RIAA Wants to Hack Your PC

[Marvster]

Amazing. While the rest of the nation grapples with balancing security and civil liberties -- during a time of tremendous mourning and tension -- the RIAA continues to try and "slide one by" the public. I'm not usually an anti-corporate alarmist, but these RIAA folks are really pricks. Marv * * * * * RIAA Wants to Hack Your PC By Declan McCullagh 2:00 a.m. Oct. 15, 2001 PDT WASHINGTON -- Look out, music pirates: The recording industry wants the right to hack into your computer and delete your stolen MP3s. It's no joke. Lobbyists for the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) tried to glue this hacking-authorization amendment onto a mammoth anti-terrorism bill that Congress approved last week. An RIAA-drafted amendment according to a draft obtained by Wired News would immunize all copyright holders -- including the movie and e-book industry -- for any data losses caused by their hacking efforts or other computer intrusions "that are reasonably intended to impede or prevent" electronic piracy. In an interview Friday, RIAA lobbyist Mitch Glazier said that his association has abandoned plans to insert that amendment into anti-terrorism bills -- and instead is supporting a revised amendment that takes a more modest approach. "It will not be some special exception for copyright owners," Glazier said. "It will be a general fix to bring back current law." Glazier is the RIAA's senior vice president of government relations and a former House aide. More.... http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,47552,00.html

[Steve LeBlanc]

Thanks for posting this...the nerve of these asswipes...attempting to take advantage of WTC like this is just despicable.

[Alndln]

No .dll gets past me without my knowing it.They can try......

[alphajerk]

RIAA needs to go down. i call for a boycott of all CD purchases and move for mass piracy coupled with email attacks on the RIAA servers [img]http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif[/img] they want to be a part of the anti terrorism bill, show them what terrorism is.

[Philip OKeefe]

How do they plan on differentiating between legit MP3's (say, those done by a studio for clients or by a band of their own material) and the "pirate" ones? And what's this about "crashing" computers by accident? Oops - sorry - you didn't have any pirate MP3's, but we have a right to check, and we crashed your computer, but too bad - you can't do anything about it? NO THANKS! I dislike the RIAA. They say they represent the recording community, but they only represent the majors and could care less about indie labels and small studios. Remember the DAT issue of several years back? DAT's would have been a good method of sharing "shareware" music, but the RIAA killed it off with SCMS because they don't care about anything but the majors. Forget about other possible legit uses of the technology. And the Internet and MP3's (which I happen to hate, but that's besides the point) could be used in the same way - and the majors will do anything possible to kill off independents and any technology that can be useful to them in terms of alternative distribution. Phil O'Keefe Sound Sanctuary Recording Riverside CA http://members.aol.com/ssanctuary/index.html pokeefe777@msn.com

[Marvster]

[quote]Originally posted by pokeefe777@msn.com: [b]I dislike the RIAA. They say they represent the recording community, but they only represent the majors and could care less about indie labels and small studios.[/b][/quote] Much less musicians.... Let's not forget their absolutely heinous attempt in 1999 to change the work-for-hire section of the copyright code to the benefit of major labels. Language they successfully slipped into legislation in what can only be called a covert operation. Language later removed only by tremendous artist outcry and public support from Sheryl Crow and Don Henley (NARAS, too). If you're interested in fighting back, check out: http://www.eff.org http://www.boycott-riaa.com Marv

[olhhyperback.com]

We should all keep in mind that until we sign our recording over to a major label, WE are the "copyright owner" whose rights the telecom and computer industries are out to to weaken or destroy. WIRED earns a lot of its advertising income from corporations who will profit handsomely at OUR expense from any laws that weaken the ownership of recording copyrights. The corporations who own the major labels can simply stop signing anything besides work for hire projects related to TV shows and films, they don't care. That leaves the rest of us who want to sell music independently of movies and TV completely screwed. Destroying one of the largest sources of music income that is independent of large corporations as part of an effort to "get" the majors isn't exactly a step forward for musicians, songwriters and producers. While the biggest RIAA members may not be our friends, neither are the corporations who pay folks to write articles for WIRED. ------------------ Bob's work room (615) 352-7635

