hope this meets with your approval.

DeanSB2000

seraphielx,

sorry I didn't mean to offend. man or woman it doesn't matter- you're still my hero! (No I'm not wierd, I just respect the skill) Keep up the good work. And that's for everybody else too. There's a lot of outrage over this and there are a lot of good people standing up and fighting back. My hat's off to everyone of you ('specially you Code). They can ignore us for a while but sooner or later the thunder will get so loud that they will have to wake up.

peace

Since Norm Coleman is my senator I went ahead and sent him a letter of my own about the screwiness of copyright law. Hopefully since he is a former hippy (chuckle) he'll not disappoint us all.

Although my letter was mainly about copyright terms... had to keep it focused and clear, and I think the length of copyright is ridiculous. It is great when you can use our founding fathers (such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison) as sources in the argument over how long copyright monopolies should last.

if anybody needs something to help you puke... have some law school sponsored brainwashing.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/07/findlaw.analysis.hamilton.music/index.html

You not believe how good I am at digging up dirt, Righttoshare...

The RIAA doesn't even come close to nonprofit status, and is fully in violation of not only the Sherman Antitrust Acts, but the RICO Act as well, which is a class B Felony.

Don't believe me ? have a look yourself.

http://www.tndagc.com/tnlaw/juryinst/5_01.htm

It's a somewhat simplified explaination there for layfolk, but when you compare it to the RIAA's most recent actions, it's almost as if they used RICO as a business plan, to be sure.

The violations are obvious, blatant, and undeniable - the PROBLEM is that all the people with the power and authority to enforce it against them, are on their payroll.

I've run into a similar situation before dealing with a smalltown Indiana court system, and the unpleasant truth is... when the Law fails, or is in the hands of people who are using it as a tool of oppression, your ONLY choice is to defy the law.

That's what our forefathers did, and while they are 'heros' now, they were at the time, treasonous criminals.

Still think a PAC would be helpful, but as the evidence continues to mount that the RIAA will NEVER be called on the carpet for anything, no matter how blatant or illegal, the options are looking more and more...umm... limited.

I think it's tea party time, myself.

-user

hey i think i got a bots ip address..like a real one,it was trying to connect to port 4667,unless is was just a stupid hacker....

we are looking into it and will figure out what the header of the packet is and next time im gonna let it connect and get the whole packet in the packet log.

this has happened more than once now,like yesterday and last night.

sorry for peeps that don't talk tcp they tried to get into the computer and i got what tat computer was saying to my computer...

Since it's on topic:
http://www.boycott-riaa.com/forums/general/1170#26
I'll post one (by hermit) here:

To the honorable Representatives,

In an effort to ease the differences between the Recording Industry Association of America, (RIAA), and the common wealth, and also to ease the increasing load on the legal system caused by subpoenas from the Recording Industry Association of America, we would like to point to a pleasant, legal, and efficient method for reconciliation.

A royalty distribution system is already in place under the “Audio Home Recording Act 1976 chapter 8”, that clearly outlined how a dispute of this nature should be settled. In “chapter 8”, a Copyright Royalty Tribunal should be created. The intentions of this chapter are to first and foremost:

Maximize the availability of creative works to the public.

Afford the copyright owner a fair return for his creative work and the copyright user a fair income under existing economic conditions.

Reflect the relative roles of the copyright owner and the copyright user in the product made available to the public with respect to relative creative contribution, technological contribution, capital investment, cost, risk, and contribution to the opening of new markets for creative expression and media for their communication.

Minimize any disruptive impact on the structure of the industries involved and on generally prevailing industry practices.

In 1992 the act was amended with “Chapter 10” to include new technology, including computer hard drives, and computer compact disk recorders and blank compact disk. “Chapter 10”, defines the royalty payments from such devices.

The actions of the RIAA are not maximizing the availability of creative works to the public. By sending subpoenas through the courts to the service providers requesting user information, and therefore threatening the privacy of the user of those service providers subpoenaed, they have bypassed “Chapter 8” with an unrecognized measure. Instead this action is causing a chilling effect on the availability of creative works.

The losses claimed by the RIAA are not tested by the actions of “Chapter 8”. The adjustment of the royalty for the purchase of new media and new media recorders covered under the “Chapter 10” amendment have not been considered by the RIAA, because the RIAA has taken alternative measures, not proscribed under the previous rulings of “Chapter 8”.

Very importantly, the technologies listed in “Chapter 10” are not respected by the time consuming legal actions of the RIAA. These technologies, hard drives, compact disk recorders, blank compact disk, digital video disk recorders, and blank digital video disk, risk the loss of attractive value, and therefore revenue. Because the time consuming legal actions of the RIAA overstep "Chapter 8", these technological industries are needlessly threatened with loss of usability, and therefore value.

