Ignoring the RIAA

Looks like the ISPs have finally figured out that the RIAA is not on their side. Now that the RIAA can't bully them in court, the ISPs figured out how to stand up to them.

All that is left is to make an ISPAA to stand up to the RIAA collectively in legal battles in congress and the courts.

Throw a rock at Goliath!

it's probably both a pain and a chore for isps to do that. good for isps, bad for riaa. and lets hope it stays that way.

Great. F!@# the RIAA and their tactics.

Great. F!@# the RIAA and their tactics.
___________________________________________________________
Same thing I was thinking myself...

»www.boycott-riaa.com

This is great. The ISP's no longer have to bow down to the RIAA.

said by Omega:

---

This is great. The ISP's no longer have to bend over to the RIAA.

---

fixed

Stop buying CDs...hit them where it hurts. They are fighting a loosing battle. If the prices would be reasonable, then I would buy, but now...they are GREEDY.

And your NOT greedy for wanting free music???

said by ronpin:

---

And your NOT greedy for wanting free music???

---

Where did he say he wanted free music? Just because he says "don't buy CDs" doesn't necessarily mean he's downloading music.

Uh right...he's involved in this discussion because he dislikes music in general...uh...yeah..OK

The poster did mention that they would buy CD's if prices were reasonable. I wish some of you would read the ENTIRE post before passing judgement.

Geesh...the criminal mind...

So if I think new car prices are unreasonable then I have the right to "aquire" one through other means???

Maybe we need to read our own posts first?

Yes. Absolutely, go out and buy thru other means. BUY USED!

Agreed!

right it's called buying USED...something the RIAA tried to stop in the mid 90's with trying to make it illegal for used CD stores to operate. Ya that was killed, obviously. Also...yer analogy of a new car is bad....u can test drive it and in some cases keep it for a day or 2. Try that with a CD LOL U can't even perview em anymore

A lot of stores around me let me listen to CDs while in the store. Also, most online music stores now have sound clips from most of, if not all, songs on the CDs. It's good enough to get an ides of what the CD sounds like before purchasing.

Sites that do this include:
bestbuy.com
circuitcity.com
amazon.com
cdnow.com (really the same as amazon)
deepdiscountcd.com

So yes, you can "test drive" a CD before you buy it.

said by stet:

---

A lot of stores around me let me listen to CDs while in the store. Also, most online music stores now have sound clips from most of, if not all, songs on the CDs. It's good enough to get an ides of what the CD sounds like before purchasing.

Sites that do this include:
bestbuy.com
circuitcity.com
amazon.com
cdnow.com (really the same as amazon)
deepdiscountcd.com

So yes, you can "test drive" a CD before you buy it.

---

The thing that bugs me about the online store's sound clips is that most of the time all you get is a 30 second sample that doesn't really give you that good a representation of that song. At least with the type of music I look for. Most stores that have anywhere near reasonable prices only have a select few CD's on sample kiosks for you to preview. Not saying these aren't good formats or that there aren't any stores that give you full flexibility. I'm just saying it's not always the best way to go.

You're so far of. Rather then telling people to read perhaps you should just bow out and say nothing. You only make yourself look foolish. No where in this thread did someone promote free music. It's a simple fact that people dislike the tactics the RIAA tried pulling regardless of wether you upload or download. Maybe it's you that should read.

"So if I think new car prices are unreasonable then I have the right to "aquire" one through other means???"

Feel free to stop by and copy my car whenever you like. Its in the driveway.

said by ronpin:

---

...So if I think new car prices are unreasonable then I have the right to "aquire" one through other means???

---

Yes you can. It is done all the time every day all across America. It's call carjacking, or better yet, break into a car at the dealer. I've seen glass on the ground to tell me someone attempted to steal a car off a dealer lot.

As for me, hell yeah I'm going to keep downloading.

I thought that a particular telescope stand was too expensive. So I copied the design of it and built one myself. Does that make me a criminal?

