You probably don't think you have a lot in common with Ben Affleck, right?

Like, he has no worries about where his next mil is coming from, or anything like that. And with an Oscar behind him, his career is set to bop right along.

File-sharing? Forget it. He'd just buy the label. Pirate movies? That'd be money right out of his pocket.

But apparently not.

"Yes. I file share," he tells Jessica Corbin during a TechTV interview. "I do. Yes. I think it's really interesting."

Saying the music industry has missed out Big Time by not clueing into the business possibilities offered by downloading, he's got his numbers all wrong, but he's got the right idea.

An annual subscription based system "is the one that works," he says. Users would be charged around $200 a year for access to the 'entire library'. "You pay more directly to the artist," he says. "You have less overhead. You pay no shipping or packing."

On movies, "There is piracy," but movies will be downloaded regularly within five years, he says. "Maybe it won't be available first weekend" but after that, pay a premium for first download and then lower the amount as the movie release date gets further and further away.

Who said Affleck for President? (RIAA president, of course ; )

Why hasn't he been subpoenaed?

yes a fee, I think they should be different prices, for the type of stuff you download, for example someone who downloads only radio singles could pay a yearly fee of $50, to have access to any song that has or is being played regulary on the radio. you can give someone unlimted music downloads for $200 year, and a few packages in between. If the record industry collected just $50/year from every that downloads music, theyd make a great profit, They have to come up with a new way of distrubuting moneys to the artist instead of albums sold they will have to use statistics of how many times a song is downloaded.

The point of technology is to make life easier and make information more avaible. I can go to just about any newspaper web site and read the same articles they have in their hard copied papers for free. But they found a way to make money online with ads, it also gives them more exposure and a better chance of being read. Newspapers didnt complain about the internet, they joined in and used it to their advantage.

Yes a fee based system might be alright , but what about those of us who might just want to sample music?

Good idea. The simple truth is, if isp charged $1.00 to each person a month who wanted to download music, then tallyed the songs downloaded pay each artist thier share, but only the artist and this whole nonsense would be over. think about it 60,000,000 people a month would generate a lot of cash flow. just an idea.
Keep the faith and never stop rockin
oh yea and first post

thought I was first but looks like wabbitman beat me.

Support indie music

you can allow sample of any music for free with reduced quality say 64 instead of 128. Or if they can come up with a file that can only be play a max of say 5 times they could do that as well.. if they stop there bs they can come up with good effected ways to sample music

There are a variety of solutions, "if they" would catch up with technology. But instead of using the money they have left to create new platforms of revenue, they spend it in DC. That is THE problem.
Good to have some celebrities taking a look into the issues!

I would like to see a yearly subscription POP (pay one price) and DL!
Remember when Disney had E tickets? You had to stand in line and purchase tickets for each ride! I would pay a reasonable annual price to have access to the whole shabang for DL'ing.....OH! THANK YOU BEN AFFLECK FOR AT LEAST BEING HONEST WITH THE PUBLIC! In these days it means a lot!

So Ben, friend of JLo, says YO on the
DLoad...

After his movie Gigli failed so miserably, the only venue left for it is to be offered free on the internet.

Hey wait a fucking minute here.......

wasn't he in a recent commercial with a bunch of other celebs telling all us peasant folk NOT to file share??!!!

Fucking hypoctite!!!!! LOL!!!!

Possibly off-topic but I'm in the mood for a rant....

The RIAA has done one thing successfully - they've convinced most people that file sharing is stealing. It's not. It's copyright infringement. It may be illegal, but it's not wrong. It's not the same as stealing a CD from someone because I'm not depriving the owner of anything. Am I depriving the artist of royalties? Not really. I bought more CDs after using P2P than before. (However, now I'm boycotting.) Not that I really believe in the concept of royalties anyway. I write software for a living and I'm paid only for the time I spend writing it. I have no control over how it's used and I'm paid no royalties. Why should music be so different?

IFeelFree...RIGHT!
Check out my answer to Cary-Sue
s answer to Norm in the other thread
~code

$200 dollars is more than I can afford. I live on a fixed income and need other things more. So I would not be able to join anything that high price. It needs to be something everybody can afford. Their are a lot of ppl that live on less than me. But I think it's a good start.

A fee- based system to fileshare could be set up on a sliding scale, for example, oldies would be a nickel a song, newer and more popular songs 25 cents. This would still be a cash cow for whoever sets it up, especially with 60 million people who fileshare. Then again, with the RIAA shooting themselves in the balls with these "lawsuits", I don't see this happening anytime soon. It would require people who actually are innovative and intelligent, and the RIAA doesn't have any of those. By the way, I live in the Deep South, and nobody I know has gotten one of these subpoenas or has even heard of the RIAA.

I've read George Ziemann's and CodeWarror's responses to Cary Sherman's letter and I think they're quite amusing and enlightening in places. However, I have a suggestion. It's fun to poke fun at these RIAA people and I think we should indulge in it sometimes, but when crafting a response to something like Cary Sherman's letter I think it would be best if keep the "ad hominum" personal attacks to a minimum. I think this will be to our benefit as it reflects a more restrained and mature approach. Also, rather than accusing them of lying in places (although I'm sure they are lying) it's stronger if you supply contrary evidence. For example, "The root cause for this drastic decline in record sales is the astronomical rate of music piracy on the Internet". What about recent studies that show that P2P users buy more CDs than before they started file sharing? What about the other causes of declines in record sales - fewer new releases, poor economy, rising CD prices, competition with fee-based downloading services, lousy quality of the music, etc.?

Please don't take offense. I just think that we should be a bit more restrained in certain instances. It's possible that our detailed responses to the Cary Sherman letter may be more widely circulated and we want them to be as convincing as possible. We all enjoy having a laugh at the RIAA's antics but underneath it all there are some very serious issues here.

I suggested the $50 for singles and $200 for unlimted, and packages in between. The $200 a year would be for the person who downloads massives amount of music. If someone downloads over 100 cds worth of music a year it would be a great deal. you can have several packages in between lets say $100 for all singles and 150 other songs, that adds up to about 10 cds, and any radio played single in any category. that less then $10 a cd if you think of all the singles you can get. Thats not a bad deal, and if it were a pay service they could have better filters to keep users from the hassles of downloading crappy versions. for $150 you can offer something like 500 mp3s, have the package value increase more then the price would be a great way to get costomers to go for the more expensive packages. If you dont want radio singles you can offer another $50 package that will allow you to download say 100 songs, and with the other idea I suggested you can sample any music you'd like for free and be able to listen to it a set amount of time so you can decide if you want to download or buy it in the store. $50/yr is less then $3 a month and really isnt a bad deal. considering most people pay $45/mth for basic cable.

Also they could give you a discount if you shared the files you download, which would reduce the load on their servers. the more you share the more the discount, but you would be paying the higher fee if you share more, so it all works out.

we could also use a sliding scale system that oldster45 mentioned with my idea, lets say you istead of 150 songs with like I suggested above you can hand out 600 credits, each song you download can require 1 to 4 credits, newer popular songs can will require 4, oldies will require 1 and a range in between for everything else based on age and popularity of the song. an indie artist can choose to have their songs on the same service for 0 credits if they so choose to so one can get the song for free, to make the indie artist more exposed.

The problem with any fee-based service is how to get people to use it when they can get the music for free. Granted that if the RIAA lawsuits proceed, and really good, inexpensive download sites become available (keep dreaming!) it would lure a significant portion of the P2P users. However, I just don't see the free P2P going away anytime soon. This is an intractable problem for the music industry as long as they choose to see it as competition. If they chose to see it as free advertising they might be able to use it to their benefit. Unfortunately, we've had no indication that they're capable of adopting a more enlightened approach.

