So far, in two waves, the RIAA has attacked at least 370 people, including children and senior citizens, it alleges shared music files online. And it promises to do the same to "thousands more".

It's trying to scare American p2p file sharers into abandoning the practice. It uses subpoenas issued under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act to gouge user names from ISPs, and then holds the threat of court appearances over the heads of people it identifies.

But today, the committee on Governmental Affairs, chaired by senator Norm Coleman, is to hear from three panels on whether or not the RIAA is abusing the DMCA and if it is, what can be done about it?

Through its boss, Mitch Bainwol, and its president, Cary Sherman, the RIAA will answer evidence given by people such as Lorraine Sullivan, the New York student forced to settle with the RIAA for $2,500.

Of course, there's absolutely no question: the RIAA is indeed grossly mis-using powers available to it - and others - under the DMCA.

Will the committee therefore firstly publicly rebuke the RIAA for its practices, and secondly, make meaningful recommendations to finally bring it under control?

Hollywood, of which the RIAA and its owners are but elements, wields far too much power for that to happen.

In the meanwhile:

Will Coleman's committee make serious recommendations to have the DMCA amended?

Will it make serious recommendations to compel the music industry to license its music in return for a reasonable user fee - whether it likes it or not?

We'll keep you posted.

no.

Will it be in C-span?
Still Pickin'
B.H.

If nothing happens after this everyone will know the RIAA slipped Coleman and congress some greenbacks.

I agree with bulkeraser. NO, unless there is unprecidented public grass roots pressure put on congress, then it's still an uphill battle. It'll have to be up to the courts

Will pigs fly out of my.... oops

How much longer will these money grubbing bastards be allowed to keep donig this ? America is OUR country , not THEIRS .

let's keep our fingers crossed that the right thing will be done in this matter and that is to amend this slaughterhouse gestapo like tactics of the riaa giving subpoenaes to innocent people downloading second rate mp3's on the internet. the facts are there for them to see that this is not fair to the people of this country that buys their product and keep food on their tables. the DMCA act has to be amended and let's hope that sen. brownback make that point.

listening now...if Code is listening..I know he is pissed...this Bainwol idiot keeps using PIRACY...now he is bringing in pornography

I know I speak for many of you when I scream AAAAACCCCCKKKKKK!!!!!!!!!
listening to Mitch Bainwol. I have to leave the computer (I'm going to buy tickets to see Michael Moore), so keep me posted.

Valenti needs to go home and take a nap,the more I listen to this anal orifice..the MADDER the bulkeraser gets. They need to listen to Code
on this piracy things. These jerkoffs!
%&^%&^&(*_)$_()()_+(

I'm praying for an upset at these hearings. I hope Coleman has the testicular fortitude to stand up to the RIAA.
Not that he'll hear a fair balance of perspectives because they already painted the place green...
...but oh well...

remember that valenti said the vcr was to the movies, like the boston strangler was to a woman alone

LISTENING TO LL "COOL" J...
NEVER, NEVER, NEVER , NEVER GO SEE A MOVIE THIS GUY IS IN, AND NEVER EVER NEVER BUY ANY MUSIC OF HIS, NEVER PLAY, NOR DOWNLOAD IT...WHAT A BROWNNOSE THIS CAT IS! HE'S ALL UP UNDER MITCH BAINWOL (ITCHY BUNGHOLE) AND HACK,,,ER, JACK VALENTI...

WHAT A LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSER

LL "COOL-NOT" J- HIS MOST "ARTICULATE" PHRASE WAS "WE THA DREAMUHS"...LOL..HE NEEDS TO GET INTO A HIGH SCHOOL REMEDIAL ENGLISH CLASS....HE CAN HARDLY SPEAK ENGLISH FOR GOD'S SAKE...
LOLOLOLOL..
"WE THA DREAMUHS"-------HEY LL "NOT-COOL"----CAN YOU SPELL B O Y C O T T ?

ya where is code..havent seen him in a while

Oh yeah, wherever "Mike's Video" is...
boycott him to the poor house!!!!!!!!
sorry for so many posts. i am just really mad listening to this crap.

I was glad to hear from an indie store owner tell us about the damage that downloading has done to his business. Rich college kids thinking they are entitled to free music makes me sick.

This Senatory Levin needs to be VOTED OUT! If you are in his constituency, he is against you if you are for freedom ...VOTE AGAINST LEVIN..
BOYCOTT LL NOT COOL J
BOYCOTT MIKE'S VIDEO (WHATEVER LITTLE BURG IT'S IN)
VOTE AGAINST SENATOR
Web Site: levin.senate.gov
E-mail: Contact Via 'Web Form.'

Washington Office:
269 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-2202
Phone: (202) 224-6221
Fax: (202) 224-1388

Main District Office:
477 Michigan Ave., Ste. 1860
Detroit, MI 48226
Phone: (313) 226-6020
Fax: (313) 226-6948
(more district offices)

Levin is trying to get DRM insinuated into the discussion right now....
this guy needs to be outta there by being voted out!

jonie1
he is moderating TWO forums
and has put up two websites (one mirrors the other)
http://codewarrior.50mb.org
and
http://www.geocities.com/codewarrior_wins

ya have to take the < br >
tag out

I was glad to hear a milkman tell us about the damage that cows have done to their business.

