«

Remember RIAA, the folks who sued a 12 year old school girl for downloading
music? Well, they are still up to their tricks.

"Tanya Andersen is a 42-year-old single mother of an eight-year-old daughter
living in Tualatin, Oregon. Ms. Andersen is disabled and has a limited
income from Social Security. Ms. Andersen has never downloaded or
distributed music online.
...
Settlement Support Center also falsely claimed that Ms. Andersen had ?been
viewed? by MediaSentry downloading ?gangster rap? music at 4:24 a.m.
Settlement Support Center also falsely claimed that Ms. Andersen had used
the login name ?.? Ms. Andersen does not like ?gangster
rap,? does not recognize the name ?gotenkito,? is not awake at 4:24 a.m.
and has never downloaded music.
...
An employee of Settlement Support Center admitted to Ms. Andersen that he
believed that she had not downloaded any music. He explained, however, that
Settlement Support Center and the record companies would not quit their
debt collection activities because to do so would encourage other people to
defend themselves against the record companies? claims."
http://recordingindustryvspeople.blo...back-sues.html



Apparently, the RIAA hope to use a few court cases to sway public opinion
and public view of what behaviour is acceptable, so as to make copying of
music unacceptable. Well, using illegal methods and picking on innocent
citizens isn't going to engender much sympathy for their cause.


Peter

Peter wrote:

> Apparently, the RIAA hope to use a few court cases to sway public opinion
> and public view of what behaviour is acceptable, so as to make copying of
> music unacceptable. Well, using illegal methods and picking on innocent
> citizens isn't going to engender much sympathy for their cause.

for decades there industry has thrived on devious practices, why do you expect
them to be any different when it comes to what they do to get money off net users.

On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 01:19:49 +1300, someone purporting to be Richard didst
scrawl:

> Peter wrote:
*SNIP*
> for decades there industry has thrived on devious practices, why do you expect
> them to be any different when it comes to what they do to get money off net users.

They may have met their match. Her reply is to sue under the RICO laws,
the same body of legislation that brought down the Gambino and Ginovese
families.

--
Matthew Poole
"Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."

Matthew Poole wrote:

> They may have met their match. Her reply is to sue under the RICO laws,
> the same body of legislation that brought down the Gambino and Ginovese
> families.

I read somewhere that rico laws have to be enacted by a federal prosocutor tho,
will be interesting nevertheless...

On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 09:52:14 +1300, someone purporting to be Richard didst
scrawl:

> Matthew Poole wrote:
>
>> They may have met their match. Her reply is to sue under the RICO laws,
>> the same body of legislation that brought down the Gambino and Ginovese
>> families.
>
> I read somewhere that rico laws have to be enacted by a federal prosocutor tho,
> will be interesting nevertheless...

Only for criminal charges. She's suing, not prosecuting. The RICO laws
allow for civil suits, according to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RICO_(law), which allow for "triple damages".

--
Matthew Poole
"Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."

Peter wrote:

> Apparently, the RIAA hope to use a few court cases to sway public opinion
> and public view of what behaviour is acceptable, so as to make copying of
> music unacceptable.**Well,*using*illegal*methods*and*picking*on*innocent
> citizens isn't going to engender much sympathy for their cause.
>
> Peter

It's extortion - plain and simple.

In article <>,
steve <> wrote:

>Peter wrote:
>
>> Apparently, the RIAA hope to use a few court cases to sway public opinion
>> and public view of what behaviour is acceptable, so as to make copying of
>> music unacceptable.**Well,*using*illegal*methods*and*picking*on*innocent
>> citizens isn't going to engender much sympathy for their cause.
>
>It's extortion - plain and simple.

Speaking of extortion, I found a link to this John C Dvorak opinion
piece <http://pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1862166,00.asp> on Slashdot. As
you may know, there's a tussle on between the record companies and Apple
over the iTunes pricing model: some companies want to move away from
having a fixed price per song, so they can charge more for more popular
ones. Basically, the record companies are making most of the profit from
the iTunes Music Service (while Apple carries most of the cost, though
of course most of _its_ profit comes from the iPod), and yet they're
complaining.

