RIAA nails more people
p2pnet.net News Rant:- It’s bloody amazing.
On Thursday, the Big Music cartel’s RIAA boasted it had launched another 717 lawsuits against people who share music online, bringing the total number of those victimized to a shocking 8,423.
By late Friday, Google had a only a handful of links on the story, which didn’t even rate a headline on the main news page.
Doesn’t anyone care that Big Music is raging through America, going after students, mothers, fathers, children, senior citizens, in a hopeless effort to sue them into buying ‘product,’ as it correctly tags the formulaic junk tunes it churns out in the millions?
The RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) is the wholly owned mouthpiece for the Big Four record labels who comprise the cartel which used to control what the world heard and bought – until the Net came along, bringing with it freedom of choice, and re-introducing the archaic notion that a customer is always right.
Britain’s The Economist has lambasted the music industry for failing to acknowledge that it’s in a new, digital era where the old business models based on physical sales don’t work.
Academic studies in the US and Canada have made it very plain that Big Music’s sue ‘em all campaign just isn’t happening.
It tries to claim a download equals a lost sale and that it’s moreover, outright theft. However, shared mp3s aren’t exchanged for money and it’s never been even vaguely demonstrated that a download represents one, or 10 or 1,000 lost sales.
Big Music claims people who share music are thieves. But not one of the 8,423 people pilloried has ever been proven guilty of anything.
Nor has it been shown in a court of law that sharing music online is a ‘crime’.
That’s because those held up by the music industry as hardened criminals are in fact very ordinary people who can’t even begin to afford to stand up to it and its teams of highly paid lawyers.
The labels always make its victims an offer they literally can’t refuse – Settle out of court and we’ll go away.
The victims always settle. They can’t do otherwise, and this suits the labels down to the ground.
Now, they can imply they’ve successfully sued close to 8,500 people for the crime of violating copyrights.
In fact, it’s not a crime. And ‘infringe’ is accurate, not ‘violate’. But ‘infringe’ doesn’t convey the same sense of criminality and wouldn’t be so attractive to the media who parrot big music’s endless offerings as though they come from credible sources.
The thieves are the companies who try to market lossy, heavily compressed, low fidelity mp3 copies of original CD tracks and worth only a few cents for $1 per download, and more.
Jane and John Doe, the victims in the lawsuits, would gladly pay any reasonable amount for their online music fixes so they can play them on their mobiles or in their cars. But no. The labels aren’t interested in providing value for money.
And what happens when 10,000 is reached? Will even more men, women and children have their lives seriously disrupted – ruined, in some cases?
Until now, the record labels have been in total control of what people bought. They created the artists, they created and supplied the sales venues, they told the media what and what not to report, they controlled tv and radio, they set the prices, they decided which two of the dozen or more tracks on an album were worth listening to.
They were in complete control.
But that’s not the case any more.
The Net means ‘consumers’ are customers again – intelligent people who can, and will, decide what they want to hear and what they’re willing to pay.
They’re no longer mindless cash-cows to be force-fed by the record companies. And as the Net grows in popularity, more and more customers will log on to let Big Music know who’s really in charge.
P2p is here to stay and the sooner the people who run the companies accept that, the better for them, the better for their shareholders and the better for their former ‘consumer bases’ who’ll return to the fold as soon as the cartel acts on the reality that this is the digital 21st century, and not the physical 1970s.
They’ll have lost the control they once had, but given their enormous political and financial resources, they’ll still be at the top of the corporate ant hill.
They’ve succeeded in turning a substantial number of American universities into sales and marketing divisions with senior staff acting as willing and unpaid assistants.
Police forces and other law enforcement agencies around the world now routinely put aside matters of national importance to look after Big Music’s interests.
Politicians accept money to act for it. School teachers are scammed into ‘educating’ even the youngest children according to the labels’ wonts and desires.
Surely that’s enough?