"I was glad to hear a milkman tell us about the damage that cows have done to their business."

Nice try. It is a nonsensical analogy, but if it makes you feel better. : )

Anybody know what time this is on cspan?

its on now...started at 10 EST

not being shown on cspan now

You know, I wish I could say I got hope of this working out. Of course, you already know my feelings on this one if you have been following this article. This was set up to pat the RIAA and cohorts on the back and say good job. No matter the nastiness that is hidden behind the curtian and swept under the rug. Give'em credit, they know how the game is played and the stage is set for yet another round of "good ol' boys". I will try very hard not to be disappointed when the dust settles and we hear what a great job the RIAA has done in protecting its rights. I am suprised they will allow the harden criminal Lorrain to appear before them without manacles and handcuffs.

Lorraine Sullivan did a wonderful job.
And, she got our BOYCOTT message in there. She said she wasn't going to be buying any CDs. Lorraine did a great job...we all owe her a debt for her courageous testimony before the Congress.
-bulkeraser

You go D!!!

Lorraine was awesome. Wow.

just found the real audio stream at c-span. It is on right now. The music-now dude (Gladwin) is a lying evil scum. He keeps saying that downloading music is stealing.

Lorraine is on now. Good job pointing out who the REAL pirates are! RIGHT ON LORRAINE we won't by their CD's either!
BOYCOTT!

CHUCK D, you GO DUDE! Gonna buy YOUR CD's and stuff! (If I can find non RIAA stuff of yours.) Chuck D you are so damn right on!

Chuck D is our Hero!

Props to Chuck...I have always respected this guy, but his stock with me just skyrocketed. This guy ROCKS!
I don't listen to rap or hip hop, but I gotta go buy one of his records just for his testimony.
GREAT
-bulkeraser

Chuck D was hilarious! He addressed everything but the issue at hand. That rhetoric plays well to the masses, but the Senators are lawyers and know a smokescreen when they see it. Why did Chuck D waste all his time? Rule 1 of public speaking - know your audience. In that respect, the file sharing companies are doing a good job presenting their arguments.

NO DRM, NO GATEWAY, NO NO NO, Mr. Morris, it is ALL about control. Altnet wants that control. NO, control belongs to the ARTIST and CONSUMER, NOT some middleman. You are just trying to take the place of the RIAA.

Alan Morris, Lorraine, and CHUCK..
I like Alan's English accent...it sounds refined. Unlike Valenti who sounds like a cheap second rate hood from Philly..lololol

mroop, Chuck was a bit too aggressive with his passion maybe, but he is 100 percent right! The industry is out of date. It needs to go!

DRM files get preference? Can you say monopoly? Keep the RIAA stuff in a prefered position? Altnet sucks!

I suppose the Brit accent (as opposed to D's street accent), legitimizes the information. Barf! (and I'm putting mroop on *ignore* - I have enough stress) and it's like arguing with the right-to-"life" folk.

Independenttm - Whether or not Chuck D is right doesn't matter. His comments are irrelevant because they don't speak to the issues being addressed by this hearing. Alan Morris is a pro - he's damn good at what he's doing. Chuck D is being laughed at by the panel.

Carla - the accent has nothing to do with it. It is the content, not the manner of presentation. If that is all you took from what I said, then please put me on ignore. Thank you.

it was sarcasm....nevermind.

Damn Morris good! "If a court of due competence" Brilliant!

Does anyone notice that nobody has bothered to ask Mr. D a question after the first one? LOL

They hide in Vanuuatu to hide from the RIAA.

hmm..as I am listening to little Senator Levin, I don't think it would be out of line for anyone and everyone who finds his line of questioning somewhat troubling to email him at congress.org. He was so interested in the Kazaa Eula agreement, but he didn't ask the RIAA rep about the violation of Kazaa's agreement by the RIAA through its agents such as BayTSP including, but not only the following:

"2.11 Monitor traffic or make search requests in order to accumulate information about individual users;


2.12 "Stalk" or otherwise harass another
(THROUGH SENDING OUT THREATENING INSTANT
MESSAGES TO USERS, WHICH THE RIAA ADMITS IT DID)

2.14 Collect or store personal data about other users

There is NO disagreement that the RIAA, through its technical agents did these things, over and over and over and over"

dr. moreno
"to take that which does not belong to you"..hmm..Like Big labels take the copyright from the artists who were the original producers of content?
Like that Dr. Moreno?

The solution is to get rid of the RIAA and NOT just replace it with another middleman monopoly. Get the middleman out of the picture!

A downloader is NOT a bootlegger. Get it right folks! Bootleggers make mass copies and sell them. Downloaders download and listen to songs. Bootleggers are criminals, Downloaders are potential customers.

