Foo - Who's ready to boycott artists represented by the RIAA?

I am. I am tired of the bullying by RIAA. I am hereby not buying any music by artists represented by then.
Their first case involved imposing a $220000 fine on a single mom :mad: . Nice work guys.

I am. I am tired of the bullying by RIAA. I am hereby not buying any music by artists represented by then.
Their first case involved imposing a $220000 fine on a single mom :mad: . Nice work guys.

When did the RIAA start representing artists as well as musicians?

Um no.

Their first case that went all the way thru the court system had that result. And a jury of her peers decided what she owed.

Um no.

Their first case that went all the way thru the court system had that result. And a jury of her peers decided what she owed.

Umm, no...that's not actually how our system works.

Umm, no...that's not actually how our system works.

The jury found her guilty, then they were given a range they could charge her for each of the songs in question. I think the total amount was roughly 20k-2mil, they choose to place each fine in the middle of the range.

So they found her guilty, and decided how much, within the limits they were given, she was to be fined.

Better?

When did the RIAA start representing artists as well as musicians?

A musician is an artist.....RIAA (RIAA represents the Industry and the Recording Artists, supposedly):rolleyes:

The jury found her guilty, then they were given a range they could charge her for each of the songs in question. I think the total amount was roughly 20k-2mil, they choose to place each fine in the middle of the range.

So they found her guilty, and decided how much, within the limits they were given, she was to be fined.

Better?

Actually, they found her civilly liable. ("Guilt" is a criminal law term.) The amount levied is not a criminal fine but a civil judgment in favor of RIAA.

At any rate, that's pretty much just semantics. The thing that gets me is that there are so many folks who seem to think the law doesn't apply to them. The truth is that this stuff really isn't hard to understand. It's pretty intuitive. The number of times I've heard that a person can't be violating the law because they're just copying music and giving it away, not selling it, is staggering. This lady probably started with that in mind and then, hopefully, got set straight by her lawyer. She would undoubtedly have been offered a fairly minimal settlement before trial, but she chose to roll the dice with a jury. You never know what a jury is going to do. As soon as a case goes to them, the best lawyer in the world couldn't tell you how it will all end. This lady got what she asked for: a trial. It just didn't end how she would have had it.

Umm, no...that's not actually how our system works.

Care to educate us all on just how our system does work, then?

Care to educate us all on just how our system does work, then?

Judges hand out punishments, jury's merely decide if they will get punished.

The trial isn't what bothers me...

This is what bothers me:

RIAA Eyes Next Possible Targets: CD Burners, Radio Listeners (http://www.dailytech.com/RIAA+Eyes+Next+Possible+Targets+CD+Burners+Radio+Listeners/article9218.htm)

Technically, ripping a CD to put on your MP3 player is a no-no.

I almost never buy or download music (free or not) these days. Only on a rare occasion will i purchase a CD for afew of my favored artists/groups, one of which is indie. :)

Judges hand out punishments, jury's merely decide if they will get punished.

Not so, Timmy. Juries make a recommendation on punishment in most cases. The judge doesn't have to accept the jury's decision, but often does.

timmy - I suggest you go back to civics class before you come educate us. Depending on the jurisdiction and the laws of that jurisdiction, many juries are charged with determining a "fair" judgement. The judge typically signs off on them unless s/he feels they are way out of proportion with the facts of the case.

Cival penalties are generally awarded by a jury, unless both parties agree to a trial by a judge.

^^^ true that. I think Timmy's confusing (non-capital) criminal cases with civil.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/november2006/291106riaa.jpg

... Brad

A musician is an artist.....RIAA (RIAA represents the Industry and the Recording Artists, supposedly):ro lleyes:

a musician is a musician.

Actually, they found her civilly liable. ("Guilt" is a criminal law term.) The amount levied is not a criminal fine but a civil judgment in favor of RIAA.

