The RIAA.

“They suck!!!!!


Tell people in the Goverment how much you are aginst them.

FUC@ THE RIAA!!!!!!

8|”

“the riaa has ruined music. not only with their hypocritical stance on downloading, but sampling in rap music, as well as reprinting of lyrics online.

FU CK THE RIAA!”

“I agree 100000000% I hate them!


8|”

“i used to be a volunteer DJ for a college station. i too grew to hate the RIAA when i was there, because of their paranoia, price gouging and other nasty tactics & positions. but i think they're well within their rights to pursue people who are basically thieves. the case with the 12-year-old girl was a bit over the top and probably should have been dropped, but they should sue the hell out of people who know what they're doing is wrong. i have a copyrighted song out there. i'll never make a penny off of it because it's a crappy song, but that doesn't matter - i wrote it and nobody should go passing the recording around for free. that's stealing from ME.”

“No doubt!!!!!!!


They need to be stoped with all the crap that they are doing!!!!!!

8|”

“What is an RIAA, and what did they do?”

“if you download winmx, do you know that nowhere is says that it is illegal to download music??

(at least I did not see it)

Okay, I know...but a 12 year old doesn't know. Yeah, they suppose to be supervised. anyway, not all kids are supervised.

Actually, there was one adult, can't remember the name that really did not know that it was illegal to download from the net.

so some adults really don't know better!

I didn't go to the winmx site for a while, so I don't know what's on it now.”

“I have a different position than many on this issue.

If you download music you know is copyrighted, you are a thief. Period. No cry-baby crap about how the CD you want "is too expensive", etc., etc. Bottom line is you stole someone else's property (intellectual property, in this case), and IMHO you should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

We really seem to have lost our way on so many issues... somehow "right" and "wrong" don't mean very much anymore. "I wanted this CD but didn't want to pay the exhorbitant price they wanted, so that's justification for me being a crook"

I don't think so.”

“What about people who streem DJ's and music like that????The RIAA has no right to get into that do your reasearch!!!!!


8|”

“"anyway, not all kids are supervised."

if a parent owns the computer and pays no attention to what their kid is doing on it, don't they share some responsibility? parents are responsible for their children, although there are a lot these days who want to pretend they're not.”

“hold on, hold on, Mike. theft is theft. i don't know what you mean by "streem DJ's."”

“Tabubble: You are 100% right on. Ignorance is noe excuse, if you're a parent, be a parent. Take your responsibiliries seriously.

CMB, I don't know what your issue is, I don't know what "streeming" is.”

“Live music that Dj's do on Internet Radio stations they got there hands in that too and that is CRAP!!!!

I have long been into music that is streemed over internet radio and the riaa whats to put HUGH $$$ on that too and if they had there way there would be no INTERNET RADIO!

I know what I am talking about becuase I have Dj'ed on a few stations and have read the stuff that the RIAA has said and its CRAP.

8|”

“i'll give a little leeway for ignorance. not everybody is a bright bulb, keeping up on the news. there are a lot of people who plain don't understand what a copyright is, heaven help us all. the RIAA has offered amnesty to folks who fess up and swear not to do it again. that seems pretty fair.”

“Even if you are not P2p streeming music should not be touched by the RIAA!!!!!


8|”

“tarabubble, I agree, parents to share responsibility, but right now 12 year old kids are being sued.
Not sure how far this will go, and I really didn't follow the news all the way, so I don't know if the parents got in trouble or not.

I guess if they don't want you to record their music, dang, then put a freaking block on your cd. We are paying enough for them right now.


now tell me, you never made a copy of a tape before? None of you that is so against copying never made a copy of a tape before?
Never copied a Video tape either right??”

“Welcome to the fight for freedom in webcasting. Thanks for your support. Please sign the petition, send in as many e-mails as you can, and refer other individuals and groups to do the same.



When signing the petition, please include all requested information (it’s necessary for your name to be counted as valid.) Please note that the letter posted on this site will be attached to the petition when it is sent in.



You may click on the links given to access government sites that list your senators and representatives, their e-mail addresses, and give links to their home pages for their snail mail addresses and phone numbers.



The more people that sign the petition, the more likely we will achieve our desired goal and affect policy change. This is an example of a true grass roots political campaign, where you CAN make a BIG difference.



If you are new to this issue and would like to learn more, reading the senate testimony, letter and petition will give you a good overview. This is a very complicated issue unfortunately, and difficult to explain briefly.



An important thing to remember when reading the letter is that we are talking about sound recording copyright performance royalties (sr royalties—that cover the actual recording of a song), NOT songwriter/publisher copyright performance royalties.



We acknowledge that webcasters, like traditional broadcasters, should pay the performance rights organizations (ASCAP/BMI/SESAC) for songwriter/publisher performance royalties. This is not the issue at hand.



