riaa wants to tax you

[mojo]

http://netscape.com.com/2100-1105-891781.html


RIAA wants tax dollars to combat piracy
By Gwendolyn Mariano
Special to ZDNet News
April 25, 2002, 5:00 AM PT

The Recording Industry Association of America is calling for additional federal funding to combat the ongoing wave of piracy, saying that the number of arrests and convictions for copyright crimes has skyrocketed over the course of a year.

In a congressional hearing Tuesday before a subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, the RIAA requested additional funds for federal anti-piracy law enforcement efforts and is pushing for a renewed agenda on protecting intellectual property. The RIAA, which did not request a specific amount, said the additional funds are needed for investigations and cases.

Specifically, the RIAA is requesting the funds be used to create additional squads or units for a program called Computer Hacking and Intellectual Property, which is part of the Justice Department's initiative to fight cybercrime. Although the RIAA applauded the creation of CHIP, it said it is concerned that CHIP's main focus will be on computer hacking and not on intellectual property. The RIAA requested in its testimony that these CHIP units make intellectual property a top priority.

"Piracy is not a private offense," Hilary Rosen, president of the RIAA, said in a statement. "It hurts everyone by diminishing the incentive to invest in the creation of music. It should not, therefore, be viewed as a crime only against authors, performers, composers, musicians, record companies, distributors, wholesalers and retailers, but against each of us."

The hearing comes against a backdrop of frustration over the ongoing problem of piracy within the music industry. The RIAA said the number of arrests and indictments for music piracy are up 113 percent from 2000 to 2001; meanwhile, guilty pleas and convictions were up 203 percent and sight seizures up 170 percent for that same period. The RIAA added that 2.8 million unauthorized CD-R (CD-recordable) discs were seized in 2001, compared to 1.6 million in 2000.

The RIAA also emphasized in the hearing that piracy levels have hurt the record industry financially. The RIAA said the sale of pirated recordings exceeds $4.2 billion worldwide, not including losses due to online piracy. The RIAA added that the music industry loses more than $1 billion per year from the illegal activities conducted in the world's four leading pirate marketplaces--Brazil, China, Russia and Mexico.

Piracy schemes go well beyond the record industry, permeating the software and film industry as well. Last week, in one of the most notable recent copyright-infringement actions, federal authorities arrested 27 people who were allegedly involved in a piracy ring involving Microsoft software.

In addition, the Motion Picture Association of America said it helped the New York police department shut down an alleged unlicensed DVD-copying operation based out of a Bronx apartment. U.S. law enforcement officials called the raid the first bust of its kind targeting DVD counterfeiting in the country. Moreover, a few weeks ago, a California resident pleaded guilty to copyright-infringement charges, involving more than 4,500 bootlegged videotapes.

Jack Valenti, president of the MPAA, also testified in Tuesday's hearing, calling on Congress to support enforcement of anti-piracy efforts. Valenti said that while the MPAA member companies are going forward with online video-on-demand initiatives, despite the low penetration of broadband access and the absence of a proven market, Congress should "send a clear message of deterrence that theft is theft, whether conducted online or off."

"If you can't protect what you own, you don't own anything," Valenti said in a statement.

The MPAA estimates that the film industry loses about $3 billion to non-Internet piracy per year. Much of that has come in the form of illegally copied videos, DVDs and video discs in Asia.

they forgot to mention the tax in excess of $10 per cd over the last 10 years that they already charge :rolleyes:

(i know...it's not tax, but profit- a huuuuuuuuge profit :angry: )

[Burzhui]

saying that the number of arrests and convictions for copyright crimes has skyrocketed over the course of a year.

well obviously it skyrocketed, if people didn't get arrested for this before and they just started arresting them.. of course the numbers will skyrocket:rolleyes:

[cruelpupet]

well if they want to tax me, then they can just go $&^@* %@(@ (@!#!


and ill dip my balls in marinara sauce so they can get a taste of home while they're at it

[cruelpupet]

id offer the same for Hillary, but they shrivel and hide at the sight of her

[jase71]

This is just sickening.

I'm done buying CDs. I realize that only encourages RIAA, because their sales will further decline, and they'll blame it on piracy, rather than realizing people are protesting RIAA's actions. But they're not getting any more of my money.

