 element_5po
join:2002-05-08
Lombard, IL | Hahaha Hahahahaha. Thats awesome. | |
|
 | 
darkcom
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Miami, FL
|  RIAA's action will backfire
It's my personal opinion suing your own customer base is completely wrong and will definetly have a negative impact - what are they thinking?!
In the show The Screen Savers - "Music Wars", a point was brought up that artists only get 4% of all profit from record sales, if that statement is true, who gets the rest?
On top of that, now they want to sue the general public and their methods are not accurate or legitimate.
I guarantee you if people would not buy CD's for 6 months they would definitely get the message.
Props to Kazaa for their action!
... just trying to add my two cents.
--
"Are you the police?... No ma'am, we're sysadmins" | |
|
| | joebear29
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL
| Re: RIAA's action will backfire said by darkcom  :
About time something happened to fuel interest in the general public about this matter.
It's my personal opinion suing your own customer base is completely wrong and will definetly have a negative impact - what are they thinking?!
In the show The Screen Savers - "Music Wars", a point was brought up that artists only get 4% of all profit from record sales, if that statement is true, who gets the rest?
On top of that, now they want to sue the general public and their methods are not accurate or legitimate.
I guarantee you if people would not buy CD's for 6 months they would definitely get the message.
Props to Kazaa for their action!
... just trying to add my two cents.
Four percent of profit or four percent of gross sales? | |
|
| | |
| | 
devrandom
I got a pot, full of random stuff here
Premium
join:2003-06-28
| Who gets the rest eh?
All of the people in the record companies..who else? 
Not like the industry is going to set up a booth outside of your local homeless shelter and start pelting people with stacks of money...
--
If it can be smoked, its prolly not going to be good for you. | |
|
| | 
gruggni
Oxygen Gets You High
join:2003-07-28
Corpus Christi, TX
| only 4%
The rest of the money goes to the studios and record companies . Artists make majority of their money from live shows and merchandise. The CD sales pay for the recording studios to make the digital recording, and the rest goes to promotions, marketing, LEGAL FEES. The record company pays for the recording and all the marketing and when a CD is sold, the money goes to pay off the artist's debt to the record company, since they front the cash to make an album. If CD sales do bad, the artist suffers, because they have to pay the record companies back. Now if there was a cheaper way to make digital recordings (it's really cheap to make a digital recording these days) artists can sell CD's straight to the fans (websites) instead of going thru the Record Companies to do it for them.
Why are CD prices so high? Because the recording studios charge so much to produce an album. You have to pay off the artist's managers, album producers, and they get their money before the artists do. The artists are just performers. If artists are going to make money then they need to either make their own record company or build their own recording studio. Then there's packaging, distribution and marketing, still gotta pay for that. Need it copyrighted, hire a copyright lawyer and get the music copyrighted. When people share music, the artist's aren't the only people losing money. Of course bands can still perform live and make money back. If you really want to help artists out, buy a ticket to their shows. | |
|
| | 
-------------------
@rr.com
| I agree, I think there should be a nation wide consumer strike on cd sales. It's the consumers that control the market, and those consumers 13-23 control nearly 100% of that market. Basically if we can largely unite, we can control the music industry. Screw the RIAA and the rich mongrols that "think" they're in control. | |
|
| |
| | |
| |
| 
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
 ·Qwest.net
| har-de-har-har | |
|
Kevin83165
join:2002-03-31
Herrin, IL | Ha Mrs Ward, we know you have weapons of mass destruction, and we will find them eventually!
--
Todays free tip: Don't fry bacon naked | |
|
| |
| JPGrimmace
join:2003-09-16
Pontiac, MI
| said by Kevin83165 :
Mrs Ward, we know you have weapons of mass destruction, and we will find them eventually!
LOL LOL
Your statement was funny as all heck. Sharman is a horrible company though. I can't believe that this band of parasitic crooks are trying to sue anyone. | |
|
| | wilburyan
join:2002-08-01 | Re: Ha greedy folks sueing greedy folks... and so the cycle continues. | |
|
| 
Descent
Wrap It Up
Premium
join:2000-11-10
WDC Suburb
| said by Kevin83165 :
Mrs Ward, we know you have weapons of mass destruction, and we will find them eventually!
She was my geometry teacher last year. Eeechk. I cant believe she listens to rap?
--
www.cstrike-planet.com | |
|
| 
Unit649
I B U, Who U B?