Dvorak is suggesting that the real reason they're complaining is because
a service like iTunes offers an independent way to audit the real
popularity of artistes, which is something the record companies can
currently fudge to their advantage.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <_zealand> wrote:

>In article <>,
> steve <> wrote:
>
>>Peter wrote:
>>
>>> Apparently, the RIAA hope to use a few court cases to sway public opinion
>>> and public view of what behaviour is acceptable, so as to make copying of
>>> music unacceptable.**Well,*using*illegal*methods*and*picking*on*innocent
>>> citizens isn't going to engender much sympathy for their cause.
>>
>>It's extortion - plain and simple.
>
>Speaking of extortion, I found a link to this John C Dvorak opinion
>piece <http://pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1862166,00.asp> on Slashdot. As
>you may know, there's a tussle on between the record companies and Apple
>over the iTunes pricing model: some companies want to move away from
>having a fixed price per song, so they can charge more for more popular
>ones. Basically, the record companies are making most of the profit from
>the iTunes Music Service (while Apple carries most of the cost, though
>of course most of _its_ profit comes from the iPod), and yet they're
>complaining.
>
>Dvorak is suggesting that the real reason they're complaining is because
>a service like iTunes offers an independent way to audit the real
>popularity of artistes, which is something the record companies can
>currently fudge to their advantage.
+
Another article on the same line.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10...censing_talks/

On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 09:14:05 +1300, someone purporting to be Mutlley didst
scrawl:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <_zealand> wrote:
>
*SNIP*
> Another article on the same line.
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10...censing_talks/

That one stunned me, when I read about it yesterday. For MS to walk away,
RIAA must be making some obscene demands. MS love the media industry (as
we've seen from their suck-up attitude), and will take a lot of **** in
order to get in good with them.

I found an NYT article yesterday which says that the labels are taking
about 70c of the price of each song on iTunes. For that 70c, they don't
have to do ANYTHING! They just cash the royalty cheques. Demanding more is
nothing less than unadulterated greed, but we already knew they suffered
from that condition.
Interesting to see the figure of $1.49 suggested for "popular" artists,
following on from the variable pricing idea. At that price, buying a
15-track album song-by-song of a "popular" artist (such as *shudder*
Britney) would cost you about double what the CDs are available for in
shops - sans liner notes and cover art work. Gee, what a bargain!

--
Matthew Poole
"Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."

Matthew Poole wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 09:14:05 +1300, someone purporting to be Mutlley didst
> scrawl:
>
>
>>Lawrence D'Oliveiro <_zealand> wrote:
>>
>
> *SNIP*
>
>>Another article on the same line.
>>
>>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10...censing_talks/
>
>
> That one stunned me, when I read about it yesterday. For MS to walk away,
> RIAA must be making some obscene demands. MS love the media industry (as
> we've seen from their suck-up attitude), and will take a lot of **** in
> order to get in good with them.
>
> I found an NYT article yesterday which says that the labels are taking
> about 70c of the price of each song on iTunes. For that 70c, they don't
> have to do ANYTHING! They just cash the royalty cheques. Demanding more is
> nothing less than unadulterated greed, but we already knew they suffered
> from that condition.
> Interesting to see the figure of $1.49 suggested for "popular" artists,
> following on from the variable pricing idea. At that price, buying a
> 15-track album song-by-song of a "popular" artist (such as *shudder*
> Britney) would cost you about double what the CDs are available for in
> shops - sans liner notes and cover art work. Gee, what a bargain!
>

MS has trying to be the platform for music and film delivery over the
Internet / via PC, both these bullies getting together and that would
tie things up...... As such I am sure they would all have been aiming to
make tidy monopoly profit. So for MS to walk away, MS found it couldnt
keep the lion's share of the profits or the record labels price is so
high that MS didnt think they could sell it, or MS were not in control.

I find it interesting when 2 bullies get together, they squabble and it
falls apart....

The pricing is also a rip off, the RIAA would effectively have zero
distribution costs, but of course that would mean loss of control and
profit.

The Internet is proving more and more interesting every day, no wonder
businesses so desperately want to control it, not only to make huge
monopoly profits but to hide their shoddy business practices, Groklaw
should be a lesson to them....

regards

Thing