What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Watch a scene from 2012, in theaters November 13 view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - Get ready for the biggest event in history – the end of time. How will you survive? 2012- opening 11/13
76 Comments
- terrablebyte, on 10/12/2007, -5/+59I'm glad to see people are fighting back.
***** THE RIAA! - brstilson, on 10/12/2007, -2/+37"suing individual citizens in effort to stop worldwide piracy makes as much sense as trying to hold back the Mississippi River with an umbrella."
or how about as much sense as believing your business of selling $0.50 plastic discs for $20 is going to last forever? - cheato, on 10/12/2007, -2/+31I hate the RIAA and love this site for helping me avoid them:
http://www.riaaradar.com
It lets you search for albums that have been released on non-RIAA labels. - aragon127, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22I support the RIAA and everything they do. Also, Windows XP is the best desktop software on the planet, Apple hardware is slower than PC hardware, Ubuntu is riddled with spyware and crashes frequently, FOX news is the only unbiased news source in the world, George Bush is the best president ever.
----Shooting for most dugg down comment ever. - dggeek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17That's not where they spend most of their money. It takes a lot of dough to pay EVERY station (every DJ?) in the US to play your music.
- aviationgeek84, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16The RIAA is at least fun to watch..... what a joke.
- rotten777, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14it's pathetic not funny. people are actually getting screwed out of a lot of money because of these bastards. i hope they all have a nice comfy place in hell lined up for them.
- Altotus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12It's infringement, not theft. Legally (and arguably morally) there's a huge difference. People don't like the RIAA because they: find people based on hearsay, call them up and offer to forget all about it for a nominal fee ($3500) else they'll sue. They specifically don't target people that trade songs in high numbers, or those that might have the resources for a court fight -- they aim for lower-middle class folks.
Every once in a while, they get someone that refuses to pay the nominal fee, so the RIAA ups-the-ante by filing with the court. At that point, most people settle. Early on, the RIAA had attempted to follow through with prosecution on their cases, but the majority of the people they sued turned out to be obviously innocent (some not even having computers, for example). In the few cases where it wasn't obvious, the RIAA couldn't prove evidence of the infringement and the cases were dismissed.
So, today, the optimized RIAA procedure is: call a consumer and demand $3500, if the person doesn't give it to you, file a suit then offer to settle for $3500, and if the person refuses to settle then ask the court to dismiss the complaint WITHOUT prejudice (so you they don't have to pay the consumer's legal fees, and you can turn around and file suit against the same person for the same thing again). However, more and more people are resisting and getting the court to dismiss WITH prejudice to recover court costs and bar the RIAA from harassing them. This is what this article is about.
Strictly speaking, this procedure violates the US RICO Act, but I don't think that the RIAA has been investigated or prosecuted along those lines (yet, anyway).
I think that people are wary of the RIAA because it's seen as an organization that co-opts the copyrights of others for its own benefit, tries to shake-down innocent (as well as guilty) people for money, does so without any concrete evidence of wrong-doing, and specifically targets people they think will pay up the $3500.
I think the RIAA is also afraid to go to court at some level, because there might be a sympathetic court that adjudicates that some level of music file sharing constitutes fair-use. Making a copy of a song isn't always an infringing use (case law already supports that), after all -- it depends on the circumstances. Receiving a copy of a song is also a tricky legal question too since receiving and listening to a copy is not infringing, making the copy is, but when you download the music, are you "making" the copy or is the other person "making" the copy and you "receving" it (if so, the other party is the infringing party). If one court decides that there's some level of file-sharing that's fair-use or that it's only infringement when it becomes gratuitous, then the whole RIAA scheme would fall apart.
In the meanwhile, the RIAA sows bad karma and consumer sentiment. I doubt they'll reap anything good from it. - theinfoman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13roosterim2k2:
It's not stealing, it's copyright infringement. There is a big difference as it makes your examples very far from correct. - sophiaperennis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Instead of the superfluous blog entry, here's the direct link to Ray Beckerman's article:
http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2006/10/riaa-and-tallie-stubbs-battle-it-out.html - Ghstfce, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11But using illegal measures for personal gain against people who commit these crimes are not justified though. First of all they try and prosecute you without the absolute burden of proof (prove an IP address used to download the music was actually the person it's registered to). Then they try some extortion tactics... pay us $3000 and we'll go away. Wow at $20 a CD that's 150 CDs. And how much of that $3000 goes to the artist of the songs in question? You guessed it, zero. How can you represent the "artist's interests and copyright" when you don't even give the artist the profit for their work? Is $3000 just their fee to do it?