Premium
join:2000-01-22
Stockton, CA
 ·Comcast
| She needs to countersue them for accusing her of it. If they can sue people who supposedly do this, she should have the right to countersue for being accused wrongfully and the potential damage it has caused to her.
The only way the RIAA may wake up and realise it needs to file subpoenas after review of the facts is if this occurs-otherwise they will just keep filing at will without regard to checking and verifying the data they are using to file.
--
U ::::Founder, ForeverChat IRC Network :::: »www.foreverchat.net | |
|
| | 
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| Re: Ha I agree. The RIAA needs to understand there are consequences to suing people without any real evidence. If anything this incident might garner more and more support for changes in the DCMA as well as other recent laws that give too much power to the wrong people.
--
Love Science Fiction? www.spacestationzoom.com | |
|
| 
Winerin
Premium
join:2002-03-30
Woodland Hills, CA | rofl | |
|
borborpa
Slipping Slowly Into Oblivion
Premium
join:2002-02-20
New Cumberland, PA
clubs:
·Speakeasy
| Haha!! A taste of their own medicine. I hope they get some $$ out of them, or force them to buy legit copies of the software...that would be the icing on the cake!
--
There are no stupid questions, but there are a LOT of inquisitive idiots.[AIM - BoyBandsMakeUGay] | |
|
| 
purplejello
join:2001-08-23
Reno, NV
clubs: | Re: Haha!! Yeah, they should have to pay just as much as you and I paid for Kazaa... Err... | |
|
| |
borborpa
Slipping Slowly Into Oblivion
Premium
join:2002-02-20
New Cumberland, PA
clubs: | Re: Haha!! *blink blink* What's Kazaa? | |
|
| | |
purplejello
join:2001-08-23
Reno, NV
clubs: | Re: Haha!! I heard that it's a tool of the devil. Since the RIAA is using Kazaa, it must be true. | |
|
| | | | |
| | | | |
borborpa
Slipping Slowly Into Oblivion
Premium
join:2002-02-20
New Cumberland, PA
clubs: | Re: Haha!! Thank god my hairdresser also does palm waxing... | |
|
| | | |
tehfox0r
Rawwwwrrr
Premium
join:2002-06-07
Lexington, KY
clubs: | GO KAZAA i think the RIAA was caught with their pants down on this one... hopefully some good will come from this..
--
underachievement: because the tallest blade of grass is the first to be cut by the lawn mower. | |
|
joegreen
Polaroids Of Polar Bears
Premium
join:2002-09-21
Galloway, NJ
| Well It's About Time... Switching it up alright. If this works, it will make it easier for file traders to become caught now. Much harder unless more ISP's comply with the RIAA.
--
FFANTASY.com Discussion Boards | |
|
|
|
purplejello
join:2001-08-23
Reno, NV
clubs:
| Re: Two for Two I think it's "Gun -> Bullet -> Foot -> Mouth". Then not only have you shot yourself in the foot, but you also have your foot in your mouth. Furthermore, what better a place to stop bleeding than the mouth, where you can recycle those nutrients!
--
( `( ¯`( ¯`·._ Death Ring _.·´ ¯ )´ ¯ )´ ) - Visit Deathring.us for Drinking Games, Mixed Drinks, Hot-Or-Not, Girls, Games, Cheats, Hacks, Topsites, and AIM Utilities. | |
|
| | |
| | wentlanc
You Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH | I would only hope that we could get them to put their foot in their mouth before shooting it.
puritan | |
|
| |
| | dobfreak
join:2003-09-24
Elizabethtown, KY
| Re: Two for Two said by BosstonesOwn :
said by nixen :
Gun -> bullet -> foot
-tom
more like Gun -> Bullet -> foot -> Open mouth -> step in dog $hit -> insert said foot in mouth.
you know this has to be the funniest article I have read in years. This makes me want to drive up and talk to the lady and laugh with her about these dumb a$$es.
All to funny can we call her rapping granny ????
I wonder if she has any "Bling Bling" or "Duece Duece Rims" on her car.
Hey, we could call her greasy grannie!
and then we could go get our gopher gravy and share it!!!
(courtesy: Gov't Mule; CD: Deep End)
What's really hilarious about the whole thing is that the RIAA claims to be losing "billions & billions" when people like John Mayer posts his music (for free) and still manages to go double platinum. Hmmmmmmm.
