PDA

View Full Version : Off Topic: RIAA are off this planet!



Fire-and-Ice
30-01-2004, 10:25 AM
RIAA Claims Music On Car Radios Meant Only For Original Vehicle Owner (http://www.warp2search.net/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=16200)

Can I have whatever the guy's at the RIAA are smoking! cos they seems to have some good **** there?

The Recording Industry Association of America announced today it would be expanding its crackdown on copyright infringement by suing family members, hitchhikers and carpoolers.

Lawyers for the RIAA maintain that the radio in each car was never meant to be listened to by anyone else except the original owner of the vehicle.

Therefore, any additional passengers who listen to music on the radio in another individual's car are doing so illegally and without the express permission of the copyright holders of the respective songs that are broadcast.

RIAA attorneys were preparing to go to Federal District courts across the country to have subpoenas issued to every car maker in America in the hopes of forcing them to disclose the names and addresses of all purchasers from the last 20 years.


LMAO :D

godfather
30-01-2004, 10:31 AM
Before posters go off the deep end, the article is satirical - its just a spoof.

Good idea though. Has merit.

Dolby Digital
30-01-2004, 11:01 AM
Maybe Microsoft has an interest in the RIAA. Then I could imagine you could only "listen" if you had your own licence.

Murray P
30-01-2004, 11:35 AM
You sure it isn't a toe dipper Goddie?

DD, MS has a big interest in the RIAA, associated hardware and software but, especially your wallet and anything that might open it voluntarily or otherwise. Such is life ;)

Cheers Murray P

Terry Porritt
30-01-2004, 11:38 AM
It's not too far away from some of the laws/rules what have you of early radio.

In the UK you had to have a "wireless licence" issued by HM Post Office for each radio set and each television set in the house.
Though when transistor radios appeared, the PO acknowledged defeat and separate licenses were abolished. You were still meant to have a radio license though for quite a while after that!

Portable radios had to be separately licenced, by portable I mean those old valve radios that had a heavy HT battery, a grid bias battery, and a battery for the the valve filaments. The radio had an internal frame aerial, and was usually mounted on a turntable base so that the set could be rotated for best reception.

It was as much as you could do to lift one of these sets let alone carry
them around :D

In Oz in the very early days receiving sets were sealed and had fixed tuning, so that people could only listen to the approved station.

godfather
30-01-2004, 11:40 AM
The full article stated:

In addition, RIAA lawyers said they were hoping to get a court order to exhume the bodies of Scottish physicist James Clerk-Maxwell, who developed the theory of electromagnetic waves and Guglielmo Marconi, who discovered and harnessed wireless radio in order to sue both corpses for unfair business practices.


Therefore its reasonbly certain to be satire.
The sentence that reads "this article is satire" is probably a clue as well.

Murray P
30-01-2004, 12:06 PM
> in order to sue both corpses for unfair business
> practices.
> [/i]
>
> Therefore its reasonbly certain to be satire.
> The sentence that reads "this article is satire" is
> probably a clue as well.

Hmmm. That just raises my suspicions even higher Goddie. I think it suptlety by boldness. You have to be aware that these people are sooo sneaky they'll be under your bed in a flash if your not watching all means of ingress at once.

Action shot of me checking the door -----> :O the window ------> :O the wardrobe door ------> :O the other window ------> :O the door again :O
the° never ever look under the bed though.

Cheers Murray ;P

Fire-and-Ice
30-01-2004, 12:55 PM
> Before posters go off the deep end, the article is satirical - its just a spoof.

Damn, you spoilt my fun. :D

robsonde
30-01-2004, 01:27 PM
maybe they can work with MS to devolip a hearing implant......

required by law to be install by the age of 5, the implant will include a windows OS and DRM

the device will alow music maker to decide who can hear the music......

other use included checking up on who is "hearing" live songs that the RIAA dont have controll over.

makes you think........