Your posts make you sound like a person who just wants to bash people because they are doing something that you don't agree with.

puritan

said by ronpin:

---

Uh right...he's involved in this discussion because he dislikes music in general...uh...yeah..OK

---

Thankyou Mr. Kreskin. Oh to be all knowing...

said by ronpin:

---

Uh right...he's involved in this discussion because he dislikes music in general...uh...yeah..OK

---

Where does the RIAA find these guys??!?!

said by The Antihero:

---

...
Just because he says "don't buy CDs" doesn't necessarily mean he's downloading music.

---

Good point, I don't download much of anything and I've bought *very* few CDs these last few years. The RIAA didn't help convince me otherwise either. First they try to freeze out used CD dealers, then they settle a huge a huge anti-trust suit, then they start suing individuals right and left for exhorbitant sums of money. I'll vote with my $$ because it's all they understand.

said by ronpin:

---

And your NOT greedy for wanting free music???

---

I don't and never have downloaded music, I just hate the illegal tactics of RIAA, and they should be stopped by what ever legal means possible...I was a process server and researcher in the federal courts for 15 years, and it maddens me to watch RIAA abuse the system as they do...

Who says you are getting free music. We support bands through concerts. Until CD prices get reasonable, download for free. Once a happy medium is made then more will buy them.

I download because I can't find that music in any online store or CD is way too expensive. P2P can be very profitable. Just charge $10/mo for using sharing program (ie Napster) instead of killing it.
Then they'll get pure $$$, no need for fast servers, Greatest uploaders will get priority for downloading. I don't mind paying that low monthly fee and many people will follow.

is Napster a sharing service anymore?

said by rsa0:

---

Stop buying CDs...hit them where it hurts. They are fighting a loosing battle. If the prices would be reasonable, then I would buy, but now...they are GREEDY.

---

And not buying CD's helps the Artists that are getting ripped off by the RIAA how?

Not buying CD's means even LESS money for the Artists.

.

My guess is they didn't like being the RIAA whipping boys.

When you come in with strong arm tactics after saying you want to work with someone, you lose all credibility and no one wants to help someone who loves to show their arrogance.

Now, it is time for the RIAA to jump through hoops and play by the rules.

I have Roadrunner Cable, I wood not trust thim for this reason Warner support the RIAA, all RIAA need is the support from your ISP.

Warner Music and Warner Cable Roadrunner support the RIAA

More Ways to Fight the RIAA Lawsuits

Don't Buy Music from RIAA Members
Executives at the major record labels--BMG, Sony, Warner, EMI, and Universal--think they can trample over families to scare the public into buying their products. We need to show them that this strategy is unacceptable and will not work. Every time someone buys a CD from an RIAA company, they are helping to fund these lawsuits. To determine whether a CD you're thinking of buying is made by an RIAA member, use RIAA Radar.

This is excellent news. I for one DID support the RIAA until I saw the tactics they were using to "stop" this P2P madness. Taking 60 people in the country to court doesn't solve anything. What is $100,000 to the RIAA? It's about 25 cents to us, that's what it is.

I understand that this material we trade is copyrighted by them, and they own this content. But I honestly think the biggest cause for the RIAA's lose of money is the economy. We are still is a recession, and until we come completely out of it, sales are going to be lower across the board...this includes CD sales.

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem buying CD's. But I only buy CD's that are worth it, like Better Than Ezra. You see, I can listen to the entire CD and enjoy every song on it.

However, just from listening to the radio in my car 2 hours each day, I hear the same 5 songs over and over again. What makes you think I'm going to buy that crap, when I'm sick of it...let alone download it!

The stunts the RIAA is pulling are wrong, and they need to focus their attention on the economy...not the few heavy file traders out there.

How about lowering the prices of CD's???? Now there's an idea, make CD's more affordable to people suffering from this recession rather than attacking file traders.

My 2 cents...

-Dragasoni-

In all honesty, this is the way that the RIAA should've went about with their tactics in the first place. Creating awarness rather than fear would've gotten them alot farther.

Nice to see the ISP's finally have enough legal muscle to have a spine again and be able to stand up to the RIAA's bullyboy tactics without fear of breaking some obscure law.

