The RIAA receives another smackdown for their lawsuits!

[LouCipherr]

Make with the clickey for the source (http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2006/08/riaa-drops-stubbs-case-in-oklahoma-one.html)

This is fantastic. A woman is sued by the RIAA. She answers the suit and then files a countersuit against the RIAA, likening their practices to "extortion" - 2 days later the RIAA asks the case to be dismissed. Hmmm, what does that sound like to you?

It's interesting to note that the woman sued is represented by Marilyn Barringer-Thomson of Oklahoma City, the same lawyer who represents Deborah Foster in Capitol v. Foster, the case in which:

1. the judge held that the RIAA may be liable for the defendants attorneys fees,

2. an amicus curiae brief was submitted by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the American Civil Liberties Union, Public Citizen, the ACLU of Oklahoma Foundation, and the American Association of Law Libraries, and

3. the RIAA has asked the judge not to read the amicus curiae brief.


Imagine that.

hey, RIAA! :moon:

They just don't realize that fighting this is like putting a band-aid on cancer. What a bunch of money-grubbing fools.

[MinionZombie]

I know exactly what you mean. Alex Cox (director - see "Sid & Nancy") summed the whole thing up really bloody well recently, he pointed out how Hollywood saw the VCR as the coming of the apocalypse and were convinced their "craft" would die out because people would be taping films off TV...*ahem* then they discovered they could harness the new technology to make a boatload of cash and suddenly it's the best thing ever.

SAME thing with downloading. Some are starting to come around very, incredibly slowly by putting up legal downloads (hello, iTunes is a huge hit!), but these downloads are rather half assed I have to say, and they're still trying to reign control over you even then.

People download because:

1) Quick & Easy
2) Involves minimal effort
3) They can't afford to buy every single album/game/movie
4) Many times a piece of media simply isn't worth the money
5) Sometimes people download stuff and then never watch it - consider this "download fever", suffered by the hardcore downloader, who needs to always be transferring data (I've been there, ha!)
6) Why go to the cinema to pay through the nose to see a film you're not sure is going to be worth the cash and sit through 20 minutes of adverts before the movie is interupted by chavvy teenagers txting on their nuclear-fallout-bright screens, people eating really loudly, babies crying and kids asking moronic questions

And there's a whole bunch more reasons that my generational procrastination and legacy of lethargy denies me from stating...:D

Downloaders aren't bad people - they're the bloody consumer after all - all this demonising of your customer is an incredibly stupid thing to do, INCREDIBLY stupid. Whatever happened to the customer is always right? (Case in point - nobody ever use DataKits.co.uk, they're cowboy wankers!)

Also, many downloaders also BUY a shedload of media (hence the "can't afford to buy it all" argument). Case in point - ME - I've got over 300 purchased DVDs, but I've also copied a bunch of DVDs. I also download, but I have a big old stack of purchased music and purchased videogames. I also download albums and games.

Hmmm...it's that sickly yellow Los Angeles style glow outside right now...a sign that I must go, and watch more 24 Season 1 on DVD! (Which I copied from my sister's purchased boxset). *smarmy bastard grin smiley*

[LouCipherr]

Excellent post, MZ. I feel the same way.

Believe me, I'm no saint, I have hundreds of copied DVDs in my house - but then again, I look at the 500+ music CD's and 100+ DVDs i've bought over my lifetime sitting on my shelves and I start to think "screw them, they've got enough of my money" I mean, cd's cost around 50 cents to press, artwork included. DVD's, probably not much more. I mean, hell, I can buy a double-disc DVD set and it STILL costs less than a damn music CD! WTF?!

I dunno, it's a two edged sword, but I can say one thing: The tactics of the RIAA are almost as sneaky, vicious and underhanded (as well as not exactly lawful) as the friggin' Bush administration!

Hmm, maybe they're in it together. Do I smell a conspiracy theory brewing here? Where are my 9/11 conspiracy theorists when I need them!? SOMEONE CALL THE ILLUMINATI!!! :D

[Danny]

honestly who hasnt downloaded one song off the net yet?


.....*tumbleweed blows by*.....




........*breeze*................