I've rationed what I've bought lately for the same reason, but now it's cold turkey.

Time to make a more concerted effort to find people distributing their own music online without the help of the major labels.

Anyone know any good sites for new/independent music put out by the artists themselves?

[Cantacuzene]

Sooooooooooooooooo, if they tax us will they turn Napster back on? I wouldnt mind a tiny increase in tax for them to drop their law suits. :P

What I am opposed to is the fact that those same companies that are clamoring for tax dollars DIDNT PAY A DIME OF TAX LAST YEAR. Most RIAA companies operated at a loss last lear, thus they didnt pay corporate taxes. What right does a company/person who doesn't pay taxes have to a share of the tax proceeds?

[Nanotech9]

i emailed the link to Steve at HardOCP to see if he'll post it on the news page.

[Nija]

I love paying almost 100 bux for 5 CD's... really I do..I think that if it were 200 bux for 5 CD's it would be an even better deal!

[cruelpupet]

Originally posted by jase71
This is just sickening.

I'm done buying CDs. I realize that only encourages RIAA, because their sales will further decline, and they'll blame it on piracy, rather than realizing people are protesting RIAA's actions. But they're not getting any more of my money.

I've rationed what I've bought lately for the same reason, but now it's cold turkey.

Time to make a more concerted effort to find people distributing their own music online without the help of the major labels.

Anyone know any good sites for new/independent music put out by the artists themselves?



Do what I'm doing..... bend em over

NY public library, is gonna support my MP3 collection now :)

*searches LEO Online for Cd's*

[NuTs62]

Originally posted by cruelpupet




Do what I'm doing..... bend em over

NY public library, is gonna support my MP3 collection now :)

*searches LEO Online for Cd's*

Don't you find it rather ironic that.. they want to use the government to tax us to fight piracy.. And you are goin to the library, which our taxes pay for, to rip your mp3's? I dunno bout you, but I find that rather amusing :P

RIAA is just gettin more powerful, and being a pain in the neck. I knew once a ruling came down for Napster, it'd set precedence for all this other **** to come.

I haven't bought crap from the music industry for a while now.. And this BS is some of the primary reasons attributed to it. Like jase, I did buy music for a time, even after I was downloading like mad, but I wonder whats the point?

I still buy DVD's though. I don't mind as much paying $12-20 for a good movie.. Afterall, we already have to pay $9 to watch it in the theaters. :rolleyes: Of course if they started heavily crackin down on people who rip DVD's, etc.., I'd stop buying DVDs too.

[cruelpupet]

Originally posted by NuTs62


Don't you find it rather ironic that.. they want to use the government to tax us to fight piracy.. And you are goin to the library, which our taxes pay for, to rip your mp3's? I dunno bout you, but I find that rather amusing :P

RIAA is just gettin more powerful, and being a pain in the neck. I knew once a ruling came down for Napster, it'd set precedence for all this other **** to come.

I haven't bought crap from the music industry for a while now.. And this BS is some of the primary reasons attributed to it. Like jase, I did buy music for a time, even after I was downloading like mad, but I wonder whats the point?

I still buy DVD's though. I don't mind as much paying $12-20 for a good movie.. Afterall, we already have to pay $9 to watch it in the theaters. :rolleyes: Of course if they started heavily crackin down on people who rip DVD's, etc.., I'd stop buying DVDs too.

I guess it is kinda funny :D

As for the last music CD i bought... was prolly Deftones:White pony

But i never bought a lot of cds to begin with...prolly like 5 a year, but now i refuse to buy any.


DVD's i buy, but I only do that, because I like the extras included on DVDs, and I only pay about $10 per DVD, WHICH IS LESS THAN A MUSIC CD!!!!

If music CDs were $8 or less, I would probably buy all the cds i could afford

[NuTs62]

Originally posted by cruelpupet


I guess it is kinda funny :D

As for the last music CD i bought... was prolly Deftones:White pony

But i never bought a lot of cds to begin with...prolly like 5 a year, but now i refuse to buy any.


DVD's i buy, but I only do that, because I like the extras included on DVDs, and I only pay about $10 per DVD, WHICH IS LESS THAN A MUSIC CD!!!!