(if ignorance=bliss and patience is a virtue, then I guess you can lead a pretty good life if you're stupid and don't mind waiting in line.) | |
|
Safron
join:2001-07-25
Gray, GA
clubs: | ROFLMAO! Ok, now someone allege that the RIAA has been downloading files copyrighted by other people and use the DCMA to file huge numbers of subpeonas against the RIAA's ISP. | |
|
|
See 7 replies to this post |
|
tacoma
Bleeding Dodger Blue
Premium
join:2001-05-18
Riverside, CA
| I dont like this.. legally speaking.. This puts Kazaa out in the open for RIAA to hit them hard.
If the RIAA suits sit back and understand what KAZAA just did FOR them, they are now laughing it up.
KAZAA just killed themselves. Not RIAA. RIAA just set them up and KAZAA took the bait.
[text was edited by author 2003-09-24 16:17:15] | |
|
| |
LaZ3R
Premium
join:2003-01-17 |  HAHAHHAHAHA
| |
|
Cybertoad
join:2001-11-08
Houston, TX
| Where have all the brains gone .... Quote from the article above:
"Once the industry determined a downloaded song file was a
copyright work, they issued subpoenas to Internet access
providers to find out who was behind the account used to
log onto the file-sharing network."
The only problem with that is many times the ISP
has no idea who is actually online. Do remember
that IPs can be easily mascaraded and even hijacked.
There are hundreds if not thousands of virus and trojan
programs that allow you to bounce connections through
other computers completely without the owner even
realizing this is happening.
This doesn't even begin to cover the thousands of
open proxy servers all over the internet.
More skilled users can just manipulate their packet ID
which actually isn't really that difficult.
If any of that isn't enough, remember that many ISPs
do not keep detailed enough log data or do not keep
it for an extended period of time. The reason is
storage capacity. When you've got several thousand
users, tracking all their online activities takes
up a MASSIVE amount of storage space that is multiplied
by the amount of time you keep those logs and the
level of detail of information stored.
In dynamic IP situations, it is often difficult for
an ISP to trace out who was using what IP at what
time.
This is further complicated by the amount of time
taken for research. If it takes you 30 days to
figure out an IP address, go to the courts and
then serve the ISP, there's a pretty good chance
the information will have already been rolled off
leaving the ISP to have to take a guess from bits
and pieces of fragmented log data.
But even then, you come back to the original question ...
Was the IP that you traced ACTUALLY the real IP or was
I led off on a wild goose chase?
Incidentally, this isn't just talking about RIAA and
file trading ... SPAM email messages have the exact
same problem. You will often find that NONE of the IPs
shown in the connection logs or email headers actually
had anything to do with the SPAM message.
This opens up questions like "reasonable doubt" and
further questions about both "security" and also
"personal privacy" and with that constitutional
questions as well.
If you play devil's advocate on the other side and
make the assumption that the IP traced is the actual
real IP then you still have a big problem ...
The owner of the ISP account may have absolutely
nothing to do with the file sharing activity! In
fact, he/she may have no knowledge of it.
On one hand you've got to confirm that the IP
you traced is actually the IP you are looking for
and then you're still left asking the question,
"Who was actually really at the computer?"
Unfortunately we're getting into a time when I don't
think there's any brains left out there. The plantiff
is often too stupid to realize they don't have a case,
the judge is often too stupid to realize they needs to
throw out a case for lack of merit and supporting
evidence, and the defendant's attorney is often
too stupid to realize they have a massively huge
defense that they often completely ignore and thus
fail to provide an adequate defense.
Oh well, the saga continues ....
[text was edited by author 2003-09-24 18:30:24] | |
|
| chuckeco
join:2003-03-08
Golden, CO
| Re: Where have all the brains gone .... this person has a really good point. With all the proxy servers out there the RIAA would have a hard time tracking down the people who are actually doing the sharing. I think users of kazaa should come together and build a proxy server that is at least 100 hops deep. about 10% of the proxy servers should be set on some DHCP with a *true* dynamic address. some setup like that would make it impossible to find out where the files are actually coming from and going to. that will show them. If the RIAA would shut up and lower the price on the cds that costs like 15 cents to make maybe people wouldn't go and download it when they could have the real deal, the RIAA is money hungry whores | |
|
| joebear29
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL
| said by Cybertoad :
[snip]Just because you have an IP address is no guarantee
that's where the transmission actually came from and
that possibility blows every last one of RIAA's cases
out of the water due to a concept known here in the
USA as "reasonable doubt".[/snip]
These are civil cases. Reasonable doubt does not apply.