I agree that free p2p wont go away but if you offer good enough deals, and gurantee that the songs will be good versions so you dont have to download over and over again, More people would side with the RIAA and less people would use the free P2P services. Insulting everyone and calling them theives pisses off people so they wont buy CDs, and pissed off programers who then write more P2P applications, causing an increase in P2P.

Along these lines, here's an interesting article "Solving the payment problem for open source and P2P file sharing":

http://newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=03/08/26/143247&mode=thread&tid=3

Here's a quote:

"On the entertainment side, groups like the RIAA sue end users, write threatening letters to businesses and universities, and generally try to force the P2P genie back into the bottle.

This is folly. Pure folly.

Why? Because these tactics make criminals out of a massive pool of would-be buyers. Such tactics focus so much on the encroachment on their IP (and the ability to monetize it) that they fail to see the expanded world of opportunity now open to them."

The author makes some suggestions for a solution, such as:

"to add a flat rate to the ISP bill, perhaps $5.95 per month. That sum would then be divvied up between the ISP and the entertainment industry, parceled out in a manner similar to the way ASCAP works..."

"This utility model would completely eliminate the piracy problem, because consumers simply could not evade the fees, absent burning the songs onto physical media and mailing them."

What do you think?

OK, first time for all things, so this time, IFeelFree, we shall differ in agreeing to differ (no offense taken nor meant).

I understand and appreciate your reservations, however, since I can't speak for George, here is why I crafted mine as I did. Yes, it is an ad hominem attack (latin, "to the man") and is one of the fallacies of arguementation. Why did I do that?
Big lipped Cary has become the de facto spokesman, and if their de facto spokesman is a joke, I will point that out in satirical fashion. I do find him to be an odd, bizarre, and somewhat enigmatic figure, since he is alleged a copyright lawyer, yet seems to make interntional , fraudulent misrepresentations. I don't respect that, and don't respect him for doing that. I didn't choose Sherman as their spokesperson, or CEO or chief counsel, THEY DID. Sometimes, something is so obviously a lie, it really deserves little in the way of an extended response. For example, if I stated that Germany was not involved in World War II, most people would know this is a false statement on its face, and so much information is out there, it would be silly to go and on citing facts to show Germany was involved in the Second World War.
And, I actually point out using their OWN statistics, that 52% of the most prolific downloaders, are still buying CDs, so that was a perfect counterpoint to their assertions.

When a group, country,movement, etc., puts out a leader or is closely associated with a movement, if they come to personify the tactics and goals of a movement, it is an effective, and well recognized tactic, to make that person a figure of ridicule and derision. This has been done throughout history, using caricature, hyperbole, jokes, satire, parody, etc. Jonathan Swift's GULLIVERS TRAVELS (or is it The Travels of Gullier), also enjoyed as a children's tale, was at its heart, political satire against the English royalty. In WWII, leaders on both sides were ridiculed mercilessly, and there can be a fine line between this, and an ad hominem attack. Ad hominem attacks usually say a person is wrong in their argument because of their past associations or personality or other factors. While that might be part of my analysis, I did not use ONLY an ad hominem attack. For a lawyer, Sherman is unduly vague and ambigious, he doesn't cite proper authorities for everything, offers overreaching comments, and in short, falls far short of proper legal debate!
He doesn't even use the proper legal defition under USC for piracy, and I defy people to find a federal law which is entitled "Stealing". Theft is the proper term for this act, but copyright infringement is NOT theft, never has been, and probably never will be, and to say it is, is to violate both deductive and inductive reasoning protocols and algorithms!

I do not apologize for anything in my analysis. I believe it is proper to make fun of the RIAA titular head, and when you make a leader an object of ridicule, it makes him hard to take serious, and I mean take him and his assertions seriously.

I think in just about every post I have posted, I have stressed certain things.
1) I believe we need to avoid downloading,uploading,and buying all RIAA copyrighted materials.
2) I believe we should be as legal as possible.
3) I do not accept filesharing is "stealing", "theft", or "piracy"
(doesn't happen on the high seas and no murder involved per Title 18,USC criminal code)
4) I believe that we need to lobby all congresspeople to look into the potential criminal and civil violations of the RIAA.
5) I believe that the actions of the RIAA violate the Privacy Act of 1974, the 4th Amendment, and the end user agreement of the KaZaA/Sharman network.
6) I believe the WIPO/DMCA/Patriot Act/Victory Act/NET Act, are all part of a larger scheme to decrease our independent ability to act as sovereign agents and to conduct our lives. I believe that Hatch, Conyers,Berman, et al, through their actions are endangering our ability to exercise fundamental, constitutionally protected rights.
7) I believe that the Boycott is our strongest weapon.
I believe we must use ALL LEGAL and ethical methods to defeat the attempts to control our use of our own computers, including, but not limited to, DRM measures, the DMCA provisions,etc..
9) I believe our strength lies in several things, our resolve, our cooperation, our patience, our dedication to a long term effort to defeat this mess.
10) I believe we will win, but believe that a multidimensional, multipart resistance and offensive is necessary, which involves passive and active efforts, and should rely on more proactive actions. We need to use political, economic, comedic, and educational/informative methods.

Because I ridicule Big Lipped Cary-Sue, should NEVER, make ANYONE feel that I do not take the issues seriously, that I do not think it is appropriate to offer fact based, serious, well articulated responses to serious efforts from the other side.

It is from my past training and experience, that I have found comedy to be one of the most effective methods of defeating your foe. Satire has been an extremely effective political tool for effecting change. During the VietNam war, Mort Sahl, George Carlin, Richard Pryor, all had sometimes more effect than lots of protests.

I do sincerely apologize if I left the impression that this matter is NOT serious. It is one of the MOST serious political threats to our freedom, and I want to make that very clear.

But, do I apologize for pointing out how ludicrous and nonsensical the comments of Mr. Sherman were, and how inept, and full of duplicity he seems?
NOPE, I do not.

I do respect any and all friends on board with different opinions than I have, and IFeelFree, brother, you KNOW I respect you as a man, as an online friend, as an intelligent warrior in this fight, and hope that you understand that, although I really do understand your desire to keep this on a high road, a more classy debate, sometimes, we have to laugh at this situation, and sometimes, when someone says that (to keep it in the pirate theme)...this is the end of the world, at the edge of the map, and "Beyond here there be dragons", I just have to point out in my own way...they're NUTS!
best wishes and always appreciating your thoughts...I remain...
~code

(sorry for all the typos...i really DO know how to spell "intentional" )
~code

Okay so from all this positive support for fee services I gather that this is an example of the masses bowing to the evil empire? Meeting it half-way and filling it's coffers. Nay, the writing is on the wall and I see no point to caving to their will. When the RIAA is destroyed, not one nickle should be spent on their behalf or be attributed their corrupt effort. Tyrant behavior should never be rewarded.

Currently I pay for cable Tv&Isp services. I already recieve about 40 channels of digital music that is easily captured to mp3. So the bottom line is, I already am paying for a music service (it's included in basic cableTv), I don't need another. Even though this is all done for my personal use and it's not interactive - it's not p2p, but neither are the suggested ideas of paying more money for the legal right to do the same thing. No matter how much I can harvest in this manner, I'd much rather be free to share with others (sharing is the basis of human interaction and communities).

It's nice to see public figures speak out in support of a hot topic, but $200/yr is not the solution.

The problem with flat rate at the isp level is those people who don't download music..Perhaps make it an option..that still doesn't address the issue of movies, your pr0n or other content...possibly set it up like a cable tv network with different tiers, Movie, Music, Adult, etc..(don't laugh, Echostar gets a huge amount of their income from offering adult channels)
Basic Cable internet 39.95 per month
Music downloads $5.95
Movie Downloads, $5.95
pr0n downoads $5.95

Thats not fair to the people who dont download movies and music. It wouldnt be a bad idea if they actually made my suggestion included in the ISP bill to keep it as one bill.

