The fate of the RIAA will be that of "kings and counselors of the earth,
who built for themselves places now lying in ruins"

Job 3:14

I personally find the mp3 format sucks....
quality wise....So I buy my music....
But I will also say that the recording industry produces mostly crap these days, and I buy a lot less than I used to, and dont forsee that changing any time soon.....
Go back to quality product, and reasonable pricing, and I'll bet CD sales willl rise aqain.
I sincerely doubt the buttheads at the riaa will understand that concept, tho !

Agreed 100%

If some people record songs from the radio or the tv to mp3 and share them with friends will RIAA sue them? How can they point the finger at some children that downloaded mp3 from the web instead of pointing it to the one's that made them available online? That RIAA's acts seem like they're desperate to get money instead of enforcing anti-piracy. Just my humble opinion.

The one's who receive illegal merch are just as guilty as those distributing it, for without them, the distributors would have nothing to do.

all i m gonna say about this riaa crap is that "People should not be afraid of their governments(riaa) Governments(riaa)should be afraid of their people"

If the American buying public would "ALL" get together and just say "NO" To buying music and going to the movies. The industries would suddently find that they couldn't afford the lawyers and another approach would be more appropriate.

What would be the efffect of a movie that was expected to do 10 to 12m on the opening weeekend or a record that was suppose to sell a million in its first week of release only doing 1/10 of their expectiations?

C.L.

I've seen enough. Crush the RIAA/MPAA. Don't buy. EVER. Don't you people realize that what these demons are doing is an act of desperation? THIS IS A GOOD thing, because it shows where the f*cking power really lies, and thats with the "LITTLE" PEOPLE, you and I. Sharing has empowered us, it has leveled the playing ground. Even the dumbest idiot now has the ability to put FEAR in the demons eye with a loading of a .torrent or a firing up of any of the plethora of P2P applications.

Don't let them, scare YOU. They are staining their pants now because they TOTALLY MISSED the boat on this whole Internet thing and now they're DISPARATELY trying to do this futile kind of "damage control".

F* RIAA/MPAA. Bring the demons and their demon seeds to their knees and show them you mean BUSINESS and that that 22 g** d*** dollars for a double CD will wind up putting THEM in the poor-house, Not US.

Keep sharing. Keep downing. Never pay until they do.

Well lets complain about the antics of the RIAA while we shop for Christmas music from their members. Lets keep rewarding that RIAA behavior by putting money in their pockets.

If you want it to stop then stop funding it. Damn, didn't we learn anything from the war on terrorists?

Good, nail those little thieving sh*ts.

"It seems that the RIAA is less interested in enforcing the law, and more interested in controlling every part of the nascent online music industry". A perfect definition. But Law should not be made only to please aristocrats, but according to the desires of people.

Don't blame RIAA for the laws since RIAA is just manipulating the law to earm money and get more money and then get even more by suing.... any individual who gets a change to earn money usually does and this is what it is doing "suing" is a profitable business

it's the Law that needs to changed in many countries
Really appreciate Russia allofmp3 and also for having it's own laws than implementing other countries laws in its own country

The key point you are missing is that they bought and paid for those laws.. maybe not specifically the RIAA but the media industry has sponsored most if not all of the laws that turned copyright into an anti-consumer word.

also, i will blame someone who abuses a LAW for anti-competitive purposes...

WTF?!?!?! No, seriously.... WTF?!

If you lose against the parent, what can you possibly hope to gain out of the children?

Give it up RIAA... get a clue, join the club, change your ways...

REPENT! And thou shalt be saved!

Weird Al's got it right though--- "Doesn't matter if you're a grandma, or a 7 year old girl... They'll sue you like the evil, hardbitten criminal scum you are."

Stalin had laws; Hitler also did. All under their command were acting LEGALLY. But there's something forgotten: LAWS MUST REFLECT THE OPINION OF A MAJORITY OF CITIZENS IN A DEMOCRACY. In this case only a few people are for RIAA way of doing things. It doesn't smell well at all to go against youngsters because they interchange...MUSIC!

Politics! "LAWS MUST REFLECT THE OPINION OF A MAJORITY OF CITIZENS IN A DEMOCRACY" doesn't even work in theory. What you're saying is that it's ok if 49% of the population is unhappy? Think that would work? Even if you've only played civilization, you know that would never fly :) No, things aren't quite this simple...

"RIAA having the moral high ground? Yes, they did. Let's face it, downloading pirated music is illegal, no matter which way you spin it."

Morality and legality are not synonymous. In fact they can even be opposites.