[Paul Frindle]

[quote]Originally posted by pokeefe777@msn.com: [b]How do they plan on differentiating between legit MP3's (say, those done by a studio for clients or by a band of their own material) and the "pirate" ones? And what's this about "crashing" computers by accident? Oops - sorry - you didn't have any pirate MP3's, but we have a right to check, and we crashed your computer, but too bad - you can't do anything about it? NO THANKS! I dislike the RIAA. They say they represent the recording community, but they only represent the majors and could care less about indie labels and small studios. Remember the DAT issue of several years back? DAT's would have been a good method of sharing "shareware" music, but the RIAA killed it off with SCMS because they don't care about anything but the majors. Forget about other possible legit uses of the technology. And the Internet and MP3's (which I happen to hate, but that's besides the point) could be used in the same way - and the majors will do anything possible to kill off independents and any technology that can be useful to them in terms of alternative distribution. Phil O'Keefe Sound Sanctuary Recording Riverside CA http://members.aol.com/ssanctuary/index.html pokeefe777@msn.com[/b][/quote] You make some very good points regarding legitimate use of technology and the rights of freedom for an individual in our so called 'free society'. It is crushingly sad to see interested parties cashing in on the post Sept 11 atmosphere - it makes me want to weep and just give up. All sorts of laws and acts are being passed without us even noticing for the most part. Here in the U.K there have been some amazingly blatant attempts to cash in on this sad situation - such is the cynicism of politics in these times. But the name of the game is capitalism and with that comes control. Much of what our governments do is moving with the interests of the big multi-nationals in our world because they generate capital. Money is the sole aim of our society now (even if we didn't vote for it) and 'globalisation' is unfortunately the new stealth 'crusade' that aims to disseminate this doctrine world-wide. We may not realise it but we are in a constant daily battle for our freedom of choice against the interests of capitalist who would curtail this freedom to their advantage (eg. the large record companies who have a legal monoply on our musical diet are just one sector). It's sobering to consider that not all that is law is necessarily fair - even if we have accepted it slowly over time. In reality the U.S is perhaps fairer than the U.K as you actually have anti-monopoly legislation (that is applied sometimes) and you have a statement of constitution (we don't). We are the most watched, monitored, manipulated and legislated societies of all time - yet whilst the governments are 'controlling' its citizens so closely (slipping legislation into place with out us noticing), it is telling indeed that despite all this control, a handful of maniacs can wreak such havoc. Simply by keeping low profile and playing the game they can remain unnoticed until they can find an opportunity to use our own machinery against ourselves. I'm afraid that the whole thing smacks that those who purport to be our providers and protectors may turn out to be our worst enemy. The guard dog that you buy to protect you against harm from others almost always winds up biting you in the end? It is absolutely amazing (but sadly indicative) that in this current crisis of global proportion, anyone could have the attitude of mind to be concerned with hunting down people who swap MP3 files. As the powers within our society occupy themselves with the transgressions of its own people against their precious rules of capitalism (fair or not), the real enemy quietly slips in unnoticed. Please forgive the rant :-(

[FoxTick]

where would the RIAA start? think of how many computers are connected to the net that contain alleged pirate mp3s all around the world..... thats a s#!tload of computers!! better get busy RIAA [img]http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif[/img] just like Alndln said, they can try... SactoG

[Uh Clem]

no doubt, tell 'em to get in line...

[Marvster]

[quote]Originally posted by Bob Olhsson: [b]We should all keep in mind that until we sign our recording over to a major label, WE are the "copyright owner" whose rights the telecom and computer industries are out to to weaken or destroy.[/b][/quote] The first part of the sentence is absolutely true, but has nothing to do with a powerful RIAA and MPAA lobby trying to rewrite fair use provisions (or simply sidestep them technologically) or invade our privacy. The second part of the sentence mystifies me. Telecom and computer industries out to "destroy" copyright? Last time I checked, Shawn Fanning was a nice college kid with too much time on his hands and a brilliant idea -- not exactly the profile of your typical "tool" of an oligopoly. I suppose Tim Berners-Lee (inventor of the Web) is also part of this evil plan? As a matter of fact, Bob, most multinats have been all too happy to find ways to cozy up to the entertainment industry in (a) an effort to stay on their good side, and (b) an attempt to parlay *their* proprietary standards into the next must-use broadband plumbing system. You think Microsoft is trying to "weaken" copyright and is an enemy of DRM? Have you been paying attention? [quote][b]That leaves the rest of us who want to sell music independently of movies and TV completely screwed.[/b][/quote] Maybe I don't understand what you're saying.... Are you suggesting that a significant percentage of recording artists currently benefit from the major label "star system?" Are you saying we'd be screwed without this system? If so, I know about ... oh, 99% of my muso friends would heartily disagree with you. I'm not saying the Star Machine is going or should go away. But to suggest we can't live without it is, IMO, the worst type of FUD. [quote][b]Destroying one of the largest sources of music income that is independent of large corporations as part of an effort to "get" the majors isn't exactly a step forward for musicians, songwriters and producers. While the biggest RIAA members may not be our friends, neither are the corporations who pay folks to write articles for WIRED.[/b][/quote] Wait, the major RIAA labels and their entertainment counterparts aren't "large corporations?" Huh? These are multi-BILLION-dollar corporations. Admittedly, the RIAA represents many smaller labels, as well, but that still doesn't give them the right to run roughshod over artist or consumer rights. Also, any RIAA boycott isn't an attempt to destroy the organization -- that's probably impossible. However, any weakening in their lobby power and credibility as a policy consultant for their member labels will, again IMO, only be good for music, good for artists, good for consumers, good for business, and certainly more apt to move copyright law closer [back] to the intent of its Constitutional framers. Best, Marv This message has been edited by Marvster on 10-15-2001 at 09:23 PM

[rold]

[img]http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/mad.gif[/img] Now this is just ridiculous. Thinking about it, it's almost comparable to record industry cronies coming into your house and going through your record collection to look for copied tapes and CDs, against your will. And to try doing it in the name of anti-terrorism? I read that as a selfish manipulation of the legal system and a heavy insult to the few positive things the anti-terrorism movement was trying to accomplish. There is absolutely no just excuse for this. RIAA kiss my ass: any morals I had previous to this that leaned toward protectionism of RIAA labels are now GONE. Want free mp3's? Go here: http://www.musiccity.com/

[Anderton]

I was quite a student of what went down with DAT, and one of the most shameful and disgusting moments was when an RIAA representative said something to the effect that Japanese people couldn't create anything, so they had to use DAT to steal American music. I was writing an editorial for Electronic Musician at the time and thought I'd include this noxious little tidbit, but thought that if it was BS (yes, there were rumors BEFORE the internet!), I'd better check so I didn't get sued or something. I found the exact quote, and printed it with attribution in the editorial. They never did dispute it, although that same editorial triggered then-Capitol Records prez Joe Smith to write a semi-coherent rant to me that, shall we say, got very personal. So I had my secretary call up his secretary, to "warn Mr. Smith that some nut was going around writing diatribes and signing his name." All of us in the office got a good laugh over that one. BTW I offered Mr. Smith 2 pages in the magazine where he could rebut anything that I said, without comment or editing from me (how's that for an offer?). He said he would, but never did. Gee, maybe there really wasn't anything I wrote that could be rebutted. The RIAA has nothing to do with protecting artists.

[Marvster]

[quote]Originally posted by Anderton: [b]The RIAA has nothing to do with protecting artists.[/b][/quote] Great story, Craig. And you're right.... The RIAA has never been and will never be and was never supposed to be about protecting artists. That's not their mandate. They exist -- and pay Hilary a cool million a year according to Dave Marsh -- to represent the labels' interests, and that's fine! Industry coalitions can be a good thing when they're kept in check instead of running amok like these dingbats. Anyway, in case any musician still has doubts, it's important to point out that the RIAA is National League, artists are American League. It's just that in this case, unfortunately, the same side almost always wins. Marv

[Steve LeBlanc]

Thanks for sharing that story Craig...funny shit. And my own first hand experiences (right now I can't think of a good story that doesn't make me look like the stupid naive kid that I was [img]http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif[/img]) proved to me several times over that the RIAA indeed is not about protecting artists.

[Chip McDonald]

[quote]Originally posted by Steve LeBlanc: [b]attempting to take advantage of WTC like this is just despicable.[/b][/quote] There's no telling what the U.S. is going to look like legally this time next year. ------------------ [b]New and Improved Music Soon:[/b] http://www.mp3.com/chipmcdonald

[-]

[quote]Originally posted by Bob Olhsson: [b]We should all keep in mind that until we sign our recording over to a major label, WE are the "copyright owner" whose rights the telecom and computer industries are out to to weaken or destroy. [/b][/quote] Bob -- I agree that there is advertising revenue (and groups of lawyers who look for work in the copyright arena) who are the driving force behind certain publications and web sites. There *is* a push from the "information wants to be free" crowd, and it's not necessarily all from high school/college kids who want free mp3s (well, there *is* consumer demand for that, but the consumers aren't the ones who are financially supporting the magazines and web sites who repeatedly push the pro-Napster point of view)... There are corporations and individuals who stand to financially benefit from court cases or passing laws that do the complete opposite of what the RIAA wants to do with regards to online distribution of music. So I'm in agreement with you -- it's not some simple ethical question: "The RIAA has screwed artists in the past, now let's screw them!" [img]http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/eek.gif[/img] There don't appear to be angels working for altruistic artists' rights on [i]either[/i] side of the equation. It's a power grab between the record industry and the dot coms/ip lawyers/telcoms, and it's a great soap opera to watch. [img]http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif[/img] [quote]Originally posted by Bob Olhsson: [b]Destroying one of the largest sources of music income that is independent of large corporations as part of an effort to "get" the majors isn't exactly a step forward for musicians, songwriters and producers. [/b][/quote] The way I understand it, you're implying that if you want to release music, then you've got to do it on a major record label... Almost like, "If you make music and it's not released on a major record label, does your music really exist?" [img]http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif[/img] If that's the way you meant it, I will have to respectfully disagree. I can't [i]tell[/i] you how much great music I've discovered that's not on a major record label... Given how (relatively) inexpensive recording gear is now and how (relatively) little it costs to create your own product, we're living in the most well-documented time in history. If someone has the equipment, the drive, and the talent, they can put together and release their own recording. Yes, there's a higher percentage of junk out there too... But I've found so many great albums that would not have been created, say, in the '60s (because a major label might not have signed these acts for not being the flavor of the month). I can only imagine how many great musicians/songwriters/performers in the past were never able to release an album because for whatever reason they weren't able to get signed... What I guess I'm getting at is... The major labels are no longer really the gatekeepers. Well, I mean, yeah -- they *are* the gatekeepers, if you want to get a video on MTV, a song on the top 40, lots of promotion, worldwide CD distribution... But they're no longer the gatekeepers if you want to create a pretty good-sounding album and release it to the public. I believe there are plenty of folks who don't have the MTV/Top 40/etc. thing as the ultimate goal and wouldn't mind if that system collapsed and was replaced with something far more fragmented where what people [i]liked[/i] was the stuff that got the most attention. And love 'em or hate 'em, one of the results of the mp3 sharing services is that folks are discovering new music they might not have checked out otherwise (because radio/MTV/etc. doesn't play it) and folks are downloading what they *like* and what they're *excited about*... Not necessarily what some major label is telling the kids that is the "next big thing". And perhaps that's what the majors find scariest of all: An audience that's too eclectic, fragmented, and distracted to care what Big Media is trying to sell to them. I started a [url=http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001437.html]thread[/url] a little while back on popular music becoming less of a shared experience... It kind of sums up my feelings on where we're headed as more folks get online, get faster internet connections, and rely more on the web for entertainment. This message has been edited by popmusic on 10-16-2001 at 02:47 AM

[the stranger]