If the cable company made it so everyone in the country has to pay for full cable and premium channels services to make sure the percentage of people who use black boxes pay, it wouldnt sit to well with average citizen.

Ifeelfree I agree with jusst adding it to your isp bill, 1.00 even five dollars a month would work. and peer to peer stays as it is, and the consumer and the artist both walk away happy.
I don't understand why these @ssholes havent figured this out.
these riaa guys are joke, and greedy and control freaks.

Ifeelfree I agree with jusst adding it to your isp bill, 1.00 even five dollars a month would work. and peer to peer stays as it is, and the consumer and the artist both walk away happy.
I don't understand why these @ssholes havent figured this out.
these riaa guys are joke, and greedy and control freaks.

thumbtack is completely right. I am already being charged too much for cable tv and internet. To tack on yet another charge (besides all the others on the bill that seem to make no sense) to those who DO NOT want the RIAA crap (I don't want to download their mess), would be ripping off customers. If I buy blank CDs to backup my computers and the RIAA gets a kickback on every blank CD purchase, I am getting ripped off, right?
They would STILL be forcing you to pay for their RIAA crap whether you want it or not.

So, gotta side with thumbtack!
~code

It could be set up as simple as this.
You go to your isp home page, download the p2p software you prefer, enter your account # and then the billing starts, if you do not want this software, you don't get billed for it and your service is the same as you pay now.

MR. WIPPLE! Please don't squeeze the Sharman!

But, not all P2P downloads are for the crappy RIAA music, and I when I have used P2P, it was to look for non music stuff I couldn't find on Google.
So, I just think this would open up a billing mess for the ISPs, and still, the RIAA would get their underwear in a bunch about this setup, since they still think they are getting ripped off unless sales are under their control..IMHO.
~code

I agree cable TV is overprice, ISP is overprice, and customers are being raped, those bills should be lowered yes. But my idea is just a seperate fee that does not directy go to the cable company or ISP, instead its a service for downloading music. In return I want to see the RIAA tax taking off blank cds and the RIAA fees taking away from the radio stations that are advertising the RIAA's product. The problem with cable companies is theres no real compition except for the dish, that I feel needs to change. I feel cable companies are monopolies in every city and town they offer service, but thats another issue.

Yes I have used p2p for non music items,but I do believe the majority of downloading is for music.. although when you use kazaa many times it grabs parts of the file from different users to allow faster download so I wonder if one gets a file partially from 5 different people if they count that as 1 or 5 downloads.

awww what does ben affleck know? he signed up for that god awful Gigli movie that beat the Titanic to the bottom.....he better watch out for his
girlfriends left hook if he gets caught at anymore stripclubs, what a bastion of sensibility that is.....everyone listen to ben he knows what he is talking about(sic)

miniguinea, your idea makes more sense, and by the way...WELCOME. I checked out your earlier posts,and am enjoying your input on the topics. Great to have you on board with us!
~code

Code, its a pleasure to be here, although I am suppose to be working, so I should get back to work at least for now, even though its a summer internship and I only have 3 days left..lol

lets face it the RIAA is a dinosaur
and with tech. out there now, the RIAA is being less and less needed, this is why they are complaning about lost sales the most I feel. The reason being a indie artist as my self that has the tech to record my own digital cd with out the RIAA or cost of going to a huge studio, then haveing the software for editing and mstering then having the internet to use as a means to get my music to the masses along with live performances is basicly cutting them out of the loop. Digital studio equipment has come down in price quite
a bit and with the exception of digital mixers has come to the price the average musician can buy part by part.
So with this tech, and p2p use sacres the hell out of them. And They should be scared for eventually they will ony be needed for mass production when an artist needs a million cd's. and with the way tech is going even then they may not be needed for this aspect, so they are dying breed that is desperatly trying to hold on.

Hi guys, IFeelFree? Why would people pay for a service? Because I think most people will feel that if we don't pay our artists, there will simply be no more artists, or music as we know it today. Oh admit it, there is still SOME good music out there.

Also, as with the fee in Canada on our blank discs, mp3 players, etc. these extra fees are hidden. So it could work for isps as well. A small increase for everyone to pay the riaa. A hidden fee that not too many people object to. pepe

code:
This is off topic, but I posted it on the forum and haven't got any responses. I really want to know what you think of this idea.

The post is as follows:
I was contemplating and I developed a strategy that I'm not entirely sure it will be capable of being enacted.

Now I've never tested this, but often when I used to operate kazaa, it seemed like individuals could alter things such as the artist, description, and what keywords find a particular item. Now if thats so, you could share non copyrighted material, make the keywords popular RIAA affiliated bands(or anything else you want to get the word to). In the description there could be a brief synopsis of our argument and/or URLS to gather information about the RIAA.

Another proposition that I'm not entirely sure is possible, since they would be often audio searches, could simply adding the extention "mp3" or "wav" still allow them to be discovered by audio searches?

If both of these propositions are possible, then even though it will be less likely, the files may be downloaded. Individuals who had confidence in their writing/ideas/information could write personal dossiers as to why they oppose the RIAA and its impertinent ever-transgressing behavior.

This way we could be killing three birds with one shuriken. First we would be getting the word out (varying efficiency pending on the individual looking at the file), raising and/or maintaining p2p user levels, and lower the amount of RIAA affiliated music being shared.

If this is all true, and you think it could be potentionally helpful, perhaps you could write a dossier as well?

Suikio

The RIAA is dead. That much is certain. The record labels are in denial because they don't want to envision their money castles falling apart with them in it.

I think the crack that breaks the RIAA's back will come before the end of this year. When the lawsuits get to court it will all unravel and next year we will see the beginning of a new market as artists flock to websites that will promote and sell their music. They will make a lot more money than they do now. People will still buy because value-added features will be available when they buy (such as autographed photographs from the artists, free memberships to fan clubs, a chance at winning personal phone calls and/or e-mails from the artists themselves or free concert tickets, etc). P2P will be allowed and even encouraged, perhaps at radio's expense.

Okay, my Nostradamus hat has been taken off now. But I stand by everything I just said.

The way I see it is, P2P file sharing would continue (KaZaa, etc.) but we'd all pay say, an extra 5 bucks a month, or whatever, on our cable bill. Some portion goes to the ISP, most goes to the RIAA and they can distribute it as they see fit. (Of course, they'd just share it with the labels but not give the artists a damn penny.) The RIAA would get what they want ($$$) and we'd get almost-free file sharing without fear of lawsuits. It would work except for one thing: the RIAA and the record labels would never agree to it. For one thing, how to divide the money between the labels? (Is anyone actually going to monitor how much of each artist's songs are downloaded?) Second, the industry loses control over their material, which they won't allow. It's a reasonable idea and it could work, but it'll never be seriously considered. We just have to wait for the RIAA to die a slow death.

CodeWarrior:

Thanks for not taking offense at my earlier comments. I was trying to take the view of an outsider. I hear so many people that don't view this issue the way we do. (Interestingly, no one seems to have a high opinion of the RIAA, even those who support copyright law.) I just want us to be taken seriously. Maybe I need to lighten up a little.

Suikiogiaz

good call,what you are seeking is in the options of my kazaa (or if your running k lite k++ is is my k lite k++)
all you have to do is right click on the audio/video/picture/software that you are shareing and you can rename it anything that you want,with out renameing the file its self.

you can also add coments to it and other things.

by the by all im running a supernode to sniff out the fucks on the kazaa network,been loging it all day and i came up with a few companys that look shady..

so once i get this done i will have them rechck it at pg and the database will bebetter when 2.0 comes out.

