RIAA spreading the love!

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2003-12-09 08:22pm

Anyone feel like starting a lynch mob? I know I do, but I'm always wanting to form lynch mobs. It's my thing, don'tcha know.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-12-09 10:22pm

Hmm...from here on out I now officially establish the unofficial usergroup: "Evil Capitalist Swine Against the RIAA", a boycott of RIAA materials.

White Cat · Post by **White Cat** » 2003-12-10 03:39pm

Myth: Stealing music is wrong.
Fact: Music companies are big, faceless corporations, so it's okay!

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-12-10 03:54pm

White Cat wrote:Myth: Stealing music is wrong.
Fact: Music companies are big, faceless corporations, so it's okay!

And this justifies bankrupting entire families exactly how?

White Cat · Post by **White Cat** » 2003-12-10 05:23pm

RedImperator wrote: And this justifies bankrupting entire families exactly how?

Because said family stole 1,200 songs from them?

Futhermore, you know perfectly well that the family will not be "bankrupted" by this. The article says that the penalties "could" be $150k per song, but it also notes that the defendants in previous lawsuits settled for "several thousand". And although the mother tries to make it sound like they're living on subsistence wages, they're obviously middle class or higher. (They can afford broadband Internet, after all.)

TheDarkling wrote:Stealing the music is starting to look like the correct moral choice because funding these prats and their jack booted lawyers is certainly morally indefensible.

This is the quote that my first post was directed at.

Macross wrote:Anyone remember when the RIAA used to make money by selling records instead of sueing people?

This is just plain idiotic. The money the music companies make from these lawsuits is microscopic compared to their sales revenues. In fact, it's probable that they're losing money from them (due to lawyer's fees and such).

Their purpose in suing these people is to scare everyone else into not sharing music illegally.

The article wrote:In a lawsuit filed last week in Newark's federal courthouse, Sony, BMG Music and two other labels listed some 1,200 songs -- the list filled 41 pages -- that allegedly were offered for illegal swapping by "DrEeMeR" over the Internet network KaZaA.

Scimeca said that screen name was used by her youngest daughter, a high school freshman, for a school-related project.

What kind of school project requires the use of Kazaa?

But the family's high-speed Internet service is billed to the mother...

Oh, those poor oppressed minimum-wage-earners!

Scimeca said she had not yet seen the lawsuit. But she got wind something was up a few weeks ago when Cablevision sent her a letter, saying it had handed over information to music companies about her Optimum Online Internet account after receiving a subpoena.

Music labels can subpoena such details without a judge's authorization, under provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998. These subpoenas are being challenged in separate cases by the American Civil Liberties Union and SBC Communications.

This is the only problem I have with the process; they shouldn't be able get subpeonas like that. BAN THE DMCA, etc.

BTW, how exactly does the RIAA figure out who is hosting the files? My best guess would be that they use a connection monitor to find out what IP address the files are coming from. I read somewhere that they use Kazaa Lite somehow, but I don't see how that would work.

But, she said, "You can't watch them 24 hours a day. By the same token, if they are able to access a site, how are they to know it's wrong?"

Through the moral upbringing they're supposed to get from their parents?

"How can you blame a 13-year-old child for doing something they didn't know was illegal?" Scimeca said.

Technically, they're blaming/suing the parents, who are responsible for teaching that kind of thing.

"I'll start a petition to never buy another record again."

See, now here's a legal and moral way to bring about change in companies you object to.

"It's not like she murdered someone,"

Aye yi yi... *bangs head on desk*

"When we were kids, we sat with tape recorders and taped songs off the radio. Was that illegal, too?"

Um... yes?

She insisted the labels will have a hard time squeezing any money from her.

"I'd have to pay them a dollar a month," Scimeca said.

Or you could pay them the $44.95 a month you're currently spending on cable Internet...

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2003-12-10 07:01pm

White Cat wrote:
TheDarkling wrote:Stealing the music is starting to look like the correct moral choice because funding these prats and their jack booted lawyers is certainly morally indefensible.
This is the quote that my first post was directed at.

Contrast, stealing a few pennies worth from the Artist (assuming the person would have bought the CD) to funding an organisation that uses its influence to buy draconian legislation and then uses its lawyers to crush those who have no chance of using the justice system to defend themselves even if they had a case because the RIAA can simply outspend them to the verdict.

Remember people, when you buy a CD you are funding these idiots as they trample all over people in their quest to preserve ludicrous profits and an outdated business system, that certainly isn't something I support nor is it something I would went to finance.

White Cat · Post by **White Cat** » 2003-12-10 08:02pm

TheDarkling wrote:Contrast, stealing a few pennies worth from the Artist (assuming the person would have bought the CD) to funding an organisation that uses its influence to buy draconian legislation and then uses its lawyers to crush those who have no chance of using the justice system to defend themselves even if they had a case because the RIAA can simply outspend them to the verdict.

Remember people, when you buy a CD you are funding these idiots as they trample all over people in their quest to preserve ludicrous profits and an outdated business system, that certainly isn't something I support nor is it something I would went to finance.

Look, if you refuse to buy music CDs, more power to you. I'm all for boycotting the RIAA. However, nothing that you described even remotely justifies stealing from them.

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2003-12-10 08:27pm

White Cat wrote: Look, if you refuse to buy music CDs, more power to you. I'm all for boycotting the RIAA. However, nothing that you described even remotely justifies stealing from them.

I need not justify stealing from them, I only said stealing from them is the lesser evil compared to funding them.

I myself don't buy CD's and never have, the only time I listen to music is music on the radio in my car however if I was going to listen to music outside of that I certainly wouldn't choose to do so by funding the RIAA and their ilk (or do so for £15+ either).

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-12-10 08:34pm

The RIAA richly deserves the doublehanded bitchslap it is currently recieving. I shed no tears for them.

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2003-12-10 11:56pm

I shed no tears for them either... That's what they get for putting out absolute shit for the last 15 years. That and they phases out singles. You have to pay 20 bucks for a CD with one song that you want. Screw the RIAA. I laugh at them. I hope they go down in flames while we sit back and laugh at them. I'd rather just go downtown and listen to some local bands anyway...

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-12-11 01:14am

What...no more takers to the 'Capitalist Pigdogs Against the RIAA' club/boycott?

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2003-12-11 07:16am

Nathan F wrote:What...no more takers to the 'Capitalist Pigdogs Against the RIAA' club/boycott?

sure, i'll bite.

Psycho Smiley · Post by **Psycho Smiley** » 2003-12-11 07:21am

What the hell. I wasn't buying any more of their crap anyway.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2003-12-11 11:49am

I continue to buy CDs, but only from independent labels outside the RIAA. (last time I checked, Cacophonous Records weren't a RIAA member)

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2003-12-11 11:51am

I'll--- uh... continue not buying anything from them as I always did.

Besides, most Underground Music is out of the RIAA's jurisdiction (not that it'll keep me from getting a bullet in the head from the RIAA SS: they make no distinction between MP3s they had 'stolen' from them and MP3s made from music their target may have authored himself!) simply because most indie artists either A: don't give a flying fuck about MP3 sharing, or B: are actively spamming their MP3s to everyone and their granny left, right, and center!