Glad people are paying attention to this.
― felicity, Monday, 17 March 2008 19:46 (5 years ago) Permalink
Shocked, I tells ya! (again)
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080326-riaa-andersen-attorney-should-only-get-10-of-requested-fee.html
― StanM, Thursday, 27 March 2008 08:35 (5 years ago) Permalink
WOW
Holy Shit!
From Gizmodo:
The RIAA and MPAA have submitted a plan to the Office of Intellectual Property Enforcement. It's basically a plan that they want the government to enact, and it's terrifying.
Here are some of the lovely things that they're calling for:
* spyware on your computer that detects and deletes infringing materials; * mandatory censorware on all Internet connections to interdict transfers of infringing material; * border searches of personal media players, laptops and thumb-drives; * international bullying to force other countries to implement the same policies; * and free copyright enforcement provided by Fed cops and agencies (including the Department of Homeland Security!).
― he's always been a bit of an anti-climb Max (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Thursday, 15 April 2010 20:15 (3 years ago) Permalink
Is this possible?
― Jacob Sanders, Thursday, 15 April 2010 20:36 (3 years ago) Permalink
probably not
― fuckin' lame, bros (latebloomer), Thursday, 15 April 2010 20:36 (3 years ago) Permalink
File sharers=Terrorist
― Jacob Sanders, Thursday, 15 April 2010 20:38 (3 years ago) Permalink
Yeah, its not going to ever happen, but imagine the balls to even ask.
― he's always been a bit of an anti-climb Max (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Thursday, 15 April 2010 20:40 (3 years ago) Permalink
exactly
― bug holocaust (sleeve), Thursday, 15 April 2010 20:47 (3 years ago) Permalink
"* spyware on your computer that detects and deletes infringing materials;"
I can't even imagine how this would work. . . .
― Fig On A Plate Cart (Alex in SF), Thursday, 15 April 2010 20:47 (3 years ago) Permalink
love these fucking guys
― mdskltr (blueski), Thursday, 15 April 2010 20:48 (3 years ago) Permalink
Imagine the lines at the Canadian border when the enforcers have to go through every iPod song-by-song to check for infringement.
― he's always been a bit of an anti-climb Max (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Thursday, 15 April 2010 20:50 (3 years ago) Permalink
if you start your bargaining high enough you might get something passed that's not quite as bad but would have seen to be too extreme if you had asked for that in the first place. That's the reasoning behind it.
― pfunkboy (Herman G. Neuname), Thursday, 15 April 2010 20:53 (3 years ago) Permalink
* spyware on your computer that detects and deletes infringing materials
How would such spyware determine what mp3's/mpeg's a user has downloaded and what ones he's ripped himself for personal use? These organizations have really shit the bed this time.
― Johnny Fever, Thursday, 15 April 2010 20:53 (3 years ago) Permalink
Probably pretty simple, they have programs in commercial use even now that can detect a track and detect whether it is a commercial recording or not, and then take automated steps to get rid of it. If you have ever uploaded a video with a commercial song to youtube in the past few years, it gets taken down within minutes.
I'm sure all they would need to do is search for the itunes purchase tag or whatever kind of DRM is supported by the companies paying into the program, and it could work!
― Adam Bruneau, Thursday, 15 April 2010 20:54 (3 years ago) Permalink
But what about stuff that you burned yourself from CDs/LPs? Or would it just indescriminantly delete that?
― Fig On A Plate Cart (Alex in SF), Thursday, 15 April 2010 20:56 (3 years ago) Permalink
they want you to buy from itunes etc not rip your own cds. They want you to buy it twice.
― pfunkboy (Herman G. Neuname), Thursday, 15 April 2010 20:58 (3 years ago) Permalink
How would such spyware determine what mp3's/mpeg's a user has downloaded and what ones he's ripped himself for personal use?
This is the biggest problem, and perhaps the scariest. What if they took this method:
"Any authorized content needs to have this encrypted code embedded in the file. The RIAA and MPAA both mandated this code in all of their products, therefore, if your binary file does not have the code, it could potentially be an illegal file."
It would be one more step towards eliminating the freedom of production that the internet has democratically given to the entire world. The solution, of course, would be to dump the internet before it becomes something like cable TV, and go underground yet again. I bet there are plenty of hackers ready and willing to work on such a system.
― Adam Bruneau, Thursday, 15 April 2010 20:59 (3 years ago) Permalink
pfunkboy OTM. You bought the LP, you bought the cassette, you bought the CD, why the hell aren't you buying the MP3?
― Adam Bruneau, Thursday, 15 April 2010 21:01 (3 years ago) Permalink
I'm sure hackers would figure out a way to delete the spyware in the first place.