IFeelFree, dude me and you are pals!
One of my favorite CREAM songs has the same title as your username...I feel free!
I just did an analysis, of a very interesting case that gilbd sent a link on. The case is an appeal by a copyright holder , Harlan Ellison, sci fi writer, alleging AOL is a vicarious copyright infringer, and alleging they were using the DMCA to protect them though safe harbor status. Interesting legal appeal.
http://www.authorslawyer.com/ellison/brapp1a2.html#toa
~code

What about this, In the Marketplace report (Music in 2010) they suggest a program where the record companys would allow all their music online, everything. Devices would play any music anywhere. There would be a fee but there would be no need for recording as you could get anything anytime.

It sounds like a technological leap but some of you still remember programming on punch cards & paper tape.

Interesting article in Yahoo.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=569&ncid=738&e=1&u=/nm/20030826/tc_nm/column_pluggedin_dc

Only Yahoo recycles their message boards.

IFeelFree...no need to lighten up, you're fine the way you are my friend.

Suikiogiaz- sorry for finding your post late. Yeah, you could do the keyword deal, and the mp3 deal, but not sure of how effective it would be.
I kind of like the idea, but, have some reservations about you or anyone cool doing it.
First,the robots I think are looking for specific tunes, and probably, the toadies reprogram the robots kind of "on the fly" to look for the songs of the day.

But, let's say a robot gets tricked into downloading your file. It's gonna mark your IP and the files (especially if you name them a popular new song, like songs at bigchampagne.com). Who knows if they are going to actually open the file or not. They might save the files to a disk or something as evidence , so as to avoid evidence "tampering" charges. If your song has a name of a copyrighted piece, and is about the right file size (let's say 3 megs), they will probably d/l it and mark you as someone to possibly subpoena, and that would not be cool. They could even open the file, decide you are a troublemaker, and subpoena your ISP just to hassle you, even though they knew that you are not an infringer.

It's one of those ideas that sound good on paper, and are born of the best intentions, but could conceivably generate unintended consequences.

I hope that made some sense. And, to be honest, if the messages would be intended for the toadies of the RIAA, they don't care what's right or wrong, they care about what makes them money.

Seraphielx- I know I say it all the time, but I for one appreciate all the effort you put in on the tech side. Your efforts are definitely going to make PG 2.0 much better!

Also sending a daily shout out to Pepe,Remye,Average,Wabbit,Woodhead,ISP,Jazzmary,Suikiogiaz,BigKahunah,thumb,independentm,gimpster,Critical,theHermit,George,oldster,and everyone else.
~code

code:
Hmm.. yes it could be potentially dangerous. I hadn't even contemplated that. No it wasn't intended for the toadies of the RIAA, but it might not of been very effective anyhow. I still may try it, if I can complete a decent dossier, and I'll make sure the file size is decently under a meg. Thanks for your response though. Back to the drawing table for now.

Suikio

The suggestion of a monthly p2p service reminds me of Netnews. For several years it was the best thing going (whether you were looking for on-topic insight or files), then businesses started to post ads, next thing you know they're flooding the groups with ads. When that didn't work, hostilities broke out. Groups were flooded with garbage and bots were coded to auto-rmgroup and cancel msgs. In other words, what they could not control, they ment to destroy. Sound familar? Next thing you know private pay newsservers spring to life. The end result is that a great sharing tool is now only a shadow of it's former self - unless you want to pay. There are some good newservers still, but they're not as common (Universities usually have good feeds, but local ISPs haven't a clue what customers want - a service that does not accept rmgroup or msg cancel requests and retains msgs atleast 5 days -for starters).

While some suggestions of pay services aren't a bad idea, keep in mind that the RIAA is trying to abolish all file sharing, not just the music end of it. So, you all can toss ideas back and forth about Ben's comments, but adding more pay sites/fees isn't going to fix the problem. At this point, I'm not sure that the erratication of the RIAA or DMCA would bring back our days of innocence either.

Yeah, I was thinking you might have been trying to get the word out to folks other than the toadies, but really, for those downloading files, I think we would be preaching to the choir...i.e. trying to convince people already on our side. Now, what would be a great notion would be something similar to that, but just a text file that tries to get people to go to congress.org and write their congressperson and support our side of the issue. In fact, with non-copyrighted files, you could put in just a blurb about writing congress to support P2P rights, and put in some key words like "P2P,music,Mp3,rap,hiphop,rock,blues,free,filez".
I personally fault Sharman Networks for not getting their own customers involved in fighting for online filesharing rights in a more proactive manner, and for not having something in the agreement that people working at the direction of the RIAA or any labels associated with the RIAA, or MPAA, are NOT allowed to use the networks...PERIOD, and that violation of this rule may result in filing legal actions against violators.
~code

thats what i said like 5 days ago 1 dollar a month with no restrictions, they would make 780 million dollars a year only in the U.S. these people are idiots if they dont try something better than suing their customers

Forget movie downloads. Using the WM codec, which is the only one that works with MSDRM, a DVD quality movie is going to require approximately three gig. A minimum quallity for distribution, if you dont mind a few dissatisfied customers, would be one and a half gig. The pirates today use 700M divx, but those arn't anywhere near the quality a decent commercial service would need.

There are three consequences of this:

1. A large movie download business will need one hugely expensive CDN to serve all that.
2. Only broadband users with very fast connections (at least 512 down, forget all those pathetic 256 and 384s)will be able to get them.
3. The download times will be so slow consumers could get movies faster by going up the local blockbuster.

Other than those technical problems, there are no big obsticals. Unlike the RIAA, the movie industry is fairly willing to use new technology. DVD is an example. VCD and SVCD actually made decent profits in some areas, through few larger studios would release on a format with no encryption.

While legal movie downloads from large studios may be a possibility in only five years, the RIAA is less willing when it comes to music. Yes, they have made a few token effots such as pressplay. But they will not seriously invest in legal downloads until the competition from p2p has been removed. Thats not going to happen easily, if at all. The only way the RIAA and the rest of the media industry could *possibly* shut down p2p would be to hugely restructure the internet and remove end users ability to serve content. ISPs are not going to cooperate in that, as it would break half the internet up, crashing VPNs, IRC and IP phone systems. I wouldn't put it past the RIAA to give it a try of course, if they are wiling to try the sue 'em all campaign they must be desperate and more than a little irrational, but I would estimate their chance of success as perhaps 10%, and thats assumeing they can get the MPAA in on it as well.

I got to agree with thumbtack and codewarrior here too, Ifeelfree.
At some point where would it stop...movies, books, M$, online gaming, pay websites, and almost anyone who could claim a potential loss would wind up wanting to levy the same compuslery charges. The internet would soon be too costly for anyone to use it and thats just what the riaa wants.

Look at this:

RIAA To Sue Radio Listeners For Copyright Infringement

http://www.newshax.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=439

Here's the story:

NewsHax wire -- In a hastily organized press conference this afternoon, the Recording Industry Association of America announced plans to issue 500,000 subpoenas to combat what it calls "the largest group of copyright infringers in the world": radio listeners.

A spokesperson for the RIAA said that it could no longer overlook the sheer numbers of people who listen to music without paying for it, and that the first round of subpoenas would target "the most egregious offenders". Experts call this one of the largest legal actions ever undertaken by one entity in this country. (more...)



The Association's legal strategy is to subpoena two or three persons who have witnessed the defendants engaged in the act of listening to the radio, and to use their depositions to attempt to recover some of the billions of dollars that the RIAA says is lost every year when these "scofflaws", as the Association calls them, blatantly steal music.