The issues at hand are: 1) If webcasters are forced to pay sr royalty rates, all webcasters should be assessed these rates on a fair and equitable basis. The RIAA should not be allowed to negotiate 'individual' deals with 'individual' webcasters that give unfair advantage to companies partially owned by the major labels or that give the major labels special 'promotional considerations'. This gives the major labels unfair power and influence over webcasters, to the detriment of freedom in the marketplace for webcasters, artists and the listening public.; 2) Sr royalties should be applied from the time they are determined, not retroactively back to the passage of the DMCA in October of 1998. Imposing these royalties retroactively will most likely bankrupt webcasters that have paved the way in the new digital arena and have yet to realize profits. If the only way for a webcaster to avoid paying these retroactive royalties is to make an 'individual' deal with the major labels (through their lobbying institution, the RIAA), the labels once again gain unfair power and influence over webcasters. Major labels can essentially do away with any webcaster unwilling to abide by the terms they unilaterally impose.; 3) Sr royalty rates should be equitable to the royalty rates for songwriting/publishing. Why should the recording of a song be worth more than the creation of that song in royalty fees?--simply because the owners of 90% of sr royalites have a powerful lobbying organization?; 4) Land based broadcasters should also pay these sr royalty fees. Why should the new medium for streaming music pay these royalites when the established medium for streaming music in the United States does not do so now, is not slated to do so in the future and has never done so in the past? It makes no logical sense and is damaging to the new digital economy. Either all broadcasters and webcasters should pay these royalties or no broadcasters and webcasters should.



Sr royalties were created for the first time in the United States in 1995 to protect major labels from potential losses in sales due to digital downloads and subscription services. Webcasting was intentionally exempted from these fees for the same reasons traditional broadcasting has always been exempted. The RIAA lobbied to add amendments in the DMCA in 1998 that changed this exemption. These amendments were never openly discussed in either house of congress but adopted in committee.



The RIAA is using sr royalties to exert influence in the new Internet marketplace. Webcasters are being forced to obtain licenses from the RIAA to stream music. The RIAA has been granted limited anti-trust exemptions and can make ‘individual’ licensing deals with ‘individual’ webcasters, without disclosing the terms of these deals. The RIAA has successfully leveraged these new copyrights to obtain equity stakes in or put out of business many online entertainment companies.



In proceedings taking place in 2001, general rates will be set for webcasters not making ‘individual’ deals. It is likely that most of those webcasters will be put out of business at that time, due to the retroactive institution of these sr licensing fees.



Under the proposed circumstances, it is unlikely there will be much independence left in music webcasting once sr royalties are imposed. Instead of an open and free marketplace where webcasters integrate independent recording artists with better known recording artists and recording artists from the past rarely played on today's airwaves, you will likely see business as usual take over the Internet. Webcasters will become little more than thinly disguised promotional vehicles for the major label agenda. I believe this is one of the reasons the RIAA pushed to apply sr royalties to webcasting to begin with. They feared the Internet and the new opportunities it presented to all recording artists.



If sr royalties are to be assessed to webcasters, they need to be assessed in a manner that allows webcasters to remain in business without merging with one of the major labels and to freely program their content based on their own agenda. Please make your voices heard on this very important issue, before the promise and freedom of the new Internet marketplace is lost to the traditional powers that be.



The collection of these new sr royalties is also an important issue. The RIAA has set up an organization called Soundexchange it hopes will become the sole organization collecting these royalties. We believe that in order for the interests of artists to be fairly served, these royalties should be collected by an independent, unbiased organization. Accordingly, we hope you will visit the Future of Music Coalition at http://futureofmusic.org to have your voices heard on this issue. Please sign their petition asking that the RIAA not be the sole organization collecting sr royalties.



Thanks for stopping by and supporting freedom for independent webcasters, independent artists and the listening Internet public.



Please remember to refer others to this site and to follow up on any e-mails you send.


8|”

“OHHH, that's what you mean! sorry, that's what i meant by referencing the RIAA's paranoia in my first post. that's why i really do despise the RIAA - they have no right to be dictating FCC policy, but they have a lot of $$$$ and so they do. but i can hate them and still agree that they are within their rights to pursue thieves.”

“CMB - I'm guessing you mean "streaming", not "streeming"?

I'm also guessing you are referring to music that a DJ plays over the internet? How is that different? If he stole it, he stole it, correct?”

“I am done talking about this music is for people not the RIAA to get there money hungry hands on!

8|”

“Music is for people who pay for it, not steal it.

Sounds like a complicaed issue, we all need to be very clear about our positions. I'm sure I'm not in complete agreement with the RIAA, but I also am very tired of people stealing and ignoring laws because they don't agree with them, or are simply irresponsible.”