GET REAL UP THERE FOLKS!

last note, if I or anyone ever waivered
about buying any CDs from the RIAA labels, this hearing should cinch it for everyone..BOYCOTT THE JERKS TO THE POORHOUSE---VOTE AGAINST CARL LEVIN,
MARK PRYOR, AND SUSAN COLLINS~
AND STAY AWAY FROM MUSIC NOW !
-bulkeraser

It will all be fixed when the RIAA is dead and there is NO replacement for them.

lol..site updated look between posts...lol

Bulk:
Did you notice at the end that they were going to leave testimony open for three weeks. I wonder if that means we hit them with enough for them to be looking for more testimony from other sources, but were unable to add them to this panel. Since questioning is still open we should pressure Coleman to question our people, or extend and have another hearing with Bill, Wendy, and Larry.

I so sick of this bullshit....What we need to do is tell all the internet providers if they continue give out IP addresses we all will drop them. If we all start to protest the Internet providers, then we can get them on our side.

Also....if We urge our friends and family to drop their internet providers we will have less people on the web....less purchasing....less money being made at the major companies....This would put more people on ourside. These major companies would have no choice but to support us because if they didnt their pockets would get smaller. No?

michael moore?....give me a break, what a waste of flesh and bones...

from what I was hearing, there was an undertone of them saying there was a need for even more repressive laws, especially from Carl Levin. The only antidote for this kind of thing is getting CodeWarrior's Bill passed !

I ignore you, mroop.

I just gave PE a listen...i hate it, but im gonna buy it anyway to show support. Chuck D a phool? I think not.
and Lorraine, i think i love you!

~time flies~

djjayo1- it's worth a shot man, good idea. Plus, the Sens who are obviously against filesharers, and are thinking about introducing even worse legislation than we already have, Sens like Susan Collins, Mark Pryor, and especially Carl Levin, need to hear from us, especially the discourteous grilling Levin gave Morris, as if Mr. Morris himself was a crook!

It seemed to me like Panel 1 (The RIAA/MPAA and assorted suckups) was allowed to state their lies without much questioning being done by the senators. When we got to Panel 2, most of the focus was on P2P and trying to put Alan Morris on the spot about Sharman being located in Vanatua (sp?). That smarmy jerk James DeLong on Panel 3 really should have been on Panel 1 with the rest of the RIAA suckups, so that he could have his nose firmly up Bainwol's ass while making his statements.

I was VERY disappointed by this hearing. Considering Senator's Coleman's public comments that he's looking into this issue because of the RIAA's heavy-handed tactics, I heard very little discussion about the legality or morality of those tactics.

SoCalUser- you hit it right on the spot. There were NO tough questions about the mechanics of "evidence collection", no questions about the fact that the RIAA stooges who "collected" the "evidence" violated the EULA (which Levin was SOOOO interested in) over and over and over! It was an exercise in futility, essentially a forum to get the RIAA /MPAA message out, and for weasels to say "Oh yes, we need more laws to stop these file traders". The ONLY decent questioning was done by Sen. John Sununu. That weasel Levin should be voted out ASAP!

mroop: "I was glad to hear from an indie store owner tell us about the damage that downloading has done to his business. Rich college kids thinking they are entitled to free music makes me sick."

I'll bet that blacksmiths and carriage makers were also upset about the damage that newfangled 'auto-mobile' was doing to their business. I don't have much sympathy, though. If your business becomes unprofitable because of changing technology, then it's time to find a new business.

Rich college kids? I'm even more sick of rich, global companies thinking they are entitled to maintain their obsolete business model (and associated profits) in the face of new technology. You don't see 'rich college kids' trying to destroy people's lives via lawsuits in order to make an example of them.

You should have been on Panel 1, mroop.

Sad to see the government process be purchased. Even sadder to see lies and propaganda replace empirical data as "proof."

I was very disappointed in the hearing except for Lorraine who did a bang up job.
From the questions the Senators asked (in court it would be called leading the witness) that the copyright cartel had provided them with questions beforehand and that obviously the Senators don't understand the difference between non cetralized and centralized services. Had I been listening the first time to the arguments I would have though that you could download music directly from the Kazza website, not another user using the software. Ask the right questions and you get good answers, ask the wrong questions and we get legislation like the DMCA. Should Congress be required to
have knowledge of the subject they are investigating?

does anyone have the link to the C-Span sreaming video, I just got home from school and missed the hearing?

At least get this guy's name right...it is mrpoop!

I hope this isn't too off-topic, but does anyone know what Ahhnold's position is on p2p?

There's nothing listed on Ahhnold's website (www.joinarnold.com) about p2p, nor have I seen or heard it mentioned in any interviews. I think he's going to have his hands full just trying to keep CA from going bankrupt without worrying about evil downloaders.

"Attention downloaders... you're terminated"

"I'll bet that blacksmiths and carriage makers were also upset about the damage that newfangled 'auto-mobile' was doing to their business. I don't have much sympathy, though. If your business becomes unprofitable because of changing technology, then it's time to find a new business."

