more from the RIAA

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Peter, Oct 3, 2005.

  1. Peter

    Peter Guest

    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.blogspot.com/2005/10/oregon-riaa-victim-fights-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, Oct 3, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Peter

    Richard Guest

    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.
    Richard, Oct 3, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. 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, Oct 3, 2005
    #3
  4. Peter

    Richard Guest

    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...
    Richard, Oct 3, 2005
    #4
  5. 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."
    Matthew Poole, Oct 4, 2005
    #5
  6. Peter

    steve Guest

    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.
    steve, Oct 5, 2005
    #6
  7. 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, Oct 5, 2005
    #7
  8. Peter

    Mutlley Guest

    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/2005/10/04/ms_quits_music_licensing_talks/
    Mutlley, Oct 5, 2005
    #8
  9. 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/2005/10/04/ms_quits_music_licensing_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 shit 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, Oct 5, 2005
    #9
  10. Peter

    thingy Guest

    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/2005/10/04/ms_quits_music_licensing_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 shit 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
    thingy, Oct 6, 2005
    #10
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Nick
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    893
  2. Michael

    RIAA foot-stamping

    Michael, Jul 23, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    478
    Michael
    Jul 23, 2003
  3. Jimchip

    RIAA hype...

    Jimchip, Jul 30, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    569
    area 51
    Jul 30, 2003
  4. SgtMinor

    RIAA wins by a knock-out

    SgtMinor, Sep 10, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    467
    jpnospam
    Sep 11, 2003
  5. tgilb
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    419
    tgilb
    Aug 11, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page