If music CDs were $8 or less, I would probably buy all the cds i could afford

:stupid: Well, I'd consider myself a music enthusiast. I have a collection of I'd say over 200 cd's. And my DVD collection is over 100 too. Sometimes I buy 10 at a time.. From 10 at a time to 0 in the past year, it says something.. That RIAA is diggin their own grave. They're pissin off the same people who were once their loyal customers.

[xsiled2]

ive only boughten cd's in the last year directly from nitro records, since they have a few killer bands and they sell fer cheap the profit goes direct to the band and to fund the label which isnt huge. other wise i havnt boughten ANY cd's in atleast 16 months if not longer, actually now that i think about it the last time i got a non-nitro cd was from colombia house and their cheesey 11 for 1 thing....

[Speedfreak]

Those bitches @ RIAA need to STFU and go watch their DivX.

[NuTs62]

Originally posted by Speedfreak
Those bitches @ RIAA need to STFU and go watch their DivX.

Heh, I'd love to see them get investigated... And watch the same people that are so anal about anti-piracy be the ones pirating themselves.. With loads of mp3's on their own computers.. I wouldn't be suprised that people who work for the RIAA have mp3's.. :rolleyes:

[Speedfreak]

Originally posted by NuTs62


Heh, I'd love to see them get investigated... And watch the same people that are so anal about anti-piracy be the ones pirating themselves.. With loads of mp3's on their own computers.. I wouldn't be suprised that people who work for the RIAA have mp3's.. :rolleyes:

They would probably call it a "job perk".

[NuTs62]

Originally posted by Speedfreak


They would probably call it a "job perk".

heh, I wouldn't mind that as a job perk :) Where do I apply?

[LPMiller]

buy used, it's a beautiful thing. I've bought a couple of new CD's, but a TON of used in the past year.

[johnnymk]

half.com has tons of used CD's. That's where I usually buy mine.
I have a store within a mile of me which sells new and used CD's. He used to have really cheap prices on used CD's, but since the price of new CD's went up, his used prices also went up...the old Supply and Demand formula at work.

[molecularfire]

What right does a company/person who doesn't pay taxes have to a share of the tax proceeds?

I agree with you here, but I'm pretty sure most people won't. Taking money from those who have it and giving it to those who don't seems to be the american way. It's called welfare.:rolleyes:

[Cantacuzene]

Well I wasnt really attacking the welfare system. I was more attacking the taking money from those who dont and giving it to those who do, which is actually the opposite.

The record companies paid very little or no tax in 2001 and now they want a share of the tax money. Who pays for that? Us the poor american people. They are atking from the poor to give to the rich.

[NuTs62]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
Well I wasnt really attacking the welfare system. I was more attacking the taking money from those who dont and giving it to those who do, which is actually the opposite.

The record companies paid very little or no tax in 2001 and now they want a share of the tax money. Who pays for that? Us the poor american people. They are atking from the poor to give to the rich.

and another way you can look at it is.. not many people gives a rats ass about RIAA.. and yet we have to pay the taxes so that the government will do their dirty work, to clean up their mess.

[mojo]

Originally posted by NuTs62


and another way you can look at it is.. not many people gives a rats ass about RIAA.. and yet we have to pay the taxes so that the government will do their dirty work, to clean up their mess. another example of how not caring about stuff that doesnt affect us immediately ends up affecting is in the long run. people don't care about something when it's small...it builds momentum...then it becomes a really big problem. we gotta snuff this schitt out before they get the rest of our rights (or tax the rest of our stuff...whatever).

[Nija]

DOWN WITH THE DMCA!
*ahem* ok. I'm done.

[whitak24]

i don't really have anything else to say that hasn't already been said. it just is crazy on so many levels.

all i can say is "buy used!"

[MJordanash]

Originally posted by Nija
I love paying almost 100 bux for 5 CD's... really I do..I think that if it were 200 bux for 5 CD's it would be an even better deal!
lol...oh geez thats just pocket change. Its about time they increased the price of cd's. After all, $20.00 for one single cd that might have only two songs I like on it is definitely worth it. :heh:

[NuTs62]

File-swapping sites multiply despite legal tangles

April 29, 2002 Posted: 9:33 PM EDT (0133 GMT)

LONDON (Reuters) -- The number of file-swapping, or peer-to-peer, Web sites, has grown more than five-fold in the past year, a study said on Monday, despite legal efforts by Hollywood, music companies and software firms to shut them down.