At any rate, that's pretty much just semantics. The thing that gets me is that there are so many folks who seem to think the law doesn't apply to them. The truth is that this stuff really isn't hard to understand. It's pretty intuitive. The number of times I've heard that a person can't be violating the law because they're just copying music and giving it away, not selling it, is staggering. This lady probably started with that in mind and then, hopefully, got set straight by her lawyer. She would undoubtedly have been offered a fairly minimal settlement before trial, but she chose to roll the dice with a jury. You never know what a jury is going to do. As soon as a case goes to them, the best lawyer in the world couldn't tell you how it will all end. This lady got what she asked for: a trial. It just didn't end how she would have had it.

My bad, it was not a fine but rather a civil judgment handed down. There are several key questions that remain unanswered regarding the case.

First, does making music available mean copyright infringement? I dont think so? Besides what if she didnt understand how the software worked?
Second, what about the chances of someone hacking into the computer/bot/wireless hack who just happened to use your IP to disseminate songs?

The thing is that RIAA doesn't realize that "the market" is no longer willing to pay $12 for a cd and instead is trying to bully everyone and their little kid. Chances are this is going to end up being a PR nightmare in the near future.

a musician is a musician.

Music - subset of Performing Arts
Performing Art - Subset of The Arts
=> music is art..

musician hence by definition is an artist

^^^ true that. I think Timmy's confusing (non-capital) criminal cases with civil.I've been on one criminal and one civil jury. In both cases we decided the outcome and the award/sentencing.

First, does making music available mean copyright infringement?

That's the scary implication of this case as I read it. RIAA never proved she uploaded or downloaded any music, just implied that she made it available for download and the judges instruction said if the jury found she did that, she was liable. So if I understand it right, RIAA got what they wanted in a legal precedent saying that just making available copyrighted material is agains copyright laws and makes a person liable for damages.

Scary.


a musician is a musician.

What about the "artist" formerly known as Prince?

That's the scary implication of this case as I read it. RIAA never proved she uploaded or downloaded any music, just implied that she made it available for download and the judges instruction said if the jury found she did that, she was liable. So if I understand it right, RIAA got what they wanted in a legal precedent saying that just making available copyrighted material is agains copyright laws and makes a person liable for damages.

Scary.


True, and where does it end? Does making a book available on my book shelf mean I am violating copyright laws?

Music - subset of Performing Arts
Performing Art - Subset of The Arts
=> music is art..

musician hence by definition is an artist

artist = artist

writer = writer

musician = musician

actor = actor

see my line of thought?

artist = artist

writer = writer

musician = musician

actor = actor

see my line of thought?

Sure. But they are also artists. In an associative, not a definitive sense.

Sure. But they are also artists. In an associative, not a definitive sense.

britney spears is an artist? give me a break.

britney spears is an artist? give me a break.

Dude, some people think Thomas Kincade is an artist.

Some people think Frank Gehry is an artist.

Hell, I got a Bachelor of Arts degree in college, but that doesn't necessarily make me one.

So they have the name Artist as part of the RIAA name. Big deal. Just because WWE has Entertainment in it doesn't make that so, either.

ETA... why not just ditch the word altogether? You paint something, you're a painter. You sculpt something, you're a sculptor, etc. Let the work determine the title, yeah?

Dude, some people think Thomas Kincade is an artist.

and many of those same people believe in the "intelligent designer".


Some people think Frank Gehry is an artist.

Hell, I got a Bachelor of Arts degree in college, but that doesn't necessarily make me one.

So they have the name Artist as part of the RIAA name. Big deal. Just because WWE has Entertainment in it doesn't make that so, either.

More or less correct (at least compared to your average musician). :D

britney spears is an artist? give me a break.

Naturally with exceptions to the rule ;)..

True, and where does it end? Does making a book available on my book shelf mean I am violating copyright laws?

If you make copies of the book, and hand them out, you are violating copyright laws.

What if you have a copy machine somewhere near your bookshelf?

If you make copies of the book, and hand them out, you are violating copyright laws.

Read post 17 and 20 again. The RIAA is saying that by merely having the music available on Kazaa, the user violated copyright acts.

