Would a petition to get RIAA out of here or change how they work would that work?

No.
Getting the RIAA 'out of here' is a naive concept. They are not going anywhere and my guess is they are going to make us eat sh*t for a while.

you are most likley right about that, but in America if you want it changed you can eaither vote on it, or petition. I dont see why if Hundreads of thousands of people in America (or how many you need to over turn something) wouldnt work with this?

Even if they changed (for the better) that would work also.

don't know .........maybe ......maybe not

The only thing that could get rid of the RIAA would be for 95% of the people buying music related merchandise to stop(cds, shirts, posters, videos, concert tickets, etc...) Doing this could cripple the already greedy music industry and make them appreciate their fans more. Not saying that I condone "file swapping" since it does clearly violate copyright laws. Do you want to give your services away for free, of course not, why should they have to? They will eventually learn that there is no way to stop file swapping, they can only slow it down until a new way of swapping is brought to light.

The RIAA isn't evil, they are looking out for their own rights. Getting rid of them is like trying to get rid of a Union - not gonna happen. Should cable companies stop trying to stop people from using "black boxes"? Just because the masses are agains something it doesn't mean that the masses are right.

The only way to fight this is with money, stop buying merchandise of people that belong to the RIAA and are unsupportive of those "file swappers" and they will start to get the hint.

There is nothing wrong with what RIAA does, they are just protecting the music industry. Artises are people who are doing work and they need to get paid. Music are copyright materials and no one would work for free. I know that some in the industry are earning insane amount of money but they worked, people were willing to support their work and they get paid.

Of course, if you don't agree with paying for music then just don't buy them, don't listen to it. No one will stop you.

Why stop at music, why not tell your retailer that you think they are evil for charging for their products and get it for free ? Why don't you work for free ?

well said eddy2099... Totally agree

See where the music industry made a very substantial donate to the Senate ... funny how money talks when your lobbying Government eh.

The question we have to ask our selves ... Is it the artists that are supposedly losing money or the record companies, and are they really loosing money, or is it that they are worried about losing control, will artists discover they can survive without record companies. :eek:

Doc

LOL.....

I wonder how many who oppose RIAA are the same people who scream 'RIIIIIP--I'm gonna sue' if a table from their site is the same on another site. It's okay to steal anothers work as long as it isn't their own that is being stolen.

Originally posted by OMC
LOL.....

I wonder how many who oppose RIAA are the same people who scream 'RIIIIIP--I'm gonna sue' if a table from their site is the same on another site. It's okay to steal anothers work as long as it isn't their own that is being stolen.

You must be reading the posts differently to me. I haven't seen a single post promoting theft. Similary I have heard or read a single comment promoting file sharing, not that the whole mess really need to be cleaned up. As an example of how ridiculous it all is are you aware that if a retail shop has a tv on display and the tv is going and a movie is playing on the tv then he is breaking the law.

One also wonders about libaries and Doctor waiting rooms, are the Doctors robbing the Magazine industry by have copies of magazines for people to read, free of charge, or do they pay a royalty everytime a patient reads an article, and do lift operators pay the record industry royalies everytime you listen to a song in a lift ... I mean they must be losing millions of dollars due to millions and millions of people around the world going tfor rides in lift instead of buying the record, then of course there's the recorded music while your on hold waiting to talk to somebody at the RIAA

Doc

There is a lot of things wrong what the RIAA Taliban is doing. I agree the artists need to be paid, but the RIAA is taking the wrong approach. Even some artists (like Prince and Paul Simon)are complaining that the record companies are ripping them off by paying so little or none of the proceeds from sales of recordings.

If the RIAA had their way, there would be no record button on any device.

Originally posted by eddy2099
There is nothing wrong with what RIAA does, they are just protecting the music industry. Artises are people who are doing work and they need to get paid. Music are copyright materials and no one would work for free. I know that some in the industry are earning insane amount of money but they worked, people were willing to support their work and they get paid.

Originally posted by Jon FB
Would a petition to get RIAA out of here or change how they work would that work?

My frend,

Direct your anger HERE (http://www.metallica.com). They are the 1's responsible for this,so.........

YES,be mad @ the riaa,but be more mad @ the 1's who started it all.....

The Dude :angry:

Originally posted by The Dude_
My frend,

Direct your anger HERE (http://www.metallica.com). They are the 1's responsible for this,so.........

YES,be mad @ the riaa,but be more mad @ the 1's who started it all.....

The Dude :angry:
I know I saw something on vh1 where Lars from Metallica said he doesnt care if people pirate their stuff. He was pissed that someone got a hold of a song they didnt even finish and played it over the radio and just about every other radio station now had it because of file sharing. So he was ticked off someone got a song before they finished. As other people suggested, stop listening and buying music until sales decline and hit rock bottom, I'm sure the RIAA will have our attention when theyre making x% of zero.

