RIAA sues 12 year old...

I have a feeling this thread will end up in the D&D forum.

 

I've been waiting 7 years for Sarah McLachlan's new CD which is supposed to be out in November but I won't be buying it if the profits of that sale go towards funding these lawsuits.

 

Copyright or whatever. The music industry should concentrate on how to make money from the technology rather than on how to prevent losing money by people using the technology.

The first solution always wins. Look at the movie industry, the software industry, etc. The second solution is harder to succeed than trying to stomp out terrorists, or computer viruses (or cockroaches).

 

Exactly what I meant. Why would I want to rip off crap? And what?
Spread the crap to others??? I don't have the time to listen to it free at a record shop... how is it free there but not on my own time?

...give me break.

 

Here's a column about some of the issues. The opinions within are those of the author and not necessarily those of the poster.

"I read the news today ... oh, boy ..."

Oh, boy, indeed.

Judging from some borderline-hysterical reporting this week on the so-called threat of digital banditry, I've concluded that the search for broadband hijackers now is more about propaganda than piracy. Based on the current course of the investigation, it has about as much validity as the hunt for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, O.J.'s pursuit of the "real" killer of Nicole Simpson and Ronald Goldman, and the search for intelligent life in Hollywood. It's not that I don't believe piracy is a serious threat to the entertainment industry -or that Saddam Hussein actually had WMDs, for that matter -- it's just that our dogged pursuers of evil continue to bark up the wrong trees, and expect us to throw them a bone for their efforts.

Now, I'm all for threatening 12-year-old girls with prison time and forfeiture of their allowances if they don't behave. God knows, maybe it will put the fear of God into them as the approach puberty. Still, there's no excuse for bullying kids for sharing Internet files, unless they contain inappropriate e-mails from Osama Bin Laden.

Yes, I know the recording-industry just wanted to publicize its anti-piracy campaign by busting fans of the Back Street Boys and Britney Spears. It makes for a better story in the tabs, after all, if a kid is rousted for something silly. Stories about other successful RIAA and MPAA raids on actual digital bootleggers usually produce little more than a yawn in the press.

Problem is, there's no consistency.

If you believe, as MPAA boss Jack Valenti does, that all piracy is theft, and, therefore, punishable to the full extent of the law, then, by all means, throw the book at the culprits.

But, then, let's also arrest a few of record label executives who blindly allow payola to take the form of box loads of free recordings being sent to deejays, programming directors and station execs in lieu of cash. The exchange lines at used-CD stores are full of squirrelly looking guys, carrying long, rectangular boxes of mint-condition CDs, all by the same artist. I've seen store employees at Amoeba turn away some of the more obvious of the bootleggers, but there's always another store down the street.

The Recording Industry Association of America might also consider lobbing some restraint-of-trade lawsuits at the giant radio conglomerates that limit their stations' playlists to the same dozen songs that can be heard on every other radio station in the U.S. Thousands of deserving musicians are going hungry because they can't crack through the dross on commercial radio, and the list of ignored artists includes such living legends as George Jones, Merle Haggard, Johnny Cash and Willie Nelson. And, by the way, what did the RIAA have to say about some radio programmers' attempts to muzzle the Dixie Chicks?

If it wasn't for file-sharing among young listeners, hundreds of aspiring bands and singer-songwriters would go unheard - period -- and no one at the RIAA would give a damn. Satellite-radio services XM and Sirius provide wonderful alternatives to Clear Channel and Infinity, but too many consumers suffer from technophobia and sticker-shock from rising cable-TV prices. Satellite radio is the greatest technological advance in music appreciation since the introduction of the compact disc, and almost no one is aware it exists.

But, that's relativist in me talking ... the absolutist says, "It's a crime. Arrest the kid and throw away the key."

In Tuesday's Los Angeles Times, columnist Patrick Goldstein introduced us to set-painter David Goldstein, Hollywood's new poster boy for its own anti-piracy campaign. He sounds like a genuine guy, and it wouldn't serve any useful purpose to quibble with his legitimate concerns. However, as the columnist rightly observes, Goldstein's income probably is threatened more by the studios' exporting of jobs to Canada, New Zealand and Australia.