Is that all you can do is spout cliches that are not applicable? Listen up and learn something:

His business did not become unprofitable because of changing technology. P2P is not the culprit, it is copyright infringement. Let me spell it out for you.

If his business had become unprofitable because of legal and paid for downloads then you could rightfully say that changing technology made his business unprofitable. Don't blame P2P.

Thanks for playing. I hope you have learned your lesson for the day.

*In my best Ed Sullivan voice* For all you youngsters out there, I want to quote from a Jefferson Airplane song, "We Can Be Together" in the hope that you won't be discouraged by the politics of the day.

We are all outlaws in the eyes of America
In order to survive we steal cheat lie forge fuck hide and deal
We are obscene lawless hideous dangerous dirty violent and young
...
All your private property is
Target for your enemy
And your enemy is
We
We are forces of chaos and anarchy
Everything they say we are we are
And we are very
Proud of ourselves

(I know, way off topic.)

"Thanks for playing. I hope you have learned your lesson for the day."

Oh my God... You really put me in my place! What I HAVE learned is that some people don't like having their statements or views questioned and get pissy when it happens.

"Is that all you can do is spout cliches that are not applicable?"

Really? I thought it was an analogy, rather than a cliche. Do you know something that I don't?

"His business did not become unprofitable because of changing technology... If his business had become unprofitable because of legal and paid for downloads then you could rightfully say that changing technology made his business unprofitable. Don't blame P2P."

Did you listen to the hearing? Did you hear the question (asked by Sen. Coleman, I believe) about what happens to the store owner when legal downloads replace all the illegal downloads (as everyone expects to be the eventual outcome)? Did you hear the store owner say something to the effect that his business would then start selling something else? That sounds like P2P being the culprit to me.

And what about your "rich college kids" rant? Sounds like you have some personal issues there, pal.

i just ignore mr. oop.
ok, well i dont ignore. hes funny. like a hamster in a cage.

teach me more, mr. oop.
your arguments are insulting, nonsensical, and highly amusing. please continue.

~time flies~

"Really? I thought it was an analogy, rather than a cliche. Do you know something that I don't?"

It is a cliche and an analogy. The two terms are not mutually exclusive.

I noticed that you did not address the substance of my statement, which clearly pointed out the fallacy of your flawed analogy. Care to give it a shot? Here it is again, P2P did not cause the stores owners problem, copyright infringement did. It was not new technology that caused his problems, it was copyright infringement. If Itunes or something other legal business made him unprofitable then your analogy would have merit. As it stands - zero merit. Nothing but a tired, flawed, cliched analogy.

Regarding rich college kids. No personal issues, I was one myself. But I wasn't stupid and selfish enough to think I was entitled to infringe upon someone elses copyrights.

"Did you listen to the hearing? Did you hear the question (asked by Sen. Coleman, I believe) about what happens to the store owner when legal downloads replace all the illegal downloads (as everyone expects to be the eventual outcome)? Did you hear the store owner say something to the effect that his business would then start selling something else? That sounds like P2P being the culprit to me."

Yes I listened to the hearing. Did you? Coleman was asking about a hypothetical scenario for something that might occurr in the future. As I said, if the store owner was put out of biz by legal downloads then your analogy would have some merit. But as it stands, no merit.

How does the legal status of the downloading have anything to do with it? Whether it's legal or not, it's the new technology represented by downloading that will put him out of business. Can it only be considered new technology if it's fully legal and endorsed by the RIAA?

Just because it doesn't fit your personal worldview does not make it incorrect.

Try again.

"How does the legal status of the downloading have anything to do with it?"

Because your analogy is a legal model being superseded by another legal model, not a legal model being damaged by illegal activity. I know this is difficult for you to understand.

mrop, I bet you've driven a car and sped. You might have ripped the tag of a few mattresses in your day. You might have even crossed the street in the middle. Or you could have spit on a sidewalk. In most jurisdictions, these are illegal acticities. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Listen mrop, i wasn't a rich college kid, i worked my ass off to get though college. I download music, mainly uncopyrighted older stuff. I enjoy listening to you because you give me somebody to chew out and spit on the sidewalk. Oh s*it, i just broke the law there didn't I.

Here's the difference: When I get caught speeding I say: "Yes officer, thank you. I will pay the ticket." I don't start screaming and crying like a baby, "I have a right to speed! Who are you to tell me I can't do what I want! You are oppressing me! You are violating my rights!"

Btw, I put myself through school on loans. But in the grand scheme of things, I was much better off than 99% of the world's population. : )

proves to me that you a wimp and willing to be a prostitute of the establishment. I bet that your wife pussywhips you. "Thank you officer, i will pay the ticket", lol, funny.

A prositute of the establishment? I would ask what that means but I don't really care. What have you done in your life that makes you such a rebel I wonder? I know: NOTHING! : )

And if you only knew how many tickets I got out of just by showing some respect to a police officer who was only trying to do his job. I was a motorcycle courier in college, ripping through traffic at high speeds in the city. What did you do, tough guy?