The real problem is if it is actually you who was sharing the files when the RIAA subpoenas the IP number (in other words the matching worked) the RIAA can build a pretty convincing case. And denying you shared files you actually shred may not be such a great idea.
From Findlaw.com:
»writ.news.findlaw.com/hilden/20030916.html
"Another argument that could be made is that the RIAA cannot prove that an accused music lover actually did the downloading and distributing. However, if she actually was the distributor (and I'm assuming, here, that she was), then this argument is a huge mistake; for to even have a chance of prevailing in her defense, she would have to commit perjury by lying under oath at a deposition.
Moreover, this is one perjury case that might actually be brought and if brought, might be provable: With subpoenaed third-party records, an impounded computer, and other evidence, proof beyond a reasonable doubt would be far from impossible.
Finally, unlike in the case of file sharing itself, there's no argument about whether lying under oath is, or should be, illegal: It is. Very illegal." | |
|
| | 
Yowzaaah
Ours Go To Eleven
join:2000-12-14
DamnFlat, OH
clubs:
| Re: Where have all the brains gone .... Perjury is almost NEVER prosecuted. Remember Phillip Morris Execs raising their hands and saying they did not believe cigarettes were addictive and they did not artificially spike nicotine levels? And that was televised and before congress.
Unlike the current RIAA paid for subpoena fest, a criminal prosecution of perjury requires the direct involvement and interest of the federal prosecutor. In the districts where they have brought these cases I'll bet a treasured appendage that no prosecutor wants to be involved with this. Prosecutors are political animals and most have aspirations to either higher positions of public office. Being the guy that sent away lying maryjane rap downloader doesn't help you when running for congress later.
--
Don't suspect your friends...Report Them. Brazil (if you haven't seen it, you should) | |
|
| | 
NOVA_Guy
Obama- Commander in Thief
Premium
join:2002-03-05
 ·VOIPo
| said by joebear29 :
However, if she actually was the distributor (and I'm assuming, here, that she was), then this argument is a huge mistake; for to even have a chance of prevailing in her defense, she would have to commit perjury by lying under oath at a deposition.
Moreover, this is one perjury case that might actually be brought and if brought, might be provable: With subpoenaed third-party records, an impounded computer, and other evidence, proof beyond a reasonable doubt would be far from impossible.
Finally, unlike in the case of file sharing itself, there's no argument about whether lying under oath is, or should be, illegal: It is. Very illegal."
If one runs into this problem, one might consider following the same avenue as our illustrious former President Clinton... Now just exactly what does the word "is" mean? 
--
Cox cable: the hallmark questionable business practices and lousy cable service! | |
|
Manzilla
@drivefinancial.com | idiots galore. I think IRC is the best way to go at this point. My 3 cents. | |
|
reub2000
Premium
join:2001-12-28
Evanston, IL
| Sharman should also sue for slander. RIAA has made it seem like KaZaa is only for trading copyrighted works, it's simply just a program for sharing files, legal or not.
[text was edited by author 2003-09-24 21:51:34] | |
|
| joebear29
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL | Re: Sharmen should also sue for slander. Um, where has the RIAA specifically said that Kazaa is only used for sharing copyrighted files? | |
|
| |
reub2000
Premium
join:2001-12-28
Evanston, IL
| Re: Sharmen should also sue for slander. quote:
The Recording Industry Association of America (news - web sites) called Sharman's "newfound admiration for the importance of copyright law" ironic and "self-serving."
Their basically saying that sharman made kazaa for the sole purpose of illegal music files, and that they are responsible for what there customers are doing, even though they have no control over their customers use of it. | |
|
| | | joebear29
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL
| Re: Sharmen should also sue for slander. said by reub2000 :
quote:
The Recording Industry Association of America (news - web sites) called Sharman's "newfound admiration for the importance of copyright law" ironic and "self-serving."
Their basically saying that sharman made kazaa for the sole purpose of illegal music files, and that they are responsible for what there customers are doing, even though they have no control over their customers use of it.
They are suggesting Sharman purposfully designed their network in a way where they would not know if copyrighted files were swapped and could not be held resposible for user traffic. Which they did a very good job at, by the way.
