Blogging Vermont Style is designed to entertain, inform and engage readers with a variety of topics ranging from world politics and green tech to the truly absurd crap that begs to be shared...
None of the estimated $400 million that the RIAA received in settlements with Napster, KaZaA, and Bolt over allegations of copyright infringement has gone to the artists whose copyrights were allegedly infringed. Now the artists are considering suing the RIAA.
I think the RIAA's demise is inevitable and I've been advocating major artists to sue these jokers for quite a while now. Set aside this revelation (no surprise really) that they haven't shared a dime with the artists and consider the scenario where a major artist sues them for not doing enough to protect their royalties. Also, reverse the "made available" argument against the RIAA. Weren't these the same people who helped develop the digital format in the first place? 20+ years ago, the RIAA members were promising us audio nirvana in the form of CD's that were cheaper to produce and never wore out. They told the public and the artists that the cheaper production costs would translate into less expensive products for the consumer and higher returns for the artists.
In reality, the price of music went up, and the artists share of profits decreased. This is the business model the labels are trying to preserve in the "download age".
Just think of how much more profit we can make when we get rid of all this pesky packaging and disc pressing. We'll just tell the artists we need to keep screwing them because of the high cost of digitizing music and the prohibitive cost of digital distribution.....ummmmmm yeah, that's the ticket!
I thought the rant from the member of the Cocteau Twins in the posts from the story were very interesting. Anyone who doesn't understand how badly artists get screwed and how greedy the labels are should give this a look. There are thousands of stories from artists just like this...or worse.
One of the more recent controversies dogging the RIAA's legal campaign against file-sharing is whether MediaSentry (now a division of SafeNet) needs state-issued private investigator licenses to operate lawfully. It's a question that has been raised in several contested RIAA lawsuits, and now the state of Michigan has told the company that it needs a license to operate there.
This issue could have some serious implications for the investigative arm of the RIAA. If a court finds that Media Sentry has been performing investigations without the proper authority from the states where the investigations occurred, all evidence collected by them could be thrown out. You can be sure that the thousands of people that have written rather large checks to avoid a court trial could ask for the money back in a suit of their own. This would essentially leave the RIAA with no evidence to support their claims. People who have lost court cases, like Jamie Thomas, could have their convictions overturned. It's no suprise that neither the RIAA or Media Sentry officials want to comment on this issue or admit they should have been liscensed. You can be sure that we'll be watching this issue closely...
Once again, RIAA President Cary Sherman shows us how scary his organization really can be. He now lends his support to filters installed on our PC's and cable/dsl modems to detect copyright infringement. Look how quickly they are trying to backpedal from this ridiculous position already.
These folks are bound and determined to alienate every potential consumer of their crappy products that they can. I hope that when the time comes to look back on this whole debate, after he has single-handedly burnt the recording industry to the ground, people will realize what a fucking idiot this guy is. Tell me who the hell would want any company or government monitoring what you do in the privacy of your own home? What's next, the porno industry making your monitor a two way screen so they could see who's whacking off to illegally downloaded porn? Would anyone accept a device installed in your car that would alert the police when you've broken the speed limit? The big brother implications here are really scary. As Mr. Bean would say, people should "be afraid, very afraid".
If the world doesn't wake up to the corporations and governments infringing on our rights to privacy and presumed innocence we will all be living in a place far worse than George Orwell could ever have imagined. If you really want a glimpse of where we are headed and what a slippery slope we are on, I suggest reading the book Farenheight 451.
Below you will see an edited version of a video taken at a recent conference where Cary Sherman is on the panel. The video was edited from the full hour and a half taken at the conference down to 6 minutes to point out some of the highlights of the draconian ideas the RIAA ass monkeys support. If you are interested in seeing it in it's entirety, I would certainly recommend you do so.
If we all educate ourselves as to what we are up against, perhaps enough people will scream as loudly as possible so that the morons in Washington, and politicians around the world, will stop listening to the intense lobbying efforts these jokers are making. They are completely within their rights to distribute and protect their copyrights as they see fit. Just as we are well within our rights to not buy their junk. But, if they are able to pursuede lawmakers into passing legislation that allows them to monitor us 24/7, it sets a very dangerous precedent. Once something is written into law, it is difficult or impossible to change. What the RIAA is now proposing is a right to monitor activities in our home. The police or FBI aren't even granted such a right. Why should a corporation be granted such access? I particularly don't buy Sherman's assertion that this all could be done "anonomously". How long would it be before the RIAA folks persuade lawmakers to give them the right to have access to this "anonomous" information in order to bring more lawsuits? I also found it amusing how quickly the woman at the end of the forum was cut off when she tried to point out that Sherman never said they wouldn't sue people for ripping legally purchased CD's to their mp3 player...