Finally, we recommend an audit of the RIAA. This audit should explain in detail, exactly how all artists participating with the RIAA have been rewarded a fair portion of the royalty mentioned in "Chapter 10". Also a list of artist must be created to show what the amount was paid to each artist, and further to determine if those amounts are fair.

I sent the following version of the above letter to my representatives, which addresses more issues that are important to me (thanks to the hermit for the more specific info):
________________________________________

To the honorable Representatives,

In an effort to ease the differences between the Recording Industry Association of America, (RIAA), and the commonwealth, and also to ease the increasing load on the legal system caused by subpoenas from the Recording Industry Association of America, I would like to call for hearings on peer-to-peer programs, point to a pleasant, legal, and efficient method for reconciliation, and address the issue of the way the recording industry treats artists.

I would recommend that you call for hearings on p2p (peer to peer) involving the RIAA and the Electronic Frontier Foundation:

I believe that there are many ways to make peer to peer filesharing of music profitable to the recording industry without changing the current peer to peer infrastructure, most of which are outlined by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (eff.org). With hearings on the topic we can create a system that will benefit all with little pain. Clearly, sending people to jail is not going to earn the RIAA any real money, or new consumers. It will only deepen the rift between the 6 million peer to peer users and the recording industry, a battle the recording industry cannot win.

I believe it is time for them to embrace the idea of file-sharing. I believe that most people would be willing to pay a small surcharge on their isp bill to cover filesharing, 6 million file sharers paying 3 dollars a month will bring in 18 million a month to the recording industry to be divided amongst the artist by a sophisticated tracking system.

To address the issue of reconciliation:

A royalty distribution system is already in place under the “Audio Home Recording Act 1976 chapter 8”, that clearly outlined how a dispute of this nature should be settled. In “chapter 8”, a Copyright Royalty Tribunal should be created. The intentions of this chapter are to first and foremost:

Maximize the availability of creative works to the public.

Afford the copyright owner a fair return for his creative work and the copyright user a fair income under existing economic conditions.

Reflect the relative roles of the copyright owner and the copyright user in the product made available to the public with respect to relative creative contribution, technological contribution, capital investment, cost, risk, and contribution to the opening of new markets for creative expression and media for their communication.

Minimize any disruptive impact on the structure of the industries involved and on generally prevailing industry practices.

In 1992 the act was amended with “Chapter 10” to include new technology, including computer hard drives, and computer compact disk recorders and blank compact disk. “Chapter 10”, defines the royalty payments from such devices.

The actions of the RIAA are not maximizing the availability of creative works to the public. By sending subpoenas through the courts to the service providers requesting user information, and therefore threatening the privacy of the user of those service providers subpoenaed, they have bypassed “Chapter 8” with an unrecognized measure. Instead this action is causing a chilling effect on the availability of creative works.

The losses claimed by the RIAA are not tested by the actions of “Chapter 8”. The adjustment of the royalty for the purchase of new media and new media recorders covered under the “Chapter 10” amendment have not been considered by the RIAA, because the RIAA has taken alternative measures, not proscribed under the previous rulings of “Chapter 8”.

Very importantly, the technologies listed in “Chapter 10” are not respected by the time consuming legal actions of the RIAA. These technologies, hard drives, compact disk recorders, blank compact disk, digital video disk recorders, and blank digital video disk, risk the loss of attractive value, and therefore revenue. Because the time consuming legal actions of the RIAA overstep "Chapter 8", these technological industries are needlessly threatened with loss of usability, and therefore value.

I recommend an audit of the RIAA. This audit should explain in detail, exactly how all artists participating with the RIAA have been rewarded a fair portion of the royalty mentioned in "Chapter 10". Also a list of artists must be created to show what the amount was paid to each artist, and further to determine if those amounts are fair.

Finally, to address the issue of fair compensation to the artists by the recording industry irregardless of the current flap over p2p:

In hearings, I'd also like to dissect the recording industry's policies on copyright and the protection of artists. Currently, the artists producing music for major record labels often recieve far less in royalties than the labels, no health or 401k benefits, and are often liable for charges such as music video production costs. In the end the artist often ends up owing the label money. Most artists tend to end up dirt poor and have no ownership of their music, which the labels often take out of print and do not allow the artists to shop it to another label until their contract and/or copyright is up. Since record labels sell music, it seems criminal to treat musicians in such a fashion.

If you can hold hearings on p2p and the recording industry, it would bring to light many of these problems and force a change that will benefit artists and consumers.

DeanSB2000, thank you! That's great with me, and thank you for all that hard work!

Paulruss-GREAT letter man!

Seraphielx- have you tried using a trap.pl on bots?
~code

Seraph, I have the IP address of that lurker parked outside port 6346 for a couple of days, if you want it.