One theory the columnist doesn't address is the near-certainty that most of the high-tech pilfering that plagues the industry is committed within the studio walls themselves. Any number of people have access to the digital images created in advance of a theatrical release, and one sign of status in Hollywood is watching the latest potential blockbuster, day-and-date with its launch, in the comfort of one's home, boat or SUV. Whistle-blowers and other interested insiders have been known, as well, to leak digital versions of works in progress to sympathetic newspaper and Internet columnists, especially if a producer or studio has entered into the meddling process.

Is it file sharing - and, therefore, de facto piracy - when Oscar voters lend their screeners to non-members come awards time? And, what's the difference? Chances are, these same folks wouldn't purchase a ticket to see the same movie twice, and, thus, the annual ritual threatens to cut into painter Goldstein's salary, as well.

Oh, I forgot, it's not hip for academy members actually to purchase tickets for a movie, except maybe on summer vacation with the kids in some backwater. The only people who pay for seats in the 310- area code are chumps, 310 wanna-bes and UCLA students.

Then, too, why hasn't Valenti tried to convince legitimate technology companies - like Sony, for instance - from creating DVD burners that ostensibly will be used to bootleg DVDs from, yup, studios like Sony. The industry is attempting to put the kibosh on 321 Studios and other small-time producers of high-speed multiple-disc burners (these "back-up" appliances were all over last winter's CES), but why not go after the big boys, as well?

The latest trend in copyright protection is to frisk critics and various other freeloaders before they're allowed to enter screenings of hot studio properties. The apparent fear is that someone will bring in a lipstick camera - a la Kramer in "Seinfeld" - and make a digital copy of the movie, which, in turn, will be Fed Ex'd to Shanghai, where it will distributed to the masses.

Stranger things happen, I guess. But, again, if a marketing executive doesn't trust his or her local critic, columnist and garden-variety mooch, that outlet probably shouldn't have been sent invitations in the first place. We can argue until the cows come home whether some peasant in East Jeezus, Asia, threatens Goldstein's well-being by paying the equivalent of a dollar for a crappy out-of-focus, jiggly and audio-challenged video recording of Gigli. Maybe, maybe not.

The reason DVD distributors have yet to suffer at the hands of pirates, to the same extent as purveyors of CDs, is that audiences have fallen in love with the bonus material available on discs, which remains too expensive and difficult to burn onto your standard recordable disc. If all one wants to do is watch a movie, it only costs a couple of bucks to rent it at the local video store. To fully appreciate and experience all the whiz-bang glory of a Sleeping Beauty or anything from Criterion Collection, though, one generally must first cough up a few extra bucks to purchase it. Unlike the early days of VHS and Beta, DVDs are priced to sell ... and do, like hotcakes.

If the RIAA wants to protect record companies, it ought to launch a marketing campaign for the more difficult to pirate DVD-audio format. In addition to pricing pirates out of the market, labels could tap a whole new market by offering a host of bonus goodies to their products. Or, they could follow the lead of Universal and make the CDs as affordable as those found in the used-CD stores.

And ... another thing ... dammit.

After months in the late-night infomercial marketplace, that series of steamy "Hollywood's Hottest" videos finally has begun to raises eyebrows around town. A multimillion-dollar lawsuit has only just been filed against Radioactive Films and their publicists tell us that some prominent actresses have begun to shed tears.

I can't blame them, really, because no one's attributes should be exposed to the public without reimbursement (or the possibility of tips). But, the studios probably ought to consider this, as well:

All things being equal, what's the difference between Radioactive's products, however despicable, and Playboy's longstanding annual feature "Sex in the Cinema", which does the same thing in print? Or, the availability of Celebrity Skin magazine on newsstands? Or, the invaluable Mr. Skin and a million other websites that feature real and doctored outtakes?