The president of the RIAA, I. Screwem, recently said in an interview with Rolling Stone, "If you look at it, the cost is staggering. Look at how many times some songs are played on Top 40 radio during one average day. Each time one of these people steals a listen, it costs us something like $3.00 in lost revenue from CD sales. This has to stop." The first cases could come to trial this winter, barring any unforeseen legal challeges.

I heard they might use hash functions to identify files without having to download them. I'm not sure how that works.

Good idea code, I'll get on that.

Justin42980
Date: August 26, 2003 @ 5:53 PM
Ben Affleck is a fucking piece of shit... comes out with commercials against "piracy and downloading" , then does it himself.. i bet he got paid dearly to appear on tv with that public service announcement.. then after gigli shits the bed he turns around and says he file shares... hippocritical fuck!!

Maybe this is what the kids new that we didn't know about.

Don't know if anyone has checked out zeropaid.com today, but some interesting articles online...
Music industry uses vulnerability in Kazaa Hash Calculations
http://www.zeropaid.com/news/articles/auto/08262003a.php
Big-Time File Swappers Still at Large
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34980-2003Aug23.html
A quote from the latter article:
:Russ Crupnick, NPD vice president, said in a statement that the Recording Industry Association of America's legal campaign against file swappers is only scaring "light downloaders" rather than the big fish the RIAA says it wants to catch. "

Gee, a person in entertainment using P2P..how 'bout that? Who woulda thunk?

The problem is the part about paying for downloading...like he really wants to...if the only choice you have is to pay for the stuff, then I'd just wait and go to the store to buy the real deal...sheesh.

I'm just waiting for these wise-asses to give it up and for things to go back to the way it was (or better!).

Note to thumbtack/Bill:
Bill, many of us have written strong,polite, articulate letters to Senators Coleman,Dayton, and Rep. MCCullough, requesting that you, Ann, and Fred (of EFF)m respectfully, be incorporated/featured, in any subseqeuent hearings on the RIAA matter. Two questions. 1) Have you received any contact from Senator Coleman's office on this?
2) Should the newer members on the board who have not written these letters, go to Congress.org and write their letters of request?

Thank you in advance for the answer.
Quote for the day :
"Sometimes the wheels of justice get out of camber and caster, and need a good alignment and lube job!"-CodeWarrior, copyright (c) 2003. All Rights reserved..

IFeelFree -- First of all, don't take any of this personally, okay? Just responding to your question.

At the DMCA hearing I testified at in April or May, I heard the RIAA state flat-out blatant lies. They have consistently been doing this for several years.

The best one was them telling the U.S. Copyright Office that they had released 120,000 new CDs in the last 3 years, when the recording industry has NEVER released more than 38,000 CDs in one year (1999) and you can pick any three unconsecutive years that you want and still not make it add up to 120,000.

This was almost the first thing out of their mouth. Since my panel was already finished at this time, I had to get up and leave so that I didn't disrupt the entire hearing by challenging the lawyer they sent to represent them.

I was nice to this Sherman character compared to my rants about Hilary Rosen, the Wicked Witch of the East, West and all point in between.

The RIAA members have been busted numerous times already for violating the anti-trust laws, particularly price-fixing. Maybe I use a bit too much hyperbole from time to time, but I'm a musician and I like pyro effects. I tried the simple facts and the truth is that no one pays attention to the simple facts if you don't set a few fireworks off to get their attention in the first place.

These guys have violated almost every facet of the Sherman antitrust Acts including discrimination against the independents, lying directly during government hearings and generally attempting to perpetrate a massive fraud against the government by telling them that mp3s are a perfect copy of a CD, not to mention repeated references that they are doing this for the benefit of the artists.

Go look at www.recordingartistscoalition.com and you will see their stance, which is summed up by one person's statement (and I am not quoting verbatim) that the recording industry has never, ever done one single thing with the best interests of the artists in mind.

This is no diferent. There is only way to save the future of music and that's to deconstruct the RIAA. As much as I would like to launch a terrorist attack and simply blow up the offices of the five major labels, not to mention Hilary Rosen's house, the truth of the matter is that we have to take this through the courts.

The RIAA is guilty as hell of antitrust. I have told this to the US Dept of Justice, the FBI, the U.S. Copyright Office, the Federal Trade Commission, the president, vice president, every U.S. Senator and the Supreme Court.

And still the abuse continues. There's only one thing left to do. Support the Webcasters Alliance, as they are gearing up to get serious about clipping the vultures' wings. We must take them to court. But it's going to be a tough legal fight because the RIAA has had three years to lay the foundation of their propaganda and they have been paying off our congressional and Senate representatives left and right.

So the next time you would like to buy a CD, send the money (or even just a portion of it) to the Webcasters Alliance (links and address on the front page of www.azoz.com).

The real battle is preparing to begin. The WA needs money for attorneys' fees and court filings. We all need to help them. If a million people can just fork up one dollar...

CODE....I think all and any should write or re-write the letters & send them again. I wrote mine before the dear Norm letter and I also suggest using Senator Colemans web instead cong.org. Whatuthinkbro?

"On the wheels of justice".....How about new ball joints?

George, your letter actually is much better since it is a serious answer. Mine, humbly, would not help because I think it makes us look to smart alecky. Also, as wordy as I am, if I tried to do a serious one like yours, it would need to be bound in leather it would be so big...lol...(seriously, I have written several books..so I can be long winded if I want . If you did find anything of use in mine, please feel free to copy/paste into yours. PS, don't know if you got my note to you in a post the other day, but I downloaded your songs and wrote how great I thought they were, and told everyone to check out Haydens Wall..y'all are MUCH better than those LaMeRz like Metallica. I liked Believe In a lot...actually, have it playing right now.

Also, I wrote a note in another thread asking Bill if he had any contact from Senator Coleman's office about our requests that Bill, Ann, and Fred from EFF, be made a part of any subsequent hearings, as knowledgeable in the issues form a consumer/musician side of things.
GREAT SONG AGAIN...
everyone go to azoz.com, some good tunes happening!
~code

Code I also fell that people coming in to read and see what is going on also right the congress and any one else who will listen. and spread the word you would be suprised how many people do not know what is going on, and the abuses of the RIAA.

I think it's pretty ironic don't you? Celebs usually are so stupid when it comes to computers that they don't even know how to click a mouse. Why dont these celebs who do download speakup???? I take everything I read on the web lately with a grain of salt. I cant imagine that he would be sharing the type of music/movies that we would. I just cant see it.

Unless its porn he's sharing. lol

and besides, movie dls are just too large and a waste of bandwidth, not everyone can dl or share full length movies at 600mgs a file!! depending on the format.

isp privacy...sounds good to me!
Hey, hows things going there man. I know things have been tough, and peo-le are hurting all around this country. Hows the employment in your neck of the woods?
~cofe

Woodhead, I agree with you man!
PS, checked out the website for your group...cool! Loads quick and neat Flash FX...you guys are doing some good work bro!
~code

Sorry for all the posts, but addressing separate topics.
I just wanted to express my complete solidarity with George, and 100 % agreement with everything he said.
George has been on the front lines.
He talks the talk and walks the walk, and unlike Cary-Sue, George has integrity and is really out to help the majority of musicians.

Take a bow George, you're getting a standing ovation my friend!
~code

Date: August 25, 2003 @ 7:32 PM
To any one who can answer :

I'm trying to understand how a monetary award can be awarded to the RIAA or plaintiffs(should someone decide to fight rather than settle) and who it is that determines the amount.

Judge,Jury,Panel? Who would the burden fall on (if a decision was found in the plaintiffs favor)to determine an award ,if any , and what amount?

I have, what I believe to be, a valid argument to deny an award. However ,if it isn't a jury deciding then the point would be moot.