Unfortunately, they are a private corporation representing the major record lables.

Sure you try getting the laws on intellectual rights repealed, then in 10 years when your living in mud huts ask if it was worth being able to steal music.
When no company will ship product to your country, when no company will develop any product in your country, when anything you develop isnt covered by any copyright or patent laws sure have fun im sure saying a few hundred bucks on cds was worth it.

The RIAA are doing their job which is protecting the intellectual rights of their clients. More power to em.

I dont think some of you get what I was saying... I dont support stealing music. I never once downloaded music from the internet, and not planing on to.

What I was getting at is RIAA is doing basically alot of things wrong.

The RIAA are doing their job which is protecting the intellectual rights of their clients. More power to em.

protecting their clients? There just using them to get all their money from their clients. How is that protecting their clients? More like proecting their profit.

What got me is how they are going towards the suing thing they could go done this a diffrent way. If you think about it its there fault for not doing something earlyer. Mabey if they have it wouldnt of gone as far as it has.

Richy,
I will say it time and again:
These people blindly harass everybody, not just people who pirate music. THAT is my issue with them.

Originally posted by cyansmoker
Richy,
I will say it time and again:
These people blindly harass everybody, not just people who pirate music. THAT is my issue with them.

Yup, they have the money so they figure they got the power.

They harass everybody?? so how come they are winning in court?

Why are you people even considering how to stop someone upholding the law? They are stopping people sharing copyrighted music. That is their brief and they are doing it in the methods set down by your legal system. Sueing your asses. Dont like it, dont steal music.

Who are they harassing that they shouldnt then? Legit sharing networks like whippit? oh yeah they arent are they. Theyre taking issue with people who steal or facilitate the theft of copyrighted material. Damn right too.

Years over years, you hear the message that 'Piracy is Bad' and that it is against the law. Years and years over, you still see music piracy happening. People knows it is illegal to pirate music but they still do so because as private individuals they think it is alright to do so. Now the industry reps are taking a stand to say 'Enough is Enough' and begin legal proceedings and you say it is wrong ? Of course, they invaded your privacy when they tapped into your private information to determine if you are a violator or not.

I am not sure about the laws of the US but it is wrong if it is used to protect violators and criminals if it ever comes to that. You break the law, your privileges are over. Do You the crime, you pay the price.

File sharing especially of copyright materials is wrong. If they ignore the people which actually do the transfer and just go after kazaa, chances are by the time the kazaa network is down, you see something sprouting up again. Look at Napster, it got killed but you get several other file sharing places which does basically the same thing (with slight modification), the private individuals still continue to share stolen materials. Those network just make it ever so easy to do so.

How would you think they should proceed ? I mean it is like we all know stealing is a crime but if it is not enforced, people would take advantage of it. Like if you own a convenient store, you have signs around to say stealing is a crime but if someone do steal and you do not stop him, it would probably encourage others to do so.

RIAA should have done what they are doing now earlier but I believe they were just counting on people's conscience with their 'Piracy is Wrong' campaign but if it is not enforced, they just land on deaf ears.

Originally posted by richy
They harass everybody?? so how come they are winning in court?

Why are you people even considering how to stop someone upholding the law? They are stopping people sharing copyrighted music. That is their brief and they are doing it in the methods set down by your legal system. Sueing your asses. Dont like it, dont steal music.

Who are they harassing that they shouldnt then? Legit sharing networks like whippit? oh yeah they arent are they. Theyre taking issue with people who steal or facilitate the theft of copyrighted material. Damn right too. Show me one lawsuit filed by the RIAA against a single person that the RIAA has won.

Guess what? You can't. It hasn't happened. The RIAA has successfully sued companies making file-sharing software (though they have lost there too in some instances, i.e. Grokster). Subpoenas are NOT "winning in court". Subpeonas require a court clerk somewhere to hand a stack of papers to the RIAA attornies and do NOT involve judges, the judicial system (outside of court clerks), opposing attornies, discovery, checking of evidence, etc. etc. etc.

The issue is not the suing itself*, but how they are going about obtaining the personal information of they people they are suing, and some of the people they are suing (i.e. the 12 yr old).

*Actually it is the suing itself. Shouldn't they be going after the people who are making 1000s of copies of CDs and selling them on the street in any fair-sized city instead of the person on KaZaA who's sharing 1 file (as was the case in one of the subpoenas filed)?

I could care less about the riaa, I dont use kazaa and will never get caught. I get my stuff through irc servers and for the most part buy cds.

Umm what about the cases they are currently settling then, that counts as a win as settling is an admission of guilt in effect, their cases will win because the defendants are breaking the law. Just because there are bigger thieves out there doesnt make it ok to file share.

Guess what your argument has no substance, it doesnt matter how they got the information, the bottom line is people that are doing something illegal are being punished which is how it should be. End of story.

Originally posted by richy
Umm what about the cases they are currently settling then, that counts as a win as settling is an admission of guilt in effect, their cases will win because the defendants are breaking the law. Just because there are bigger thieves out there doesnt make it ok to file share.

Guess what your argument has no substance, it doesnt matter how they got the information, the bottom line is people that are doing something illegal are being punished which is how it should be. End of story.
Settling an action out of court Isn't an admission of guilt, it simply is exercising prudence in the face of overwhelming power and money.

Tell me richy would you have us believe you have never broken the law, never copied a record (vinyl) or cassette, never used your vcr to copy a movie that was on the tv, never watched a movie with a group of people in a friends place or in a public place ... hotel etc ... these sortys of activities are all technically illegal even though everybody does it. Even reading a magazine in a waiting room that you didn't purchase your self is illegal. If you really look at the situation properly you will see it isn't as black and white as you first thought.

Doc

Doc, a couple of times you have used examples that don't apply in this case. Elevator music is a subscription that building owners pay for, just like the backgound music in malls and other large venues. AKA Muzak. In fact most places use classical or out dated music anyway, which is not covered under the copyright laws. All material becomes public domain 50 years after the death of the originator.
If I buy a book, I can allow anyone I want to read it. ie: people in a waiting room. What I can't do is make copies of it or allow others to make copies. I can even resell the book and the copyright restrictions are transferred to the new owner.
I am also allowed to make a copy of my vinyl records, tapes or CDs, again as long as it is one copy and it is for personal use only, as a backup.

>>Guess what your argument has no substance, it doesnt matter how they got the information, the bottom line is people that are doing something illegal are being punished which is how it should be. End of story.

Your self-righteousness is every bit as amusing as your lack of understanding.

In THIS country's legal system it most definitely, positively, 100% DOES matter how they got the information. THEY are the ones who are commiting the crimes. Why the hell do you think they have spent every day this week in front of a senate subcomittee that's investigating their methods?

Downloading copyrighted material is NOT theft (the owner has not 'lost' anything - a COPY has been made, nothing more) and it is NOT a crime. (try reading a law book before you start handing out opinions on the legality of people's actions) Copyright violations are a civil matter. They are NOT crimes and cannot be tried in a criminal court.

The RIAA could care less about file sharing anyway. That's just a smokescreen. What they REALLY care about is destroying the ability of the people to connect directly to the artists via independent distribution channels like the internet. Giant corporate record companies have NO function in a widely connected world. They exist entirely as middlemen - brokers, bankers, and distributors, who conspire to artificially inflate and maintain prices in violation of free market forces. Without their precious iron-fisted, jack-booted monopoly to protect and shield them, they are clearly identified as the scum-sucking parasites they have always been. It's time for them to DIE, and I hope every last corporate scumbag running a major label lands in the unemployment line along side the millions of starving artists they've cheated and robbed over the years.

Anyone who thinks that the RIAA has EVER protected ANY artists interests is a complete and utter FOOL. They are a trade group and political lobbying association funded by international media giants. The initials stand for Recording INDUSTRY Association of America. It's about corporate profits - nothing else. The music is irrelevant and so are the people who create it. Only the bottom line and the CEO's paycheck matter.

blue27 whilst what you say maybe the accepted norm it could also be argued that by allowing others to read your book then they won't buy it as they have already read it, and yes you can make a copy of music or movies etc however if a group of people assemble at your place i.e. a party and you play this recorded music or movie then you are breaking the law, and how can we be sure that the company who's elevator your riding in has actually paid there subscription.

I have a friend who owns a motel, in the reception area of the motel is a tv, now this tv isn't watched by any guests as it isn't accessible to the guests however some guy arrived in a suit telling my friend he had to pay a yearly fee for having the tv in a public area. When my friend explained that it wasn't for the guests or public and videos wouldn't be displayed on the tv the guy stated that he still had to pay a fee as the potential to show movies existed. We did some checking and found that there were two associations that asked for money to cover having music and movies on display. Neither of these associations actually had any legal power and the yearly fee only covered material played that belonged to there registered artists, if you played music of artists that weren't part of there association then you were still breaking copyright ... whole thing is ridiculous.

Doc

Tell me richy would you have us believe you have never broken the law,

Of course I have when I was younger and I admitted it and paid the price.

never copied a record (vinyl) or cassette

well um no otherwise it would be stupid arguing the opposite, plus there is a tax on blank cassettes and vcr tapes

, never used your vcr to copy a movie that was on the tv,

check out time shifting and tax on vcr casettes.

never watched a movie with a group of people in a friends place or in a public place

so your saying watching a movie in a friends house is illegal?