I shut off port 113, killed pings on the WAN side, and they're gone now, but I know where they live. (evil grin)

Ah, what the heck, here's the IP, have fun. 68.70.193.101

I wanted to share some links for anyone interested in the mechanics of a boycott (silly me, I thought it just meant you just didn't buy their stuff )
http://www.devrandom.net/~aidan/mousy.html

http://www.learn.co.uk/glearning/secondary/business/lesson1/extension.htm

http://www.coopamerica.org/boycotts/boycott_organizer_guide.pdf

http://www.boycott.org/boycott/

Interesting. One of the sites says a boycott used to take 5 to 10 years to be really effective, but that figure is nearer to 2 years now, with improved communications and networking.

Keep it up, guys, don't buy the crap from the RIAA.

Thanks, code!

Your opinion means a lot to me.

To be fair, all the info about sections 8 and 10 and auditing the RIAA were written by hermit and he should get a big ass ovation for that, I've no head for weeding through legalese, so research like that is greatly appreciated.

I'm wondering if the letter was too long, though.

I'll just keep plugging away.

Here's a form response I got from Jay Inslee about ACCOPS:
________________________________________
Dear Paul:

Thank you for contacting me with your concerns about H.R. 2752, the Author, Consumer, and Computer Owner Protection and Security (ACCOPS) Act of 2003. I appreciate hearing from you.

You will be pleased to know that I am not a co-sponsor of H.R. 2752 at this time. I agree that it is important to keep the rights of consumers in mind as we work to address concerns from copyright holders about the unfair use of their intellectual property, and I share some of your concerns about H.R. 2752. It is my privilege to represent a region renowned for its cutting edge technology in Congress. I am concerned about any legislation that may infringe on consumers' privacy, or hinder Internet content development. I also think it is important that copyright and patent holders are fairly compensated for the use of their products.

As you may know, H.R. 2752 has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary, of which I am not a Member. Please be assured that I will keep your views in mind should the Committee elect to bring this legislation to the floor for a vote.

I am pleased to be a member of the House Internet Caucus. As you can imagine, Congress and federal regulatory agencies have a hard time grappling with the technological issues surrounding the Internet, and the traditional telecommunications regulatory structure presents challenges for Internet based communication. Working with other Members of Congress concerned with technology issues, I will continue watch for ways to ensure our laws keep up with the technology of today.

Please continue to contact me about the issues that concern you, I both need and welcome your thoughts and ideas. I encourage you to contact me via email, telephone, or fax, because security measures are causing House offices to experience delays in receiving postal mail. My email address is: Jay.Inslee@mail.house.gov. Please be sure to include your full name, address, including your zip code, in your message. If you are a resident of the First Congressional District and would like to receive policy updates and newsletters via email, please email me to let me know.

Very truly yours,

JAY INSLEE
Member of Congress

JRI/ns
_________________________________________

There's an e-mail address in there if y'all want to start flooding this guy with your concerns.

CodeWarrior:

Interesting...those articles suggest that boycotting is more effective than class action suits, letter writing campaigns, and lobbying. Lately I've been feeling strongly that we need to really focus on getting the word out about the boycott. It doesn't matter that the big 5 record companies are mostly just parts of larger corporations. We won't sink the large corporations but if the record divisions become unprofitable, they'll jettison those turkeys without a second thought. Even without the boycott, I would expect to see consolidation in the recording industry in the next few years (mergers and selling off of record company divisions). The closing of so many record stores makes this a necessity unless online sales really take off and make up for declining in-store CD sales. This is a great time for a boycott. The recording industry is already hurting from declining sales and rampant closing of CD outlets. We can really make a differene here. The question is how best to get the word out. The media seems to largely ignore us.

Great Code I was just sending a letter to Pespi telling them about my Boycutt on them. Looks like it does good to boycutt Pepsi. We all need to right them a letter and tell them how many kids they will lose with their support to RIAA member. I also said I will Boycutt any and all products that do Support the RIAA and they have a list of all their products on their site.
Here is the address:
http://www.pepsi.com/

A boycott without a big loud publicly known grassroots org behind it is just more lost sales that the RIAA will chalk up to p2p and nothing else.

I didn't say this to quash confidence in the boycott, but it has been a comparitively silent one. So, to do this right, I think if we all bought a roll of a hundred boycott-riaa stickers (question, is the web address on the stickers? if not, it needs to be) and started plastering them on the doors of every large chain record store, I think that would start a bit of buzz.

But this isn't an issue where we should only focus our attention on one front, I don't think, that because a couple internet articles said so, that we should only boycott, we need to keep up the pressure on congress, they're the ones who ultimately have to deal with this issue, and I'd rather have them on our side.

Btw, what did everyone think of the letter from Inslee? Sounds like he's on the right track but needs a little push.

I saw that CNN article about "Why going after student downloaders is right".