Peer-to-peer sites, including Kazaa and Morpheus Music City, have attracted millions of global users who trade all manner of files, primarily copyright-protected songs, films, software and computer games.

The record labels and Hollywood studios have made unsuccessful attempts to clamp down on the sites, which they claim are enabling a wave of mass consumer piracy that is eating into sales.

According to a new survey by U.S. technology firm Websense Inc., the number of peer-to-peer (P2P) sites totals nearly 38,000, up 535 percent in the past year.

Nearly one in three of the most popular applications downloaded off CNet's Download.com are for P2P services, the survey said.

The surge in P2P usage is impacting the workplace as employees increasingly use speedy corporate Internet connections to download songs and software, a potentially unlawful activity, Websense warned.

"Companies that look the other way may have copyright violations occurring in the workplace, and lawsuits are a potential outcome of such activity," Jennifer Kearns, an employment attorney at UK law firm Brobeck, Phleger and Harrison, said in a statement issued by Websense.

Linkage (http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/internet/04/29/file.swapping.reut/index.html)

[mojo]

Originally posted by MJordanash

lol...oh geez thats just pocket change. Its about time they increased the price of cd's. After all, $20.00 for one single cd that might have only two songs I like on it is definitely worth it. :heh: it's even better when i buy them on the merit of the last releases from the artist. the songs i like may be more marginal...but hey, as long as i'm helping some rich executive buy that 2nd yacht to put in his driveway just for his own status, it's all worth it :rolleyes:

in fact, part of the agreement that record companies should make is that the band will not only receive less than 1/16th of each sale, but the band should also sign over all rights of the songs to the label. in fact, let's not even have band names. screw those peeps! all they do is supply talent...they should just put all the songs under the label name, and have artist numbers.

[ananda lewis]"topping the chart this week is arista's newest smash single, 'bend me over' by artist #423"[/ananda lewis] :hehehmm:

[johnnymk]

Well, the record companies do discover the talent, they do the auditioning, they laboriously take the time to fine-tune the songs during recording; they create the album covers, they contact the proper people for promotion, they spend large sums of money on ads, and most of all, they must have an adequate reserve to ensure that certain people on Capitol Hill are in their pocket.
Don't you think that all of this effort is worth the $20.00? :P

[topane]

Originally posted by Nija
DOWN WITH THE DMCA!
*ahem* ok. I'm done. http://members.dsli.com/kniemi/images/nijastupid.gif

:stupid:

[topane]

Originally posted by johnnymk
Well, the record companies do discover the talent, they do the auditioning, they laboriously take the time to fine-tune the songs during recording; they create the album covers, they contact the proper people for promotion, they spend large sums of money on ads, and most of all, they must have an adequate reserve to ensure that certain people on Capitol Hill are in their pocket.
Don't you think that all of this effort is worth the $20.00? :P Sure, if they actually find some real talent instead of this canned rock-rap **** they've been shoving down our throats ;).

[NuTs62]

Feds seen losing patience over lack of a solution
April 30, 2002 Posted: 9:45 AM EDT (1345 GMT)

SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- Four years ago the record industry and some technology companies banded together to match wits in a combined effort to stamp out Internet music piracy.

Their goal: to usher in an age of secure digital songs wrapped in unbreakable code.

The Secure Digital Music Initiative was supposed to be just the medicine to marginalize the Napster phenomenon. Soon, there would be SDMI protected CDs and SDMI digital music downloads playing only on SDMI-compliant devices.

Failure would mean "the Internet will simply become a world where nothing happens -- where nothing has value," SDMI's director, Leonardo Chiariglione, said at the time. Chiariglione now works at Telecom Italia Labs.

Now SDMI is roadkill, outpaced by developments in digital technology and done in by the narrow interests of its own members -- record labels competing for dominance and music hardware companies impatient to get their products out to consumers.

In all, some 200 recording and technology companies that paid $20,000 in annual dues took part in SDMI's lengthy planning and specification design meetings. But many also ignored SDMI's long-term goals.