[quote]RIAA needs to go down. i call for a boycott of all CD purchases and move for mass piracy coupled with email attacks on the RIAA servers they want to be a part of the anti terrorism bill, show them what terrorism is. [/quote] I hate to say that this is the good way, but is there really a choice? Has anybody considered in this day and age of complete capitalistic control of everything that terrorism is the last choice? If you think about it, any type of economic sanctions/embargos/etc could be considered terrorism. Lobbing a couple of missles at a country on a bad press day could be considered terrorism. Can every type of spying/infiltration/funding rebel groups/etc be considered terrorism? Is full fledged assualt on a culture through psychological manipulation terrorism? The bottom line is the common people of the human race are being terrorized by their governments and their corporations (one in the same). Honestly, I feel that any methods of diplomacy to acheive a peacful end is always the first choice. But, if joe rapist busts in your house late at night looking to rape your wife and daughter...

[olhhyperback.com]

The point I'm trying to make is that we not throw the baby out with the bathwater. There is always a conflict of interest between people who want to get paid for creating music and people who want to get paid for distributing music or selling gear/services that can be used to copy it for free. There are TWO battles going on here, the conflict of interest between creators and distributors and another between two industries who BOTH want to distribute music without having to pay artists for it. The telecom folks are pumping out reams of anti recording industry rhetoric while offering alternatives that screw over artists and musicians even worse than the major labels have in recent years. Because it's in the form of laws, it means that WE won't be able to set our own price for our own music that we sell ourselves. This is ugly stuff and it is the artist who sells only a few thousand copies who is really getting screwed. And no, you're not going to read about this in the press but it becomes obvious when you read the proposed legislation. ------------------ Bob's workroom (615) 352-7635

[Super 8]

I WANT MY MP3 It's not surprising that that the RIAA is willing to take such desperate measures to maintain control over the music industry. I would imagine that the horse & buggy industry got pretty pissed when they saw people driving cars. Can you imagine the repercussions from the petroleum industry if a viable totally electric car became more than a novelty? The fact is the corporate music production and distribution system was once so necessary that they were able to live life on their terms. This is no longer the case. The technology to write, record, promote, and distribute music is now in the hands of the artist -where it has always belonged. Napster was only the beginning, we are about to see a new era emerge for the artist. Corporate music will always exist, but the lines of demarcation between art and business will definitely become much more visible. As for my MP3 collection? The RIAA can have any rights it wants -that won't get them past a firewall, or a disconnected internet connection. And, even if it did, they can't delete MP3's burned on to a CD-R. You do all back up your files don't you???? BTW: I'm new to your group here, Hi.

[alphajerk]

i dsagree bob. it most certainly isnt the artist who only sells a couple thousand that gets screwed... they are actually picking up some ground due to this. at least my bands have and thats the boat they float in.... and it is far from sinking.

[-]

[quote]Originally posted by Bob Olhsson: [b]This is ugly stuff and it is the artist who sells only a few thousand copies who is really getting screwed. [/b][/quote] The way technology and public demand is going, everybody is going to make less money from music recordings overall in the future. However, because of market fragmentation, there will be more [i]artists[/i] out there than ever before. In other words, because of technology, more artists will have the opportunity to eek out a living from being an artist, but there will be less money to go around (because the music listening public's attention will be scattered over the sheer amount of entertainment options they have). But getting signed to a major record label does not necessarily have to be a goal of an artist's career as it usually was in the past. I said it before in another thread, but the major labels are going to have to get used to making less money than before. There's too many entertainment options, and the public is not captive to the radio and MTV to find out about new music... The times they are a changin' (I think)... [img]http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif[/img]

[Paul Frindle]

