The RIAA has gone too far. So I will continue with my conversion of all 350 record albums that I own to .mp3 and CDs (yes, I have software which will convert an mp3 to a cda). As I convert them I am selling them to a local book store which is then selling them to interested persons. This is possibly illegal but I am anonymous and behind ghostsurf so the RIAA can try to find me!

Would I share my collection of mp3s? Seeing as how the RIAA won’t share with the artists who created their wealth in the first place…well what do you think?

So am I a Anonomyous Coward or just passive agressive? Or not foolish?

From what I have been reading online, music and film companies are trying to put in place “Intellectual Property Protection” systems that entirely negate our consumer rights, whether you are buying hardcopies or softcopies.

At the moment with the HD Movie formats we will probably have “protection” systems that will require internet connections and ban players that do not fit “approved specs”. This will also include modded players, and will equate importers as “criminals”. If you don’t connect your player to the net, movie discs will be released that will force the installation of hidden firmware updates, in a bid to keep their dubious protection system “effective”.

This is akin to the previous owner of your house coming over and, redecorating the place because he doesn’t like what you did with it. Thatwould totally illegal, yet these Media GIants have no qualms about destroying, modifying, or monitoring your property. Your privacy and rights mean very little to them. This is shown already by this case and others. Look at Sony’s CD protection scandle last year, even.

If we let them do this, it will only get worse. No doubt music formats will get the next technological upgrade, and I fear what they will do in order to “protect” it. Already we have horrible licence systems on downloaded music, and limitations that are entirely against our consumer rights. Just because they are in the contractual fineprint that makes them legal, it doesn’t make them moral.

It is like we no longer own the things we pay for. I am not willing to pay for a song, just so I can lease it! These companies are only driving consumers away with high prices, and constant cash-focused recycling of the same old ideas.

As to why he didn’t tak the case pro bono, that would most libe because taking such a case mandates that you finihs it (again, legalized ethics), and THIS case looks to be a BIG fight. It could drag on for years, even decades, during which time the lawyers isn’t feeding his familly with the proceeds from other cases. Remember that this guy is essentially just a joe-schmoe with a law degree, not part of some big legal firm. He flatly cannot AFFORD to take a major case like this pro bono, and still EAT!

And the answer to all your other questions is a realtive of the previous answer: money. The Organized Media Maffia has it, Ms Santangelo does not. So THEY make the rules, and SHE has to deal with it. The american legal system is set up in such a way that the DEFENDANT has to PROVE violation of thier rights in order to RETAIN those rights, which is a pretty fucking disgusting state of affairs. And since the pne doing the violating has pockets deep enough to file injunctions and appeals over every single scrap of evidence or legal proceeding, Ms Santangelos great-great-grandkids will likely be fighting this court case.

I think you hit the nail right on the head with that statement. The recording industry is basically made up of a bunch of middle men, and they are the ones in control of everything. The rights to the music and how it’s used, where the money comes and goes, etc. It’s not just customers that continually get the shaft, but the majority of the artists out there as well. So why are the middle men steadfastly refusing to come to the table with everyone else in order to come up with a plan that sees everyone get their cut so to speak? Create a system that everyone can be happy with? It’s because they know that thanks to the internet, any and all solutions will have one important fact at their core, and that is the loss of absolute control they have enjoyed all these years. Control means monopoly, and a monopoly means they can dictate all terms to both customers and artists. This is what has allowed the middle men to get so rich, and is why they will never come to the table unless forced by the law makers and enforcers to do so. Sadly, most segments of the government aren’t willing to do this for whatever reason. I would say it’s most likely the lobbyists that are to blame, and crooked politicians. Thanks to the internet however, they’re loosing control at a break neck pace, and while they are doing everything within their means, fair or not, in order to get back that control, I don’t think they will ever be able. At least not without some crooked laws on the books, and strong arming other countries. The days of the middle man are coming to an end, and things will eventually come to a head, that much is certain. Hopefully it’s the consumers and artists will come out on top in the end, but I fear it will get worse before it gets better.

The key words being ‘legal system’ in that sentence. That is what the USA has, a ‘legal system’ and not a ‘justice system’. Justice is pretty much a flip of the coin. The same is true for most free societies I think, including here in Canada where I’ve had the displeasure of being on a jury before. It does not matter what the truth is, only what you can convince the judge or jury of, and this is where big money and big resources almost always pays off. This is why I refuse to ever sit on a jury again. The so-called legal system is a joke, and I choose to never be responsible for possibly sending a innocent person to jail, or vice versa, again. I refuse to have that on my conscience.

In regards to the story, I hope they get this donation site up and running soon, and that it’s not a sham (or come across as one). I plan on donating as much as I am able, and I hope many others do as well.

As you know I have a bit of a downer on this case, for various issues. However, going after children when action effectively fails against the responsible adult is a very cheap trick

Good luck to her

Nick Parker

If a person steals a 25 cent candy bar and gets caught, said person has the right to have the Miranda rights read, meaning that the person is told by police he/she can remain silent.

But if the person is acused by RIAA for causing one million dollars in damages through downloading 10 songs or copiing a CD into a computer, the person has no right to have Miranda rights read. Not only that, but the person had no right to privacy to begin with and RIAA can open the person’s computer to see what the person is using the computer for and what files were copied to the computer, be it music, pornogrphy, politics, whatever. We are back to Gestapo times.

Clearly the legal system was defined by a comitte of jackasses .

Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com

After all, ASCAP should be an ardent supporter of songwriter collectives.

Yes, the big payees for radio airplay (performance) are the record companies and the music publisher.

The record companies own many copyrights to songs because they have set up their own publishing operations and then get songwriter to assifgn the rights to songs to the record company publisher because sonwriters think that if the songs are “owned” by a record company the record company will record the song frequently.

Of course it is a contract trap, since the majority of songs are either not recorded or if recorded, just once, by the record company that owns the songs, and few records are sold and little money gets paid to the songwriter.

A flaw which the songwriters do not see is that a record music publisher is not too interested in helping other record companies (their competition). The other record companies are also not too keen for using the songs controlled by competing record companies.

Some songwriters assign their song to the record company publishers because they are fed up with traditional publisher’s flimsy accounting practices and lack of promotion. They have walked out of one trap (traditional publisher) and into another (record company publisher).

Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com

Again Intellictual Propery is showing holes in the logic of it even being a valid concept. Users are being put in the line of legal risk because they aren’t world class programmers to understand binary and machine code. Since Microsoft doesn’t issue code in the clear, must users can’t say for sure they know what is on their computers. With a new malware out that downloads bits and peices of movies without your knowledge, you too could be an infringement victim in the same sort of way Patti is being held up. Think about it before you answer that one with a negetive.

One of the big hitters with the artist crowd is that of payment. Only the very same stumbling block that is bringing out these law suits could readily agree to a form of payment that ends the infringment and the artists still gets paid. That one of a tax on all internet users for downloading, just as there is a tax on all blank media today. Personally I think they should be made to swallow that one as a given seeing as how they are doing their business of robbing everyone in site. So the question is begging, why aren’t they readily accepting that as a solution instead of suing everyone in site over infringement? After all, that way everyone gets paid, artist, copyright holder, and publisher alike. They take home the bacon at far higher levels than they recieve now.

I would imagine that one of the big hitters on that is it ends the raising of prices. It ends the lockup control over the media. Today there is no place that one can go to hear fresh new music. The radio is so locked up with the past payolla experiences that everyone in “The Bizz” has their hands out for a chuck. No pay, no play. It is the public listeners that are being taken to the cleaners over this. The radio stations are for the most part playing the same tunes over and over every hour and nothing fresh and new is actually hitting the airwaves to enspire you to go buy new stuff. In the end, the real looser is “The Bizz” as potential buyers are tired of the old stuff and not purchasing in the droves that you saw during the heydays of music.

i got tired of the cria ranting and raving i was a theif
even tough in canada downloading for personal use
is suppossed to be legal.

napster.ca is label aproved and cria aproved
so for 15 bucks a month i can get legally tons
of music with napster to go

yes it’s renting but i want to pay the least amount of money i can for the most 100% legal music i can get and 15 bucks a month
is worth the time it takes to spend downloading with p2p and fake files and virus crap

The first I heard of this subject was through a friend of mine who is in the same situation as Patti. These are a bunch of ‘thugs’ demanding money from people, many of whom have no clue as to why this money is being demanded. These ‘thugs’ scare the innocent and demand that they sign a statement saying they will not do it again (even if they did not do it in the first place), and hand over a hefty check. I pray that Patti prevails as this action by ‘thugs’ must be stopped, now!
PROTECT THE INNOCENT!!

ViC Phoenix

ViC Phoenix