... hotel etc ...

no that I havent paid for via the hotel

these sortys of activities are all technically illegal even though everybody does it. Even reading a magazine in a waiting room that you didn't purchase your self is illegal. If you really look at the situation properly you will see it isn't as black and white as you first thought.

No not really just sounds liek a bunch of poor excuses from someone trying to get out of paying for what they do wrong.

Sorry sound guy just read what passes as your laughable argument.

Yes it is theft inasmuch as it is a voilation of the originators intellectual rights. Sorry if such concepts go over your head. Maybe if you looked at how people are being sued for doing this you might realise that its actually against the law.

If file sharing was used solely to distribute uncopyrighted work then the RIAA wouldnt have a case now would they? no, so obviously this is not the sole purpose and just because there is a legitimate use for the technology doesnt mean that its not acceptable to persue people using it for illegal purposes. It is illegal to copy and or faciltate the distribution of copyrighted material. That is why copyright exists. Just because you cannot comprehend loss of a non tangible asset doesnt mean that its legal. It just means your bus to school was a little shorter then others.

As regards how information is garnered for a prosecution, there may be legal stipulations for the methods but no matter what the method it does not negate the illegality of the original act nor the immorality of it. If party A uses an illegal method to find out party B is doing something illegal they should both be prosecuted, party B should not be let off.

The law is pretty simple and sharing copyrighted material is illegal and if the owner of the material wishes to prosecute or delegate this right then thats totally fair and correct. I dont see there is any further point discussing this with people obviously incapable of morality.

According to a number of lawyers not associated with the current cases, the Digital Home Audio Recording Act of 1992 (not sure if I got the name exactly correct) may be able to be used successfully if any of these cases ever get in front of an actual judge. See e.g. http://news.com.com/2100-1027-5073312.html...The law says no lawsuit may be brought that alleges copyright infringement based on the "noncommercial use by a consumer of such a (digital audio recording device) or medium for making digital musical recordings." The latest generation of multimedia PCs that are equipped with CD and DVD burners may qualify as a digital audio recording device, the thinking goes, which would mean the AHRA applies.Napster used this defense and (obviously) lost, but on grounds that they were facilitating file-sharing for commercial reasons, not for personal (i.e. fair use) reasons.

And regarding your "how information is gathered", umm...actually no. Under the US system, if information is obtained illegally (i.e. without a valid search warrant, or more specifically in this case if the subpoenas issued by the RIAA got tossed in a particular case) then that information cannot later be used in a lawsuit. Same in criminal courts.

And regarding your "morality" bit, again, if you want to talk about morality let's talk about the RIAA. Even David Bowie, a well-known artist, said about this situation "You don't sue your customers".

Originally posted by TheDoctor
blue27 whilst what you say maybe the accepted norm it could also be argued that by allowing others to read your book then they won't buy it as they have already read it...However under US copyright law's "fair use" provisions, that doesn't matter. As long as you are not copying the book (and even then fair use comes into play in certain instances), under US law you can let whoever you want read it.
and yes you can make a copy of music or movies etc however if a group of people assemble at your place i.e. a party and you play this recorded music or movie then you are breaking the law...Actually um, sorry, but no. The FBI warning you see at the beginning of every movie says that "public exhibition" is prohibited. Public exhibition is when you fill a theater with 300 people and show a movie. If you gather 15 people in your living room and show a movie you are not breaking the law. Same for music. (You don't have to believe me, ask any attorney familiar with copyright/IP law.)

I have a friend who owns a motel, in the reception area of the motel is a tv, now this tv isn't watched by any guests as it isn't accessible to the guests however some guy arrived in a suit telling my friend he had to pay a yearly fee for having the tv in a public area.This is complete and utter crap. First you would have us believe that some guy has nothing better to do than show up at your friend's motel to demand licensing fees for a TV that is not even viewable by the public? Do you know how many motels there are in the US?!?
When my friend explained that it wasn't for the guests or public and videos wouldn't be displayed on the tv the guy stated that he still had to pay a fee as the potential to show movies existed. We did some checking and found that there were two associations that asked for money to cover having music and movies on display.These "associations" that you found are most likely complete scams. No association that I am aware of has the ability to charge a fee and say "OK now you can show all these movies that our association members own".

I think you were getting a snow job. And if they have no legal power, then why would you even consider paying them?!?

tubedogg .. The Associations are in Australia and the guy is payed by the association. They not only asked for money for the tv but to cover funtions held in the function room .... two seperate charges.It is surprising I know but most companies .. motels etc do pay. The visit was generated by the fact that he had just brought the motel. It is made to sound very official .... my friend just escorted him to the door. Your explaination about exhibiting to a large audience sound a bit more plaudable however it is often incorrectly stated that a small gathering is also included. I seem to remember read such statements on video's I have hired.

Doc

The small gathering provision, as far as I know, only includes family and friends, which is most instances a house gathering is.