RIAA
The RIAA is a delusional cartel consisting of four major music labels. They were created in 1952 with the sole purpose of sucking all the music and happiness out of the world.
Just The Facts
- RIAA's methods of identifying individual users has, in some cases, led to the issuing of subpoenas to a dead grandmother, an elderly computer novice, and even those without any computers at all.
How they work
So the new Miley Cyrus album is out (yea, that wig and trench coat isn't fooling anyone, we know it was you at the Hannah Montana concert). You can barely sit still as you joyfully count the seconds away to torrent download completion and pure unadulterated teen pop magic. A few days later, you get an innocuous email along the lines of:
" Busted!!!!.... Sucker! Give us $3,000 now or we'll screw you for all you're worth!"
No, this is not spam. As of February, 2007 the RIAA began sending letters accusing internet users of sharing files. The letters go on to say that anyone not settling will have lawsuits brought against them. Typical settlements are between $3,000 and $12,000.
HOLY CRAP!... 'The Man' exists... and he has an army of lawyers!
Of course, there have been instances where these cases have been brought to court. Most of the time they're dismissed due to lack of evidence, but in the few cases they win... well it ain't pretty. In the case RIAA vs Joel Tenenbaum, the jury awarded $22,500 per song resulting in a judgment of $675,000 for the shared 30 tracks and in the case RIAA vs Jammie Thomas-Rasset, the jury awarded $80,000 per song, or $1.92 million for 24 tracks.
Stuff the RIAA considers illegal
Even if you've never discovered the internet and never shared your music files, the RIAA will find a way to screw you over. In 2008, they filed a federal lawsuit against Jeffrey Howell in Arizona,for creating "unauthorized copies" of CD tracks by ripping them to his computer - even though he may never have shared them with anyone else!
The 'logic' behind this is by ripping the songs in YOUR CD into a computer - you are transferring it into an unauthorized medium not of the artist's choosing. Everyone agrees this makes perfect sense.
The RIAA also claims that you're committing a felony just by making these files available. This is the logical equivalent of saying that by selling tickets to the Louvre, you are stealing the Mona Lisa.
If you're getting confused at all the myriad implications of these claims, Cracked has compiled a little list on all the things the RIAA considers illegal:
I'm one of those kinds of people that have pirated material over time, I'll admit. Sometimes I feel like repenting for some of these piracies if/when I can afford to (thank you services like Steam and Desura for helping me repent). But there are times where piracy is the only other way I can acquire anything that I once valued greatly, especially in my past where it may no longer be readily available, easy to access/purchase, or it just simply broke or I sold it long ago, and can no longer find it again (old consoles and such). I'm talking about quality TV shows no longer on the air, and never will be again (epic shows like LEXX, Adventures of Pete and Pete, and so on), and not even made into DVDs (or are beyond difficult to even find), really old DOS games that are extremely hard to find, especially legally (and these games still rock, sometimes more than today's games. Like Master of Orion or Star Control 2), even some total classic console and arcade games that are artifacts now that you can't even find anymore to save your life (Thank you MAME!).
ReplyIf not for piracy, there would've a shit-ton of things I still couldn't have ever caught up with in my past (including some games I never got to finish/beat, like FF3/6, for example), and then some, which in any other "legal" case, would otherwise be beyond impossible to fulfill nowadays. And you know what? Whenever they do finally appear in the markets, just in case this crap does become law, I would purchase it anyway, even if this bill fails again (wasn't your last acronym/name COICA?). Why? Because, even though I pirate games and such, I do still have standards, and am still willing to buy things whenever I can.
Why won't these assholes consider that even though piracy exists, it's the only thing keeping classic stuff in peoples' memory, as well as actually keeping sales up regarding retaining those memories like the good ol' days? If only they truly understood the consumers, would we not be suffering this financial problem in the first place.
Fine, keep locking down music and games and so forth, and destroy the internet, and let's make our country's financial black hole even bigger.
While were at it, RIAA should ban radio and television altogether. Of course these medias paid artists for public playback rights. But the whole industry could make even more money by charging anyone using these medias. Why not? They didn't pay to hear that Britney Spears singing her latest tube. And since there's over 300 million inhabitants only in the United States... $$$
ReplyYou know, some artists says that piracy was a good thing cause it made them known better. Without some degree of piracy these not-so-known people would not have sold near as many tubes. Even some celebrities don't really think that piracy is likely to be damageable unless their art is real crap. Cause when it's real good, people still want to buy it and encourage these artists to follow on in their careers.
