RIAA, "I'm Mad As Hell and I'm Not Gonna Take It Anymore!"

[gigamurph]

So the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) has begun their campaign on shutting down the downloading of music via the internet!.....and one of their first "prizes"? A 12 year old girl who's mother has agreed to pay a fine of $2,000 and halt all future downloading of music! Several college students in the east were recently fined sums of $12,000 to $17,500!
Many of the members on this board have discussed downloading music from time to time and are most likely wondering; "Am I next?" Are you? Could be! I for one can't download much on my computer due to a painfully slow dial-up connection; but this latest action is the most heinous, asinine, and infuriating slap to our faces and I refuse to sit by idle and not fight back!
So the RIAA claims that music sales are down 31% in the past two years due to downloading. Some of that 31% couldn't be due to the fact that they have allowed the prices of a CD to be raised to as much as $25 for a single CD, which may have one good song on it and the rest is "junk" just to complete the album and get it on the shelves; could it? I for one have curbed my purchases back in recent years, not because I get my music off the internet but more because I refuse to put my hard earned dollar down for "that one song"!.....and it's going to get stopped entirely! I am boycotting the RIAA, and encouaraging my Family and friends to do the same, by not purchasing any music, whether it be CDs, cassettes, or vinyl this holiday season. That may not sound like much, but myself and my Kids are quite avid music lovers and each own more than our fair share of CDs and always received numerous gifts of music on our birthdays and Christmas morning and other holidays. Not this year! Down 31%? If we all come together on this; how does "down 50%" sound? Or maybe in our wildest dreams, "down 75%"!
.....and what are they going to do if those that they sue refuse to pay restitution? Lock them away in prison? Prisoners don't get much of an opportunity to shop for their favorite music! Thanks for helping out RIAA!
Thank you for your patience while I ranted and hopefully, if you choose to climb aboard and tell the RIAA, "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!", we as the sole reason the RIAA can even exist, can make a difference!
A footnote; while I can see their plight and why they must wrest some kind of control on the downloading issue; I believe that "biting the hand that feeds you" is not the way to go about it. We consumers are not the little dog that they can play with and then turn around and kick us aside! If we are not to download music from the internet; why are so many music download websites allowed to exist? If it's there; aren't we going to use it? I never agreed with the Napster banning and damn sure don't advocate the same for the many other sites; but you don't give someone the tools,ie:websites and CD burners, to use and then punish them when they use them!
RIAA,if you're not embarrassed by your moronic pursuit of the "most dastardly criminals" on Earth, you should be! :mad:
Forgot to mention one thing. The RIAA is offering amnesty to anyone who admits that they "wrongfully" down loaded music from the internet, agree to erase their entire collection of music files and to never download music from the internet again. The reward? The reward is that THEY will not seek action against you in the future. Take note that THEY will not! Many attorneys are opposing this "amnesty" due to the fact that once you admit to the "wrongdoing", you may be open to lawsuits by others! So, if you are one of the unfortunate "criminals" who face this fiasco, think hard before admitting to anything!
[ September 12, 2003, 10:51 AM: Message edited by: gigamurph ]

[mirvin]

It's a tough situation. Especially with the kids who believe that everything on the internet is free.
Stealing is stealing. Copyrights are copyrights. Internet filesharing of copywritten material is out of controll.
If a 12 year old kid was taping monday night football and trading it on the internet would we get upset when the NFL sued the crap out of them? Do we get upset when the MPAA goes after movie piraters?
If we are not to download music from the internet; why are so many music download websites allowed to exist? It's not the software or the downloading sites (Napster for instance) that are the problem. They are legal to use as long as the material is legal. They simply provide a legal service.
I'm not saying the RIAA is handling this in the best fashion, but what would we have them do?
Just my .02....
[ September 12, 2003, 12:29 PM: Message edited by: mirvin ]

[flat broke]

hmmm, think there might just be a way around this? :) Set up a nice small little VPN for all of you and your friends to use to share music? Rename all of yur .mp3 files to .pdf, etc. then rename them back to mp3 only for ripping to disc?
**** THE RIAA!!!!
More importantly how are they getting user information on who downloaded what? From the operators of shareware networks in exchange for amnesty? From the ISPs who are sniffing datastreams for different packet types?
Hopefully this will be a fad that will die out SOON. I would think that in the event you get sued, you'd want to file a cross complaint listing the RIAA, your ISP, and any of the shareware network operators that you may have used. Get everyone's lawyers in the mix including your ISP who will have to defend themselves and in turn spend dollars on a lawyer that may help you. Did the ISP do everything it could to prevent or notifiy you as a user of the legal ramnifications of filesharing? All of the sudden you'll have AOL/Time Warner's legal team in on the game and things might change quickly.
Actually what will probably happen is that the RIAA will be dumb enough to raise a suit against someone who downloaded from their job. That will get yet another lawyer into the mix, and now you've got all kinds of opportunities for various law suits. How funny would it be to have RIAA sued because its legal action against a user caused an adverse work environment due to the ensuing legal battle.
The bottom line is that the only people that will make any money from this are attorneys. **** THE WHOLE DAMN THING AND **** THE RIAA. If you're an artist that supports this movement I hope your record sales go right down the toilet. Only an idiot, or a greedy bastard consumed by his/her quest for the further acumulation of wealth, would be so blind as to see that the free sharing of music has opened many users minds to genres they never would have looked into. This in turn equals more cross-genre sales. Do you think that a guy that only listens to metal and alternative would go out and buy an Eminem <sp> CD without hearing most or all of it first? Asside from being a huge marketing blunder, I sincerely hope that the RIAA's latest actions land them on the defendant side of more than one courtroom battle.
Chris

