Read this and help fight Goliath.

Fucking scum bags.

http://blogs.cnet.com/8301-13506_1-9865856-17.html
February 6, 2008 8:03 AM PST
Don't kid yourself -- the RIAA doesn't care about the artists
Posted by Don Reisinger 1 comment

Every few years, a different organization makes some progress in the tech industry and for one reason or another, the vast majority of the people following the business simply don't like it.

And while some people's distaste for organizations isn't warranted, the RIAA is not one of them. In fact, I would venture to say that distaste for this organization is not only warranted, it's probably the most sound response anyone can have.

Why you ask? It's simple. Under the veil of "holding the artists' best interests in mind", the RIAA has single-handedly destroyed the music industry and created an environment where the artists are left out in the cold.

Let's examine a bit further.

In a report filed yesterday, the RIAA and the National Music Publishers' Association (NMPA) squared off in front of the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) to decide just how much the artists should be getting paid for their hard work.

According to the report, the RIAA and digital media companies (DiMA) believe the 9 cents they currently pay for each physical copy sold or digital media file that's downloaded is much too high. And as the music industry loses revenue, the RIAA and DiMA believe the artists should "accept less money in order to keep the whole industry alive."

On the other side of things, the NMPA's chief, David Israelite, believes artists should make more per downloaded copy because digital media costs far less than CDs and there's more profit to be shared.

Israelite went so far as to call the current hearing "the most important rate hearing in the history of the music industry."

So just how different are these two theories? According to ArsTechnica, the NMPA wants 15 cents per track for the songwriters. On the other hand, the RIAA only wants to pay 5 cents or 6 cents per track, which is substantially lower than the current rate of 13 cents.

"For streaming music, the NMPA suggests that 12.5 percent of total revenue would be a fair payment, while the RIAA thinks that 0.58 percent would be appropriate."

Am I missing something here? If nothing else, this is downright disgusting. Not only is the RIAA and DiMA trying to destroy any opportunity for the artists to make money, the organizations are single-handedly destroying the recording industry.

Why would any artist want to sign up with a major record label knowing they would make just 0.58 percent on digital media download revenue and 5 cents on downloaded tracks? Even if they sell 1 million songs, they should only expect $50,000? Please.

The RIAA is one of the worst organizations in the world. Whether it tries to force young children into a deposition, says college students have yet to reach "full development" or flat-out takes food out of an artists mouth, what's to like here?

The RIAA couldn't care less about the artists. If it did, it would fight for increased royalties and stop pandering to the record labels that have created this monster.

But if anyone actually believes this organization actually has the best interests of the artists in mind, I'd like to hear that rationale. How? The way I see it, the RIAA is simply trying to line the pockets of its masters to ensure its longevity without any regard for those people that make this business work -- the artists.

This sets a dangerous precedent. And if the CRB accepts the RIAA's argument when it makes its decision in October, I will guarantee the immediate downfall of the recording industry.

Enough is enough. The RIAA is a terrible organization that seemingly wants to make the fat cats fatter and the actual talent starve. What kind of organization does that to its own people?

SHHHHHH! They're watching us....

i just bought 20 cds.
i bought them at target
i like rock n' roll
i don't download albums from the interent
i am an 18-25 year old white male.

As an 18-25 year old male, this is probably one of your first experiences as a member of the vast minority.

100+ views and only two replies since my post. I'm afraid. Someone hold me.

i'm scared to say anything besides what i said above.



just remember riaa. i buy albums
i also give handjobs to the really good bands since they're underrated and don't get enough love

It's a poorly written article. Just some blogger who's quoting another blogger, who links to another blogger.

Seriously - where's one actual fucking quote?

Yeah, there's some serious facts missing from that article. An individual artist and record company can negotiate the rate of pay for download compensation. I'm not really even sure what he's talking about.

The RIAA's new approach:


December 19, 2008 8:55 AM PST
Copy of RIAA's new enforcement notice to ISPs
Posted by Greg Sandoval


The recording industry dropped some big news Friday, announcing that it will no longer take a broad approach to litigating against alleged filed sharers. The Recording Industry Association of America has enlisted the help of internet service providers to act as a sentry and help discourage customers from pirating music.

Below is a copy of the form letter the RIAA will send to ISPs to inform them one of their customers is accused of file sharing. The notification is similar to those the group has sent to college campuses for years and shows very clearly that the group retains the right to sue people for copyright violations.

VIA EMAIL
*ISP*
*Date*

Sir or Madam:

I am contacting you on behalf of the Recording Industry Association of America, Inc. (RIAA) and its member music companies. The RIAA is a trade association whose member companies create, manufacture, and distribute approximately ninety (90) percent of all legitimate music sold in the United States.