[quote]Originally posted by Chip McDonald: [b] There's no telling what the U.S. is going to look like legally this time next year. [/b][/quote] Nor the U.K! But you can be sure that our already illusory freedoms will be further reduced. As we can already see the terrorists are already winning the battle to curtail our freedoms by allowing our governments to do it for them! The end point of rampant capitalism without control is total loss of freedom as sure as communism meted out on the Russians in the 60's. Its just a different excuse and a different doctrine - thats all. The trick of capitalism is to give out a believable perception of freedom of choice whilst controlling what those choices are. Thats how we end up with all the high street shops full of the same stuff, all the TV full of crap (and bad quality pictures), and all the music selected (and manufactured) for maximum appeal to the lowest common denominator etc etc. This isn't real freedom, it's only freedom to chose from a limited set of goods, art and services which are allowed (think Russia again)! Meanwhile the effect of the passage of capitalism to it's eventual goal is to cause massively disparate wealth differences, that restrict the icons of success in the capitalist world to living behind 12foot high fences with patrolling armed guards and driving from place to place in bullet proof vehicles (i.e. luxury prisoners by any outside analysis). It occupies our police forces with containing the crime perpetuated by the disenfranchised and 'left-outs' of our societies that have nothing more to lose. As in all regimes that exist by mass acceptance and stealth over many years, the biggest threat is the realisation, by the public mass, just how fragile it really is. IMHO this is the biggest and most dangerous effect of the Sept 11th atrocity. Not only did it prove beyond doubt that we are awfully vunerable to the excesses of only a few people, it has given a glimpse of our political systems for what they really are - trousers down and all. Cynical moves such as those mentioned by the RIAA are illustrative of the real interests of our capitalistic rulers. Its very very dangerous. Whilst our governments insist that 'nothing has changed and that they will prevail' the terrorist's agendas are being met in full by succesfully shaking the very foundations of our society, by illustrating it's vunerability and then waiting for it to collapse all on it's own by force of its own innate self-interest. More apologies for ranting.

[the stranger]

If only they all could see, Paul.

[Steve LeBlanc]

Very well said Paul.

[Anderton]

The following is from the Lefsetz Letter, copyright 2001 by Robert Scott Lefsetz and reprinted with the kind permission of the author. This is required reading!! Bob has hit the nail on the head. ************* The RIAA's latest strategy is to terrorize online music trading sites. They want to disable them TECHNOLOGICALLY! Essentially by hogging bandwidth and making one unable to download the song one wants. So the question is, is this like bombing Afghanistan or the distribution of anthrax? What is the ultimate goal of the United States? To eliminate worldwide terrorism. Except for the terrorists themselves, no one is against this mission. Furthermore, the U.S. wants to make the world safe for DEMOCRACY! Free will, free speech, right to pursue happiness. Now, it's unclear whether all Muslims would see this as a goal, or whether all Muslim GOVERNMENTS would approve of this goal, but no thinking person can see these ultimate targets as negative. They're highly laudable human goals. What is the ultimate goal of the RIAA? To eliminate piracy. So that people will be forced to purchase high-priced CDs with only one good track, or in the alternative, subscribe to online services that don't allow one to burn CDs or transfer to hand-held devices. Are these goals that the general populace agrees with? Emphatically, NO!! And therein lies the rub. The RIAA is doing NOTHING to win over the hearts and minds of the people. Ironically, just the OPPOSITE! How do they expect to ultimately win the war? The public has made it perfectly clear what it's looking for. All music, from all labels, along with rarities, for one reasonable price with the ability to burn CDs and download to hand-held devices. The question is, is this UNREASONABLE? Doesn't sound like it to me. The RIAA could work toward this goal. But it REFUSES to. For it likes the status quo. Meanwhile, all these abilities are presently AVAILABLE! Albeit illegally. Legitimate companies are selling CD burners and hand-held devices. Hell, it's almost IMPOSSIBLE to purchase a new computer without a CD burner. Yet, the labels essentially want to DISABLE this equipment. Isn't there an inherent disconnect? Equipment people have PAID for, and are used to using, will overnight become superfluous, irrelevant, a waste of money. Do you think they'll stand for this? OF COURSE NOT! Furthermore, it's like asking people to go back to the horse and buggy after experiencing automobiles. No, it's worse. It's like someone BUYING an auto and driving it around and then being told he must garage it. Permanently. This strategy CANNOT WIN!!! It's time to employ a new strategy... Online music is purely a sampling service at 56k. Since broadband has less than a ten percent home penetration, the labels are fighting a war that DOESN'T EXIST!!! They have YEARS before online can eviscerate traditional CDs. YEARS to figure it out. Instead of worrying about stanching the flow of illegal MP3s, they should worry about winning the hearts and minds of the consumers. Hell, AOL didn't achieve a subscribership of thirty million OVERNIGHT! First, people had to buy COMPUTERS! First, people have to get high speed connections. If the online music service is as good and easy to use as AOL, word of mouth alone will force people to get broadband and sign up. It's LOGICAL! But instead of working towards a reasonable end game, the labels are employing terrorist techniques. Using rogue, unidentifiable computers they're going to bring online trading to its knees. This doesn't sound like bombing Afghanistan, this sounds like mailing ANTHRAX! The populace is FREAKING about anthrax. Even those who live far from a metropolis. How do you think those connected online are going to feel about the RIAA messing with the system? Even if they tolerate it, they're going to HATE the RIAA. It's a no-brainer! It's all about the hearts and minds. How about a program to win the hearts and minds. Hell, how about MusicNet and Pressplay being FREE for the first month. ABSOLUTELY FREE! Hell, the labels are KINGS of marketing. But there's no innovation online, because they ultimately DON'T WANT online music. The RIAA is headed for disaster. They need a wartime general. And/or a Mafia consigliere. To deal with the OPPOSITION! To plot strategy. So the war can ultimately be won. (To learn about the RIAA's new strategies go to: [url=http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2818064,00.html?chkpt=zdnnp1tp01]THIS URL)[/url]