I am not a rebel per say, I pay my taxes, go to work, have a home, like everyone else. I just enjoy music, and dislike the corporate crap that is shoveled out on clear channel radio on a daily basis.

Well then good for you. I'm not going to call you a prostitute of the establishment. There is nothing wrong with being a normal citizen. : )

I am done responding to insults for the day. So everyone feel free to beat on me for the remainder of the evening. : )

Pllease do not argue with mroop. He is an riaa plant to degrade the quality and impact of this forum with his petty insults. We only degrade ourselves when we associate with this type and allow our emotions to overcome our restaint.

thanks alfonso, i just wanted to vent some rage though, i am not giving that degenerate anymore of my time. Just wanted a brief ego boost. Thanks

Perhaps, after his useful-idiot, slavishly-toeing-the-party-line testimony, LL Cool J -- keeping in mind that that moniker (I.I.N.M.) originally stood for "Ladies Love Cool James" -- should change his nomenclature to "RIAAL Cool J."

Pro RIAA plant - I love it! Mr. Black Helicopter again. Watch out, I put a bug in your bedroom and I am listening to everything you say. I am tracking everyone on this forum and I am going to sue all of you! LOL

"Because your analogy is a legal model being superseded by another legal model, not a legal model being damaged by illegal activity."

Who said I was using a legal model? My analogy is showing obsolete technology being superseded by newer technology.

Besides, if the music industry had embraced the P2P technology when it first came out and offered it to the public at a reasonable price, there would not have been an explosion of "illegal" (i.e. copyright infringement) song sharing. Look at VHS tapes in the 80's; formerly priced at $75-$100, but as soon as the price dropped to $20 (or less), no one bothered to copy and share movies anymore. The same thing will (and would have) happened with music. Who's going to want to download a 128kbit song for free when they can download a CD quality track for $0.50?

The end result would still be the music store owner seeing his business drop off until the point where he either bailed out, or found a market niche (i.e. hard to find CD's, CD-burning services, etc.). Capitalism in action... adapt or perish.

By the way, mroop, Cary-Sue called and asked me to tell you that your check is going to be a little late this month... it seems that the RIAA is having some cash flow problems these days.

amen to socal

How about "Lawyers Love Cool James"?

This is really F'd up. I can't believe the stuff I'm reading. I thought this was supposed to be an investigation into the actions of the RIAA. Instead I keep hearing crap about morality issues and other such theology.
My senator Mrs. Colins has made such an enlightened statement;
"However, the Internet has also raised many challenges for society not the least of which involves trying to apply laws meant for activities bounded by space and time to the Internet, which is bounded by neither."
I'm so glad to learn that the internet is not restrained by space or time. Think she stayed up late watching StarTrek last night? I do.... I can't believe some of the things she has said, I'm writing a long letter to her in the morning.

And coleman keeps using those words, theft and steal... So delusional...

And Levin.... "The internet and related technologies, if used properly, have the potential to expose millions of people to creative work that would otherwise not be seen or heard."
I hope he realizes that is just what the RIAA is fighting....

"I thought this was supposed to be an investigation into the actions of the RIAA."

You were duped by Senator Coleman. What I heard today was an attack on P2P's, not an investigation of the RIAA.

Yeah well they even changed the title... I wonder how much money that cost the RIAA.

I never did like Mr. Cool (HAHA)....

yep, the opening statements were how P2P's were letting anyone invade our privacy.I though Chuck D made some good statements, I only hope people listened.I think cool only cooled his fans. I hope America could see through the BS. The riaa seems too stupid to see why people aren't buying their song and dance.

BOYCOTT EDUCATE VOTE

Mr oop is obviously off his medication.

Fortunately, the future is not up to him. That's why he's so mad right now.

mroop (or mrop) wrote:
"Pro RIAA plant" - I love it! Mr. Black Helicopter again. Watch out, I put a bug in your bedroom and I am listening to everything you say. I am tracking everyone on this forum and I am going to sue all of you! LOL

grumpygeezer responds:
Well, for the record, less than two weeks ago, mroop threatened to contact the F.B.I. over a forum's alleged intent to hack into mroop's computer. (I have a copy of mroop's posting saying so.) How about that?
Just goes to show that mroop cannot be trusted--even though he himself may deny his untrustworthiness, with or without sarcasm.

FORUM'S ALLEGED INTENT
should have been FORUM MEMBER'S ALLEGED INTENT

It appears mroop doesn't like the idea of someone violating his privacy, unless of course it's the RIAA trying to snoop for "illegal" files, which he seems to find perfectly acceptable and justified.

SoCalUser, your one-liner is nails!!
(Hat's off to you; that was the best in this whole forum.)

Thanks, grumpygeezer.

Leave mroop and the RIAA alone! I love the RIAA and Cary-Sue, even if he bit my balls off!