Stealing is anti-social, not immoral, and "downloading pirated music" isn't even stealing, it's breaching copywrite law at most, and possibly not even that, since apart from in countries with no idea how to make a sensible law, it's actually uploading that people are being sued for: illegally distributing copywrited content. Which has bugger all to do with morality.

I agree with you totally. I'd like to take it one step further. Morality and legality are not synonymous. So are justice and legality. Laws created by corporations are unjust. Disobeying unjust laws and standing against injustice is the only morality I know of, when one the one side you have the economic might of the corporation and on the other you have people like you and me.

"Stealing is anti-social, not immoral..."

"8. Thou shalt not steal."

(sorry, couldn't help it :)

*laughs*

1. ) Worship no Gods or Idols.

Take a good look at how well the country's doing on that one...

No offense to all you "claymates" out there.

/sarcasm

> "Stealing is anti-social, not immoral..."
> "8. Thou shalt not steal."
> (sorry, couldn't help it :)

These people are making copies, they are not stealing. It may still be an illegal and immoral activity, but it is never the less very different from stealing, both legally and morally.

"Thou shalt not make a copy"? :-)

Clarification

to steal ... to take (away)
to copy ... to make duplicate of

when you copy music, film, software you are NOT stealing the music, film, software

I see the 'advert' in the cinema - car being stolen ... this is NOT the same as copying

If I went up to your car - and made an exact copy of it - you might never know, your car would still be sitting where you left it ... the only trace would be that there would be two cars with the same registration plates (but then I could change that)

If you was going to sell your car - and instead I sold (to the person that was going to buy yours) the copy I made - then you would be out of pocket

It is this 'out of pocket' 'loss of earnings' that the copyright owner should be talking about

AND with any company, projected sales figures and actual sales figures often differ greatly

We all know that many people copy stuff because they simply do not have the money to buy it - therefore there is NO 'loss of earnings'

There is a difference between going into a shop and stealing a CD - that is a physical item - the CD, plastic, card - all belong to the shop - you are stealing from the shop

But if you go into the same shop - pick up a CD and copy it - stating clearly and honestly that you cannot pay for it - and therefore there is NO 'loss or earnings' ... you are in breach of copyright, you have not got the copyrights owner consent to copy - you have NOT stolen it - and there is NO 'loss or earnings'

So who exactly have you hurt ?????

Clarification:

Stealing: Taking possession of that which was not offered, or does not belong to you.

The music was not offered by the owner, nor does it belong to you. If you possess it, you stole it.

The point I was trying to make is that copying IS different to stealing.

AND that the crime is one of copyright infringement, and/or 'loss of earnings' NOT theft.

The only theft would be the material theft of the actual CD.

If you don't believe me go look at some articles on copyright law, intellectual ownership etc.

also

"Taking possession" TAKE as in take and not leave behind

The music (in my example) was for sale - therefore it was "on offer"

The real crime is one of copyright infringement - making a copy of a works without the copyright owners consent, and 'loss of earnings'

Copyright is meant to allow the owner of the works control over copying for a period of time - to ensure the owner profits from there work.
(The profit may (or may not be) financial, name recognition etc)

If a poor person makes a copy of a work - then the owner has lost nothing - at least as far as finance - since the poor person is incapable of paying for the work (maybe they could offer to mow the owners lawn, wash their windows!)
And taking them to court for 'copyright infringement and loss of earnings' would also be pointless.

how exactly do you possess music?
if i'm thinking of a song i recently heard, do i possess it?
having the ability to refresh my memory on something i've heard before should NOT be a crime!

TO: THE MAN and STEVEJOHNSTEELE
YOU ROCK! My thoughts exactly! I hear music on the radio, it's just in my head, I didn't steal it!!!

how exactly do you possess music?

When the digital bits reside in your PC, on a CD, or on a memory stick in your possession.

if i'm thinking of a song i recently heard, do i possess it?

No, that just means you've been listening to too much Hillary Duff.

having the ability to refresh my memory on something i've heard before should NOT be a crime!

Never said it was. That was you.

If a poor person makes a copy of a work - then the owner has lost nothing - at least as far as finance - since the poor person is incapable of paying for the work (maybe they could offer to mow the owners lawn, wash their windows!)

You are making the assumption that only poor people commit IP theft. Most P2P users have a broadband connection. Something I would hardly consider a necessity of the poor.

I don't need a lesson on copyright. I know the code practically by heart. :)

Look up the NET Act.

IP theft is theft. Yeah, it's not the same as stealing a car. We get that. Stating that fact over and over again isn't an argument against the fact, it's a public display of your ignorance.

"Taking possession" TAKE as in take and not leave behind

The music (in my example) was for sale - therefore it was "on offer"

Wow...really grasping at straws here.

Let me rephrase for you:

"being in possession of..."
"freely offered (not in exchange for payment)?