Winston001
30-01-2004, 01:37 PM
Leaving aside the humour, is there no sympathy or comprehension for why RIAA want to stop peer to peer music sharing?
Few musicians succeed and make a living from their muse.
Recording and producing songs costs money. Musicians and record company staff like to eat just like the rest of us.
Unsuprisingly they expect citizens to pay a sum of money for an authorised copy of a song. Otherwise it would be an exercise in pure altruism paid for by the musician. Indeed there are a few who do accept p to p copying of their work for no payment.
Almost every comment on this forum is anti-RIAA or the music industry.
Get a grip people. Being paid for your work is how the world works. Some earn a lot, others very little.
Copying music (without consent) is a direct theft from the owner.

(goes off grumbling to delete all his shared files.........) :D

Dolby Digital
30-01-2004, 01:51 PM
>>Get a grip people. Being paid for your work is how the world works.
I'm self-employed.... you mean I should get paid for everything I do... but I don't....

MrBeef
30-01-2004, 03:13 PM
If they ACTUALLY did that, i would go kill my goat. It is so ludacris. God damn.

Why don't they just sue who ever made .mp3 and that'll sort have the **** out

Winston001
30-01-2004, 03:37 PM
Well Dolby you can choose to do unpaid work such as for a school or friends, but ultimately if all your work is unpaid then you will leave the ranks of the self-employed.

Odin
30-01-2004, 06:09 PM
> Before posters go off the deep end, the article is
> satirical - its just a spoof.
>
> Good idea though. Has merit.


The article may indeed be satirical but It is not that far from reality. Here in NZ the recording industry watchdog have already carried out prosecutions and fee collections from Shops and Cafes that have the radio playing where customers can hear it, claiming that the music is being played in a public place and therefore the shop owner must pay the royalties for each song. Nevermind the fact that radios have been played in stored since the 1930's. So perhaps the article may infact become reality.

PoWa
30-01-2004, 06:20 PM
Robsonde, I like that hearing implant idea. Best keep it to yourself eh... we don't want the RIAA getting hold of it!! :D

But anyway stuff like this could become a reality, just a matter of time.

Apparently copying your purchased cd music and just making your own compilation of it on a walkman or something is illegal.

Anyway use an anon proxy and you'll be fine, you have nothing to worry about.

Lizard
31-01-2004, 10:48 AM
> Leaving aside the humour, is there no sympathy or
> comprehension for why RIAA want to stop peer to peer
> music sharing?
> Few musicians succeed and make a living from their
> muse.
> Recording and producing songs costs money. Musicians
> and record company staff like to eat just like the
> rest of us.

At the risk of entering a flame war, and not speaking for anyone else, I take issue with big corporate labels making quite large profits (speaking in generalisations, admittedly dangerous ;) ) out of their musicians. Sure, some artists are quite wealthy, but there are probably more that get paid very modest sums for their contribution, while it's getting harder to buy CDs for anything under $25. And I doubt the CEO and senior music executives are planning on taking a pay cut to pay their artists more.
I don't condone piracy, but I find it hard to feel sympathy for high-paid executives who complain about piracy "because it affects the artist", when what they really mean is that they have had to settle for Mercedes' 2002 model, instead of the latest 2003-2004 model. Generalisations, of course, and possibly a touch of the "tall poppy" syndrome, but while there are executives raking in money, simply for being at the top, I'm not going to worry about their whinging too much...

Lizard

BTW: loved the article. V. Funny! :D

metla
31-01-2004, 11:19 AM
What gets me is that cd's are cheaper to make then casstes but still sell for 35 bucks,an import can be anywhere from 65 to 120 bucks.

These things cost less then a cent to make.

And while it does cost money to record it in the first place make no mistake the entire cost right down to food is charged to the artist.who in return stand to make no money from it unless it sells in the hundreds of thousands.

What makes it worse is 99 percent of the time the costs and directon the music takes is complety out of the hands of the artist,once they enter the world of the record company they are told what image is working at the momennt,what sound is selling and their songs are adjusted/re-written/recorded as how how the record company dictates.