[alphajerk]

dont say YEARS man... im STILL on dialup with no hope in sight... 28.8 at that [img]http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/frown.gif[/img] fuck the RIAA.

[Dylan]

[quote]Originally posted by alphajerk: [b]dont say YEARS man... im STILL on dialup with no hope in sight... 28.8 at that [img]http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/frown.gif[/img][/b][/quote] Me too, Alpha! It totally bites. I live a block away from Intel so you'd think that the phone and cable companies would be hip to providing service to it's employees who live in the area. But NOOOOOOOO! -Dylan

[Marvster]

In case anyone's interested, here's the RIAA's sleazy "official response" to the debate over their attempt to influence the anti-terrorism bill. ----- A provision in the Senate version of the anti-terrorism bill -- unintentionally -- negatively impacts copyright owners, telecom providers, ISPs and many other businesses. As written, the measure inadvertently opens up such businesses to lawsuits for activities that should be and are currently allowed under law. When we became aware of this unintentional consequence in the draft legislation, we notified the Department of Justice, the Senate, and other industry groups; all immediately agreed that the draft legislation created an unintended, negative side effect. We were asked to propose language to avoid the unintended effects on our industry. We did so, based on suggestions from the Department of Justice and Senate staff. In the end, the Senate staff –- and not members of the recording or high tech industries –- decided to re-draft their original amendment to avoid the problems it had caused. This obviated the need for an industry-specific proposal. This fix will allow our government to aggressively combat terrorism without unintentionally negatively impacting many American businesses. Unfortunately, the re-drafted amendment was contained in the Manager's amendment, and for timing reasons, it was not adopted in the Senate (for reasons having nothing to do with this minor issue.) If a conference on this bill is necessary, we (along with others in the ISP and business community) would still seek to remedy the unintentional consequence of this provision so that we can continue our self-protection and antipiracy efforts that we are permitted to conduct under current law. Contrary to erroneous assertions and press reports, this bill does not, and no amendment ever proffered would have ever, allowed anyone to destroy a computer or data or song files on an individual's hard drive, or to a use a virus to attack a user, etc. We are saddened that a legitimate concern to remedy a provision that would have needlessly and unintentionally hurt American businesses was used by some to unfairly and inaccurately disparage the recording industry.

[David R.]

What the hell is copyright law doing in an anti terrorism bill?!?! Huge problem in our legeslative system, slightly off topic, is being able to hide crap like this in the anti-terrorism bill. -David R.