Little clearer for ya?

If you don't believe me go look at some articles on copyright law, intellectual ownership etc.

I could quote it to you all day. Copyright, Fair Use exclusions, and the laws regarding them. Do you *really* want to go there?

long as it it's in your head and not on your hard drive, that's fine.

Never said listening to it was against the law, you imbecile.

"When the digital bits reside in your PC"

are they different than the digital bits that reside in my head?
gonna start mind probes next?
storing information i've seen or heard on my computer should not be a crime, that's half the point to having computers, to remember what your brain can't. if they don't want me to retain it, don't give it out!

what i was saying about that last point was, if i've heard a song on the radio, it's be mine to listen to in my head as many times as i want. it's been paid for and offered to me. if that means i need to hear it again to refresh my memory, so be it, i'll download it, it's been paid for, for me to listen to.

i'm not the one breaking the law here, i just don't have bags of money and the lawers to prove it.
how much money is the RIAA going to extort from honest people before someone stops them from trampling all over our human rights.

using technology to remember things should NOT be a crime!

are they different than the digital bits that reside in my head?

Don't be stupid.

storing information i've seen or heard on my computer should not be a crime

Perhaps in your opinion, but not in the eyes of the law, or the greater majority of the population. It's not your information to store.

if they don't want me to retain it, don't give it out!

They didn't upload it to P2P. They sell it.

what i was saying about that last point was, if i've heard a song on the radio, it's be mine to listen to in my head as many times as i want. it's been paid for and offered to me. if that means i need to hear it again to refresh my memory, so be it, i'll download it, it's been paid for, for me to listen to.


I'm missing where you actually "PAID" for it.

I'm not the one breaking the law here, i just don't have bags of money and the lawers to prove it.

Until the law says otherwise, you *are*.

Ya know what's *really* funny? I don't think music should be protected by IP laws. I believe it is an art-form where the money should be made in the performance of, not the mass production of the music.

....but I don't use lame excuses to justify breaking the law. I just don't break it. I'll jump through whatever hoops I need to in order to get the music I want legally (without RIAA seeing a dime of it), or I'll do without.

The RIAA can't extort anything from you if you don't buy from them.

lmao...

Do you remember every song you hear in perfect CD quality?

Nope.

So I suppose you hack your downloaded MP3's to shreds, right? To mimic your memory.

No?

Then you are getting more than you paid for.

Regardless:

It *is* a crime. Whether it should or should not be is meaningless to the argument. There are *plenty* of alternatives for "fighting the Man" that do not include breaking the law.

...some folks are just too lazy, selfish and\or irresponsible to put forth the effort to figure that out.

You are *not* a freedom fighter.

Let me know in a year, after you've stopped downloading music illegally. Tell me how you've done without or found legal ways around the issue.

Then maybe you'll have something valid to add to the conversation. Until then, you're just another self-serving, entitled little punk who thinks the world owes him something it doesn't.

"Do you remember every song you hear in perfect CD quality?"

that's why i have a computer, and recording devices.
:-p

"So I suppose you hack your downloaded MP3's to shreds, right? To mimic your memory."

what???

once i've learned or heard something it's my right to relearn or re-"hear" it as much as i want. wether i write it down or record it.
NO ONE will take that from me. you can't take back information once it's been handed out.
i do understand i can't use some other peoples product for my own finacial gains, but i can use it for my own personal use.

"It *is* a crime. Whether it should or should not be is meaningless to the argument."

it *isn't* a crime to download music.
but, you *can* be prosecuted for copyright infringement in some cases.

i DON'T illegally download music, thank you.

just because someone tells you not to do something, do you follow blindly?
do you let people take advantage of you regularily?
the RIAA are not the law!
they STILL have to prove you broke the law, and downloading info (music or otherwise) is not enough.

with your line of thinking, taking pictures at disneyland should be illegal too. after all, i've partaken in some of the experience just by seeing the photos. could be seen as a loss of revenue. (hope disney isn't getting ideas from this)

dummy up, i don't like seeing the powerful extort the ignorant.

"I'm missing where you actually "PAID" for it"

did you miss the previous sentance?
says "radio".
we get lots for free, doesn't mean we don't have a right to it.

i completely agree with your last two paragraphs. except that there is no law prohibiting the downloading of music. it's the copyright law and it's kinda fuzzy. unless you can direct me to a link that makes the law more clear in this matter. and then there's the fair use policy...

once i've learned or heard something it's my right to relearn or re-"hear" it as much as i want.

wether i write it down or record it.