Jon Newton
Something you think we should know about? tips[at]p2pnet.net
January 29th, 2005 at 4:52 am
That is the truth; big music sucks. I download to hear new stuff, if it stands up to my tastes, I buy it.
January 29th, 2005 at 5:40 am
I think ALL Big music company exc. have gone to the Joe Stalin school of Mind Control!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
January 30th, 2005 at 12:48 am
You got that right Jon Newton ,
now if only the companies like bmg and RCA, and those others would listen maybe they would just stop all this nonesense and figure another way out of this mess but they don’t and won’t ,
because the record companies are greedy along side of the riaa, and now they get the greedy self-absorbent politicians to help them , that’s the reason why United States is going to hell sometimes greedy politicians that say they are for the people and the record companies that pay them for their help in trying to screw the American People out of their hard earned dollars, just because they want to stay rich by using their artists to fill their pockets with green !!!!!!!!!!!
January 30th, 2005 at 7:30 am
As one of those nailed (Well my girlfriend, bill is in her name) I am frankly appalled by the ‘Orwellian’ Big Brother approach of the RIAA. I wanted to settle, but the bill is way too high. I wanted to fight but cannot win alone. I feel like our home internet is now monitored by Big Brother, RIAA…What and when will they STOP!! For now I say HELL NO WE WONT SETTLE!!!!
TJPAAVOLA
January 31st, 2005 at 1:16 am
C’mon you idiots! Stop buying CDs. Stop buying this crap from iTunes and Napster.
Hitting these people in the wallet for real is the only way they are going to listen.
January 31st, 2005 at 8:21 pm
I strongly suggest you contact one of the attorney’s at eff.org.
If you are THE only case to make it to court – PLEASE get representation if EFF will take your case – because if you go to court unprepared or underdefended it will set a precident that will effect ALL future p2p cases.
Electronic Frontier Foundation
454 Shotwell Street
San Francisco, CA 94110
Phone: 415/436-9333 Fax: 415/436-9993
Website: http://www.eff.org / Email: information@eff.org
_-Jile-_
January 31st, 2005 at 8:22 pm
precedent
Ok I have the flu and can’t spell today… point stands though.
_-Jile-_
January 31st, 2005 at 8:24 pm
Actually.
Not every artist on itunes supports the RIAA. Those (rare) artists I’d suggest people still support….. it’s the rest of the PRO-RIAA idiot-artists that need everyone’s boycott… I have not purchased a music cd since Metallica sued Napster…. and I never will buy another again until artists support their fans……
_-Jile-_
January 31st, 2005 at 10:01 pm
A thought occurred to me today… The music industry has been totally bilking the public and their artists with one rigged setup or another (payola, shady record “clubs”, voodoo accounting, abusive artist contracts, etc, etc…) for so long now (more than 60 years!) that to expect them to straighten up and treat their customers like, well… customers is asking them to do something that is completely outside of their collective grasp of reality. The concept simply does not (and most likely will not ever) exist for them. The public, artists, and musicians are simply commodities to be exploited for maximum return by any means available (kinda sounds like the American way, don’t it?). Personally I don’t see that changing any time soon.
January 31st, 2005 at 10:51 pm
This raises a question. Big music treats it’s “product” (and those who produce it) as commodities, then turns around and expects It’s “product” to be given all the protections and status of a copyright piece of art. I’m not trying to define what art is here. My question is, if a work of art is sold as a commodity, like ground beef for instance, should it still be granted the same treatment as say a masterpiece oil painting? I’m not questioning the validity or value of the art mind you, but the way copyright is applied and enforced? That a piece of art (a song in this case) can be reproduced basically without loss does not make it any less worthy as art, but it seems to me that it does challenge how copyright law should be applied to it.
January 31st, 2005 at 11:38 pm
I think it will change soon, if the Internet is not outlawed. As information flows out of the governement and legal systems, and people realize they have been taken for a long, dark ride, people will demand changes. And those that demand changes will overtake the dinosaurs who run things at the present.