You guys really crack me up. : )

gdZiemann - Do I seem mad? It seems like the mad people are the ones who attack me every time I make a statement and come on this site whining that their God given right to free music is being taken away from them.

You think I want to control the future? Please don't tell me you are another whack job that thinks I work for the RIAA.

SoCalUser - Please get a clue. I am against the DMCA provision that gives the RIAA the right to subpoena without a judge's approval. However, I think if they get a judge's approval they have every right to "snoop" as you call it.

(This is a long one, scroll past if you don't like to read!)

Electric Gypsy's observations of the September 30th, 2003 Senate Governmental Affairs Subcommittee Hearings on “Illegal” File Sharing


ROUND ONE

First up, Senator Barbara Boxer of California. This woman is obviously bought and paid for by the RIAA. Someone apparently told her that p2p is a tool of pornographers and kiddie-porn perverts and it got her panties in a wad. She mouths the RIAA position that sharing is theft and claims that p2p is putting artists and creative people out of work. I am very disappointed that a liberal democrat has her eyes so tightly closed. We recommend that she loose her seat at the next election.
Senator Coleman is against us. His only redeeming idea is that the RIAA is being too heavy handed with it's lawsuits.
Senator Levin is really out of touch. He actually thinks that the RIAA should be suing customers and wants p2p applications/sites to police the users of p2p. Does he think the Internet should become like radio and tv? Should it be dominated and “owned” by these entertainment companies?
These three senators who do not deserve their jobs. VOTE THEM OUT!

Mitch Bainwol, chairman for the RIAA steps up with his lies about “piracy” causing the loss of revenue to the industry. We know he is not even worth commenting on. He said they were using Kazaa instant message function to alert p2p users that they were being naughty pirates... until Kazaa finally turned off that function. Does Mitch realize that the RIAA was violating Kazaa's TOS not to harass others with the instant message utility? Of course he does. The amount of abuse by the RIAA was so substantial that Kazaa had no other choice but to disable it. Mitch asserts that copyrighted material should be filtered out of p2p applications. He really means RIAA controlled copyright material. Thus, oddly enough, I actually agree with this desire of his. Let's get rid of the RIAA songs. Let them all be found only at the pay sites like i-tunes and Musicmatch full of whatever restrictive DRM they want to hamper them with. If this were to happen, p2p would belong only to the independent artists who truly want their music heard by the fans and potential customers.
Jack Valenti of the MPAA comes out right off the top blasting p2p and makes sure that the “pornography” angle is made loud and clear. He then goes on to cry about the technological advancements that are improving too fast in his mind. Jack makes is sound so horrible that some new innovation called “FAST” allows a full DVD quality movie file to be downloaded in a few seconds. These dinosaurs make it clear that they fear technological improvement and obviously want to use their influence to stifle human progress. The most scarry thing he touches on is that the industry has been working with Junior Achievement to teach children about what copyright means. Do you want your kid being brainwashed by the MPAA/RIAA?
LL Cool Jis merely apes the RIAA line. He thinks that artists should be compensated for their work, which we all agree with, but he is blind to the fact that the RIAA labels hold a monopolistic power over the distribution of music. Only a small few artists are able to make any profit via the current industry model. Most music artists are blocked at every turn by this monopoly. Because he is one of the very few that the RIAA has actually promoted enough to succeed, he feels threatened by the looming doom of the RIAA. If he can't adapt to a world without the RIAA, then he should be afraid.
Mr. Negra of Mike's Video Inc. cries and whines over his sales losses due to (he says) Napster and p2p. But he does not understand the power of our boycott of RIAA product, nor his own ineptitude (I suspect) at running a business. I suggest to him that if he stocks only independent product, perhaps he could improve his business.

Senators Sunnunu, Pryor, and Collins do little by their questioning to convince me that they are themselves not in the pockets of the RIAA and the MPAA. They sure do like giving Jack Valentti plenty of time to speak. Somehow, we need to get those on capitol hill to understand that it would be a good thing for the industry to go away.
Coleman is obviously on the RIAA side overall, but he made a great point that if all “illegal” downloads were replaced by “legal” downloads, wouldn't the traditional record stores still be hurt? Mr. Negra comes back by saying he would adapt. Well, Mr. Negra, why can't you “adapt” now? Do you think the RIAA is gonna give you a piece of the Internet content they plan to dominate once they kill p2p?