Where is that right granted? Seriously. Show me. You seem to be under the false impression that playing the music on the radio gives you rights over and above those of the copyright holder. You would be wrong, of course. You are allowed to hear it played on the radio when it is played. You are *not* allowed to record that broadcast (or download a CD rip) just because it's been on the radio. Personal use doesn't even enter into it. Are you a teacher? A researcher? Using it in a demonstration or presentation? For educational purposes? No? Then you have no legal right to the content whatsoever. Regardless of what you feel you are entitled to.

it *isn't* a crime to download music.

NET act. Look it up. Copyright Act. Look it up. Transferring protected IP without the permission of the copyright holder is against the law. The transfer and distribution of the content is the *sole* right of the holder.

just because someone tells you not to do something, do you follow blindly?

No. They tell me I must pay to listen to it (at my leisure, on my own devices), I either pay, or I don't listen to it. Pretty simple, actually.

do you let people take advantage of you regularily?

They can't take advantage of me if I'm not buying/listening to it. It's a little thing called self-control. If you have it, *no-one* can take advantage of you.

the RIAA are not the law!

NET Act, DMCA... No, RIAA is not the law, but the law is currently on their side.

they STILL have to prove you broke the law, and downloading info (music or otherwise) is not enough.

No, they don't. The law is there. There is currently little to no case law to back it up, but *until* there is case law denouncing or overturning it, the law is, well...the law.

I don't really care what you *think*. This is not about whether you *think* you should be allowed to do something. The simple fact is, downloading copyrighted content without a reason covered under Fair Use is against the law. End of Story.

Don't like it? Don't buy it. Show some self-control and don't consume it. Period. If this damn country had any hint of self-control or personal responsibility at all, this wouldn't even be an issue.

ROFLMAO...

Do you honestly think hearing it on the radio gives you license to do with the content as you please????

Are you *really* that dense?

You can't actually be serious, can you?

Have you *ever* read the Copyright Act?

Here's a tidbit:

It is the *sole* and *exclusive* right of the copyright holder to distribute the content under copyright.

What does this mean?

It means they can license a song to the radio station for play. It means they can sell it, give it away, whatever.

It also means you cannot do squat with it. Period. Unless you obtain it through an agreement with the copyright holder (i.e., you buy it).

The copyright law is not fuzzy. It's perfectly clear.

As for Fair Use?

*laughs*

Doesn't apply to you or me in the least. Fair Use is a series of general exclusions, or recommendations on what a judge can do in a situation where copyright has been broken and there may be legitimate reasons for it. This has been interpreted to allow use for research, clips for demonstration, educational purposes, etc.

"Cuz I want to listen to it again" is *not* a valid or legitimate reason. Sadly, it is also looking like it may turn out that Backups are not covered as well.

I don't have a problem with copyright as a whole. I *do* feel the terms are far too lengthy and that Music should not fall under it's protections.

you do realize that your own beliefs contradict your arguments?

"Do you honestly think hearing it on the radio gives you license to do with the content as you please????"

licence???
playing it on the radio gives me "licence" to listen to it. how i listen to it is up to me.

you gonna obey everything the rich poeple tell you to?
"come on, show a little backbone will ya"
:-p

this is NOT a dictatorship!

you do realize that your own beliefs contradict your arguments?

*lmaughs* Your lack of understanding provides the contradiction.

The license is for the station to play it. It gives you no rights whatsoever. If you happen to hear it while playing, great. But that's it.

The fact that you fail to understand that very simple logic amazes me.

Boy, I have 10 times the backbone you are showing here. I can live without the music, whereas you have to make up lame-ass excuses to support your false sense of entitlement.

No biggie, though. Now-a-days people have excuses for everything. No -one can take responsibility for their actions because they are completely incapable of thinking one second beyond their own instant gratification.

Wow. Nice argument, twit. ;)

It's a Representative Democracy. Doesn't mean you don't have to play by the rules either way.

Of course, you can always leave the frigging country. I'm sure we could set up a fund for you.

Scratch that. Let me respond in kind:

This is NOT Mob-Rules Anarchy!

false sense of entitlement?
you have backbone?
where do you get off thinking we should just throw our rights away?
do you enjoy free will?
you can't give me something and then make me use it your way. that's called CONTROL. maybe you see nothing wrong with poeple being controlled, but i do.
and NO, i am not taking anything from anyone.
i am using what was freely given.
and NO, not stolen either.
if companies don't want people to use their products, they should not distribute them.

but...
you go ahead and conform till you need to attain a license to take a crap. i'll be the guy standing up for free will, trying to take down your controlling dictatorship.

do you read B-E-T-A-N-E-W-S?

most of the articles are about large companies fighting governments, or each other to get their way. paying substantial lawyer fees to push the courts into their favour. and fighting still even after they've been found guilty and fined.

i'd say that's Mob-Rules Anarchy.

they used to pay off the cops, now they pay off the lawyers and the congressmen.

i won't be strong armed!

to set the record straight,
"i am not a crook"
(even though you might think so)
;-)

Wow.