The RIAA believes we shouldn't even rip CDs for our own use, so it makes sense that they'd want to go after people who just make (ripped) music available, regardless of whether or not anyone actually downloaded the available tunes.

I have no respect at all for the RIAA, frankly. They'd get mad if someone downloads MP3s even though the person paid for the albums on other media (vinyl albums, cassette tapes) years ago. A lot of us geezers are in that boat now, I'm sure. My opinion is that if I've paid for it, it's mine to do with what I please. If I want to make 5 copies and leave one in my car, one in my boat, one in my MP3 player, one on my work computer, etc., then that's my right. Fair use.

They tried to go after blank cassettes back in the 80s as well. This isn't much different, except it's a lot easier to copy music now. ;)

At the risk of stirring up a hornet's nest . . . .

This is just more of the same BS that was being spewed over Napster a couple years back. The general theme in these United States is: you make it, you get to sell it if you can find a willing buyer. Copyright, trademark and patent laws are, at base, an extension of that basic philosophy.

Look at it this way: Do you work for free? I didn't think so - I don't either. Many musicians, composers, painters, sculpters, and other types of artists (yes, botto, "artist" is a pretty expansive term) do what they do for a living, or are trying to. When you say that a musician, or composer, or artist of some other stripe should not be able to charge for their art, you are saying, in effect, that they have to work for free. Why? Because you want what they have.

Well guess what? In any other context, taking what someone has without their consent is stealing, pure and simple. Example: You see a pair of pants you like, but think they are overpriced or you simply don't have the scratch. If you take them anyway, that is theft. Both conceptually and under the law, the same holds true for artistic creations. Why should any artist be required to subsidize your desires? The short answer is: they shouldn't, any more than your boss should be able to make you work for free or I should be able to help myself to whatever you have that I happen to like.

On the flip side of this: do you think we would have even a tiny fraction of the incredible library of music that now exists if the composers and performers were required to make their music available to absolutely everyone who wanted to hear it without somehow getting paid for their efforts? Not a blinking chance. In that scenario, Beethoven's Ninth Symphony, the Beatle's White Album and, almost certainly, whatever you like to listen to would not exist. Why? Because (pay attention now) artists have to eat, too. Unless they are subsistence farmers (in which case they would have no time for their art) or have a supporting patron (which used to be the norm in European courts) or are independently wealthy, no musician could afford to write or perform more than occasionally, no painter could ever produce more than the every-so-often painting, etc., unless they get paid. And that means having something to say about the terms and conditions under which their art is disseminated.

So here's the deal. If you don't like paying for music, then don't. Don't buy CD's, don't pay for concert tickets. If someone out there chooses to make their music available without charge - and there are plenty of examples no-charge music out there -- help yourself. If you don't think the latest tune is worth the asking price, the proper, legal and, yes, moral response is to not buy it. Period.

You want it but can't afford it? Then do without. It's called Life. Learn to deal with it.

No, it's a little different. No one will dispute that taking music is theft. That's pretty much a well established fact, even for file sharers and what not. It's the more expansive thought that just making something available where someone could possibly have copied it or obtained it illegally makes the person making it available liable vs the person who took it. Big difference.

In your pants analogy it would be the shop owner who would be at fault if someone stole the pants. Not a perfect analogy, but close enough.

I read one comment that postulated it was a staged case by RIAA in order to get a legal precedent. That is, defendant and her lawyer were in on it and didn't bother to mount a strong defense so they would lose. I guess we'll see if it gets appealed. If not, I might buy into that theory. Too bad there's no way to see if the defendant actually does pay RIAA or they just let it slide or even pay the fine on her behalf.

At the risk of stirring up a hornet's nest . . . .

This is just more of the same BS that was being spewed over Napster a couple years back. The general theme in these United States is: you make it, you get to sell it if you can find a willing buyer. Copyright, trademark and patent laws are, at base, an extension of that basic philosophy.