“Music is FREE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Its something played from the heart for people to enjoy and SHARE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Damit I am PISSED OFF!!!!!!!!!!!!

8+”

“Gemini, i've copied CD's that I OWN onto cassettes (before i got a CD player in the car). that's fair use and not theft. i've listened to mp3's that artists have made available online. i've made mix tapes for friends, in an effort to introduce them to new music - probably encouraged people to buy a couple of the albums the songs were contained on. that last bit is probably a grey area, i admit.

but i don't copy videotapes that i've rented. i don't copy videotapes that friends own. i've copied TV shows, but i don't think that's illegal. as i noted above, i am a copyright holder. i understand what it is to have your work publicly available, and what you lose out on with piracy. by and large, we're not talking about people who download a few songs to see if they want to buy an album. we're talking about people who have made 1000's of copyrighted songs available for others to steal.”

“Do you do any form of MUSIC Wander????


I do I DJ & Play Live music and I have no PROBLEM with people taking my music!!!!!!!!!

8+”

“I am done with this talk if you want to talk about it call me 1-219-644-5019.


8+”

“crazy mike....i'm with you..but the RIAA's argument is that the DJ is streaming records of "their" artist..or tracks with samples of their music. But it has been my belief that the DJ buying the record gives him the right to play that track as part of his "gig". The RIAA says that DJ must also pay in addition to buying the record a play fee...FUNK THAT!”

“So, music is free, for everyone to enjoy, right?

So, how do those musicians who created it make a living? How do they buy food, pay the rent, etc., if their end product is "free" and no-one pays for it?

If someone can't make any money creating music, then who will create it?”

“Mike, music takes a damn lot of work and time. have you ever recorded and album? there are artists out there who are happy to share their work for free, and i applaud that. but when you talk about piracy, let's look at who you're really hurting.

composers, lyricists, backup singers, studio musicians, producers, mixers, studio operators, technicians, CD manufacturers (and all of their employees), and small, independent record label owners. these people love music, but have bills to pay and families to support, too. they're getting ripped off.”

“I know I did copy music tapes back when I was young, everyone did!

I honestly don't know anyone that can say that they never made a copy of a friends music tape.

I never recorded any video movie, but that's probably only because we only had one vcr. I probably would've if we had two.

I do buy my DVDs, or I rent them.”

“Dude I have been in bands and have played the drums since I was 8 and I have gone to school for music.I have made CD's with the bands that I have played with.the point that i am trying to make is that is that if people want to shair SONGS then so BE IT.Do the reasearch the RIAA makes money that the bands NEVER SEE!!!!!!!Dam it I havew been thought this so MANY FUC@EN times it is pissing me off!


Dude I know whats up and if I ever make it big the RIAA is not going to touch any of my MUSIC!

8+

If you people want to talk more call me I am getting sick of typing!

1-219-644-5019”

“Dude, Mike - i AGREE with you that the RIAA sucks! you have chosen to make YOUR music available to anybody. that's awesome. hell, if anybody wants my crappy little song they're welcome to it (not that anybody would want it). but i know a LOT of career musicians who make their bread & butter in recording. they have chosen to go into it as a CAREER, not a hobby. i'm not disputing that the RIAA and the labels it represents essentially reduce artists to sharecroppers. they suck, and the major labels are unfair.

there will be a revolution in how music is distributed, no doubt. the internet is a boon to small, unknown artists who would never get any exposure on commercial radio. more and more bands are simply starting their own labels. it's so easy to record albums at home now, produce CD's at a low cost, and even make your own cover art & inserts. but if an artist wants to MAKE MONEY off of their art, they have that right. they have the right to have their hard work protected.”

“I understand what you mean, and I get it, music can't be free. there got to be a limit set to it. I am not sure how, but if somehow it should be possible.

Why not put a block on it if it's such a problem? Example: Madonna, she put a block on her cd. So it is doable. Maybe a block that lets you play it only one time.

maybe there is way to play it on the computer, but you aren't able to play in in the car.

I probably would buy more cd's if I had a copy that I could play at home. I kind a got tired of buying cds after I bought a bunch of cds that had only one good song on it.

I don't know!! I understand that music can't be free, so don't get me wrong!”

“You explained the position so well I have to defer any further comment., Very, very well done, factual, not emotional and understandable to all.”

“see, eventually that will change. the major labels are big, rich dinosaurs with one foot in the tar pits. once services like - oh what's the name of that Apple music downloading service, 99 cents a song... well, once things like that start really being able to boast a good selection of songs, Cd's will begin to disappear. it'll be like LP's - kids will be incredulous that we ever went to the store and bought music.

honestly, i think that if you download songs for the express purpose of seeing whether or not you want to buy the album, that's not really theft. that's kicking the tires before you buy. as long as you delete the song and don't listen to it over and over again because you don't want to shell out the $$$.”