You just don't get it, do you?

*shakes head*

I suppose it's really the fault of our educational system. I wouldn't be too hard on yourself...or your parents. You just weren't given the tools to develop any basic cognitive thinking skills.

Here we have it folks:

The epitome of the self-possesed, entitled :freedom fighter".

By getting what he wants, when he wants it, regardless of consequences, he's fighting for our rights!

Let's all praise the lawless hippie asshat with a God-Complex and delusions of righteousness.

Free will only equates to lawlessness when it is untempered by self-control, personal responsibility, and the ability to comprehend consequence.

I repeat what I told you earlier:

You're not a freedom fighter. You're a misguided fool.

Finn.

lol
now now...

who's got the god complex?

*scratches balls*

meh

Kids do things wrong will need to be educated.
We cannot spoil them by letting them steal things like that.

RIAA is actually doing the right thing by punishing the bad kids, and teaching parents to restrain their children more.

Spoil kids always end up doing crimes, so don't let them have anything they want.

While I agree with you about spoiling kids, RIAA, in my opinion, crossed the line here. If the kids broke the law, then so be it, but by going after the parents first, then going after the kids, they have become a spectacle of the media.

They should realise that this would make headlines, so my guess is that the "mainstream" media do not report issues about this sort of thing as they should be. I think some of this "beta news" is actually big stuff the media (e.g., Fox news, *cough* CNN, MSNBC, etc.), but they just aren't running with it. So obviously, there aren't enough betanews viewers to start a "media firestorm" against them, at least based on their thinking. Get this stuff on ABC evening news and RIAA might actually do something about it.

This issue goes far beyond spoiled children. It goes straight to the heart of control, power, and who can wield it. It's about the difference between stopping criminals and going after people for money far beyond damages actually encurred. It impacts children and adults, equally. It just so happens that children are involved this time. Suing someone who has no ability to pay is stupid because you end up with little or no cash compensation and end up looking like a bully. With children, I suppose one can hope to claim a portion of future income. If they sued someone like me, they could get an award but would have nothing to collect from since I have no assets or income. They could repossess my six-year-old computer, and that might net them a whopping $200. They could sell my breathing machine and hospital bed and get a total of around $350 max. That wouldn't even cover legal fees. Yet people in my income bracket are the hardest hit by these lawsuits. It almost convinces me that we have nothing to lose and might as well do what we want. If scare tactics were supposed to work, they're having the opposite effect in my case. They make being a pirate seem like the right thing to do like Robin Hood. I'm not going to start pirating music because I've got to show my daughter a good example about not stealing. I'm doing the right thing legally, so how come it feels like I'm selling out and giving in?

Downloading of few substandard mp3s is not the problem. These people need address the real issues; bootlegging and counterfeiting.

Thats what these people get for not taking the necessary precautions. I'm still bothered to find out that a lot of people still use PUBLIC music sights. If your going to do it at the very least have peer guardian up and running.

The RIAA should be broken up and done away with. Let the individual record companies fend for themselves instead of having a huge mafia like organization behind them.

hey RIAA, come get me, I used to record music from the radio to a tape and listen to it on my walkman . whats the f#^$ing difference? where were you in the 80's? Better yet, Where were you when I was recording songs from my records to tapes to listen to in my car? Better yet, where were you when it was ok TO BUY A F&#$ING TAPE RECORDER TO RECORD SONGS?

THis is obsurd, all the RIAA are is a bunch of people that keep the cashflow going for the mob, crooked chair holdrs etc. nothing more.

they are no better than the oil companies

"What it has become is something equivalent to the Salem Witch Hunts of the late 17th Century"

Couldn't have said it better...

FYI--I read the article, not the comments. There is no reason for me to get involved commenting on a very biased article--

It really would be nice if we could just hear the news, and make our own decisions as to what it means. I mean, more than likely we will still side against the RIAA, and we will understand the issues a little better, but instead, this almost makes me want to side with RIAA, simply because I tire of politics.

I know this is "perspective", and I'm glad you point that out, Ed, but it would be nice to at least hear the other side of the story. What is RIAA saying about this? Has anyone defended them? If no one is on their side, then you can say that in the article and move on, but I'm sure there's at least one person who believes RIAA is doing what they should.

I'm sure me and all the posters below would likely retain our current viewpoint even with the defense, but at least we will have both sides of the story.

That's why its an opinion piece, and marked as such. Who knows, we may have someone writing a perspective piece in the future supporting RIAA.