Anyways, who doesn't like to hear their favorite tube with the greatest possible quality?
I wouldn't have known about Supreme Commander without Piracy... if only I had the money to officially buy the game
The surest way to ensure that REAL piracy will continue is to keep on chasing these people who've done nothing more than rip their CDs to their computers and other such innocent acts. Rather than overreact, they need to settle down and think again: that ripped CD, played for friends, may result in some of the friends purchasing the CD.
ReplySigh.
Notch, the creator of Minecraft, wrote a great blog post saying why piracy can sometimes be a good thing, and more importantly, the difference between actual piracy and plain old unauthorized copying. Unfortunately, Cracked's comment system doesn't allow for links, and the post is buried under two years of Minecraft rants.
Actually, under the Fair Use provisions of the Copyright Act, we are permitted to rip tracks to our computer, for our personal use, as long as we don't SHARE the files. There was a case back in the 70s, some label sued a man for recording his LPs to cassette tape, and they didn't like it. The judge ruled that changing media formats did not infringe on artist's copyrights, since it he had already been paid for, and the defendent had not distributed any copies to anyone else. Another case in the late 70s ruled we can record anything broadcasted over the air, again, so long as it's for personal use, and we don't distribute it.
One of the major problems with the DCMA is it conflicts with Fair Use.
result; if you ever receive a lawsuit from RIAA, you better start to living on the street right away.
ReplyJust to make you all happy, the RIAA has too many Wiccin curses filled against them, and now only attack Torrent websites.
ReplySometimes it's just awesome living in Mexico here downloading music is perfectly legal selling it is what will get you in trouble.
ReplyGames too.
Listening to Pink Floyd's Pigs (Three Different Ones) while reading this = EPIC
ReplyI think the penalty is disproportionate to the crime. I say we crack down on the rapists and let the kids off easier. Like a small brand or something.Rapists can get the 3-12K fine.
Reply Hide All See All 3 Repliesagree full heartedly about rapists, rape is wrong and no matter how many people disagree with me i will not give up on this belief, because you don't just give up on principle. although on a serious note I think fines for any crime instantly make the punishment hugely disproportionately based how much money you have, a 500 hundred dollar fine can mean months of debt or prison time for a person making minimum wage, but for a rich person who did the exact same crime it'll be a slap on the wrist, in what way is this system of justice fair? If it's a non violent crime I'm for community survice all the way, let them pay with there time. if there to dangerous to have on the streets, well that's what prisons where made for (that and apparently people to poor to pay fines for some reason).
Latinromans, in Switzerland, for some crimes at least, they do have proportionate fining. There was a recent news story about a dude who got speeding ticket for about $600,000.
How many people have disagreed with you? o_O
Yet another reason DIY labels own the s**t out of majors!
ReplyWhy is that first submitted link, um, not a link?
ReplyWhen the RIAA tell me "you're destoying music industry jobs by pirating music" all I have to say in response is "maybe if less money was going to the artist and more was going to the people who work their asses off to promote the albums, manage make the CD's, etc, instead of going towards the "artist's" luxury car collection, I'd care."
Reply Hide All See All 5 RepliesAs it is, indie artists get my money. That's it.
I was always under the impression that the money for music sales went mostly to the record label, and artists make their money from shows and such. After all, someone has got to be making loads off all these pop music superstars. Why else would the music labels sue people for $80k per track? Because they are the ones losing money. $20 whole entire dollars lost on 24 tracks of music. This whole situation is the equivalent of a public execution; make an example so everyone they couldn't catch will stop. Do they really think people work that way? I bet things will only get worse (for them) as they "crack down" on people like this.
That's right, the record labels make more than anyone off of album sales. There are plenty of stories about bands falling apart or simply getting screwed by their labels because of unfair or harsh terms and practices. So it's pretty f*****g disingenuous when RIAA representatives put on their innocent faces before going on TV, acting like Joe College Student is the villain in the picture.