Movies are different, sure, but the same clips included on "Hollywood's Hottest" have been accessible on pay sites on the Internet for years. Something tells me that the MPAA would already have tried to jam up Mr. Skin and his peers, if it thought it had a case. Radioactive Films advertises on Howard Stern's TV show, while other Internet services apparently get plugged for free or the price of sending a model to the show to take off her clothes.

I'm guessing that the odds of the studios' winning their case against Radioactive aren't all that great. But that's probably because 12-year-old girls, whose parents are willing to settle for $2,000, don't run the company.

http://www.moviecitynews.com/columnists/dretzka/2003/030912.html

 

well its Friday night..

Kazaa has..

3,467,581 users sharing 709,720,848 files (5,648,640 GB)

haha F you RIAA

 

<a href="http://hypothermia.us/">Hypothermia</a> raffled off a computer system for $5 a ticket (400 tickets sold) to raise $2000 for the girl. They got the entire amount in less than a day.

This seems like it could be the best thing that's ever happened to this girl.

 

The Artists: It’s The Music, Stupid

The industry has a much bigger problem than file sharing

By Lorraine Ali
NEWSWEEK
http://www.msnbc.com/news/966393.asp?0cl=cR


Sept. 22 issue — The music industry can sue every middle-schooler from Poughkeepsie to Palo Alto, but record labels will not cure their woes if they continue to churn out cut-rate albums at top-rate prices. For the past five years, they’ve been pedaling anti-art: boy bands, Britney and “The Thong Song.” Judging by sales numbers, kids finally figured that a lot of artists were only as good as their Svengalis, or that an entire album by 98 Degrees was really just a single with filler.

“WHO EXPECTS A 12-year-old girl to buy a $20 record with her baby-sitting money for one good song?” says singer-songwriter Michelle Branch, 20, whose 2001 single “Everywhere” is still one of the top swaps. As a teen, she lifted some of her favorite singles off the Internet. “Why not download the one song you like?”
From our International Edition: Non-Americans Aren't a Target, Yet

Few top-grossing musicians want to criticize file sharing since Lars Ulrich of Metallica was verbally attacked by fans and peers for condemning piracy at a Senate hearing in 2000. In fact, many labels didn’t want their artists speaking to NEWSWEEK for this story. It’s likely that rappers Eminem and 50 Cent now agree with Ulrich because, as top sellers, they stand to lose millions. But opinions differ radically depending on an artist’s success. Punk upstarts like the Ataris—who have nothing to lose—have embraced file swapping. The spiky-haired outfit used Napster and MP3.com to promote its first three independent albums and build up a fan base before signing with Columbia last year. Now its cover of Don Henley’s “Boys of Summer” is a hot download, and the band’s members couldn’t be happier. “If our single is downloaded, then maybe they’ll buy the whole album,” says Ataris singer Kris Roe. “And if they download the whole record, then maybe they’ll come see us play. We just want to be heard.”

For midrange artists who feel loyal to their fans and their major labels, file sharing can be a fence-sitter. Ideologically, they still relate to the “get stuff free” ethos of fans and once relied on swappers to promote their music. But now they stand to lose a chunk of their income. S-Curve Records’ Fountains of Wayne worry about high-volume swaps of their single “Stacy’s Mom.” “We want new fans,” says Fountain’s Adam Schlesinger. “But we don’t want to stop playing music because the business falls apart around us.”
Ironically, file sharing may play a large part in artists’ salvation. It’s an alternative to stale radio playlists, levels the field for lesser-known acts and makes kids excited about discovering “new” artists—no hype or slick packaging required. “There’s no other place where you have that option,” says Branch. “You find it on your own, and it becomes your own.”

That’s what true oddball bands, such as Ween, are banking on. They were once signed to Elektra, but their experimental head music (the Chipmunks meet Frank Zappa) was too bizarre for the mainstream, and they’re now setting up their own file-sharing service where Weenheads can download the band’s live songs 24/7. “The record industry doesn’t know half as much about computers as a 16-year-old and his buddies,” says Gene Ween. “That’s why the record industry has to fail, get blown out of the water and start again.” And the meek shall inherit the music.