Again, I can't urge you enough to contact your representatives and demand that they not cave in to pressure from these groups. Keep in mind that most of our folks in Washington are too old to be "net savy", so they listen with great interest to lobbyists who represent these media dinosaurs. The problem is that they don't really understand the technology or the dangers of its misuse. If you doubt this, all you need to do is revisit the Ted Stevens "the internet is a series of tubes" speech. Lawmakers may not understand the "internets", but the two things they do understand is the power of money (from these lobbying organizations) and the power of votes (from the likes of you and me). This is where the battle will ultimately lie. Remember, the politicians don't bother to read my blog, or the millions of others like it, but they do read polls and they do count votes!
The Italian parliament has passed a new copyright law that would decriminalize the sharing of "degraded" music on the Internet for educational and scientific purposes. Apparently, lawmakers didn't realize that 256kbps MP3s are degraded.
I thought the intent of this law was an interesting concept. What they are trying to say is that an mp3 is not the same as sharing the original quality commercial release. Therefore there is no infringement. Of course, here in the states, this concept would never get any legs as it is clearly in violation of the DMCA which covers reproduction of a copyrighted material in any form.
Self-professed ass-monkey Cary Sherman rebutted U2 manger Paul McGuiness' claim that ISP's should be filtering copyrighted material. He went as far as to infer that since McGuiness is European he would naturally prefer a "regulatory approach" to the file-sharing problem plaguing the industry.
It never ceases to amaze me when this sort of beligerant drivel comes from a RIAA representative. In my mind this sort of off-handed stupidity is akin to poking a sleeping bear. Well established super-acts like Prince, U2, The Rolling Stones etc...don't really have any need for the traditional record companies. They could afford to do their own distribution and marketing and keep all of the profits for themselves.
Once again the RIAA is exposing themselves to a huge lawsuit from one of these artists for not doing enough to protect their share of the profits as well as their copyrights. If they are stupid enough to start a public pissing match with Bono and company, and they are also stupid enough to publicly announce that they don't support what might be a viable piece of a multi-pronged approach to the problem of file-sharing, they might just feel the wrath of not just one major artist, but a whole slew of them at once. Suing fans while not pursuing other reasonable alternatives is simply negligent behavior. If I were Bono, I'd be mobilizing my fellow artists against those who do nothing but alienate fans and hurt the artists bottom line. The RIAA is obviously more concerned about how they relate to their corporate buddies the telecos and cable providers than they are about actually protecting the artists. As for the fans....don't get me started...again.
For two years, the film industry has relied on an erroneous figure to persuade the public that college students are thieves. The MPAA acknowledged Tuesday that a survey it released in 2005 overstated the damage caused by piracy at the nation's universities. The MPAA now says that instead of 44 percent, students account for 15 percent of domestic losses.
I must say that I am shocked (NOT!) that the folks from the MPAA would exagerrate their claims. I think this report is probably only the tip of the iceberg. I bet if one were to look at the tactics of the RIAA/MPAA more closely, you would find that exaggeration and exploitation of data and revenue losses are at the heart of most all the arguments they make. For example, they claim huge numbers when describing their "losses" because of file sharing. The reality is that a large number of people, when asked, wouldn't buy the narrow, crappy entertainment they offer. It's frequently overpriced and overvalued. While many might check out the junk they offer for free, they simply aren't willing to shell out their hard earned entertainment dollars on it. Again, if you ask the file sharing community, many of them are willing to purchase the content they find appealing to them or at least are willing to use ad supported content. The point to be made here is this:
Just because someone consumes content over a P2P network, it doesn't mean that they would be a paying consumer.
With this being said, all of the claims of huge losses by the industry are hogwash. This concept isn't hard to grasp. What's hard to believe is that the politicians in Washington are taking this crap hook, line and sinker. The reality is that the industry is dying a slow painful death due to their unwillingness to embrace the digital age they helped to create in the first place. The lobbyists are working hard to convince lawmakers that they are being victimized by file sharing. The only thing they are being victimized by is their own stupidity for clinging to an outdated business model.