They never said Kazaa had no legitimate uses. | |
|
NYCDIVA
join:2003-01-31
New York, NY | DO THEM AND DO THEM GOOD!!! LOL THIS IS JUST FABULOUS!! ROFLMAO!! HORRAY FOR KAZZA. YOU GO KAZ!!! LOLOLOL | |
|
Cougar311
join:2002-07-18
USA | HAHAHA, HEHEHE | |
|
dslwanter
Why would I want DSL? I have FTTH
Premium
join:2002-12-16
Lowellville, OH
·Armstrong Zoom In..
·AT&T Midwest
| I don't get it. If the record companies are suppose to be lowering the price of CDs, then why are they going all out about people downloading? If you are not selling a product, the price will go up. If they're losing all this money to file swappers, then why would the prices go down? Wouldn't you have to raise the prices if you're losing money? If the service, like Kazaa and WinMX is available to a user for free, shouldn't the makers of the software be sued for distributing the software? Lets put it this way, some 10 year old kid is downloading music, he or she doesn't know it's illegal, and their parents don't even know they are doing it, how are you going to sue a 10-year old kid? If anything they should sue the services and not the people because if you sue one person, the 80,000,000 other people are still doing it, the service is still up, you caused little or no damage to the downloading music world.
--
I asked for DSL, it came out, and now I'm too far from the CO! | |
|
| xrobertcmx
Premium
join:2001-06-18
Sterling, VA
clubs: | Re: I don't get it. You can also lower prices in the hopes of increasing volume of sale. Volume can displace mark up. | |
|
| |
devrandom
I got a pot, full of random stuff here
Premium
join:2003-06-28
| Re: I don't get it. The price lowering tactics are still really just bull, because the prices aren't low enough to stop the neo-10 year old tech hacker "wannabe" from downloading music.
Of course, they're just trying to attack people's claims.
--
If it can be smoked, its prolly not going to be good for you. | |
|
| |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| The proof is in the pudding. I won't believe any claims of lower prices until I actually see some real changes in the current price structures in the stores. Anything less is vaporware.
--
Love Science Fiction? www.spacestationzoom.com | |
|
|
riaasux
@charter.com
| They lowered the prices so more people buy the cds.
This way the RIAA can say, "see, we are canning people for illegally downloading songs, and our sales are increasing." This way it appears that by them stopping illegal downloads, sales are increasing. I sure ain't going to spend $18 on a cd, but if the cd is $10 I might. The RIAA is going to use this to try to prove their "false" point that illegal downloads are hurting sales. | |
|
| | |
CablePower
Tmd
join:2003-08-29
Milton, FL
| Grasping at straws. What is it everybody's said about RIAA? That they're just getting desperate, throwing around legal muscle in an attempt to preserve outdated modes of delivery?
Looks like the tables ARE turned.
Here's hoping for a huge loss for Sharman. Those creeps have no business on that end of a lawsuit. | |
|
| |
xmrocks
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-23
clubs:
·Comcast
|  Lowering CD prices not gonna help
Lowering prices on CD's would be good, for some indivduals who have had fear instilled in them by the RIAA and their tough guy attitude. So those individuals would rather buy a CD than in take the rare chance they'll be caught downloading by the RIAA. As far as we know, people who are downloading files at the present time are not targeted (which I think is stupid -- correct me if I am wrong on this fact). I understand shutting down the sources are the main targets, and sure that makes sense. But by downloading a file, doesn't that make me as much of a criminal downloading something that is copyrighted and that I did not pay the royalties to the respective party? Any way you look at it, it does whether or not you fileshare.
So yes, lowering CD prices will help, but I think artists need to put out better songs that would make a CD worth whatever price it is lowered to (or stays at currently). Or, better yet, get record labels to sell more singles. Or even then, offer more programs like iTunes Music Store and make the prices reasonably low so that if I want the new song by Artist X, then I can get that song and not have to pay whatever a CD costs. But then that comes to the digital rights you have by downloading that song. Sometimes it can't be burned to a CD, or shared, etc. Sure, it shouldn't be shared, but burning it to a CD should be your choice, since you're the current owner of that file.
So, back to Kazaa and Kazaa-Lite. How is the RIAA doing this searching? By simply typing in "Madonna" and then throwing a subpeona at those users who turned up positive is wrong. I seriously think they should have to prove that that file is indeed a song by Madonna. Anyone can name a file incorrectly, why they'd want to do it is beyond me. They also cannot, as some have mentioned, prove it was this person. An IP address tells you an ISP and is registered to usually one computer, or it could be shared through a series on computers through a router, WAP, etc. WAP can be hacked, so can ISP's as someone mentioned. So there is no real proof that it is this person or that.