My point here was that its getting ridiculous. It's not about the law anymore. It's more about making it some kind of spectacle. I think both you and I can agree that isn't helping their case.

I do agree with you on that...

Heh...

"perspective"

...as in the RIAA could use some.

The RIAA point of view has been broadcast frequently on CNN, ABC, and in the Wall Street Journal. Shows like 60 Minutes and Dateline have covered it at length, and more information can be found in other articles on this site. The position of the RIAA has been increasingly difficult for journalists to defend in part because of the language the RIAA uses in its own public statements.

In general, the RIAA did not evolve to meet the needs and desires of the consumer.

Too slow, too late, and too bad.

In ancient times they say in America existed something they called "democracy".

Go, now, ye rich! weep, howling over your miseries that are coming upon you ; your riches have rotted, and your garments have become moth-eaten; your gold and silver have rotted, and the rust of them for a testimony shall be to you, and shall eat your flesh as fire. Ye made treasure in the last days! lo, the reward of the workmen, of those who in-gathered your fields, which hath been fraudulently kept back by you--doth cry out, and the exclamations of those who did reap into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth have entered; ye did live in luxury upon the earth, and were wanton; ye did nourish your hearts, as in a day of slaughter; ye did condemn--ye did murder the righteous one, he doth not resist you. James 5:1-5:6

The RIAA seems more like a spoiled kid who is focused on a toy they can't control. What about recording off a tv or radio or DVD replicators u can buy at walmart? Or DVD to VHS?
Instead of solving their problem they are bringing people out of the wood work with blocking technology (peerguardian2 comes to mind) that can keep the RIAA from tracking those who download their property.

They really need to focus.

You must put into jail 90% of youhgsters all over the world. Maybe it would be better for them to smoke marihuana: that means busness and BUSSIENS IS ABOVE ALL AND BEFORE HUMAN RIGHTS in this very moment.

Between Netflix screwing customers and RIAA filing lawsuits, this whole pile of crap is getting beyond absurdity, it is like trying to stop drinking and smoking pot, give it a rest. Everyone will do what humans will do. It isn't left, right, liberal, conservative, muslim, christian, there are certain things in life that are given and these morons may as well accept this unless they plan on putting 5+ billion people in prison for all these "human nature" related events. People want to get stoned, drunk, watch movies and listen to music whether they can afford it or not. No laws or prisons will change that nor will any amount of copy protection schemes, theres always a smarter human out there. As a right wing, republican, captitalist thinking person I understand the need for ownership and rights to personal property, I understand the need to protect the rights of those who create products (not reproduce them), however I feel most of this is a war of the middlemen, not the actual product creators, that results in the crap we witness, for example, as was said in BraveHeart, those who fight over the scraps from Longshanks tables. Burp, sorry I drank too much tonight.

YES - YES - YES.

HEAR !
HEAR !
HEAR !

Exactly what it's all about. And, man, don't worry about your "drank too much". "In vino veritas" - you know that.

The RIAA has one thing on their side: they spent years getting repub congresses to pass draconian legislation such as the DMCA, which in theory, makes it a crime to listen to a song freely from a collection in a library, or play the radio in your business without paying royalties to the industry. A sensible judge could easily toss anything the RIAA throws up, but the RIAA aggressively shops the courts for Reagan and Bush appointees. It's a fact.

This all started when the record industry started losing money after everyone had finally finished replacing all their old Beatles and Springsteen albums with CDs. The cash cow was over, and they were desperate. So off they went to bribe, er, lobby the repub congress to pass law after law in their favor.

This is one of the best perspective articles I've read. Thanks Ed Oswald!

Try again buddy. The RIAA / MPAA mafia funds the entire California delegation's campaigns. Most of the HOUSE members are DEMOCRATS. And this will not change because the REPUBLICAN movie star governator is kicking his opponent's @ss in every poll.

Both California senators are LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC women from Grateful Dead land. Dianne Feinstein is even on the Judiciaty Committee which is the source of those copyright laws and DRM schemes.

An uninformed idiot expects me to think that REPUBLICANS were the only ones bought and paid for by HOLLYWOOD studiosd and the record companies...

damn straight... this has been the liberals fault since the biggining.. just about every lable artist is a liberal duh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"The RIAA has one thing on their side: they spent years getting repub congresses to pass draconian legislation such as the DMCA, which in theory, makes it a crime to listen to a song freely from a collection in a library, or play the radio in your business without paying royalties to the industry. A sensible judge could easily toss anything the RIAA throws up, but the RIAA aggressively shops the courts for Reagan and Bush appointees. It's a fact.