ROUND TWO

Kazaa and Altnet really only want to become the RIAA of the Internet. They are not really on the side of the consumer nor the artist. P2p is a great thing, but do NOT fall for the business plans of some of these major p2p players who merely want to become the middleman between the artist and fan in the online realm and pretend to be on our side in order to steal the RIAA thunder. Folks, be very weary.
Gladwin of Music Now has the position Kazaa and Altnet wants. They have the RIAA blessing to distribute RIAA music, thus is against p2p. He speaks out against blanket license solution that we believe is actually the only feasible thing that could be done that preserves the basic copyright idea. It should be pointed out that Gladwin's Music Now is thus really an RIAA member company, and NOT independent as he claims.
Lorraine Sullivan was simply brilliant. I am 99 percent certain that our friends Codewarrior and folks from the EFF and boycott-riaa helped her prepare for this hearing. I am very thrilled by the fact that she strongly brought out her displeasure with the RIAA and even more happy that she mentioned the boycott of the RIAA. She also points out that the true pirates are who sell bootleg product and not down loaders.
Chuck D was the man! He may have been a bit passionate, but he KNOWS the RIAA is doomed. He knows that they also deserve their doom. Chuck D points out that the Internet belongs to the people and should not fall into the hands of the RIAA/MPAA. He really stands up for the true music artists and fans. He points out the collusion of the monopolistic media companies to stifle the artist. He “trusts the consumer” more than the label owners.
Senator Levin's attack on the country of Vanuaatu was very mean spirited. Levin's intention to smear p2p is obvious. I wish he would scrutinize the RIAA the same way he does the p2p folks. Levin is so obviously in the RIAA pockets that it makes us sick.



ROUND THREE

Both speakers speak from the position that “sharing” is somehow wrong. They miss the point entirely and really are only putting a pro RIAA spin on things by looking at the reasons that consumers “steal” music online. But they are coming from the wrong assumption at the get go. I lend their comments little or no credence. I truly believe they had no helpful place in the hearings. Coleman liked them and praised them. Even though he “seems” concerned about overly heavy handed RIAA tactics, Coleman still sees the idea of p2p sharing as wrong.
The academic left is against property rights, intellectual rights? PURE BULL!
And YES, this entire “problem” most certainly an “attack”
on the concept of copyright. Or, rather, it is our war against the usurpation of the concept of copyright by the monopolistic RIAA and the media corporations.

In summary, this whole thing was really a sham. Our only heroes were Chuck D and Lorraine Sullivan. Few in number were words of any value spoken by anyone else. The entire hearing was orchestrated by the RIAA and their bought out Senators to hammer the erroneous point that something is wrong with file-sharing and that the average p2p user is nothing but a criminal. The RIAA is trying to get some laws passed, and if we the people are not diligent, it WILL HAPPEN!
Levin and Boxer have GOT TO GO! Do NOT vote for them ever again! I wouldn't trust any other of the Senators who were at this hearing either!

Shmoo, of Electric Gypsy
Support Local and Independent Music!

“Date: September 30, 2003 @ 7:26 PM

…I know: NOTHING!”

Welcome to Boycott-RIAA, hopefully if you ‘listen’ – not just shoot your mouth off, you’ll learn that while respect for law (copyright) is admirable, law per se (slavery, prohibition, et al) is not.

Many people come to this realization early on in their lives. Some take longer. Hopefully your time is coming soon.

All the best,

justed

What truly boggles my mind is all of your inability to comprehend that a person such as myself can be anti-RIAA and anti-copyright infringement at the same time. I can only attribute this to the fact that you are a bunch of sheep incapable of thinking for yourselves.
You are incapable of forming your own thoughts and therefore must fall back on tired cliches and analogies that make no sense. It is both humorous and sad at the same time. : )

Anyone who doesn't fall into your line of thinking is automatically "pro RIAA". It is downright bizarre! Please tell me there is someone on this site with a freaking brain!

djjayo1 said...

"Did you notice at the end that they were going to leave testimony open for three weeks. I wonder if that means we hit them with enough for them to be looking for more testimony from other sources, but were unable to add them to this panel. Since questioning is still open we should pressure Coleman to question our people, or extend and have another hearing with Bill, Wendy, and Larry."

I second that motion! Let's hit them with all the stuff we got. Make them take a REAL look at things and not just tote the RIAA sham. I am enough of a realist to know it won't work, but let's try anyway just for giggles!

Shmoo

"Mitch asserts that copyrighted material should be filtered out of p2p applications. He really means RIAA controlled copyright material. Thus, oddly enough, I actually agree with this desire of his."

You agree with this? YOU ARE PRO RIAA! YOU ARE A WITCH! WE MUST BURN YOU AT THE STAKE!! : )

Mr. O(o times N)p, or Mr. Poop for short.

Better to keep your ‘mouth’ shut -and be thought a fool, than post: “Date: October 1, 2003 @ 1:24 AM …You agree with this? YOU ARE PRO RIAA! YOU ARE A WITCH! WE MUST BURN YOU AT THE STAKE!!” and thereby prove it.

Can’t you just be satisfied with your earlier (“Date: September 30, 2003 @ 7:26 PM”) statement?

”…I know: NOTHING!”

Not interested in any reply,

Until your worthy of some respect,

justed

No mrooop mrop or however it is spelled, I am a musician who is praying for the death of the RIAA ASAP. I was pointing out the fact that we don't want RIAA songs competing with non RIAA songs. I would be very happy if the only way to get RIAA songs was via their "legit" DRM'ed all to hell services. Meanwhile, p2p would be opened up to the independents like myself who wish to do away with the clutter.