.....*owl hooting*...............




see everyone has:lol: , its no secret that if we can get it for free we will, i mean ive bought pirate dvds (yaarg i be a dvd pirate...yaaarrgggg....oh forget it) becuase A: they only cost a quid, B: they come out way before licesned ones and whos gonna pay £20 for a piece of plastic every time a good movie is out but they missed it at the cinema, those 20's rack up fast, especially if your a lazy good for nothign sutdent.:cool:

[MaximusIncredulous]

Screw 'em. Steal what you can. They still make millions. Some time ago I bought a few box sets of SCTV and, because the requested music fees were outrageously high, most of the episodes had to have skits modified or edited out completely. To have creative content eliminated solely because of the industry's greed is equivalent to them stealing from paying customers. So f 'em.

[LouCipherr]

MI - y'know, it's funny you should mention that. I'm no big Beavis & Butthead fan, but your SCTV complaint sounds a lot like what they did to the B&B dvd's when they came out. B&B were known as the two stupid cartoon characters on MTV that made fun of videos. That was what the damn show cenetered around. Well, they released the DVD sets and guess what? not a single damn video and them making fun of 'em - why? licensing fee nightmares. How stupid. They had to neuter the entire show, every single episode just because of greed. :confused:

That's ok, I'm doing my part to make sure the RIAA and most major record companies go out of business. I do still buy cd's - albeit it extremely rarely - but I try and purchase them directly through a bands website or in a way that any company involved gets the least amount of profit from me as possible. I wish there was a way we could all pay a musician directly for their work, bypassing all of the other crap that makes the idiots in suits the rich ones while the artist starves.

Wanna see something that will make you sick to your stomach? Take a look at this article below written by producer Steve Albini:

The Problem With Music - By: Steve Albini (http://www.negativland.com/albini.html)

Take a close look at the example: a band of 4 or 5 members make a record and sell 250,000 copies - which is damn good and half-way to what is considered a "Gold" record here in the US. The record company makes a gross profit (after paying off expenses, etc) of almost 3 million bucks - meanwhile, each bandmember makes around $4,000 a piece - and that is over a 2 year "cycle" of an album (make album, sell cd, tour for a year or so). :stunned: WTF?!??! How the hell can these people even live on that kind of income - and this is a typical contract for a new band! :mad:

I, for one, am gladly awaiting the fall of the big record companies and the RIAA right along with it. I'm doing my part. Now where's the chat middle finger smiley when I need it?! :finger: :D

[MinionZombie]

Quite frankly, if that's the case, bands should be less focussed on moaning about mp3 downloads and concentrate on getting themselves better record deals. That is obscene, the act who actually do all the damn work, get peanuts, while the bigwigs get millions ... it's almost as fair as a Labour controlled Britain! :eek::stunned:

[LouCipherr]

Therein lies the problem, MZ. If you're a new band and this is your first contract, you have absolutely no leverage in negotiating a recording contract. It's not until you have proven yourself a million-record-sales over that you can even begin to attempt to negotiate. Bands like the Rolling Stones, Aerosmith, Metallica - sure, they can negotiate a contract so they receive more royalties, but you're never going to get that until you make the record companies BILLIONS in revenue. :confused:

[MinionZombie]

In which case, bands like Metallica etc should put down the anti-MP3 placards and seek about giving new bands a proper contract, rather than being raped in the butt by the greedy record companies...the bastards.

[LouCipherr]

That would be nice, but I'm sure they've got more on their mind (like making another sucky album.. :lol: sorry, couldn't resist) than dealing with up-and-comers.

I think we're going to see a major shift in the music industry - even more so than we have in the past 3-4 years - very soon. My fingers are crossed the 'big three' record companies completely tank and musicians can get back to making the music they want to, not what they're told to make so they can sell more records to put more money in the greedy suits' pockets.

[MinionZombie]

Totally, this whole internet "movement" does certainly contain the possibility to cause some serious change (about time really). The music and movie industries have been stagnating for quite some time and are currently 95% rank ... TV on the other hand has been going great guns, especially in the last 5 years with a slew of quality dramas (24, Six Feet Under, Sopranos, Desperate Housewives etc) - I've been into the first season of 24 over the last 4 days, up to 2pm now, it's fair rocking stuff (having watched them one by one since the show began a few years back, I've now decided to go back through them all again).

Hopefully this internet thing will snap awake the music and movie industries (notice how the anti-download "thing" doesn't really take notice of the downloading of TV shows - however, the UK is apparently the biggest downloader of American product - no wonder really, when it takes so long to get over here! :stunned:)