Look at it this way: Do you work for free? I didn't think so - I don't either. Many musicians, composers, painters, sculpters, and other types of artists (yes, botto, "artist" is a pretty expansive term) do what they do for a living, or are trying to. When you say that a musician, or composer, or artist of some other stripe should not be able to charge for their art, you are saying, in effect, that they have to work for free. Why? Because you want what they have.

Well guess what? In any other context, taking what someone has without their consent is stealing, pure and simple. Example: You see a pair of pants you like, but think they are overpriced or you simply don't have the scratch. If you take them anyway, that is theft. Both conceptually and under the law, the same holds true for artistic creations. Why should any artist be required to subsidize your desires? The short answer is: they shouldn't, any more than your boss should be able to make you work for free or I should be able to help myself to whatever you have that I happen to like.

On the flip side of this: do you think we would have even a tiny fraction of the incredible library of music that now exists if the composers and performers were required to make their music available to absolutely everyone who wanted to hear it without somehow getting paid for their efforts? Not a blinking chance. In that scenario, Beethoven's Ninth Symphony, the Beatle's White Album and, almost certainly, whatever you like to listen to would not exist. Why? Because (pay attention now) artists have to eat, too. Unless they are subsistence farmers (in which case they would have no time for their art) or have a supporting patron (which used to be the norm in European courts) or are independently wealthy, no musician could afford to write or perform more than occasionally, no painter could ever produce more than the every-so-often painting, etc., unless they get paid. And that means having something to say about the terms and conditions under which their art is disseminated.

So here's the deal. If you don't like paying for music, then don't. Don't buy CD's, don't pay for concert tickets. If someone out there chooses to make their music available without charge - and there are plenty of examples no-charge music out there -- help yourself. If you don't think the latest tune is worth the asking price, the proper, legal and, yes, moral response is to not buy it. Period.

You want it but can't afford it? Then do without. It's called Life. Learn to deal with it.

I pirate music. If it is not good I delete it. If it is good I buy a Tshirt or see a show. That way more of my money goes directly to artists that I like instead of some corporation that will divert that money into promoting its top 40 acts.

I hope they all go broke funding the RIAA.

Yeah... I love the RIAA and all the music companies, and the movie studios, too, while we're at it.

I love that I can buy a CD and not be allowed to listen to it in my car CD player. (Because that CD player will play MP3 cd's.... it looks for the data track on a cd to see if there are MP3's there. The music companies, in an attempt to prevent copying can put a bad data track on the CD which will keep it from being read on most computer players and MP3 cd players.)

I love that I can buy a music CD and have it install a root kit on my computer. Yeah... they can install hacker tools on my computer AND THEY DON'T SEE ANYTHING WRONG WITH IT!

I love that the music and software industries can not only get away with this, but can lobby enough that it's now actually a CRIME for me to circumvent those violations of my right to fair use.

I love paying $15 for a CD and getting ONE good song.

I loved having to pay the RIAA money everytime I purchased a blank tape or music DVD. Just in case I might decide to copy some music illegally.

Check out the Digital Rights Management in Vista... I love that the Music and Movie industries can actually FORCE us to pay higher prices for computers.

I love that the Movie industry has made it easier to pirate movies than to play a legal DVD on Linux.

Oh... and I love having to pay more for a CD than a cassette. Despite the fact that CD's are MUCH cheaper to produce than cassettes....

a musician is a musician.

correct

Read post 17 and 20 again. The RIAA is saying that by merely having the music available on Kazaa, the user violated copyright acts.

OK, thanks for the clarification.

In that case, I'm having problems figuring out how a crime was committed..nothing happened.

Is this like...what was it..Minority Report, where they go into the future to witness you committing a crime, then come back and arrest you before you commit the crime?

Scary.

The part in that article where there saying that the shop employees listening to the radio while they work is a "public performance" is rediculous.
The PRS is suing the Kwik Fit Group, a car repair shop in Edinburgh, for £200,000 in damages. The case revolves around the complaint that Kwik Fit employees brought in personal radios which they played while working on cars, which could be heard by colleagues and customers. The PRS says this amounts to a public "performance" and should have entailed royalties.