The message put forward by the parties is pretty strong: “Whenever you rent a movie, the multinational media industry forces you to watch their propaganda. They claim that downloading movies is the same as snatching bags, stealing cars or shoplifting. That’s simply not true – making a copy is fundamentally different from stealing.”
I'm not sure that this movement is going to gain any traction in the US anytime soon. I like the fact that Europeans are open minded and recognize the flaws in the RIAA/MPAA approach to combating piracy. The "The Genie is Out of the Bottle" line of thinking makes a lot more sense than the "Let's Punish the End-User Approach". I've never seen an industry as a whole adopt an approach that believes alienating the consumer will improve the almighty bottom line. The closest analogy I can think of is the automobile industry. There was a time when, your car needed repair, you were required (By the Big 3) to bring it back to the dealership or void your warranty. This tactic was used to eliminate the little guy by forbidding the consumer to bring their vehicle to the repair shop of their choosing. You would hear these crazy stories of people who were denied legitimate warranty service because they had their tires or wipers changed elsewhere. When the imports became a serious challenge to the Big 3, they were forced to drop this ludicrous position.
Until the consumers revolt and some company comes along with a more reasonable policy, these chucleheads at the RIAA/MPAA will continue to alienate the very people to which they are trying to suckthe entertainment dollar from....
In September 2007, anti-piracy company MediaDefender’s emails went public after a hacker gained access to their systems. The attacks cost the company a huge amount of money, not to mention acute embarrassment. Now the person behind the attacks speaks. MediaDefender Hacker Speaks Out With TorrentFreak
Sleaze begets sleaze here. Media Defender were exposed as a RIAA/MPAA puppet. At the direction of these organizations, they were engaging in hacking of legal P2P networks and the corruption of files on these networks. As far as I can see they've lowered their ethical standards and severely weakened the credibility of the RIAA/MPAA's war with file sharers. I hope the Pirate Bay folks spank them hard with a lawsuit. My mother always told me that two wrongs don't make a right!
RIAA lawyer states in legal brief that copying songs from CDs to computer for personal use is just as illegal as posting them online.You, too, could be sued for thousands of dollars by the major record companies — even if you've never once illegally downloaded music.That's because at least one lawyer for the Recording Industry Association of America, the Big Four record companies' lobbying arm and primary legal weapon, considers the copying of songs from your own CDs to your own computer, for your own personal use, to be just as illegal as posting them online for all to share, according to a federal lawsuit filed in Arizona.
Here's my beef with this whole RIAA crap......If I buy a CD from the Sony/BMG Record Club and pop it into the Sony manufactured CD drive of my Sony Vaio laptop, I might even make a duplicate copy onto some Sony made CD-Rs for good measure, I can't see how the RIAA (representing Sony)could then sue me.....according to them and the courts, merely "enabling" copyright violation is in itself a violation. Why hasn't anyone caught on to this concept? I would like to see an artist sue Sony and the RIAA for "enabling" copyright violations and for not protecting them from said violations.I would go one step further and say that Sony was in fact tantamount in the consortium of companies that developed digital file standards and mp3's themselves. Thus Sony is one example of a copyright violation enabler...Stop and think of how many violations Sony alone has enabled through software and hardware as well as blank media. You could apply this theory backwards into the Eighties when mix tapes were the rage. Who made the best blank tapes and tape recorders....Sony! Can you say Walkman? If you apply the same amounts that Jammie Thomas was slapped with...you get the picture. Bye Bye Sony.....
In a surprising turn of events, Brian McCarthy, the NFL's director of corporate communications, announced Wednesday that San Francisco 49ers head coach Mike Nolan will be allowed to wear a suit on the sideline for all eight of his team's home games. Nolan has been pushing the NFL for the right to wear a suit more often, which is his way of honoring his father, Dick Nolan, who roamed the 49ers sideline in a suit from 1968 to 1975.
Don't get me started on what a good old boy club decision this one was...anything to preserve the status quo while the little guy gets squeezed out. One could argue the politics of capitalism, but the fact is the artists who create the product (ie, the industry) make the least. I'm an ASCAP member, and I'm all for protecting my rights as an artist. Its not up to me to protect the wallets of the people who have been ilking us for years....... Read on!
None of the estimated $400 million that the RIAA received in settlements with Napster, KaZaA, and Bolt over allegations of copyright infringement has gone to the artists whose copyrights were allegedly infringed. Now the artists are considering suing the RIAA.