As far as blank media is concerned... and I will put this in caps so you understand it, THE RIAA HAS A DIRECT INTEREST IN BLANK MEDIA. That's correct, the RIAA makes money on the media you use to infringe copyrights. They get paid either way. They are just greedy selfish bastards. Using illegal/semi-legal tactics to combat "illegal activity" is just as wrong. If a police officer was using illegal means to arrest a criminal, you'd be up in arms. But a group of lawyers stepping the line that law has drawn is disgusting. They deserve every black eye they get. - defluo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9What, so because i live in Oklahoma i'm some backwoods redneck who still rides a horse to work who has never even seen a computer?
Oklahoma isnt as redneck as people seem to think it is. Granted i am looking to move out because i hate the weather, but its not THAT bad here.
... there are alot of rednecks here though.... - littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8The RIAA has done a GREAT JOB at putting a stop to that pesky online distribution of digital music!
- chiefchad, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14Yeah ***** YOU RIAA in the ASS with a rusty screwdriver
- biohzrd, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Welcome to the capitalist society. Oh, and the problem most people have with the RIAA is that they sue for enormous amounts of money, based purely on hearsay. Getting sued for $10,000 for downloading even 10 CD's is insane, let alone one. If they sued in small claims court, didn't require the defendant to lawyer up (which can cost more thousands of dollars), and only asked for say.... $100, which would be enough to cover their "damages"--enough of a fine to keep people from doing it--then I'm sure people would hate them quite a bit less.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9With the RIAA and MPAA, I prefer a blunt, rusty chainsaw.
- mewhocorrupts, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7You know what bothers me? I can buy a full-length DVD of a movie -- movie, audio commentary, outtakes, interviews -- for less than the price of the soundtrack. I beg the RIAA to tell me that even the most heavily advertised album costs more than a Hollywood film to produce. Ludicrous.
- jlunski, on 10/12/2007, -10/+17I have no love for the RIAA but I can tell you that the $0.50 CD you are talking about does not exist. I'm sure the blank media that record companies use to stamp CD/DVDs cost even less than that BUT (big but...) how much do you think it cost them to buy the equipment they use, the people to run it, the rent in the building they are in, advertising, packaging, etc... Like I said I have no love for the RIAA or record companies in general, they are selling their products and making a profit but NOT selling $0.50 CD/DVDs for $20, if you believe that they are then I got a bridge to sell you.
- PhillipL, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Tulsa is a pretty big base for tech companies for being a smaller city. You guys are idiots.
- custerfluck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I'm having a hard time posting this... because we don't have computers in Oklahoma.
I certainly have never ilegally downloaded music.
I tried... I just couldn't figure it out.
What kind of internets do you use for downloading the music?
BTW... mrfreeziexp You are an idiot. - happyhappyhappy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/
- happyhappyhappy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Most of the money big companies spend is marketing and advertizing. Production costs are indeed very low. $0.50 a CD might be on the high side.
- justoman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6No, its when artists start banning together to get the RIAA to stop this harassment of its customers. If you swipe a pack of bubblegum from the store, albeit wrong to do so, you don't see the bubblegum sue you for $5,000+ for it.
Its not that the RIAA is not justified for what its doing, its that they are going about it the wrong way. These articles show that the RIAA is bullying without actual proof which in the end will be their downfall.
I personal feel that if Marilyn Barringer-Thomson really wants to make some money, they should have to do is ask a judge for class-action status on behalf of the music listening world for the illegal search and desist ***** it does. So far its been mainly consumers being sued by the RIAA, perhaps the tables will turn.
I know what your saying, the consumers wouldn't get anything with a class-action lawsuit. Who cares? I wanna see those bastards go down. Enough for me. - Ghstfce, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7You think that this is all new? The Grateful Dead used to allow people to record their live shows. Did that hurt album sales? No. People used to copy movies back on VHS, did that hurt movie sales? No. You'd have to be really young, sheltered, or simply stupid not to realize that. No one was getting sued back then and the industry never had a "problem" with their sales until they decided they needed to make even more money. But $20 for a cd that I like maybe 1 song to?