None of this changes the fact that sharing copyrighted material is pretty much illegal, but even so the RIAA can't keep on doing what they're doing and not expect some serious backlash for it.
Dude, artists make jack s**t off of albums, they make money touring. Labels make money off of albums. And that is why I see absolutely wrong with downloading music, though there are underground labels I am in support of.
The artists typically get pretty shafted by the labels. The artist gets an advance to pay for the production of the album, then has to pay it back in royalties to the label before they see a cent.
As mentioned above, artists generally don't see a cent of the money made from album sales. I've seen a few breakdowns by accountants and ex-agents of the music industry, showing the various tricks the labels use to guarantee the artists don't see a cent. It's similar to the tricks Hollywood uses to claim a movie lost $200 million to avoid having to pay royalties when it actually made 5 times that at the box office.
Quite frankly, the RIAA's entire situation makes me laugh. For decades the music industry had the perfect lineup of shafting going; the artists got shafted, the writers got shafted, the buyers got shafted, and only the labels themselves avoided it. Now they're complaining because groups have had enough and are shafting them back. But of course, we all know that corporate America thinks that making a profit no matter what is their God-given right, and that it's illegal for anyone, including the customers, to take that away from them.
$1.92 miiiiiillllion dollars for 24 tracks?! If you physically stole a CD with 24 tracks on it worth about $12 you'd probably just get a couple of hundred dollars of a fine. How the hell can they justify this? It's not like she sold 160,000 copies of those tracks on CD for fuck's sake. Oh I am angry...
Reply Hide All See All 3 RepliesThe "logic" behind the insanely huge $1.92 million award is this: Say you distribute those 24 tracks onto a torrent site and one hundred people download it. The record label is now out $132. But it doesn't stop there. Because every one of those one hundred people will now distribute it to one hundred people. Now the cost is up to $1,333,200. Take it even one more step and you're already well over that $1.92 million. By downloading those 24 tracks onto a torrent site *once*, RIAA says that you have effectively helped everyone who has ever lived steal that Miley Cyrus CD.
I s**t you not. This is what they actually say in their lawsuits.
I'm all for protecting the rights of copyright holders and artists, but this is ridiculous. And based on the fact that many torrent sites and networks are alive and doing very well indeed, I'd say it's also pretty damn ineffective.
To continue gothangelgirls point, not only do they say that, but in some lawsuits, the total price would mean everyone on the planet, everyone, all 7,000,000,000 of us, downloaded the music. Twice.
The great thing about this logic is as you stated, stealing a physical copy is cheaper than copying a song file. Basically, the RIAA's argument is that imaginary property is worth way more than real property (I guess they feel that since the "stolen" property is imaginary, they get to sue for an imaginary dollar amount). And I always enjoy when they bring up the shoplifting argument, as it's hard to compare the two situations (one involves real physical goods, and the other involves imaginary goods).
I totally agree. These are the people that sued the freaking Girl Scouts for using "The Macarena" at camp without paying for permission. Probably to spawn a healthy amount of hatred for the RIAA before these girls became teenagers.
Replyf**k SERIOUSLY? I remember doing that dance in brownies. What the f**k,
=============== www.ccshoper.com =================
Replyfree shipping
competitive price
any size available
accept the paypal
Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33
Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $35
Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g) $35
Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16
Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30
Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,Armaini) $16
New era cap $15
Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $25
============== www.ccshoper.com ==============
www.ccshoper.com
Replyfree shipping
competitive price
any size available
accept the paypal
Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33
Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $35
Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g) $35
Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16
Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30
Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,Armaini) $16
New era cap $15
Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $25
www.ccshoper.com
Too short.
ReplyI thought I should point out that the "YOU'RE DOWNLOADING COMMUNISM" thing is actually incentive for a lot of people to KEEP downloading.
ReplyArtists see little to none of the money from record sales. "Protecting the artists' interests" is complete bull-shit. There are cases of artists getting in trouble for distributing THEIR OWN MUSIC on their terms, not the record label's.
ReplyI'm sure that if a few of the people they've successfully sued bombed a few RIAA buildings, they would back off. They're just turning sewing into a 2ed career because it makes them more money than their artists do.
ReplyAlthough I don't think it's right to steal music-the RIAA are just a-holes. You should buy the music, but making some one pay thousands for a song is just awful.
Reply