I've only been involved in a handful of civil cases concerning monetary awards and damages, in which the jury was given specific criteria for determing amounts.

In a case like these , who would be the decision makers

I definetly would like to see the Record Industry broken apart. For years corporations has been replacing people with technology to save them money and make them, Now the tides have turned and we found a way to replace corporations with technology and they cry that it isnt fair. Is it far that for years people have been losing their jobs just so you can become richer? The Richest 10 percent of America own 80% of wealth the richest 1 percent owns 40%. This means that for every dollar people in the lower 90% has equals $4 the richest 10% has, and they want to sue us.

I love the internet because of how unregulated it is, and I hope this music industy thing is the only the begining of the take back from the people.

Corporations make such a big deal over every penny, I remember 8 years ago when I was 16 working at Mcdonalds I got a lecture becuase I didnt squeeze every drop of ketchup out of a bag in the middle of the rush. I was told this could add up to a lot of money for the company as a whole if this happened in all mcdonalds. You think a 16 year old cares, Things like this is the reason why so many people dont care about things such as the record industry, We know you money, were the ones in dire need not you. I've come up with several solutions for p2p which I think could work but I would like the at least see the record industry broken apart first

Imagine how many mp3's her ass can hold.

Imagine how many mp3's her ass can hold.

thanks code, we are trying as hard as possible. I was one of those I was talking about getting involved for this is the only way we can make not only the RIAA, but also our Government to stop bowing to special intrest groups, and do the job they were elected to do, represent the people.

First of all, I saw the interview, and I thank Ben for his positive input, despite his previous pathetic anti-piracy commercials.

Secondly, Ben Affleck is not the ultimate authority when it comes to technology.
He is just another clown, who (like all actors) has picked a pointless career, has done nothing useful in his life, and is about to marry a bimbo whore.

Filesharing is more than just a technological advance; it is almost a new evolutionary step for the human species.
There will be paid services, but they will all die. Information is either secret or it is free. It can not be sold.

What the movie industry and the RIAA have been selling up until now was SERVICE (putting content on media) and PRODUCT (the media itself).
They were able to sell it because the technology was too expensive for private individuals.
People weren't really paying for the actual CONTENT on the storage media, even though it sometimes seemed that way.
Now anyone who owns a computer is his/her own "recording industry". Many, including myself, even make their own movies.
Soon people will figure out that they dont even need to pay for TV channels if they have a basic understanding of electronics.

The era of selling content is over.

That's a great question. First off, the DMCA limits the amounts that can be asked for (a measly 150K a song..lol), and the jury would have first reach the guilt of the defendant.
If they were found to be guilty of direct infringement, then the case could follow two directions, depending on the jurisdiction. All these cases are in federal courts because they are federal DMCA cases. The jury could determine the award, and the attys for the RIAA could also ask for "punitive damages" along with any "real or actual damages". Depending on the court, I believe it would be the jury's place to render a monetary award, and this would be done in the form of a judgment, which, if the victim...er, defendant, has no money...well, there is the old saying...can't get blood out of a turnip!
~code

Just a thought, why couldn't the riaa keep track of which artists and songs are being downloaded? Especially if they were donwloaded from one of their sites? As mentioned awhile back why couldn't they turn into the Music Industry Utility, and we'd get a monthly bill online? Or pay them a monthly subscription via direct deposit or what have you. Isn't it up to them to keep track of their artists and what they get paid anyway? pepe

Hi thanks CODE.......back to work on the 25th of Sept. thanks!
Also ,I have another plan for a home business! Going to try some different things! CHANGE YOU KNOW BRO......like the music industry will have to do! JOIN THE CLUB RIAA! Well I hope you guys get to make contact with NORM!

ISP-
I was praying that things would work out for you my friend...great!
and Rightoshare- for a preview of the kind of complaints and filings those who get sued are in for...check out this link..
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/riaa/arcojordan40303cmp.pdf

I'm so sick of Ben and the MPAA trying to lay down a guilt trip on all of us. Never mind that the staffers that we're supposedly stealing food money from have ALREADY BEEN PAID AND WILL NEVER RECIEVE ANY MORE MONEY FOR THEIR WORK. But I'm sure that was just an honest mistake on the MPAA's part. If they really wanted to show who piracy harmed, how about a webmaster for a porn site who is losing customers because most people don't have enough bandwidth to download Spider-Man and watch 2 women, a man, a midget and a donkey go at it.

NE1 see this article?
"MP2P Users Targeted With Subpoenas
posted by i like food on August 24, 2003 @ 07:20pm

Up till now the R.I.A.A. subpoena campaign had been limited to those desolate souls who dared to share copyrighted material on the Fast Track network. Apparently all of that has just changed. In the updated August 22nd list of P2P user names with suits filed against then, 11 names from a non Fast Track network have been added. All of these users are from non other then the MP2P network. Populated of course by Piolet, Blubster, and RockitNet.
-antrojas on MP2P
-Cassandra on MP2P
-Flirt on MP2P
-GenAv8r on MP2P
-Jayzzz on MP2P
-Jgryl on MP2P
-Landmracing on MP2P
-Lprice on MP2P
-slimgoody on MP2P
-Smyles51 on MP2P
-Tori02 on MP2P


These 11 names all appear on the newest published list of Subpoenas. This has sent shockwaves threw out the community as the news has broke. Until this most users saw that all the subpoenas where from Fast Track and assumed they where fairly safe on smaller networks like MP2P. Perhaps the P2P news community hasn’t been the only one to take note of MP2P recent explosion in growth. MP2P now has three clients to rival the three Fast Track offers."
http://www.p2pforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=980

The RIAA does it's anti-p2p thing while many of their artists support it.

The MPAA does their anti-p2p thing while at least one of their actors admits to doing it himself.

Looks like reality is setting in for the Associations of America. Yes, everybody does it.

Code:
Thanks for the reply!

Now I have some points I would like to share about such an event should it happen:

If in fact the jury decides on the amount to be awarded then there are two things , in particular, that I think should be pointed out by the defense before a decision is reached or deliberation ,of the said award , commences( maybe incorporate into closing remarks or statements). Please bear with me if these points seem repetitive of previous comments or posts, but I think they merit recieving a little attention, especially if they can be used to argue the validity of the prescribed "infringement" awards.

Point 1:
To award a plaintiff a monetary award for copyright infringement deemed to be causing loss of revenue, based on the plaintiffs arguement that (x) number of people would have purchased the product , had it not been offered freely, is nothing more than mere speculation. No real evidence can substantiate an entities claim that because it produces or distributes a product or service ,it can predict an expected sales return with any accuracy or be considered to be accepted as fact. To do so is to suggest that every product or service ever provided or distributed by any entity should automatically return a profit. This does not work in the 'real world' of business. Every venture is a risk and not everything sells. An award can not be justifiably awarded based on this arguement. The consumer's dollar produces the factual results of a market or entities success(or profit) not the entities production/return expectations.

Point 2:
Another issue that concerns determing an award amount is individual accountability. In a case where the number of offending parties(copyright infringers) is so large ( an estimated 60,000,000 people) one individual should not be held accountable for the actions of or liable for the damages of , the said number of people. Award amounts of tens of thousands , hundreds of thousands(and even up to millions of) dollars does not reflect a just or proportionate award upon one individual where again so many "supposed" infringers are involved.

Think of it in terms of this analogy:

If an individual was pulled over for speeding and the officer was aware of many people speeding that day, but for what ever reason , couldn't pull them all over, would it be justifiable for the officer to write the one offender a ticket for the amount of what all of the tickets would have been written out for? Instead of getting a $50.00 fine you get a $1,000.00 fine.

Seems a bit ridiculous, doesn't it?

Could a jury bear this on their conscience, to award in an amount from one person what is reflective of many so called offenders?