We are moving away from an “entertaiment” news system to one that gives the people what they should know and want to know. That will change things fast, I believe.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
February 1st, 2005 at 12:06 am
I’m all for linking your site when it’s relevant to the post – but come on bud you’ve posted here before and thus advertised your site before….
Quit it.
February 1st, 2005 at 12:35 am
Eh, no big deal to me if someone wants to make a URL part of their signature. As to the optimism of the post, I would like to think he’s right, but I don’t… The music industry is in bed with (or in some cases under the same corporate umbrella as) the major news outlets. And they be runnin’ the show.
February 1st, 2005 at 10:25 am
You are right, I think. There is no problem in giving your name or address or email address or company name or URL or telephone when you answer a letter or post something on the Internet. It is not advertisement. It is part of free speech. Actually it may add meaning because the reader is informed where the writer come from and if he or she is representing a special interest group.
A URL can be a welcome sign or an inducement to take your money taken away or to sell you a good product. My URL is a welcome sign.
Of course if the rules for posting here were that personal address or contact information shall not be given, then the contact information should not be given.
As an example as to why a URL may be helpful…. maybe someone may want to know where I or my ideas come from.
As to the optimism, well they just caught the Bush administration buying the press. Nothing new here, but today that kind of activity is easier to catch. I credit the Internet for that. Also there is a graet deal of buzz about how lobbyists have purchased and influenced the american legislature. This, I think and hope, will eventually corrode the way the legislatures operates, since it will be more open.
Maybe it is wishful thinking, and money will always control technology and free speech. But the control of money over the people and judges will continue if people do not speak up. Maybe the judges will prohibit p2p but if they do they will never hear the end of it from the Internet. That is new and hopefully will have an effect.
I do not think the courts will dare make illegal anything. including p2p, that may have legal and very important and even necessary uses and, most impostant, that expands free spech.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
February 1st, 2005 at 3:31 pm
How much of the money recovered by the RIAA from those it has “succesfully sued” has been paid to the artists whose music has allegedly been stolen?
February 1st, 2005 at 7:23 pm
Unless you know of a music industry lawyer that has released a hit song I’m saying probably a big fat ZERO.
February 3rd, 2005 at 9:25 pm
Yeah …I think all music should be free. I’m sure artists will continue to make music just to make the world a better place. Too bad we can’t trade other things like food and clothing over the Internet, then all that stuff could be free too. Imagine no one would have to work anymore; we could all just trade our free stuff for other free stuff. Yeah, that would be really great!
February 4th, 2005 at 4:43 pm
How does Big Music catch those folks it believes have violated copyright law by using P2P software?
February 4th, 2005 at 6:16 pm
Can anyone suggest strategies to minimize the likelihood of getting hit with one of these lawsuits?
February 4th, 2005 at 7:59 pm
Move to Canada
February 4th, 2005 at 8:31 pm
In the US alone, 61 million people (at a very conservative estimate) share online.
What’s 8,500 as a percentage of that?
Cheers!
February 4th, 2005 at 9:03 pm
http://www.betanews.com/article/RIAA_Sues_Deceased_Grandmother/1107532260
The recording industry’s latest assault on file sharing has netted an unusual suspect: a deceased great-grandmother from West Virginia. In a lawsuit filed in January, the RIAA accused 83-year old Gertrude Walton of sharing over 700 pop, rock and rap songs under the alias “smittenedkitten.
– Tinfoil
February 6th, 2005 at 12:25 am
Right.
Also see our item on it – http://p2pnet.net/story/3773
Cheers!
March 2nd, 2005 at 2:56 am
Wow, Speaking of dead, I found a very disturbing video online…
It’s about what the RIAA do to anyone who downloads music..
Here’s the link;
http://www.randomfoo.net/cntv/f2f_500k.mov
I saw in the video that a person was shot & after it diseased the
dead person’s wallet was emptied out… It was very mean to do that…