I must say that I was angered by that woman's response calling those who trade music files online "criminals" and "shoplifters"!!

I tried looking in the CNN website for any forums to vent this frustration, and they don't appear to have any forums where people can state their opinions online!!

What are they trying to do??

SHUT US UP?!?!?

That's what it appears like to me!!

DeanSB2000

I think I will once again copy CodeWarrior's open letter to Congress, and post it in the New York Times and the L.A. Times too!!

It's time for ALL OF US to VENT our frustrations out, and let the public at large know OUR SIDE of this issue!!

Congressmen & Senators may be able to ignore emails, letters, and correspondence sent directly to them, but they can't ignore open letters sent out in the press to EVERYBODY!!

I think it's time that they should have to give us some REAL answers as to why they're doing this to us!! ...as to why they're imposing this SHITTY DMCA Act upon us!!!

DeanSB2000

DeanSB200:

The CNN article was written by Marci Hamilton, a copyright lawyer. As such, she has a vested interest in seeing copyright laws maintained. She doesn't reflect public opinion. Of course, CNN is undoubtably trying to influence public opinion by including her article. The media, in general, are not our friends. That's why a boycott is the best way.

I just sent Marci an email. Since she's a lawyer I didn't try to argue copyright law with her - that would've been a waste of time. I just proposed to her a more humane alternative to suing thousands of music fans into bankruptcy. Hopefully, if she's not a sociopath, it might give her something to consider.

As the old codger around here..
I was going to make an observation about trying to convince people. People usually convince themselves of one side of an argument or the other. Which way they come down on any subject may be the result of many things, e.g. personal or societal biases, personal experiences, sociopolitical views,etc.. Once people get an idea, there are some strong psychological forces that prevent them from changing opinions. One thing people do is to pay attention to those facts and events that support their ideas and opinions, and to ignore or dismiss even facts that tend to disprove their closely held beliefs. They've done psychological studies that show that, once people get a wrong idea in their head,it is extremely hard for them to change. And, in debates and arguments, people get even more entrenched in their opinions as they mount their defense of their side. Real change of opinions is most often something that the person does to themselves after having a traumatic event, a paradigm shift, or something happening to their loved one. For example, those who are for the RIAA, would quickly change their mind if their child was sued!

Anyway, that doesn't meant we can't try to win the hearts and minds, but you have to know it's a really hard and often unrewarding quixotic journey.
And lawyers are some of the worst to try to reason with!
~code

Code,

In some cases, there are those who will differ with you on the surface issues but will share a similar position about solutions to the problem. A musician friend of mine and I started arguing about the merits of file-sharing, he said it was morally reprehensible and that it was stealing, he said he saw his sales drop when his stuff started getting distributed on p2p. But when pushed further, he said the recording industry had hurt him more in the past and that it needed to go away, and agreed that p2p is here to stay and some form of compulsory licensing was needed, though he was loathe to have the government involved. He did think that was better than the corporations controlling it, though.

So, while on the surface he seemed very pro-RIAA, I found that he had a deep resentment for the industry and thought that, if the artists got paid, p2p was the ideal resource for music lovers.

You just have to hit the right nerve, and people will come around. He now pops in here every now and then to read the news and forums.

Ya see, I agree, but really, since he had the resentment already, I think you were enable to encourage him to express it. And, then too, it is easier to talk to a friend, and I will admit that it is possible to change a friends mine, and that was something I didn't really allow for in that post. I was really more addressing people that are not our relatives or friends, and who may in fact, be quite adversarial or antagonistic to us.
And, it is wonderful that you handled it like you did. It certainly would have been possible to polarize him further if you had not taken the tack you did.
I think it shows you have a good sense of finesse and how to deal with folks and I honestly think that is a real talent. And, perhaps what I said also reveals more about me as well. I tend to come off in person, very aggressive and I have noticed some people can get very polarized and put off by me (lol..that's why I get my wife to take exchanges back to the store). I always get things done the way I wanted, but far too often, it's by using a legal approach to make folks act right. My wife is more able to talk folks into things because she is non-threatening.
But, then sometimes, nothing short of threatening a lawsuit gets people to act properly, and that's when my bad cop act comes in. Never lost a legal confrontation yet. And, I guess it boils down to personality as well.

{Code is looking around for Sigmund Freud to appear about now...lol)
Anyway, it's great that we have one more friend and not one more on the other side. And, as a writer who has gone to the trouble of registering copyrights on my works, sure, if someone were to steal one of my books electronically, and put their name on it, and were selling it online, I would be upset. And, I play guitar and keyboards occasionally, and understand that if I made my living selling my tunes, I could get hacked off if people were selling my tunes online and passing them off as theirs, so I can see both sides of the issue.
Whooops, Stargate is back on..gotta run!

~code