― Fig On A Plate Cart (Alex in SF), Thursday, 15 April 2010 21:02 (3 years ago) Permalink
Yeah, I rip a lot of vinyl to my computer. Are they saying that any file not encoded with these RIAA codes are considered illegal?
― Jacob Sanders, Thursday, 15 April 2010 21:03 (3 years ago) Permalink
Well, that's my paranoid dystopian conspiracy theory. I think ripping an LP is safe by today's standards.
― Adam Bruneau, Thursday, 15 April 2010 21:04 (3 years ago) Permalink
That sounds like what they are saying.
― Fig On A Plate Cart (Alex in SF), Thursday, 15 April 2010 21:04 (3 years ago) Permalink
I mean I don't see how the spyware could work any other way.
― Fig On A Plate Cart (Alex in SF), Thursday, 15 April 2010 21:05 (3 years ago) Permalink
I may be totally wrong ripping an LP. *google search*
― Adam Bruneau, Thursday, 15 April 2010 21:07 (3 years ago) Permalink
I'm pretty sure it's considered Fair Use.
― Fig On A Plate Cart (Alex in SF), Thursday, 15 April 2010 21:08 (3 years ago) Permalink
Actually I'm wrong. The RIAA does NOT consider that Fair Use. But they also haven't taken anyone to court over it. I can't imagine they'd win.
― Fig On A Plate Cart (Alex in SF), Thursday, 15 April 2010 21:10 (3 years ago) Permalink
I'm sure playing the Beach House album this afternoon with my front door open also violates Fair Use. Frreal, eff these guys.
― he's always been a bit of an anti-climb Max (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Thursday, 15 April 2010 21:16 (3 years ago) Permalink
RIAA vs. Diamond has mostly settled that, I think?
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is99/RioSpaceShifter.htm
xp
― carson dial, Thursday, 15 April 2010 21:16 (3 years ago) Permalink
This is pretty telling:
― Adam Bruneau, Thursday, 15 April 2010 21:18 (3 years ago) Permalink
itunes/amazon artist rates are insane.
― Fig On A Plate Cart (Alex in SF), Thursday, 15 April 2010 21:24 (3 years ago) Permalink
sorry, too small, the big image is here:http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/how-much-do-music-artists-earn-online/
Basically you need to sell over 1k albums a month in physical CDs or mp3s via iTunes, Napster, or amazon in order to make minimum wage. And if you get 4 million plays on Spotify then you still won't make minimum wage.
― Adam Bruneau, Thursday, 15 April 2010 21:25 (3 years ago) Permalink
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/28/AR2007122800693.html
RIAA doesn't believe that case actually happened.
― Fig On A Plate Cart (Alex in SF), Thursday, 15 April 2010 21:25 (3 years ago) Permalink
"Sony BMG's chief of litigation, Jennifer Pariser, testified that "when an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." Copying a song you bought is "a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy,' " she said." This is just crazy!!! Are they saying we only pay for the right to listen to the music we have bought, but our ownership of the music ends with our ears?
― Jacob Sanders, Thursday, 15 April 2010 21:36 (3 years ago) Permalink
Yes.
― Johnny Fever, Thursday, 15 April 2010 21:37 (3 years ago) Permalink
Yes, you can't even let your significant other listen to the album with you.
― he's always been a bit of an anti-climb Max (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Thursday, 15 April 2010 21:41 (3 years ago) Permalink
next step of having to pay monthly fees to renew yr mp3s, can't wait.
― FC Tom Tomsk Club (Merdeyeux), Thursday, 15 April 2010 21:47 (3 years ago) Permalink
Now that all music can be converted to a practically non-physical object by even an 8-year-old kid, is there really anything pointing to a future for the RIAA beyond Orwellian info surveillance?
― Adam Bruneau, Thursday, 15 April 2010 21:49 (3 years ago) Permalink
The only rationale they can offer is that pirates are "hurting the artists" but please take a look at the above chart to see how well the legitimate industry treats those same artists.
― Adam Bruneau, Thursday, 15 April 2010 21:50 (3 years ago) Permalink
let's also be fined for whistling the tune we heard on the radio. a lot.
― thousands of masturbating weirdos (whatever), Thursday, 15 April 2010 21:50 (3 years ago) Permalink
Why stop there? How about paying royalties when you get an earworm?
― Johnny Fever, Thursday, 15 April 2010 21:51 (3 years ago) Permalink
i already do. sadly for all concerned the royalty-paying is all in my head.