^^^ And that's why most of us have a legitimate gripe with the industry. That sort of thing is just out of control. Is someone giving a "public performance" driving down the road with a loud car stereo, too? Should the cops write a ticket and send the fine to the RIAA?

I think satellite radio charges more for businesses to use it, no?

A musician is a musician
A painter is a painter
A sculptor is a sculptor

Therefore, none of them are artists.

I havne't boycotted the RIAA since it's physically impossible.

As of this point, every CD-R, DVD-R, burners, and readers have kickback fees to the MPAA and RIAA ingrained into them. I'm pretty sure I would be scared ****less if I was to find out how much money is made in this fashion for them.

What I do however is I boycott the worst offending companies represented by them. Sony has been dead in my eyes for over a year. I will buy a GPX piece of crap before I even look at a Sony. PS-what? Xbox or Wii, the other one can go to hell.


Look at Sony's track record:
Their online gaming division has outright threatened customers with bans for doing things that are within the rules (cazic-thule server, GM Tilol, the "Hizo" issue, then Tilol's explosion in Kael, which Sony stood behind and banned anyone who mentioned it in their forums for the longest time...and even said that any remarks against a GM's decisions is bannable....bull****).

They installed rootkits onto user's PCs through DRMed music CDs

They have patented methods for creating Playstation discs that will "lock" themselves to a specific console.

....face it, they are as scumbag as it comes.

At the risk of stirring up a hornet's nest . . . .

This is just more of the same BS that was being spewed over Napster a couple years back. The general theme in these United States is: you make it, you get to sell it if you can find a willing buyer. Copyright, trademark and patent laws are, at base, an extension of that basic philosophy.

Look at it this way: Do you work for free? I didn't think so - I don't either. Many musicians, composers, painters, sculpters, and other types of artists (yes, botto, "artist" is a pretty expansive term) do what they do for a living, or are trying to. When you say that a musician, or composer, or artist of some other stripe should not be able to charge for their art, you are saying, in effect, that they have to work for free. Why? Because you want what they have.

Sure, but you understand that artists don't hold these copyright and rather record companies right? Its an entire industry that reaps off the hard work of artists to make profits out if it. It could do so, till now, because it used to control significant portions of the distribution chain.


Why should any artist be required to subsidize your desires? The short answer is: they shouldn't, any more than your boss should be able to make you work for free or I should be able to help myself to whatever you have that I happen to like.

I absolutely dont want artists to subsidize my desires, I just want to pay what is fair market value for my songs. I am not stupid enough to think that my favorite artists would continue to make music if they didnt get any revenue off it.


On the flip side of this: do you think we would have even a tiny fraction of the incredible library of music that now exists if the composers and performers were required to make their music available to absolutely everyone who wanted to hear it without somehow getting paid for their efforts? Not a blinking chance. In that scenario, Beethoven's Ninth Symphony, the Beatle's White Album and, almost certainly, whatever you like to listen to would not exist. Why? Because (pay attention now) artists have to eat, too. Unless they are subsistence farmers (in which case they would have no time for their art) or have a supporting patron (which used to be the norm in European courts) or are independently wealthy, no musician could afford to write or perform more than occasionally, no painter could ever produce more than the every-so-often painting, etc., unless they get paid.

Oh please.. 10 cents/song is what an artist makes out a 99 cent sale. I am pretty sure I would pay more that 10 cents for a song for an artist I want to listen to! I dont know this for a fact but I am guessing that the RIAA takes a good cut at the 89 cents that remain.


And that means having something to say about the terms and conditions under which their art is disseminated.

Again the artists have no control over it once they sign that contract. Lopsided one may say eh?



So here's the deal. If you don't like paying for music, then don't. Don't buy CD's, don't pay for concert tickets. If someone out there chooses to make their music available without charge - and there are plenty of examples no-charge music out there -- help yourself. If you don't think the latest tune is worth the asking price, the proper, legal and, yes, moral response is to not buy it. Period.