Let's hope that this is just the first shot aimed at taking away the almighty power of the RIAA to do what it wants when it wants and make them accountable for their actions just like every other company in the land who abuses their power or position in their industry.

In a Nelson Muntz voice, "Ha! Ha!"

-- Elias

If RIAA could have their way there wouldnt be an Internet AT ALL:) All RIAA wants is to shift broadband profits back to them, just a simple shifting of $$$.

Why would any ISP go for this unless legally forced! Of course ISP's dont want to do anything that can potentially LOOSE paying subcribers and profits. Loss profits in the form of all the extra overhead that would be needed to police such actions. ISP's would be setting themselves up for a public relations nightmare if just 1 customer who was put through the ringer actually was trading LEGAL content, which was initially assumed to be illegal.

Word of mouth is still the BEST advertisement many ISP's have, even the big ISP's like SBC. All it takes is for a few customers to start spreading the news that XXX ISP is on the RIAA side and will be tracking your every second on the Internet.

They do not want to play traffic cop on the internet, if they do to some extent they become responsible for their subscribers activities it puts them in a bad legal position. It is much better for ISPs and customers that ISPs do not play gatekeeper to the internet.

Why bite the hand that feeds you? What else do average joe consumers want broadband for except to download?

Also, why invite all the administrative headaches riaa requests will bring?

What's the incentive for ISP's to give a crap?

(I only read the front page blurb)

RIAA: Hi this is the RIAA and we want to make our problems your problems so.. here is a list of IP addresses and times, can you please give the owners the threatening message oh and possible the names and addresses later?

ISP: In short you want us to rat out our customers which could make us loose them and thus revenue, shooting ourselves in the foot so to say?

...

NO, not unless we are forced to.

ME: It all comes down to money

The news should hold some interesting stuff.

RIAA/MPAA are right in trying to stop theft of their stuff. The normal channels hadn't produced results, so then they tried questionable metheods.

The File Traders are wrong in putting up files that they may have paid for, for others to download freely and to use without paying for the right to use it.
But I do think that File Traders provide something that has been over looked.
1]Many "hot" movies, when viewed as a trailer look great. But after paying 8 bucks to watch it in the theater, it turns out to be a stinker. I look at "screeners' as a preview before I go to the theater.

2]Software: How come there are many internet software companies that offer a trail period before you buy their software. But when you buy the software from the retail stores, you are stuck with it if you didn't like it.
I look at software offered over P2P networks as "try before you buy".

3]Music: Again Cds are high priced for little return [maybe 1 or 2 good songs, no video or tour information]. Better to do the buck per song thing then buy the whole CD.

I read that someone wanted to purpose a liscense fee on the amount you download. The more you download the higher your bill but the stuff would be legal.
I then read a counter to this. The problem is we are now a flate rate billing for internet use, vs the pay by the hour or pay for the amount you download.
Maybe a solution like adding a charge for large amounts of downloading [over ports used by P2P, FTP, IRC and other file transer protocols] per month would work.
Though ther would have to be a way to etermine if a person is playing a online game vs downloading a movie.

said by Snakeoil:

---

Many "hot" movies, when viewed as a trailer look great. But after paying 8 bucks to watch it in the theater, it turns out to be a stinker. I look at "screeners' as a preview before I go to the theater.

---

The sad thing is that many movie producers depend on suckering people into paying to watch what they already know to be a bad movie. Lots of bad movies end up making money this way. Hollywood depends on this. That's why so many movies may have a hot opening weekend, but then die out really fast once word gets out. But if the hype was big enough, enough people will be suckered in over that opening weekend for the movie to make a profit. Like Tomb Raider, for example. Enough suckers paid to see that crap, that they did an equally sucky sequel.

Yes, it's deceptive. But it's also good marketing. If they can sell people crap, then they are doing a good job.

The way I see it this means the movie companies now have to make sure they put out quality product instead of trying to trick people out of their $8. Gotta love it when technology becomes just as tough a competitor as a rival company.