This all started when the record industry started losing money after everyone had finally finished replacing all their old Beatles and Springsteen albums with CDs. The cash cow was over, and they were desperate. So off they went to bribe, er, lobby the repub congress to pass law after law in their favor.

This is one of the best perspective articles I've read. Thanks Ed Oswald!"

EXACTLY.

Just ignore the blind as hell republicans who can't see past the dollar sighns in their eyes.

Hahaha, LOL

nice sarcasm.

Riaa are acting like megalomaniac who seem think that by bulling people should make them bow to them nah I dont think so

i dont think they are hurting themselves because their business is not about high morals. they have the ability to sue anyone now for just downloading music. thats scarring because turning off sharing doesnt protect you. riaa is simply a business that makes money by suing people, the common folk, and im sure the labels pay them per incident as well.

i dont really know why there is only one riaa, because the riaa only hurts .001% of the sharing any lawyer could start up a business suing people breaking music laws.

maybe this article would be more beneficial if it had a paragraph about the networks the riaa attacks and which are still safe, you know? but im sure the poster isn't genius enough to know anything useful.

"RIAA having the moral high ground? Yes, they did. Let's face it, downloading pirated music is illegal, no matter which way you spin it"

How extraordinarily naive to suggest that the law and morality have anything to do with each other.

Moral high ground, The riaa is sueing dead grandmothers and trying to take away a little schoolgirls lunch money. They have no morals.
Check these articles out from reputable sources.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,96797,00.html
http://www.betanews.com/..._Grandmother/1107532260

The article was well written. A good balance of fact and editorial with a fair weight on each side. Well done. The RIAA is destroying themselves. Too bad it's taking them too long to do it.

"Steve Jobs said it best at the time: "We're trying to compete with piracy, we're trying to pull people away from piracy and say, 'You can buy these songs legally for a fair price.'"

I couldn't agree more. Jobs hit the nail on the head. I used to download music all the time, but since iTunes came along I never do it (illegally).

At $0.99 a pop, it's fair and legal.

Now software is the next thing to fix. Software is waaay overpriced.

Wow.

Can't extort parents... so now it's going after the kids.

Talk about stealing candy from a baby.

Well, RIAA, that's about as low and evil as one can get in this world. We're all proud of you for putting such effort into getting there.

Now piss off.

I don't know... I thought suing a dead grandmother was pretty low and evil already...

Again this shows the utter greed of the music industry again.
They assume all people want the top 40 crap (which is all it is these days) instead they carry on with these suits and cry foul over the alledge money they are losing.
If they look at the some of the problems as well as pricay they wont like what they see.

1. not everyone likes the rubbish they want you to buy

2. some of the stuff people do like is unavailable to buy in cd or download formats

3. suing people is not the answer when you are going for children who do not know any better as they are playing follow the leader.

parents need to be more aware of what their children do, and as soon as the letter shows up the parents are dragged in.
it would be better to get the family into a meeting and make sure the all parties involved are aware of what is going and the actions that will take place if they do not change their habbits.

Real music fans buy their music, living in australia, i have to import nearly all of the stuff i listen to due to incompented music lables.

My music store has said to me many times that he sells more imported stuff than top 20. that is saying something if their sales and revenue is down.

I agree with you. The music I'm most tempted to pirate comes from albums I had when I was young, albums I can't buy online. I can buy Charley Pride's Greatest Hits CDs, but the songs I like best came from ordinary albums and weren't necessarily smash hits. If recording labels just opened up their catalog and sold older albums of music, I'd go broke pretty quick. lol! They'd get money for songs on which they are currently earning nothing, and it wouldn't take much effort on their part. I have pestered both Rhapsody and Napster to start selling the old albums I want, and I have been consistently ignored. :(

EXACTLY!!!

how long does it take for music to become the property of people? is it 40 years?

According to this article from Cornell University
(http://www.copyright.cor...irtle_Public_Domain.htm)

...it takes 95-120 years for works owned by a corporation (which I'm assuming most music is, since I think artists typically give over all the rights to the label) to enter the "public domain". For works copyrighted by individuals, it's their lifetime + 70 years.

Notice in the chart how copyright has been extended - most recently by Disney/Sonny Bono
(http://en.wikipedia.org/...ight_Term_Extension_Act).

What we're seeing is the lockdown of content that was supposed to belong to the people 10 years ago, but due to greed is still owned by corporations.

I'm really sick of the way this world has become anymore. Now all everyone in power wants to do is lock someone up for life for everything. What ever happened to have compassion and giving people 2nd chances. But no, we have to throw the book at everyone everytime, for anything they might do wrong. This world sucks.