“Thank you!


8)


Sorry if I got so mad!”

“I agree with you Forrest!


8)”

“I'm not defending the RIAA here, but I noticed that your analysis didn't include ANY money for G&A overhead, Marketing, or any other routine business expense. That means is that your statement "the record company makes a whopping $ 16 to 17 million on a CD that sells a million copies, or a profit margin of ~ 90 %" is incorrect, doesn't it?

And, by the way, why GP% do you think is "reasonable" for a business? Did you know that most businesses run on a VERY slim profit margin, and that, in many industries, 3 or 4% is considered GREAT?”

“Tarbubble, question for ya. You said:

honestly, i think that if you download songs for the express purpose of seeing whether or not you want to buy the album, that's not really theft. that's kicking the tires before you buy. as long as you delete the song and don't listen to it over and over again because you don't want to shell out the $$$.

I can see if I download a few tracks from a CD to sample, decide I don't like them, I delete them. Check, got it, I'm cool with that. BUT, what if I like the tracks and buy the CD. I have now licensed the rights to that music for my own personal use (let's face it, like software, we don't buy the music or program, we buy license to use it for our own personal use). Would you expect that I delete that file anyway?

I would expect it would fall under fair use. Much like copying a cd to cassette for listening to in a vehicle without a CD player, or ripping MP3s from CDs I've purchased through a retail outlet for listening to on a personal MP3 player.

Oh, and the statement about DJs, they are using music they have licensed to make a personal profit. At this point, I think that there should be a different pricing scheme that comes into effect for them.”

“yup, fair use. if you can prove that you own a legal copy of teh song/album, then it's perfectly legal for you to have a copy of that song on your PC.

and about DJs - i don't know thw current status, but the RIAA also wanted to slap a lot of ridiculous restrictions on webcasting for non-comercial radio stations as well. for example, they wanted it to be illegal to announce a song before it was played, so that home listeners couldn't copy the sing as it played. they've made no such request of commercial radio stations, because commercial stations participate in the Payola network (which is illegal, but still happens every time you hear a song played). they've made other similarly onerous demands.

as for DJs who play songs out of their homes on webcasts, that's a brand new arena of broadcasting. i'm not even sure the FCC should have jurisdiction over it.”

“i go to the library, borrow cd's, take them home and copy them and dont feel the least bit guilty about it. which is essentially the same thing as downloading.

you cant call it theft. you are making a copy of a copy of a song that is owned by another person. you didnt take it from the record company. you took it from another person with their permission, who either got it from the store, or who downloaded it from another PERSON with their permission. only when you turn around and try to SELL it, does it become unethical. i DONT use the excuse ITS TOO EXPENSIVE, because i see nothing unethical about downloading anything for personal enjoyment.”

“fuc* the riaa. if they had any balls, theyd go after the cd-burner industry instead of 12-year old kids.”

“i can absolutely call it theft. creating an unauthorized copy of a copyrighted work is piracy. only a LICENSED copy of a recorded work is a legal copy. unless you have written permission from the copyright holder, your copies of CD's you borrow from the library are in violation of copyright law. just because you BORROWED it from the library, or from a friend, or from a co-worker... doesn't give you the right to copy it. the law couldn't be simpler.”

“sorry, toots, i dont agree with the law. but i also dont abuse it. ive stayed completely away from downloading, and only occasionally go to the library. go ahead and report me.”

“sure thing. i bet the RIAA is really concerned about artists whose albums you can check out at the library. all those Nana Mousskouri and Edith Piaf albums represent a tremendous loss of income for them. LOL, maybe your library has a better selection than mine.”

“besides, the MUSIC really belongs to THE MUSICIANS. except for metallic#&%!$s, you dont hear any musicians carping about lost royalties.”

“o yea defineitely, ive gotten pj harvey, hendrix, some great blues, butthole surfers, doors, bjork, rem, and couldve gotten a bunch of other great stuff if i didnt already have it: radiohead, tori amos......”

“generally, if i REALLY want a cd, ill go buy it. i only borrow and copy the ones i kinda want but dont wanna spend the money on. that way, nobodys losing any money cuz i wasnt going to spend it in the first place.”

“LOL, justify it all you want. doesn't change the facts. you're still getting their hard work for free.

also, these artists signed their ripoff contracts of their own free will. their agents & lawyers helped negotiate the deal. but a 30% drop in overall CD sales within 3 years is still rather significant, and will also impact their future earnings as well as their royalty income. lost earnings for their labels means less promotion of their work.”

“well i did have to buy the computer, and the burner, and the blank cds, and gas, and my taxes pay for the library........”