I still hate to give a comparison no one has disputed. A library buys a book and royalities have been paid one time. the library loans it out to a few thousand citizens.

I buy a CD, royalities have been paid one time. I loan it to a few thousand online friends. Where is the difference?

Either the RIAA is greedier than the writters or our governments should be prosecuted for copyright fraud by supporting libraries.

What's even funnier is I can go to a library, check out a CD, burn a copy and return it.

You are all missing what really has happened here. Sure the RIAA has sent a letter to the 50 largest ISPs. But that letter had to go to their customer support in India (or somewhere overseas). I'm sure it just hasn't got there...

Well my ISP's support/headquarters is actually located in the same town as I am located in. (Frontier) So far I think my ISP has stood firm against these guys.

»www.personal.psu.edu/use ··· haha.wav

this is what being an american is about! screw the greed.
the major issue is that what pennys of each cd actually goes to the group and the majority goes to these greedy fools.

as for the 50 isps my hats off to them and i wish that they prosper well except for roadrunner, earthlink (due to send jobs over seas), and aol just for blantenly overtaking many many systems

I am sure it costs our ISP's money to handle "orders" from the RIAA so now that they are not required by law to comply, why should they. I would not be surprised if certain ISP's have advised them to cease and desist all contact with them unless they have a court order. Time is money and money and more money is all our ISP's truly care about.

If you read the court decision it says they can't force ISP's to turn over the identities of users based on the DMCA. But existing laws DO force ISP's to reveal identities of users nonetheless for illegal activities such as stealing copyright protected materials via download. So this decision just means the RIAA will need to file an individual request for each criminal vs. a wholesale request. No big deal at all, just a little more paperwork.

Bottomline, the Pirates are goin' to jail. They can run, they can hide, but they are goin' to jail at the end of the day. No court is gonna allow Pirates to steal copyright protected material. The courts have made it quite clear that copyright law is valid and will be enforced. End of story. Do NOT pass GO. Do NOT get out of JAIL free.

You are on the right track, but this is not what the Verizon opinion really means. What it means is that instead of getting a rubber-stamp subpoena, the RIAA has to:

Go to court and file a lawsuit - which means:
a) enter an appearance through counsel;
b) certify that the complaint is based upon reasonable investigation under the circumstances;
c) risk sanctions by a judge should their complaint be without merit;
d) clearly place the process under the federal rules of civil procedure;
e) respect protections for non-parties (i.e. ISPs)
f) prove civil liability by a preponderance of the evidence

In other words, there is a process in this country that applies to every other potential plaintiff and that process requires some sort of court procedure before can say that someone is guilty of "illegal activities" and now the RIAA simply has to follow that same procedure. There are exceptions to that procedure but those are few and far between AND those exceptions also contain safeguards. NONE of those exceptions create a blank check for a special interest group the way that the RIAA was attempting to use the DMCA...

can you say owned?

I have talked about this subject before and got battered for it. I guess if I don't agree with the RIAA that must mean I am stealing music.

The court said that the ISP's do not have to comply with the RIAA subpoenas. That the RIAA couldn't put multiple requests on one subpoena and force the ISP to give up there customers information. The DMCA made it easy for the RIAA just to file a subpoena without going through a proper judicial process. The RIAA didn't need proof of the infringement, only that they assume something was happening. The court found this to be invalid cause it would mean anyone can get a subpoena with showing any proof of anything.

Now the court did say that under current law the RIAA can sue people trading music but they have to go through a proper judicial process. Which means is that RIAA has to file lawsuits individually. It would be a john doe lawsuit cause the RIAA would first have to file a petition not just a subpoena with the court to get the ISP to reveal the name of the infringer.It also means that the RIAA would have to show proof that the person or the account holder is actually trading files. Doing all this is a lengthy process and will cost more money for the RIAA to sue.

What most people don't know is that most people who buy music are breaking the copyright one way or another. The RIAA applies many rules to that copyright and of course as music buyers we don't know what the rules are. The RIAA don't want us to know what the rules are regarding that copyright cause if we did most of us would never buy a cd again. Read the DMCA and the RIAA's policy on buying music and you will be surprised on what you can or can not do when you pay $18 for that cd.