And then they turn around and tell you it's illegal to back up a CD or DVD that you purchased. They're telling you that even though you paid your dues, you can't make yourself a copy in case something happens to the original. That right there proves greed is the motivating factor here. - williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10The RIAA, and the law firms representing the RIAA, deserve to be crushed.
If a case is brought in your town, call the other clients of the firm representing the RIAA and tell them they are dealing with mafia lawyers, and that the stigma of the RIAA rubs off on their business.
If these lawyers or their families are in local clubs or civic organizations, get them thrown out. If they are local politicians, make sure they lose. Drive them out of town, drive them into financial ruin. - netferret, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Sorry RIAA, your outwitted, outnumbered and outclassed :D
- SleeperGTP, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I am from Oklahoma also, do you think we are still using abacuses? I don't own a pickup, I prefer my STi. I guess the dual 100mbps fiber connections to my work is just bailing twine and should be yanked and re-used.
- CoolWind, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"suing individual citizens in effort to stop worldwide piracy makes as much sense as trying to hold back the Mississippi River with an umbrella."
I think they sue merely because it is profitable. - iceperson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5It seem that backwoods Oklahomans are the only ones who are fighting back and doing something about the RIAA.
- Spartacus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Except that through ASCAP the radio stations actually pay to play the songs...
- chmod, on 10/12/2007, -0/+520 bucks a pop is reasonable in your world?
Note: I do not download music. I buy my CDs used, so that I never worry about the RIAA getting a single cent of my money.
"In a perfect world we would all be able to pirate whatever we want without getting hassled."
No in a perfect world they would charge us say 5 bucks for a decent CD rather than 15-20. As someone posted above, how is it possible that one could sink enough money into a record to make it worth as much or more as your average movie? Greed. So piss off and continue to buy the stupid Brittany Spears and Fall Out Boy ***** that the industry keeps feeding you, and keep your lies to yourself. - dhman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5The only way to stop the RIAA from using these tactics is to quit supplying their clients with cash. In the course of my life I have probably spent a entire years salary on recorded music.
As soon as these lawsuits started coming out (after the fat cats in the RIAA bribed enough congressmen to change the copyright laws for them) I refused to buy anymore music from anyone associated with the RIAA. Most of which is not worth listening to anyway.
Piracy used to be defined as taking someones property and using it to make a profit while not paying royalties to the copyright owner, or without their permission. If you used it without their permission they could legally ask you to cease and desist from using it and if you didn't they could sue you. It seems we have come a long way from that concept, thanks to bribery and corrupt politicians. - sputza, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Isn't that why I download music...
- Germanopinion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4 aragon127 wrote:
"----Shooting for most dugg down comment ever."
You failed! :-P - biohzrd, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Why is this modded down? Everybody modded up the "***** THE RIAA!" comment, but mod down one that helps you avoid their greed? Mod parent up damnit.
- austindkelly, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7With as much CRAP as there is on the radio these days, its hard for me to justify buying a CD for $20. And usually the music that is really good, that dosen't get the 4 times and hour play on the radio, tends to be cheeper.
Whats with that? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Agreed, cool site (at least on first glance)
- cmdrwhitewolf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4The only comment I have to say on this is - "Hey RIAA, I *DON'T* feel your pain!!!"
- netferret, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Sorry, but you cant scare customers into buying legit music. I dont mind buying cds and supporting artists, but at the same time I dont want to be paying silly prices for some plastic that costs about 70p to make. I understand that they have pay the various parties, but come on £15 for a cd its a bit of a joke. Also online music is a joke as well with all this DRM locking and unjustifiable prices.
Ultimately they going to lose out as people will think what the hell lets get copied mp3's just to spite the RIAA. Plus its a lot easier to get copied mp3's and you can play it on any device without all the messing about. - brickbat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I spent 5 minutes going through wowbaggers comment history. It was a unique experience.
wowbagger - you are lowlife scum.
***** You, Rumsfeld, and the RIAA. - pbjorge12, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6More like $30 a cd...