[mickeyfinn]

This is what they are doing, I just spent a little time on the RIAA website:
1. They are looking at the peer to peer connections and looking at the shared directories to see who is sharing a lot of music.
2. They are focusing on people who allow their computers to function as supernodes.
They are not getting information from you ISP as to who has been sharing what and how much.
What they are doing is legally obtaining information from the ISP's once they have identified an IP address that is sharing the information that they believe belongs to them.
I agree with the first post. If you don't think what they are doing is right then boycott the hell out of them. But do more than that. Make sure they know why you are boycotting them. Do it via an email address (none but the webmaster available on their web site) send them a letter or whatever, just let them know why their music sales are dropping.
Picking on 12 year old kids is the wrong way to go even if you agree with the principal of what the RIAA is enforcing. This 12 year old kid has problably been using computers since a toddler and the internet and file sharing software has been available for the last 4 or 5 of those years. They are prosecuting a child who very well may have no idea whatsoever that what they are doing is wrong. several artists have stepped up to the plate and said they don't agree with it and that what the RIAA is protecting is the companies bottom line not the artists.

[leibniz]

Only a small point, but...
flat broke:
... Did the ISP do everything it could to prevent or notifiy you as a user of the legal ramnifications of filesharing? ...
I think that most, if not all ISPs consider themselves the carrier only (ala "don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger") and I would suggest that there is an extremely high probability that you acknowledge their indemnification and absolve them of responsibility of your actions, when you sign the contract to the the Internet service in the first place. That in itself should prevent lawsuits, at least from the ISP user side.
I don't think ISPs will find themselves in the middle of lawsuits; they will just find increased costs and responsibility of logging / tracking / monitoring / analysing network traffic due to these questionable lawsuits.
I am the first one to agree that stealing is stealing and piracy is wrong, but these lawsuits will do nothing to stop copying, not even from the 12 year old who got sued, who is probably more pissed off at the RIAA now than he ever was before.
They need a different angle to solve this problem.
Just my $0.02

[WaterBox]

mirvin:
It's a tough situation. Especially with the kids who believe that everything on the internet is free.
Stealing is stealing. Copyrights are copyrights. Internet filesharing of copywritten material is out of controll.
If a 12 year old kid was taping monday night football and trading it on the internet would we get upset when the NFL sued the crap out of them? Do we get upset when the MPAA goes after movie piraters?
If we are not to download music from the internet; why are so many music download websites allowed to exist? It's not the software or the downloading sites (Napster for instance) that are the problem. They are legal to use as long as the material is legal. They simply provide a legal service.
I'm not saying the RIAA is handling this in the best fashion, but what would we have them do?
Just my .02.... How can you compare taping a monday night football game to taping a song?? That football game will only happen once, It will be presented to the public only Once, impossible to exactly duplicate that game again. copyright? OK! but unlike music, turn your radio on and listen how many times a day a particular song play's everyday all week long. "So" If I take my battery operated tape recorder and my battery operated radio and wire them together for good quality and turn them on and record a song, "So what I am stealing,?? I am a pirate?? I don't think so! "What" we are not allowed to own any copyrited material?. It must be legal material or the radio station couldn't be shearing it with us. "Stealing?? I dont think so..

[Phat_Kat]

My opinion is simple and short. I paid the $20-$30 for the ****ing CD which is a rediculous price for a CD so I should be able to do whatever the hell I want with. These assholes drop their prices and I'll go back to full blown legit but until then they can kiss my white irish ass if they think I'm gonna pay those prices.
[ September 12, 2003, 10:32 PM: Message edited by: Phat_Kat ]

[woodster]

If u turn off the file sharing option u should be safe.

[572Daytona]

Hey guys...quit denying musicians and music execs their livelyhood. Cocaine and Heroin don't come cheap you know. :rolleyes:

[Phat_Kat]

well I'm not on the hitlist yet. If they ever decide they have an issue with me they can talk to my lawyer.

[LVjetboy]

The greed and tactics of big money like RIAA continues to amaze those who wish to support and comply with the status quo and laws they create. For moral or other reasons. They claim, "The very future of music will never survive <our cut in profits>"
I say, Bullshit. Think outside blind obedience to those with the money and power to control. Their music interest is all about milking profit, not promoting true value in music or giving the customer a good deal.
I say, cut them off from their money pig trough anyway you can. Only then will you see more creativity and true change for the better.
jer

[clownpuncher]

I realize that my response is slightly off the main content of this thread, but.......
I own a restaurant and bar. When I opened I was told that I wasn't allowed to play my own CD's for background music. I bought the CD's with the sole purpose of playing them in the bar. I had to get my music through a source that paid the music industry. Now I pay a company called Muzac 90.00 per month to play music that I already paid for. I think it's a little out of control. Wtf is with that?