― thousands of masturbating weirdos (whatever), Thursday, 15 April 2010 21:52 (3 years ago) Permalink
Has there ever been a good, in-depth comparison of the RIAA since 2000 versus the film industry freaking out over videocassette in the early 80s? I'd be really curious to see a side-by-side to see what steps were taken that lead to wildly different results.
― he's always been a bit of an anti-climb Max (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Thursday, 15 April 2010 21:53 (3 years ago) Permalink
RIAA is going to be non-existent within 20 years, is my prediction
― I won't vote for you unless you acknowledge my magic pony (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 15 April 2010 21:54 (3 years ago) Permalink
in-depth comparison of the RIAA since 2000 versus the film industry freaking out over videocassette in the early 80s?
these aren't even remotely comparable scenarios, sorry
― I won't vote for you unless you acknowledge my magic pony (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 15 April 2010 21:55 (3 years ago) Permalink
afaik, the riaa has always taken this position. they do so not because they intend to prosecute anyone for "committing the offense"(they've said they wouldn't prosecute someone for ripping an MP3 version of something they already own). they do so to avoid waiving other legal theories over which they would prosecute someone for "committing the offense."
― Daniel, Esq., Thursday, 15 April 2010 21:56 (3 years ago) Permalink
hydrapower
― thousands of masturbating weirdos (whatever), Thursday, 15 April 2010 21:57 (3 years ago) Permalink
is it just me or do these figures indicate that any musician wishing to make a living making music should just stop recording? there's no point in it. nobody thinks it's worth anything. if you want to increase the value of something, choke off supply. make a living via live performances and commercial/product placement recordings
― I won't vote for you unless you acknowledge my magic pony (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 15 April 2010 21:58 (3 years ago) Permalink
Um, I would say that two industries dealing with new technologies that have a dramatic impact on the distribution of their major products are somewhat similar.
― he's always been a bit of an anti-climb Max (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Thursday, 15 April 2010 21:58 (3 years ago) Permalink
nah. the scale is completely different, and is the key thing.
― I won't vote for you unless you acknowledge my magic pony (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 15 April 2010 21:59 (3 years ago) Permalink
Well, yeah, the scale is a big difference. I'm not saying the two situations are exactly the same, but I still think it would make for an interesting study.
― he's always been a bit of an anti-climb Max (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Thursday, 15 April 2010 22:00 (3 years ago) Permalink
How big is your penis
― your holiness, we have an official energy drink (Z S), Friday, 12 April 2013 02:35 (1 month ago) Permalink
Have you been to Manhattan, and if so, what was it like
― your holiness, we have an official energy drink (Z S), Friday, 12 April 2013 02:36 (1 month ago) Permalink
i mean, i usually don't like to talk about "being bob dylan"; it feels tacky, like i'm bragging.
― Pat Finn, Friday, 12 April 2013 13:49 (1 month ago) Permalink
It's ain't braggin' if it's true.
― Gerald McBoing-Boing, Friday, 12 April 2013 15:47 (1 month ago) Permalink
I think I know what's going on here. 1) Pat Finn started out on burgundy. 2) He soon hit the harder stuff. 3) Weird, off-the-wall posting on a message board.
― clemenza, Friday, 12 April 2013 15:57 (1 month ago) Permalink
yeah i thought i would be able to follow up the "i am bob dylan" comment with some funny posts. but i've got nothing.
― Pat Finn, Friday, 12 April 2013 16:29 (1 month ago) Permalink
Just confess that you--Bob Dylan--are addicted to youtube videos of celebrities falling off stages, and you'll be okay.
― Vol. 3: The Life & Times of E. "Boom" Carter (C. Grisso/McCain), Friday, 12 April 2013 17:24 (1 month ago) Permalink
that Juan Gabriel fall remains one of the funniest things ever
― Call me at **BITCOIN (DJP), Friday, 12 April 2013 17:26 (1 month ago) Permalink
i like this video, i think it was posted here at some point, where nickleback walk onstage at a music festival and the lead singer tries to pump up the crowd saying "are you ready to rock?" or something, and it is just dead silent, no response from the audience. after a few minutes the band storms offstage, giving the middle finger to the crowd. i, bob dylan, watch that video every morning in order to laugh and "jolt" myself out of my morning depression.
― Pat Finn, Friday, 12 April 2013 17:32 (1 month ago) Permalink
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/05/08/1533205/former-demonoid-members-receive-email-claiming-resurrection-get-malware-instead?utm_source=rss1.0mainlinkanon&utm_medium=feed
I got said email, luckily i didn't open it.
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, 8 May 2013 17:31 (1 week ago) Permalink
same here.
― Elvis Telecom, Thursday, 9 May 2013 03:08 (1 week ago) Permalink