$20 seems like a bargain... - twinklyJesus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I don't have a problem with the RIAA suing IF they can prove beyond reasonable doubt who did it. But, they can't. Apparently they can't even tie the IP to a MAC address. Crap, that's like having the outline of a finger but no finger print.
I hope they recover damages. It was foolish for RIAA to sue with such flimsy evidence. - sputza, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@mcduckov
The fact is, many people download albums and if they enjoy them, purchase them. I used to be one of those people, then the RIAA decided to become ***** and sue people. I haven't bought an album in almost 1 1/2 years. I will begin to buy albums again when this RIAA madness stops.
I'm not even going to go into the economic inaccuracy of you comment. - dgendreau, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Yeah I'll get right on that... Just call up the law firm and ask them who their other clients are. As if...
- Nightfall, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I have to agree roosterjm2k2.
I am a published writer and photographer and I have had my work used and printed without my consent in publications and over the web. The issue here is that there has to be some kind of protection available for those of us who have intellectual property. For those people who infringe on copyright by distributing works that aren't theirs, there has to be some kind of penalty.
What the RIAA and MPAA are doing is just crazy. Saying they have lost tens of thousands of dollars over one movie or 20 songs is insane. Let the punishment fit the crime for petes sake. If companies like the **AA are able to name their own price, what is stopping people from saying they lost millions on one piece of intellectual material. I have personally caught 3 publications using my work, and all 3 were happy to pay me when I approached them about it. I shouldn't have to police that, but it is a civil matter so I kinda understand. The point is that when asked how much I wanted, I didn't claim that they caused me $10,000 in damages. I merely took my hourly freelance rate and multiplied that by 2. The point is if you make the material affordable, then settling out of court makes things easier.
Then you have the robin hood mentality on this and countless other forums. Thats another thing that pisses me off to no end. Here you have people who think they are entitled to everything that hits the internet. They claim that games, movie, software, and music are crap these days. That doesn't stop them from infringing on copyright to collect these things and distribute them to others freely. Even if they listen to the music every day or use the software all the time, it doesn't matter. In the end, they don't have to pay for it and that is all that matters. If the material is so bad, why are they downloading and redistributing it via P2P? If the software isn't that useful, why are they using it? I can understand boycotting the **AA or software companies like Microsoft, but to boycott buying the software and still spending time to use the product, listen to the music, or watch the movie? Isn't that a little contradictory?
There are many things that must be done to fix this problem. It all starts with the corporations making software, music, movies, and so on more affordable. $300 for Microsoft Office? Cut that price in half and people won't be so hesitant to buy. $20 for a CD? Cut the price in half and offer downloads of the album with no DRM at $3. Offer more extras and content for buying the album.
In addition to that, instead of the name your own price method, a law enforcement group has to step in to regulate that. A group that is not influenced by the large software companies or the **AA. This group would be the ones to not only dictate the damage, but to also seek out those people who are actively infringing on copyright. Nothing is anonymous, and all the people caught should have to pay the price for infringing on copyright. There has to be some kind of system in place to protect the intellectual property rights of others.
Just my .02 cents. - RayBeckerman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Dear Sophia
Thanks very much, Sophia.
But I will tell you, I do enjoy reading the coverage in Digital Music Web Logs, p2pnet, Ars Technica, Tech Dirt, SlashDot, and others... basically I just put the hard news out there. These guys have a little more time to do some good writing. So I don't consider them exactly "superfluous".
But thank you very very much for seeing some value in what I'm trying to do, which is just put the direct legal information out there.
Best regards,
Ray - uberchaoslord, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3My biggest issue with the RIAA is why, in this day and age of digital technology, are we still paying executives and the RIAA machine to find and develop new music. These guys have absolutely no creative talent, they've just put themselves in a position where they control the release of major music talent, and they see digital distribution as the downfall of their well-paying no-talent jobs, so they're fighting tooth and nail.
- turpialito, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@jlunski:
I think they've long paid for the equipment. It's the toot they snort, the merlots they sniff and the parties they throw that need to be kept up. How 'bout paying the musicians? If it weren't for them, they'd have no profit. - williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Many law firms post a client list on their site. You can also call and ask for reference clients.
- brickbat, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5If you think this is cool, try finding the law that says income earned by non-government employees is taxable.
-
Show 51 - 77 of 77 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is