Again ,sorry if this is old news but I felt like sharring it.

RTS

Its a crap shoot P2P "Peer to PEER!
Just hope you get a few of the 60 mill in your flavor.....ARGGGGG!

It's CRAP alright ! The RIAA's whole campaign is CRAP! Susie boy Sherman is full of CRAP! And the acronym RIAA will soon be a slang term for CRAP!

CRIAA-Crappy Record & Idiotic A/O's of America !

isp- :

Did ya get Beatles ?

YES THANKS RTS for my beetles music IT IS GREAT!!!!It is so GREAT to SHARE!

You pirate you!

LMAO, LOL

RIGHTOSHARE would you like a copy of my Alan Sherman cd "I Hate the Beatles".....I'll send it to you.....OH wait!!! I have to make sure it is not RIAA!

Just found this:

RIAA, studios gain P2P legal aid

http://news.com.com/2100-1027_3-5068421.html

No Thanks ! I suffered for 18 yrs. of your taste . HA,HA. Got my own now.

One would think that 5 yrs. of nothing but beatles and beach boys followed by , a sudden change (within the wink of an eye) of Oakridge boys and Willie Nelson , for 5 more yrs. would leave one permanently traumatized and unappreciative of music. But I survived! Thanks to the advent of F.M. radio and the 10 lb., 6 "d" battery, mono speakered cassette recorder I learned to appreciate my own music.

LOL !

LOL ok!!! Hey I just came across a box of LP's You want them? Do you remember "ALL IN THE FAMILY" Vaugn Meader? the spoof on the JFK family!

That has to be worth something....and also "Every inch a sailor" YOHOHO

I actually am gonna find a subscrption service... tired of all the crap i get with P2P apps. I mean my school has gotten countless problems with that and I think I may have gotten a virous thrugh there. and I hate reling on a user to stay online to get the file... specially on dialup.. the user tends to reject me and also they dont want to stay online that long to let the file transefer complete/bandwith issues also.

"How your whiskers scrape my cheeks.."

isp-;

Have you told Zade about this site?

Educate him. Promote the boycott!

post ya L8r !

EFF says hit list is up to 1145 now!

I TELL EVERYONE about this site! I hang out at the wallmarts electronic/music Dept! Which by the way I noticed is slowing down a bit!

My big question: What's Al Franken's position on file-sharing? Is he of the Affleck mentality (more or less)? Or is he a typical "useful idiot" who slavishly and unquestioningly toes the multinational entertainment-media complex's party line on this issue? (I am especially interested since over the weekend he beat back "Fair and Balanced" Fox News' lawsuit to force changes to the title and cover of his book "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right" -- which shows yet again there is a different standard for people of Franken's stature and position than for the poor shlubs who are being persecuted daily by these fat cats, being as District Judge Denny Chin called Fox's suit "without merit," in contrast to the kangaroo courts' acceptance of the RIAA's stuffing the courts with their vindictive lawsuits against John and Jane Q. Consumer.)

Looks like another organization has adopted the RIAA strategy of suing the public:

http://www.cbronline.com/latestnews/62cbf9d13b40711e80256d880018c80f

"SCO Group Inc is preparing to take a Linux user to court to speed up the legal process in its claim Unix code has been illegally copied into Linux, and also encourage Linux users to take out a license for its intellectual property."

Is anyone else as disgusted as I am?

Cool Site. Interesting Poll. -
EXCELLENT ONLINE, the premier home for North American fans of UK Indie music.

http://www.excellentonline.com/pollBooth.php3?question_id=1009&answer_id=-1

hmmmm... The RIAA are concerned over the fact that people are making so called exact copies of their product in MP3 format,to which we all know the MP3 format is not.But Sony owner of Sony Music,RCA owner of RCA Records & Phillips owner of Island records,make dual disc recorders so you can make an exact duplicate of their product.Do they really think people who buy those recorders are just going to make copies of the CD's they already own.? Hell no they dont.They know now as they did with their cassette recorders that people will make copies of things they dont own.

Unless these dual disc recorders are programed to remember a CD,and copy a CD only once "for fair use backup"are they not also creating a way of distributing illegal copies ? and these are exact copies not MP3 quality.

http://www.negativland.com/minidis.html

Just an article about the high price of CD's.Below is a segment.

"But the music business got consumers used to the idea of paying the higher price and the labels got used to the idea of their higher profit margin, and record labels continue to this day to pay almost all artists a royalty rate as if they're selling CD's for the list price of vinyl. That extra 4 or 5 or 6 bucks goes right into the pockets of the record labels. It is not shared with musicians."

BREAKING NEWS!

Believe it or not Folks, if the following is True then... I don't believe this!
They're Extremely Desperate!!!

See---> http://radio.about.com/library/weekly/aa082603a.htm

http://www.negativland.com/minidis

Hmmm...I'll try again.

Another one!

RIAA To Sue Radio Listeners For Copyright Infringement!!!

http://www.newshax.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=439

Their not true but they are funny.I laughed my ass off reading those stories.You know the RIAA would love to sue someone over that for spreading misinformation.


LOL!!

These "News" stories are great. It means the word is getting out about the (great one Code!) GonoRIAA.

They are being ridiculed to death.
This is EXACTLY what we want. To totally discredit them.

This movement is picking up steam!
Die RIAA Die.

Danny47: It's a satire.

hey! i got a good question, who's the lil shits that goes out onto networks like kazaa and distorts the music?...

you know you get 5 seconds into a music file (i.e. song called "like a pimp"), and all of a sudden BANGING NOISES!! CLICK CLICK CLICK SCRRAATCCH BAAANG BAAAANG!!!!! EEEEEEERRRRRRRRR!!!!!! CH CH CH CH CH!!!!

cmon? i want to know WHAT company is doing this... i know i saw it somewhere, but i can't remember. i would like to know so i can go educate users on other forums about the truth of this.. they assume that because of this, the RIAA will sue them or something. plus, i'm dying to know, so who knows the site to the organization/company who does this?

thanks! and a middle finger for the RIAA...

,,|,,

hahahahaa! STILL FILE SHARING LIKE CRAZY, so RIAA can take a deep breath when they smell me shattin on their whole "anti piracy" plan. shoulda thought this one through you lil fuckers, now the whole thing's gonna take a 180 degree plunge on all your rich asses. one day at a time, we're gonna slowly drown you mother fuckers.

SlimDick - This one might interest you.

http://arstechnica.com/archive/news/1061917958.html

"The power of subpeona - hi, you like porn?"

"According to the Detroit Free Press, a few aspiring lads have figured out that if the RIAA should have subpoena power, maybe they should, too. But there's a twist, and if the story is completely accurate, it's a nasty one: if all it takes is a form or two to be filed, what's to stop all kinds of people from filing copyright claims against you? Now that there's no longer a judicial figure involved in differentiating between bogus claims and real claims at the entry way, is it possible that unsavory types could tweak this situation to their advantage?"

dyjytyl, let it go, you are giving this person what they want, a reaction.
Let it go, and sooner or latter he will go away. let it go.

Perhaps if enough frivolous subpoenas are filed by all sorts of people for fictious "copyright violations", it will help put a stop to this nonsense.

Perhaps the people who run this site can block this guy?

The real battle is preparing to begin. The WA needs money for attorneys' fees and court filings. We all need to help them. If a million people can just fork up one dollar...

where do I send some cash?????

ifeelfree this asshole is right about free speach, so ignore the wanker and eventualy he will go away, It is like this folks, this person is sitting in his home safe. We don't know who he is and probably dont want to. so ignore the little boy with the tantrums and he will go away.

BOYCOTT SLIMCHANCE

SlimChance ...
Like Stirring Folks up eh?