This is exactly why we now have 4 or 5 different types of music,with all bands/artists adjusted to fit the demographic,this is why the music has been so bland,weak and sales are falling.This is why after one album people's careers are over,they never get the chance to mature as a singer/SONGWRITER/performer.The entire concept of craft is taken out of their hands.If the first album doesn't sell then they are gone.the record companies have created a business model that relies on one hit wonders and mass marketing.

Take Elton John for example,His first few albums were complete and utter failures as far as sales go,But look what he devoped into,A man of extreme talent and nowadays can only be classed as an out and out legend...however if he was a young man starting outin our times that would never have happened,he would have been put into a boy band and told to dance like a goose,or been told to grow a goatee,get some tribal tattoos and sing about how miserable life is over top of some simplistic power chords.

The other thing that gets my goat is that the recording industry thinks that every year sales have to increase and if they don't then its due to theft,even though it has been proven that people who download music buy more cd's then those who don't.This is of course because the people downloading are music fans,they want the music and in most cases are preppared to pay for it.The record companies responce is to sue.

There are currently 7 major recording companies who control 99 percent of the music we get to hear,they control the artists,the stock in the shops,what we see on tv and what we hear on the radio.They fail to see why dictating the market has caused sales to fall,and they are dead scared that people downloading music will have their musical understanding broadened by artsists they download who are making real music for the lesser labels.Buying music we find good on one of the lesser labels does not fit in with major lanels marketing plans...this is an area they are working to stop happening.


The only end to this mess i can see,or what i hope to see is the downfall of the empire created by the major labels,a return to the artist trying to excell at his or her craft may one day mean we can once again enjoy good quality music,rather then designer label crap that has any individualty squeezed out of it by the record companies money.

An album doesn't need to have 5 million dollars spent on recording it,vocals don't need to be 80 layers deep,the record is not made better by having over payed suits dictating the direction.

Give the artist a microphone and see what they can do,If they are good then the resulting record will be the proof of that.,

Just like Black Sabbath in 1970.


As a huge music fan what the record industry has done to the music industry makes me sick to my very soul,Music,good music is a powerfull tool,an amazing creation of depth and honesty,a window to the soul or even a amazing story telling device.The record companies have taken it and turned it into a whore.

PoWa
31-01-2004, 12:26 PM
Well said there metla.

Wild Honey
31-01-2004, 01:47 PM
.The record
> companies have taken it and turned it into a whore.

Yes I noticed that too.... a lot of the female artists dress like whores anyway

Winston001
31-01-2004, 02:15 PM
A wonderfully impassioned post, Metla. An acolyte of Black Sabbath too. You rise even further in my estimation. I might not agree with all you say but I also despair at the clinically marketed pop that is promoted.

Still, there are plenty of independent labels. And we do not need to pirate music to learn about it. There are plenty of fora which are completely free of music industry control where people (often university students) expound on bands and artists out of the mainstream. The net gives complete freedom to spread the word and encourage people to try a particular artist.

For example The Mars Volta. Not quite my taste anymore, but this is a modern band doing early 70s progressive rock. Astonishing.

Back to the point: this forum is a good way of finding out about software. No-one here suggests that software should be pirated and where to find it using p 2 p. Why not? Microsoft etc is seen as the corporate devil incarnate, yet our members don't advocate stealing it's wares. I am sure it happens but this forum respects the law.

Why is music any different?

metla
31-01-2004, 02:28 PM
Yeah,but independent labels don't have distribuation to NZ,or aussie for that matter.i can order stuff in at 70 bucks a pop but their is no way i will do that without a taster of the band.

I myself run a liitle heavy music site and have a few people who contribute reviews and aticles,most of the stuff that i publish on the site i will never hear.

I realise the situation is a little better in major centers but here im in a void,i remember years ago going into record stores and having a huge choice in variety,nowadays i go in and come back out without making a purchase.


As for software i wont touch it unless i have used it before,its free,or a trial period.


Not that im trying to condone the piating of music,i was more just ranting about the situation today as i see it.