digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Would You Believe The RIAA Would Go Back On Its Word?

techdirt.com — Following the news of the RIAA suing XM for daring to come up with a device that lets people record their satellite radio offerings, it seems worth reminding the RIAA how they swore up, down, left and right that they would never, ever file such a lawsuit.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • mardak, on 10/12/2007, -1/+88Yes
    • soogy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+49No! I can't believe it. The RIAA is the best thing to ever happen to this world since DRM, DMCA and other things that start with D.
    • rasterbator, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18Is there a large non-profit organization specifically for protecting consumers against RIAA and other media content owners from ripping us off at every turn? If not, there are a billion people that would love to join one and the time is ***** now!
    • FullMetalMonkey, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Blasphemy!!!! The RIAA is Evil in a good way!!!!!
    • rdavidson3, on 10/12/2007, -22/+6@soogy - "No! I can't believe it. The RIAA is the best thing to ever happen to this world since DRM, DMCA and other things that start with D."

      Let's not forgot everyone's favorite D-word... Diarrhea
    • meistaiwan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12@soogy - "No! I can't believe it. The RIAA is the best thing to ever happen to this world since DRM, DMCA and other things that start with D."

      DivX? (the bad one)
    • RaistlinMajere, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2I imagined that "yes" in the voice of Mark The Bagger. Too funny.
    • Greg-J, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7How is it that some nut-job with a sniper rifle hasn't lost it and taken out Dan Glickman and Cary Sherman?

      I'm thinking Michael Douglas in 'Falling Down'?
    • rasterbator, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21@rdavidson3

      "Let's not forgot everyone's favorite D-word... Diarrhea"

      Don't you mean DiaRIAA?
    • nikt0, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12@rasterbator:

      Such a nonprofit exists. It's called the Electronic Frontier Foundation www.eff.org
    • Ainast, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I have to ask, is it legal for me to rip my old grandpa's 8-track tapes to dvd? I mean I've already bought the music.
    • dongiaconia, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"Is there a large non-profit organization specifically for protecting consumers against RIAA and other media content owners from ripping us off at every turn? If not, there are a billion people that would love to join one and the time is ***** now!"

      In addition to EFF mentioned above, there is also IPac
      http://www.ipaction.org/
    • joeysafe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@Ainast
      Legal, for his own (or the current owner's) personal use. But you really should have left a new comment instead of a reply...
  • Rowen7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21Yes.
    Now if XM was a college student, the RIAA would take that student out of school to pay its $6,000 debt for approximately two cds.
  • Phyltre, on 10/12/2007, -1/+23I can't believe it. The RIAA is verging on Openly Hostile status.
    • FullMetalMonkey, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Its not hostile! Its either very unfriendly, being marked by features that oppose constructive treatment or development, impossible to bring into friendly accord, or being characterized by enmity or ill will.
    • zybch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@oGMo
      "Verging? Suing customers including 8-year-olds and grandmothers and poor college students isn't hostile? Damn."

      Don't forget to add dead people to that list!
    • asplodzor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Um... come again, monkey boy?
  • joesnow, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11it's annoying to see the RIAA in the news every other day, they need to STFU and GTFO ASAP.
    • Arramol, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17It's annoying to see the RIAA in EXISTENCE every day. They need to be RICO/anti-trusted to death.
    • MuffinMan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Oh come on, you almost have a triple double on acronyms, ONE MORE!
    • Joe_rigby, on 10/12/2007, -28/+6NAZI
      Nasty Association for Zionist Incineration.

      Oh God, I'm gonna get buried.
    • BrewedInTexas, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10NERA

      Not Everything Requires an Acronym
    • ajwillys, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16AAAAA

      American Association Against Acronym Abuse

      Couldn't resist
  • turbopro, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5You give to much credit to the riaa by giving them caps.
  • tunercarzrock, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13The RIAA is getting to the point where they won't even allow fair use. If you are listening to the radio and you record the song to a tape, that's fair use. Fair use is also changing intellectual property from one form to another (for example, turning one of your CD's into MP3's). However, the RIAA, because of the actions of a few, or even the possible actions of a few, is making life miserable for the many. RIAA executives, if you read this: This is stupid and unbusinesslike. Stop.
  • tallgreen, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Yawn. Who would like to make a guess as to how long the RIAA will continue operating? I'll say, mmm, 4 more years.
    • manbergur, on 10/12/2007, -7/+0lets start a pool.. im gonna say more like 4-8 months..