Want a free CD?
http://electricgypsy.iuma.com

I know independentm - your idea sounds good to me. But you will get disagreement from those who feel they are entitled to free RIAA music because all music should be free.

Who are these people who these people who think we should have to pay for music? Music is in the air, man. Music is for the people! Death to the enemy who want us to pay for music!

"Better to keep your ‘mouth’ shut -and be thought a fool"

Like I care about your opinion? Again, another clown who cries about free speech and then attacks me for exercising my right to free speech. I guess you only want free speech for those who agree with you. Heh.

mroop: "I am against the DMCA provision that gives the RIAA the right to subpoena without a judge's approval. However, I think if they get a judge's approval they have every right to "snoop" as you call it."

Okay, so the RIAA has to get a judge's approval before they can invade my privacy and harvest information from my PC. But how do they know that I am doing something wrong (which would require them to go before the judge)without snooping on my computer? Seems like kind of a catch-22 to me. They can't get a subpoena unless they suspect I am doing something wrong, but how can they know I'm doing something wrong without first illegally violating my privacy? Just because I am a P2P user doesn't automatically make me a copyright infringer.

You can't have it both ways. And that is exactly why the DMCA subpoena powers are flawed and unconstitutional.

Further to the above, instead of the RIAA suing P2P users piecemeal, we should be getting together and filing a class-action 'invasion or privacy' lawsuit against them.

that should be 'invasion OF privacy'

Awww crap, it figures. Missed the proceedings on TV and it's streamed with REAL media.

DO NOT USE that program. It has been proven that it uses spyware. I have read that it collects data on all the audio/visual programming that your computer(you) use, including all filenames, and up's that info to their server.

About 6 months ago, i installed Real Player and downloaded a Real audio file. After registering the player, i locked down my net connection so nothing could get in or out. When i tried to play the file, Real Player demanded access to the net. When i denied it, it refused to run.

I did the research on this program and found a programmer had discovered all this and confronted Real with his findings. They finally admitted to him that the program collected data and that they would stop this activity. The programmer analyzed the "fixed" version and found that they just tried to hide their data gathering activities better.

FYI

I wonder if "mrop" and "mroop" and "mroooop" expects the rest of us to doubt that all three of them is the same person. Are we bordering on the bizarre around here?

And, now, ladies and gentlemen, will the REAL--ahem-- mrop, or mroop, or mroooop please stand up!

Hmm, I wonder where "mrooop" is? I mean, like, I can't wait. . . (well, uh, actually, I can.)

And, now, ladies and gentlemen, back to our regularly scheduled program - The Theater of the Absurd.

P.S. Since no one responded to a question I asked on another thread two days ago--I'll post this again: Does anyone know what the web address is for CodeWarrior's forum that he's hosting at Yahoo?
TIA.

This is such a snow job. These hearings were most likely planned by the RIAA.

RIAA-"Hey, Norm, could'ja hold hearings on us? When you rule in our favor thus proving to the world that we're right, no one will ever be able to successfully contest us again and we'll give ya a gazillion dollars, what'ya say?"

Norm Coleman: "Yeah, sure, sounds good."

This is the death knell of p2p. I'm gonna go take a nap.

independentm...

I emailed all the members of the committee yesterday about what I mentioned above, I feel you all should do the same. Code has a list of all the committee members on his page. If you happen to see this "Thank you Code"

Jayo

grumpy, search for united against the riaa

http://codewarrior.50mb.org/
http://www.geocities.com/codewarrior_wins

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Anti_RIAA_Cental/

"They can't get a subpoena unless they suspect I am doing something wrong, but how can they know I'm doing something wrong without first illegally violating my privacy? Just because I am a P2P user doesn't automatically make me a copyright infringer."

You made a decent point. Bravo! I will respond by saying that when you go onto a P2P and share files then you have opened your share file to anyone who wants to look into it. So you can't now turn around and say that you have some kind of right to privacy.

Study the 4th amendment - before it applies you must have a "reasonable expectation of privacy". You can't have a reasonable expectation of privacy in something you hold out to public view. So if you go on a P2P and say, "Millions of people, please look in my share file." You can't turn around and then claim that the RIAA can't look. That is not how the 4th amendment works.

"They can't get a subpoena unless they suspect I am doing something wrong, but how can they know I'm doing something wrong without first illegally violating my privacy? Just because I am a P2P user doesn't automatically make me a copyright infringer."

You made a decent point. Bravo! I will respond by saying that when you go onto a P2P and share files then you have opened your share file to anyone who wants to look into it. So you can't now turn around and say that you have some kind of right to privacy.

Study the 4th amendment - before it applies you must have a "reasonable expectation of privacy". You can't have a reasonable expectation of privacy in something you hold out to public view. So if you go on a P2P and say, "Millions of people, please look in my share file." You can't turn around and then claim that the RIAA can't look. That is not how the 4th amendment works.

Sorry about the double post. This board is acting whacky.