We believe a user on your network is offering an infringing sound recording for download through a peer to peer application. We have attached below the details of the infringing activity.

We have a good faith belief that this activity is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law. We are asking for your immediate assistance in stopping this illegal activity. Specifically, we respectfully request that you remove or disable access to the unauthorized music.

We believe it is in everyone's interest for music consumers to be better educated about the copyright law and ways to legally enjoy music online. The major record companies have actively licensed their music to dozens of innovative services where fans can go to listen to and/or purchase their favorite songs. A list of many of these services is available at www.musicunited.org.

It should be made clear by this letter that downloading and distributing copyrighted songs via peer to peer networks is not an anonymous activity. Not only is distributing copyrighted works on a peer to peer network a public activity visible by other users on that network, an historic 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision affirmed the unmistakable unlawfulness of uploading and downloading copyrighted works. The website www.musicunited.org contains valuable information about what is legal and what is not when it comes to copying music. In addition to taking steps to notify the network user at issue about the illegal nature of his/her activity, we strongly encourage you to refer him/her to this helpful site.

Please bear in mind that this letter serves as an official notice to you that this network user may be liable for the illegal activity occurring on your network. This letter does not constitute a waiver of our members' rights to recover or claim relief for damages incurred by this illegal activity, nor does it waive the right to bring legal action against the user at issue for engaging in music theft. We assert that the information in this notice is accurate, based upon the data available to us. Under penalty of perjury, we submit that the RIAA is authorized to act on behalf of its member companies in matters involving the infringement of their sound recordings, including enforcing their copyrights and common law rights on the Internet.

Thank you in advance for your prompt assistance in this matter. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me via e-mail at antipiracy2@riaa.com, via telephone at *Phone Number*, or via mail at RIAA, 1025 F Street, NW, 10th Floor, Washington, D.C., 20004. Please reference *Case ID* in any response or communication regarding this matter.

Sincerely,

RIAA

I'd say some of that music borders on illegitimate.

Well, since there's actually NO government laws against file-sharing, I hope the ISPs go tell the RIAA to fuck themselves.

You're pretty much entirely wrong there. There's tons of statutes and cases that say you can't distribute copyrighted materials without the copyright holder's permission. This debate has been had on somb a million times over, so I won't beleaguer the point. While I'm no fan of the RIAA, I have no problem with the RIAA going after them if someone's stealing content. The RIAA isn't even taking legal action here. It's just asking service providers to stop people from fishing. I'm ok with that.

Please point out to me the LAW which says file-sharing is illegal. Thanks.

I am no lawyer and don't follow every Congressional bill that gets passed, so I don't know definitively, but I think Shecky is OTM here. File sharing is, well, sharing files. What those files contain can be audio, video, or text. It would be almost impossible to pass a law which outright bans an application or medium of transmission based simply on the idea that its content might be copyrighted. A cable company woud have to make a determination that the user was, in fact, using that medium to transmit copyrighted material, at which time it could order that user to stop filesharing that kind of material, but could they also ban that user from all use of the application? We have all sorts of law to enforce and protect copyrighted material, yes. I don't think we have a law to prohibit the medium, itself; not if that medium exists to distribute other, non-protected material, as well.

^ Exactly the debate had over here and why with massive d/loads of YouTube and iPlayer files it's not possible to tell what's illegal and what isn't. Previously the tactics were to add seeds to torrents of copyrighted material that could be tracked and a screen shot taken of the IP address, it was at that point that the ISP's weren't interested. Now it's different. Only torrenters need 'worry' for now I guess.

If the RIAA is really serious about this, they need to pay the ISPs to be the police and judge of copyright infringement. It's not their fault piracy is going on, you know? I'm not so sure most ISPs are going to be willing to kick customers out without some sort of compensation. Say you have both cable and Internet with someone at $100 a month for a year. How many $1200 losses can a company survive, you know? Especially in these times.

Not to mention there's very little the media companies provide when it comes to *proof* of infringement. That's not even taking into account how easy it is to spoof an IP address these days. This isn't going to have the desired effects of ending piracy. It's not even going to slow it.

Why can't just everyone sit down, raise what I pay for Internet by $10-$15 a month, and let everyone download whatever and how much I want? Everybody wins.

I think the problem is, Old Media companies aren't interested in everybody winning; only themselves. The consumers have been their bitch for over 100 years, in some cases. They only know how to pimp-smack, not how to share.

does anybody know if anyone has been busted for simply uploading a record to something like Mediafie, Sendspace, etc? is it always peer to peer?

There was a big RIAA raid of divshare servers a couple of weeks ago. We'll see what comes of that

http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaP...mp;d=12-22-2008

Excellent Fresh Air interview today with Lawrence Lessig about intellectual property.

DMCA

I can't find any news of this on google which makes me think it's not true. Where did you hear this?