Hmm. I wonder... could pirates sue the RIAA for using scare tactics causing pain and suffering and for harassment? Or can I sue the RIAA because they force me to use Media Player to play my music? MP isn't easy for a blind woman to use, while Winamp and other players have full keyboard support. Could I claim that MP causes hardship and loss of productivity? ITunes users could sue them for emotional distress due to the threatened price hikes. Maybe it's time to tie up the RIAA's legal defense team in over a thousand such lawsuits, draining their assets of time and money for legal fees in a slow, steady manner. Maybe they wouldn't enjoy being on the receiving end.

"Or can I sue the RIAA because they force me to use Media Player to play my music? MP isn't easy for a blind woman to use, while Winamp and other players have full keyboard support."

They may in fact be violating the civil rights of the disabled citizens in some states. GO GET EM...

Sounds like a good line for the Sopranos or summat...

"if we can't get you, we'll get your kids!"

I think the author of this article is right on the money. I am generally a law abiding person who is willing to pay for music and movies. However, I feel like I'm treated like a criminal by the legal music services and finding myself feeling happy when someone does something to get one up on the RIAA and the MPAA. Suing a 12 year old, a grandfather who didn't know about file sharing, and suing a dead person make them look both greedy and stupid. Plus, the suit against the grandfather wanted a ridiculous amount for only 4 movies. Why don't we hear about the people who have 100 gigs of downloaded music and movies being sued? I was disgusted to hear about the RIAA sending letters to the Girl Scouts demanding a licensing feel to sing songs like Camp Town Races at their summer campfire sing alongs. The music pirates made be doing something wrong, but the RIAA and MPAA don't wear white hats here either, so it's hard to know which side is which. Villains all!

They can be beat down, but nobody wants to do it! Just stop buying!!!!

or get a baton

I tell ya, the depth to which these scum will sink knows no bounds.

Shouldn't the RIAA sue Ipod and all the other mp3 players on the market??? They are aiding and abetting by playing pirated music. And of course they have to sue all software mp3 players and well, like iTunes, Winamp ect...

But of course the biggest culprit here is Sony. They decided to go digital with CD’s & CD-RW’s to make it as easy as possible to rip music. Piracy was never such a problem till the record companies went digital to bring down cost and make more money. I guess that whole going digital thing back fired huh!!! LOL:-)

"But of course the biggest culprit here is Sony."

No kdding. They own a movie studio and a record company. They also provide thieves with the computers, hardware and blank media to pirate copyrighted materials.

You can buy a SONY CD/DVD burner stacked 6 high in a tower case for about $1500.00 on line. Most of us just don't need to make 6 illegal copies of a new SONY album at a time. Police found several of these machines, during a warehouse raid in Oakland California last Summer, and thousands of pirated SONY products for sale too.

And thieves can use a SONY product to rip off their RIAA/MPAA competitors, who do not provide thieves with the means and an opportunity to to commit a crimee...

I think what he meant is that Sony was a co-founder in the digital music cd format. they created a format that anyone can duplicate. now they're upset that people do things for themselves.

by the way, selling a kitchen knife does not promote violence, neither should buying a burner promote copyright infringement.

*blinks*
Well written & balanced. I'm impressed.

"There are a couple of problems with the RIAA's defense." -- They are the plaintiffs, not the defense.

And not that it needs to be said again, but the RIAA is more interested in the self-continuity of the RIAA far beyond being an asset to the recording industry. They are alienating artists as much as they are consumers.

But before this column cedes the prior high ground, please don't anyone forget that the RIAA lost a pricefixing lawsuit a few years ago; guilty of inflating the cost of compact discs. Thus they've never held any moral high ground.

Amen, I agree with every part of that, the RIAA needs to wake up and see that they cannot control piracy, no matter how many dead people they sue, no matter how many kids they scare, it will not go away, and they just end up looking more like the bad guys in return. Morons, every one of them.

I'm right there with you.

F--k the RIAA. Id like to see the destruction of all the majors. Let these suit coats get a real job. Death to seymor stein!!!

Here is a s*** perfect for those that agree!

http://www.jinx.com/scri...id=-1&productID=181

this is very easy. stop buying music.

Way to go mom, stand up to these RIAA A$$holes!!! The RIAA can't take on an adult so they have to go after kids. That's right, threaten them with fines they can never pay and jail time that should break them. RIAA breaks more laws than the people who download music. They will do anything and everything however unethical to get there man. And the government lets them carry out their vigilantly justice with impunity.

The RIAA is full of a bunch of retards...Enough said.

"Now it seems to matter less whether you downloaded 10 or 10,000 songs, you are both equally at risk of being sued by the recording industry."

Being picky, but shouldn't that be 'uploaded'?

Only in Canada is it illegal to upload. In the US it is illegal to either upload OR download a file.

Well said, Mr. Oswald.