You want it but can't afford it? Then do without. It's called Life. Learn to deal with it.

I am pretty sure that I can afford all the music I want to in the form of CDs but do I feel ripped off? absolutely. The internet has changed the face of media distribution and is making more content accessible to bigger audiences. Instead of embracing that and realizing that its the way of the future and there is still money to be made, the RIAA and MPAA are safegaurding their interests (not to be confused by the artists interests).. Namely, high profits, rip off artists, rip off consumers.

OK, thanks for the clarification.

In that case, I'm having problems figuring out how a crime was committed..nothing happened.

Is this like...what was it..Minority Report, where they go into the future to witness you committing a crime, then come back and arrest you before you commit the crime?

Scary.

In this case there were 1700 or so downloads from the users computer. But the record company is only going for the 24 that were available for download!

Is someone giving a "public performance" driving down the road with a loud car stereo, too? Should the cops write a ticket...?

Most times i wish they would, but not for the reasons your thinking of.

Most times i wish they would, but not for the reasons your thinking of.
:D Understood and agreed. ;)

A musician is a musician
A painter is a painter
A sculptor is a sculptor

Therefore, none of them are artists.

wake up and smell the post modern era.

The part in that article where there saying that the shop employees listening to the radio while they work is a "public performance" is rediculous.
The PRS is suing the Kwik Fit Group, a car repair shop in Edinburgh, for £200,000 in damages. The case revolves around the complaint that Kwik Fit employees brought in personal radios which they played while working on cars, which could be heard by colleagues and customers. The PRS says this amounts to a public "performance" and should have entailed royalties.

I hope this one goes down in flames.

The artist receives a royalty every time his/her song is played on the radio.

In this case there were 1700 or so downloads from the users computer. But the record company is only going for the 24 that were available for download!

The way I'm reading that, there's no proof. The old hard drive - the one from which the songs were allegedly downloaded - was excluded as evidence. So, the only proof is an IP address log, which can be spoofed. Don't get me wrong, I think she did it - though my opinion is worth about as much as the paper you're reading this on, I'm just very concerned at the legal precedence set by this one.

Can't find your old hard drive to see what was on there? Doesn't matter. Pay up. No proof other than questionable circumstantial evidence? No big deal... pay up.



As of this point, every CD-R, DVD-R, burners, and readers have kickback fees to the MPAA and RIAA ingrained into them. I'm pretty sure I would be scared ****less if I was to find out how much money is made in this fashion for them.

I would think this constitutes a royalty payment entitling me to make copies since I've paid for it. hmmmm....

The way I'm reading that, there's no proof. The old hard drive - the one from which the songs were allegedly downloaded - was excluded as evidence. So, the only proof is an IP address log, which can be spoofed. Don't get me wrong, I think she did it - though my opinion is worth about as much as the paper you're reading this on, I'm just very concerned at the legal precedence set by this one.



+1. The IP log is pretty meaningless as your computer can be easily compromised, and what about wireless networks? what is somebody leeching off your network is sharing fines? Last I checked it wasnt illegal to have an open access network. Stupid yes, but not illegal.

True, and where does it end? Does making a book available on my book shelf mean I am violating copyright laws?

No. It's not a copy, it's the original. The basic rule for deciding whether or not you are violating copyright is whether or not the intellectual property in question is in more than one place at a time when it has only been sold once. The owner of the copyright can come down from there. For instance, software makers sometimes allow for an archive copy to be made, but it's still illegal to give it to someone else. I have published scroll saw fretwork patterns, and my provision is that you may make up to 5 copies for personal use for non-automated cutting of the project. Any further use requires a licensing agreement.

I personally think it's about time for a big judgement like this to come down. People don't seem to understand that when you give away someone else's intellectual property you are stealing it, the artist isn't getting paid (and they get precious little from each copy anyway) and you aren't encouraging the artist to produce more of the work that you want. I also believe that the iTunes model is a decent way for the industry to address the problem of theft while still providing the music that fans want for a reasonable price.