It's much easier to track when people use Limewire, Kazaa, and such. A file download is harder to locate and stop, especially when it's labeled differently.

you're just messing with me, right?

Don't know about divshare, but no, Simakos, no one has ever been 'busted' for using file hosting sites. If someone were to get in trouble, it would be the hosting site, because they're the ones openly hosting and transferring data to other people, disseminating the copyrighted material. Rapidshare is in quite a bit of hot water, and it's probably a ticking time bomb. But really, even if, say, rapidshare gave in and handed in all their transfer logs with ips and details of files, there's a) no way to prove that, for example, a file labelled Kanye West 808s & Heartbreak.rar actually contained any copyrighted music, and they can't go after every person that ever uploaded a copyrighted album, that's just insanity. So you're safe, unless you have a personal stake in actually running one of these websites, or are making money off of them.

yeah, i own divshare.

Yes, I am

cool. can I borrow a dollar?

Oh. You have me on ignore, don't you?

Fuck you, I already got a dollar.

For residents of St. Paul, MN:

Digital Millennium Copyright Act

http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf

17 U.S.C. 501 et seq.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html

Of course, if you're asking about non-copyrighted file-sharing (like emailing your mom some photos that you took with your camera phone), the answer is no, there aren't any laws against that.

I wonder if there will ever be a Napster-like attack on these sites, claiming that since they're used to illegally share music, the sites are held liable.

In a nutshell, this is what the DCPA says:



This covers circumventing DRM on files, CDs, and DVDs. There's no mention of .mp3s (which don't have copyright protection) and 'ripping' material to a CD/DVD doesn't fall under that act too if there's no DRM on the disc itself (which many do not have.) The definition of 'Internet Transmissions' as it's worded talks about re-airing network TV shows on a specific cable or Internet provider without permission, and liabilities faced for Cable and ISPs who willingly store copyrighted material on their servers. No mention of how file-sharing works today. What can you expect from a 10-year old act that was created before Napster, Broadband connections, and the rise of the Internet in general?

Also, it goes on in detail to talk about 'copyright violation for financial gain.' It isn't correct to assume every time a copy is made (DRM-breaking or not), a sale is lost. Lawrence Lessig (who has more experience with this than anyone), and the Consumer Electronics Association are two of those. What is the value of an .mp3 or a digital file? How is that quantified? It's not the same quality as a CD or other physical, material product. Heck, it's not even a material product to begin with. How can one claim money is being lost, then without some kind of proof? Many of the studies we've all read state that file-sharing INCREASES sales of the physical product!

The RIAA claims that file-sharing falls under the DCMA, but it's at best a gray area which isn't specifically addressed. There's a whole ton of rhetoric flying around whether it's legal or illegal, and there remains no law on file which even begins to define it. People against use the DMCA, proponents use the 'VCR Ruling' of 1985. Both have their flaws. There's a great book out called 'Peers, Pirates & Persuasion' written by John Logie (which you can download for free (legally) here that I highly recommend if you're even the least-bit into this issue.

For the record, I do believe this needs to be addressed in our big book of laws, but with the realization and understanding that this is not a black and white issue, where every (or even most) occurrences are copyright violations. The odds of such a law coming into fruition are slim, where it benefits both sides of the issue, so that's why I think they should just add an extra fee into your service which would let you have whatever you want whenever you want and skip all the legal trouble.

They're not if they don't know there's copyright infringement going on. That's covered in the DMCA. But most probably DO know it's going on (if they don't, they're clueless), and those companies do take down files that violate copyright. But those are ones that have the name of the album, movie, etc. in the title. The files which are named differently (which I'm seeing more and more of), how do you stop those? Or even become aware which files are what without downloading them all if you're the company? No one has the resources or time to go through terrabytes of data. It's unrealistic. And since these file-sites are used for non-copyright infringing purposes they legally have the right to stay in business. I might be wrong, but rapidshare, megaupload, and the like are not US based, so the RIAA can't easily shut them down or take them to court like Napster.

Sheck,

Go to law school, take some IP classes, read the news, avoid wikipedia, stay off drugs, and practice law for a few years.

Then get back to me.

Oh, please. Stop with the condescension. I've done plenty of research on this topic on my own and corresponded with people more knowledgeable when I had questions. You link to sites and documents you don't read all the way through.

At best, file-sharing is a gray area not specifically addressed in the DMCA or any other 'law' on record. *shrug* You don't want to believe it, I'm not going to try and convince you further.

I have to admit, that was a pretty condescending post. But you're wrong if you think I haven't read those statutes inside and out.

It's clear to me that you've read a few things about file sharing, but it isn't clear that you have a good grasp on basic legal concepts like "copyright" and "fair use."

Anyway, Merry Christmas!