I'd write more, but it'd get repetitive and such. Just my 2 cents. | |
|
|
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| Re: Lowering CD prices not gonna help There is good music out there. You just have to find it, and by that I mean look in places other than radio and MTV. This is why P2P is great to me. I have found so much new music through people sharing files it's crazy. I find good music online, I buy the CD. If you ask me lower CD prices will help. They have to compete with DVD's now, which most of the time carry the same cost as a music CD and have a lot more content. My real question is will music CD's really cost less? They claimed to have reduced the MSRP, but if they are charging the distributors the same amount prices won't change. This might be a bait-and-switch on the RIAA's part.
People are still buying music. If P2P was really hurting the industry then the lack of sales would be massive instead of a measely 10%-12%. Also considering they are comparing the current figures to what they made previous years I would question P2P generating those losses too. The major record labels have released over 20% less albums these past couple of years compared to 2000 and before.
--
Love Science Fiction? www.spacestationzoom.com | |
|
| |
xmrocks
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-23
clubs:
·Comcast
| Re: Lowering CD prices not gonna help I know very well there is good music out there. I have XM Radio and no longer listen to FM or watch MTV, etc. I just feel that lowering prices won't help as much as everyone thinks they will. People are always saying I would buy more CD's if prices were lower. If people still share those files, do you think people would actually go out and buy a CD if they only liked one song on it, or would they download it for free? Some people would go out and buy the CD's because they are getting a better deal. Others, and I believe most, would stick to downloading since it's probably a hard habit to break.
Sure, if people download music and then go out and buy it (such as you do), I don't have as much of a problem with that because they're supporting the artists they enjoy. P2P is still hurting the record industry any way you look at it. It might not be hurting them massively, but it's still hurting them as well as hurting those artists who make the music in the first place. The less albums they sell, the less money they make. | |
|
| | |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| Re: Lowering CD prices not gonna help So far it seems to me the record labels are the ones hurting their own sales. 23% drop in albums released yet only about 12% loss in sales? Economics would reason that if you sell 23% less product you can expect about the same in losses, though the actual losses tend to be less. I would figure a 15%-20% loss would reflect a decent response to the lack of albums released, however the actual losses are quite a bit less. So if you ask me P2P might have actually reduced the loss, based on my previous theory that people buy what they like. I still do not see anything to back up the RIAA's claim about file sharing hurting the industry.
I know that I would be buying more albums if they cost less. As it is I have to pick and choose what artists get my money because the costs are so high. Some artists might not ever get my spending dollars because their records are on that level I refuse to pay. Considering MANY people have complained about the high costs of CD's I think it's a safe bet that album sales would go up for the record label that does a true to life mark down on price.
--
Love Science Fiction? www.spacestationzoom.com | |
|
|
|
See 6 replies to this post |
|
LordMalak
join:2003-07-02
Brazil
| 2 Interesting Arcticles on RIAA today! Unfortunately, they are... printed. One on Time Magazine and another on the Houston Chronicle. You may want to search their respective web sites (www.time.com and www.houstonchronicle.com) if you wish.
The Time article talks about underground file sharing servers, like DC++ (open source) and DirectConnect by NeoModus. Users share files annonymously and with the option to encrypt files. The article goes on to say that this is the future of file sharing (I wonder why Time Warner is so anti-RIAA, since they're PART of it).
The Houston Chronicle article, by contrast, is a slap in the face of anti-RIAA people who erroneously believe that musicians get raped by the RIAA. It talks about musicians who are actually LOBBYING politicians to help the RIAA with their subpoenas. Yes, they are protecting their livelihood, it seems. I don't have the newspaper with me, so I can't provide any more details...
--
SBC DSL Tech Support. | |
|
| 
TireSmok007
join:2002-01-22
Lawrenceville, GA | Re: 2 Interesting Arcticles on RIAA today! that is very few musicians and most of them are old farts like metallica. untill they start making Cd's 7.99 to 9.99 i will not bye a single one of them | |
|
|
TireSmok007
join:2002-01-22
Lawrenceville, GA | Houston BLA!!!!!!!!!! that city BLOWS | |
|
LordMalak
join:2003-07-02
Brazil | Bummer RIAA. Hey, RIAA, practice what you preach. If you want to sue people for trumping your copyrights, don't trump other people's copyrights.
--
SBC DSL Tech Support. | |
|
|
|
|
Kazaa Sues RIAA
·
·