What I said in the past and I will say it again, all the DMCA did was make it easy for the RIAA to accuse people without any proof and at the same time prevent someone from getting due process in the court of law. The DMCA prevents people from getting fair representation and the RIAA went along with it. I disagreed with the RIAA due to the fact they made it so easy to accuse someone without having any proof to back it up.

If someone is guilty or innocent of any crime they are still entitled to get fair representation under the current law. I thought we were a society of innocent until proven guilty not the other way around.

You are not entitled to legal council in a civil lawsuit. This is not a guilt versus innocence thing here. In civil court there is no "beyond a reasonible doubt" clause, it is a preponderance of the evidence issue.
If the Riaa sues you, unless you have a high dollar attorney and are willing to spend ALOT, you will lose. They are choosing to sue people that have downloaded many songs and will have ironclad proof showing those were offered for download.

I never would buy a CD in the first place ...if I like a song or maybe two I would never buy the album ...I have a sh*t load of mistakes from the 70's, 80's & 90's that I look at the album and say why did I buy that piece of sh*t for one song ... my rule now is it has to have at least 4 to 5 good songs on it for me to justify purchasing it ...RIAA is looking to sell one or two songs for 13 bucks ...Downloading is a way for the people to tell the RIAA the party is over, the gravy train is leaving and it ain't going to work that way anymore... they should wise up setup like someone suggested earlier 10 buck monthly fee to swap whatever you want (at least they will get money) ... CD sales will not go away, so they make that money on top of the monthly sales ...

RIAA has to stop pestering radio stations to play the same shitty top 40 and popular garbage! If I owned a radio station, I would buy all the music CDs (most which are non-RIAA affiliated), burn them to mp3 format and let the stuff play. I would also carry the normal top 40 crap, but it would not be played repititivly like some stations do *coughKROCK*cough, *coughWBLIcough*, *coughADDANNOYINGREPETITIVESTATIONHEREcough*

I would make sure the RIAA affiliated artists get the cash by mailing checks directly to the artists' homes, thus skipping the middle man.

RIAA, go fuck urself, get with the 21st century and stop living in the past..

To the ISPs.
Thank you.

"RIAA has to stop pestering radio stations to play the same shitty top 40 and popular garbage! "

RIAA pays for that right. I read its illegal to pay radio stations directly to make them play certain songs but what happens is they have middle men funnel money to clear channel stations which now control most of the radio stations. Thus by paying X millions of dollars they can have ALL clear channel stations play Beyonce X amounts of times a day. Stations playists are many times dictated by the Music industry now. So many 1 hit filler albums get great exposure which will equate to X amount of sales. But sales are down mostly due to the horrible content of these new CD's. RIAA are too busy deciding what they want to produce and market and how they want to push it on the air with little regard to what people actually want to listen too. There is a lot of great talent out there and much of it is available for free with internet streaming.

I dowloaded music here and there but I just bought a cd the other day because I wanted the accually cd. I did not like paying 15.99 for a cd with 11 songs and no extras. I bought the Evanescene cd cause they have more than one good song. I didn't go but it cause I heard all of the songs on the radio. I bought it cause I found the songs on Kazaa lite and wanted a good hard copy I didn't have to burn. I will not go out and buy a cd for 15 to 17 dollars just for one song. The RIAA is going down. I know someone is gonna say something about my downloading but I have something to say. These people that say we are stealing the music by using the program support the high prices. I have a bunch of cassetes or I should say I used to until Someone stole a big bunch of them outta my car but my cd collection isn't growing cause I refuse to pay that much for a cd with 1 or 2 good songs. I was watching a story about a crountry music star that wasn't making money from cd sales and was about to go bankrupt but she said the concerts she did was keeping her afloat. Well I'll quit ranting about the RIAA being thieves themselves. Now let the RIAA supporters start their flaming of me.

Not sure where you bought your CD, but you could have gotten Evanescence at Circuit City for $12.99 instead.