With music fans clamoring to listen to their illegally copied MP3 files on mobile devices, makers of the Rio, Nomad Jukebox and other digital music players weren't about to let the market slip by.

"This was the RIAA's attempt to reverse physics," says Jonathan Potter, director of the Digital Media Association, which represents some online media and technology companies. "And it was an attempt to use the cloak of technology development to really try to impose rules on the Internet and content owners."

Hackerproof?
For three years, SDMI members met in the U.S. and abroad, sharing ideas about how to digitally watermark audio files to make them hackerproof or cloak them in another piece of computer code that only SDMI compliant CD players would recognize.

But the market for MP3s and digital music overtook them.

As Napster foundered in court, Gnutella, Morpheus and a host of other file-sharing applications took its place. Tens of millions of people downloaded the programs, sharing MP3s to listen to at home and on the road.

SDMI wasn't even close to ready as millions of consumers took advantage of these "killer apps," says Talal Shamoon, who had a front row seat for SDMI's downfall.

A vice president of business development at InterTrust Technologies, a digital rights management company and early SDMI member, Shamoon said "SDMI may have been the wrong medicine for anything."

"I think the market really moved under people's feet," he said.

SDMI's final public embarrassment came in September 2000 when the group issued a "Hack SDMI" challenge to computer programmers around the globe. SDMI encoded and digitally watermarked some audio content and dared programmers to hack it.

Princeton professor Edward Felten and a few colleagues met the SDMI challenge in three weeks and were about to present a paper on how they did it when the Recording Industry Association of America threatened to sue.

The RIAA eventually backed off, with the association's general counsel later calling the letter a mistake. But the damage was done.

More to come
All five major music labels continue to work on copy protection of course. But competing digital rights management schemes are multiplying, and don't play well with each other.

Music downloads from the labels' online service pressplay don't work with software downloaded with RealNetwork's Musicnet subscription, and none of those downloads play in a Rio Player, Nomad Jukebox or iPod.

Many manufacturers say they plan to upgrade the software in their devices so the music players will recognize the protected content format -- as soon as someone invents one that consumers care to buy.

But such advances may make the players incompatible with today's digital music, leaving listeners with thousands of MP3s and no device to hear them on.

"Purely from a technological perspective and from a consumer electronics standpoint, it's very important to have a format that everybody can eat," Shamoon said.

For up-and-coming MP3 player companies like Bantam Interactive, deciding whether to support digital rights management may mean life or death in terms of consumer acceptance.

"I do not want to make any player which allows only to play copy-protected music," said Santosh Patel, Bantam's president.

He never joined SDMI, which was already on its last legs when Bantam was coming to market with its two players 1 1/2 years ago.

Winning consumers?
Patel wants his products to evolve to support future copy-protected music formats, while retaining the ability to play older unprotected MP3s.

"That way you support the technology, you support the security and eventually you phase out the unprotected material," Patel said.

Another organization appears poised to pick up where SDMI left off.

The newly formed Digital Media Device Association intends to develop specifications for digital entertainment on portable devices. The group has about 40 members who have been meeting monthly since January, but little else is known about the effort and its director, Tom White, refused to offer details.

Some in government appear to be losing patience with the lack of a solution to securing digital content.

Sen. Ernest "Fritz" Hollings, Democrat-South Carolina, has proposed a bill to require any "interactive digital device" sold in the United States to prevent users from making unauthorized copies of copyright material.

If the private sector doesn't agree on copy-protection methods within two years, the government would determine the standard.

The Digital Media Association's Potter opposes Hollings bill.

"We don't think the government has engineers that rival the private sector's," Potter said. "Nor do we think it's possible to confine consumers. You need to win consumers in the marketplace."

Linkage (http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/ptech/04/30/digital.insecurities.ap/index.html)

--------------------------------

Another win for the consumers! :D

[mojo]

Originally posted by NuTs62
Feds seen losing patience over lack of a solution
April 30, 2002 Posted: 9:45 AM EDT (1345 GMT)
<snip>
Linkage (http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/ptech/04/30/digital.insecurities.ap/index.html)

--------------------------------

Another win for the consumers! :D wow...all that money being used by them and they still haven't figured out that people will buy the stuff if it was just cheaper. :disa: