Why not?

Me I will enter tomorow and my dog name.

Why? Because tomorow the RIAA pigs will be dead and my dog is my best friend.

I don’t know the Beattles nor do I want to know them although they use to hair-dress like dogs and this was funny.

Maybe now they are hair-dressing like wales?

If you think that the lossy and crappy compressed files distributed via the internet for money or for free is replacing a CD you are wrong! (By the way do they pay you for the audio files they are saling via internet?)

Yes the sale of CD is down Deu! We are boycoting! This is what you are noticing. Pretty nasty hum? This is only the begining.

Tell the RIAA to stop their OPERATION EXTORTION! Tell them that there is consequences for trampling our laws, our constitution and corrupting our governement. Tell them that they are fool and that they are going to get more than they bargain for. Tell them that they are hurting YOU!

You see people song are not like food, gas or housing and people can go without it.

People use to buy CD not because they have too but because it was cool. It is not cool anymore. You are not cool! Madocrap is not cool! Brtiney Slut is not cool! None of you are cool and look like a pack of greedy bastards! Nobody like you anymore.

You can tell your friend at the RIAA that they can take their CDs and their music files and fuck theselves with it!

The RIAA decided to attack their customer? Fine! Face the consequences! The customers are striking back!

The RIAA and their corrupted lawers are a pack of fools!

Instead try to relauch your carrier with one of these indies that oppose the RIAA lawsuit. You see I am still bying CDs but now I use the RIAA radar to make sure the RIAA pigs don’t get a penny out of this!

Bottom line:

THE RIAA IS ATTACKING YOUR CHILDREN!
SONY IS INSTALLING ROOTKITS IN YOUR COMPUTER!

BOYCOTT THE RIAA!
http://www.boycott-riaa.com/
http://www.downhillbattle.org/

GEE, you were shocked to see your income decrease, so people MUST be stealing from you. That is a fallacy of causation and one of the first things you learn in intro Econ class, or were you sleeping? PC manufacturers saw a sharp decline in revenues a few years ago and many struggle, but we don’t see them blaming people for stealing computers instead of buying them. Wake up from your silly oversimplified world and face facts. Times are changing and people aren’t buying CDs as much anymore. How about thinking.. hm… people aren’t buying my stuff because they’re not interesting in hearing shit from the 70’s their parents listen to? Kids buy Britney Spears, not Oldies.. regardless of the creative merit of the songs.

Apple sold 14,043,000 iPods during the quarter ending Dec 31, 2005. 14 million iPods in 3 months. Quite an achievement. All these people are buying music from the iTunes store or converting their CDs to mp3’s. The record companies can have a taste of this pie, but they’re too stupid. And when the public sees the RIAA suing little kids and single moms on welfare, this looks bad for you and your bosses. And when we see stuff like the Sony XCP crap, we see how dangerous and reckless your bosses are, putting users at risk intentionally and knowingly.

Shock? how about some shock for the people who get sued for thousands of dollars who don’t even own computers and never downloaded a song in their life? or would you say they’re all lying?

P.S. paycheck getting smaller? perhaps people think your stuff is shit? hm…

Many of the victims of the frivolous lawsuits presented by the RIAA are not guilty and have not even used a computer to do the so-called copyright infringing. They are everyday people, some making just as much a year from regular jobs as you may make in a year from your retirement checks. They deserve to have voice that will fight for them, because they are innocent. These people do not understand how to fight these lawsuits, nor do they understand where they are even coming from as they do not have any computer expertise at all.

Please take your one-sided view and idiotic threats somewhere else please. You are not helping any side of the situation.

I am a retired musician. I will not name the groups I worked with, but I know that you have heard of them. And one of the things that helps me get by has been my residual checks.

These are the checks I get for sales and radio play of the songs I worked on 20 years ago. In the early 1990’s, it was roughly $18,000 per year. Even as recently as 1996 it was $21,000 per year. Roughly 75% of this was from CD sales, the other 25% was from radio airplay. Not a lot of money, but it was nice to see.

By 2000, I was expecting this amount to go up. I was most active in the early 1980’s, so most of my works were about to start being played on “Oldies Stations”. In addition, 20 years is when a lot of songs are picked up for “Oldies Collections”. You know, those 10 CD packs with all the music you grew up with.

I was shocked to see my income DECREASE however. At the current time, I am bringing in about $8,000 a year. And over half of that is from radio airplay. Only about 40% is from CD sales anymore.

You may think it is the RIAA you are cheating. In reality, it is us musicians you are cheating. The RIAA acts as our banker, collecting money owed to us, and making sure that our contracts are upheld. They also give us our insurance and pensions.

So keep stealing music. Then you will only have music that all sounds like Christina Spears, and nothing new or original. After all, why should we do all the cost and effort of recording songs if it is only going to be stolen from us?

Meta-data:
1. Manual Entry – Although this should be obvious it is apparently not to some. The meta-data is divided into a number of named fields such as “Title”, “Artist”, etc. So if 1000 people converted their legal copy of “Yesterday” by the Beatles to an MP3 file and then manually entered the meta data how many do you think would enter “Yesterday” in the Title field and “Beatles” in the Artist field? You would havre to wonder about the mental compentancy of the ones who didn’t wouldn’t you?

2. Automatic Entry – Although this was mentioned previously I am not sure it was stressed how common this is and is becomming. There are numerous MP3 cataloging and organizing programs, such as MusicBranz” that automatically fill in meta-data from internet hosted databases. Some of these are maintained by comercial entities and some are maintained the the actual users of the database the same as the Wiki encyclopedia. So anyone making entries to such a database can make errors or use cute, unique language. Everyone accessing the database for this meta-dat would get the same results just from playing cataloging their file(s). Many programs that play or catalog do this when they are installed or the first time they are run. A non-technical user may not even realize what is going on under the hood.

MediaSentry/Detection Programs:
1. Testimony – The program used to produce the log files presented as evidence is essentially providing testimony against the defendants is it not? A defendant has the right to confront and discredit his accusers. In the case of a software program, this would include the testimony of the designers and programmers who created the program, documentation of the program, and the program itself, in the form of source code. This should all be public testimony subject to scrutiny of professional world wide.

2. GPL Violations – By all means investigate if the plantiffs have temselves comitted copyright violations via GPL or other means and if so takem to the cleaners for it.

Hope you find this helpful.

The most abundant example of that would be the mislabling of porn, movies, music entities already present on gnutella/fasttrack.

So my suggestion would be to author/construct several files with the same metadata and hashmarks and whatever else, but with different contents, and present them all as proof that the file’s actual contents need not be indicated by the labeling in question. Defy any parties arrayed against you to tell the actual contents of the file based purely on the labeling information, such as size,metadata, whatever. If they can then your claims are baseless. If they can’t then their claims are baseless. And most any person of normal intelligence, even those with mininal computer literacy skills should be able to clearly understand this argument.

No need to get technical. Simply present the files, and ask “Can you tell for sure what the actual contents of this file are based solely on the labeling data ?” If they can’t, and I were the judge, they wouldn’t have a case if that’s their only evidence.