Not with me anyway, try as hard as you like hahahaaa....
Folks, Let this Person Lash & Smolder as he likes, that's what he wants stirrings Things up

Propably an RIAA Drone, or something like that.
Anyhow you won't Escape Judegment Day you Greedy Bastards!

What goes around comes around...

Code we haven't heard anything as of yet...

Piracy of cellular ringtones in Asia is causing a problem.
See this link: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030827/tc_afp/singapore_telecom_mobile_030827053943

Looks like the RIAA will be able to issue 2 billion subpoenas against everyone in Asia with a cell phone. The possibilities are mindboggeling.

LOL...surfside...looks like they will be having to hire Ed McMahon to do on air spots instead of being the Pub Clearinghouse spokesperson saying You Might Already Be A Winner...to his new message "You Might Already Be a Defendant" and they just get one of those third party bulk rate mailing lists and send subpoenas to everyone in the USA, under the theory if you subpoena everyone you are bound to catch SOME infringers...
My gosh, what's a kid to do!
~code

long time viewer frist time poster....:0) i have a few ideas that i'm to sleepy to get off my chest so another day but i been seeing all these posters talking about adding fees to brode band and what not i bleave we should not let the riaa surive i bleave we should send are congress members letters that we do not want to pay the riaa kick back on on blank Cds becose we are not useing them for any thing related to the riaa why should we have to pay the riaa any thing for blank cds? as for pay-for-play thats the worst idea i have heard come out of this site sorry to say this but let them R.I.P as thay should have died out back in 99 i do also bleave thay are a monoply and should be exposed as such but i do like alote of the rap being put out under the riaa lables it's to bad i can't support them other then sending then money derectly becose the money i spend on there CDs will not go to them any way well sorry about the SPELLING!!! :0( it's not my srongest sute


boy-cott and protest......we will win stay strong there days are numbered

@ ringtone piracy...
and soon if you sing along to a song playing in your portable player or car sterio you will have to pay a $1,000 fine for ruining the artist's song singing it offkey.

IFeelFree:

Concerning the SCO suits, to say that their claims are standing on shaky ground is an understatement. It's more like standing on imaginary ground 600 meters up in the air, prone to earthquakes.
Here is a pretty good summary on why not to worry, it also includes some background:
http://www.mvista.com/sco-ibm.html

What they are doing, though, is spreading FUD: Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. And yes, it does disgust me.

dyjytyl -- the RIAA is posting the bogus files and paying other companies to do it as well.

woodhead -- The address for the Webcasters Alliance and a PayPal link to contribute directly to them is on the front page of www.azoz.com

I know it's an organization that works alongside with the RIAA, but I want to know which one it is. I know I saw the web site somewhere, I just wish I remembered. Anyone know who distorts the music on networks such as Kazaa?

thanks

rofl! reading that article about ringtone piracy.. look at how they word it:

"The phenomenal growth of Asia's mobile phone download industry has spawned widespread music piracy and copyright owners are waging a tough battle to claim royalties in a region sorely lacking respect for intellectual property."

rofl! They make it sound as if ringtones are more valuable than gold. Hello, this is the RIAA, and we're going to drop a big ass bomb on your country for downloading ringtones without paying the 30 cents for them.

Holy shit, we have wars going on and people killin each other, go spend your fucking budget on something else.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=529&ncid=529&e=6&u=/ap/20030827/ap_en_mu/downloading_music

Ok. Now I'm mad. The RIAA is getting ridiculous. I will do everyhting I can do in order to bankrupt them. They're buying our political leaders, and brainwashing millions of people into believing that mp3 "swapping" is a crime. I certainly hope that all of you who are making posts are also spreading word of the boycott, as well as educating your peers to do the same.

This legal mess is really making me not want to listen to music at all. With the top 40 continuously being recycled on the airwaves, the RIAA creating a false scarcity of artists and the outrageous prices of CD's, how can someone who really appreciates music obtain something else without using P2P?

The RIAA needs to be shut down, COMPLETELY. The only way that will happen is if they are exposed for the cartel that they are, and their profits need to be halted.

Steps I'm taking to make sure this will happen:

- Explaining the fallacy if the RIAA's arguments and their brute tactics to 20 of my friends and colleagues.

- Motivating my 20 friends and colleagues to do the same for 20 if their friends and colleagues.

- Encouraging everyone I know to discontinue to buy music from RIAA supported artists.

- Reading up on copyright law, mp3 codec technologies, and current developments with the boycott.

- Visiting record stores and mentioning to random people not to support the RIAA, and what they have in store for you if you are subpoenaed.

Has anyone considered getting the "Truth" campaign involved in this?

Additionally, for many college students, the semester is about to start. I encourage those who really believe in this boycott, to protest at their schools, and exponentially spread this boycott among ALL would-be consumers of RIAA material.

If the RIAA wins this battle, we have forefitted many of our constitutional rights if we don't take a stand against the RIAA.

The Fact is that MP3's are not an Orginal Copy whatsoever, the Quality is far lower than CD Quality, yet these BrainWashing Manipulating RIAA Tyrants compare this with Shoplifting a CD!!!

Not everyone will Buy this kind of Tactics they use.

Know this Folks that ULTIMATLY the more Truth goes out to the Population the Better!
Down with the Greedy RIAA! KILL THE MONEY GRABBING BASTARDS!!

Ripple on Folks do NOT give in to Them!!

"$200 dollars is more than I can afford. I live on a fixed income and need other things more."

Two hundred dollars a YEAR is too much? How can you afford to power your computer? Depending on what sort of access is granted for that token fee, the fee would seem insanely low to me. Still, to keep things in perspective, $200/yr is equal to

$16.70/mo
$03.85/week
$00.54/day

... if you dowloaded one CD "album" a month, a ludicrously small amount, this would have already paid for itself. Be realistic, not idiotic.

What does an artist receive for each CD sold? 50 cents? Now for the math. Say $13 for a CD containing 12 songs. So the artist gets a little over 4 cents per song. The powers that be get about $1.04 per song which unless I'm wrong goes into the jewel case, liner notes, the CD itself etc. Of course all we get with a downloaded song. If I'm an artist and I'm getting basically a 25% raise for each song downloaded rather than purchased at a brick and mortar, or e store, I would jump at that in a heartbeat. Also, just a sidebar here, if cassette tapes are so much more expensive to produce than CD's, why do CD's cost more?

Correction of previous post. Of course all we get with a downloaded song is just the song.

I think $200 is a little high because there isn't enough good music out there worth downloading lately. Who isn't tired of hearing Black Eyed Peas for the millionth time every time you turn on the radio? I heard Shake Ya Tailfeather for the first time just a few weeks ago and it has also worn out its welcome in a short time. So now it would not be worth downloading because I'm not going to hog hard drive space with a bunch of overplayed music. I'm kind of a radio freak so some of you might not be able to relate. But those of you who listen to a lot of radio can hear me loud and clear. I just can't stop, we must note that there are like two large companies that own every radio station in the U.S. There are still some indies but very little. What this causes is about 40 or 50 of the same songs being rotated on virtually the same stations across the country. How are we supposed to sample new music when only a small percentage is being sent across the airwaves?

"Yes. I file share," he (Ben Affleck) tells…

Gee, I guess of the estimated 60,000,000 US file sharers I missed the news about Aaron A. Aaron?

Oh well, let me know when you get to: Zydnoski Z Zydnoskovich, I really want to see how this ends.

Ben Affleck? Who? Cares?

Agree. Ben Affleck is a moron, who just happened to get lucky with "Good Will Hunting."

We are kidding ourselves if we think anyone is going to punish him.

His owners/keepers/handlers in the MPAA may tell him to shut up, but that's about it.