      yeh right
    • sumrandommember, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2I got dibbs on 5 years

      :)
    • muya, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2$1 Bob.
    • requiem18th, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1More like 4 hundred years, the riaa got all the money and all the government backing, they are here to stay, violent revolution not withstanding...
  • nargilamonster, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6I wonder if any executive in the RIAA has ever made any music that is worthwhile to listen to? Probably not, Cary Sherman, suck my D*&% you slimy yellow beestard
  • dolson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Who cares? Stop supporting them. Whining about them on one hand, and then buying the latest and greatest Britney Spears album is hypocritical.

    It's like people who bitch about Microsoft being a monopoly and then go off and buy their products regardless.
    • manbergur, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4ive never bought a microsoft product, though i am using windows, and i will buy a cd to support the artist if and only if i havent found it online already anyway.. if they were gonna sue all the people who pirate music then there would be about a few hundred or more million people behind bars rigth now around the world.. its a bunch of *****.. you can get any song, and movie, and tv show, any software program you want online without getting out of your chair.. and no matter what they do that will allways be the case.. and i love it.. come arrest me
    • tnerb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1dolson:
      isnt that what a monopoly is? being the only seller in a market with no other competition. This is where microsoft got into trouble for abusing their massive market share to snub out competition.
    • Dog_Paddle, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12No one on Digg has ever bought a Brittney Spears album for themselves, ever.

      Trust me.
    • Johndoe777, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3RE:Dog paddle.... i dunno, I think quite a few people on digg bought the album just for the ::cough:: 'album art' but i agree, they likely never put the cd in...
    • GrundlTerror, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Yeah because people on Digg aren't lame at all.
    • ByteGuerilla, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Someone from my old secondary school has a band who have a recording contract with Sony. They're a great band, and I love their music, but I'm not willing to pay for their EPs. Instead, I'm going to copy the tracks and send the band the full cost of their EP. I'm paying for my music, I'm just choosing to pay the right way.
    • prammy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Being a monopoly is not illegal or even immoral. Abusing that position is.

      As far as RIAA goes, I have not purchased a music cd since they sued Napster. However I have not downloaded any illegal music either.

      It may sound hard to stop listening to music but then you discover new music which are not RIAA sponsored. Most of the music I listen to (psy trance) isnt distributed by RIAA labels anyway :)
    • asplodzor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"No one on Digg has ever bought a Brittney Spears album for themselves, ever."

      One of my friends used to work at Best Buy who, like many major retailers, mark deinventoried items at $0.01. As it happens, there were a significant amount of Ricky Martin / Brittney Spears singles left over from the holiday season and my friend pocket them all with change from said pockets.

      Endless fun w/ microwaves, tesla coils, etc ensued.
  • falcon707, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13Pretty soon we won't even be able to think about a song without paying some sort of fee.
    • joeysafe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Reminds of 1984...not just thought-crime, but thought-piracy.
    • Syron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It might already be happening to some extent. Song lyrics are copyrighted, so if you repeat them in public you might be making an unauthorized copy. Consider that the next time you sing "Happy Birthday". :P

      http://www.unhappybirthday.com
  • jokerr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9This just in ladies and gentlemen, the RIAA has gone back on their word. In other news the sky is blue and people don't like getting sued.
  • easy4lif, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6this is stupid. The People + Lawyers that work for the RIAA need to be drug out onto the street and shot like common drug dealers
    • geninstability, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15That's a bit harsh don't you think? Drug dealers provides a desired and competitive service to the general public and don't expect a handout when you buy from someone else. Honestly, you don't see dealers running around suing college kids for growing their own, do you?
  • repins, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3can we sue the RIAA as a monopoly? How about the RICO laws after all they are almost as bad as the Mafia

    "If you pay this small fee nothing bad will happen to you, think of it as insurance against a law suit"
  • zatrix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This only goes to show that RIAA has an agenda. They don't give two ***** about what they promised to who. They are the gold miners of today, and they are mining everybody and everywhere while justifying themselves with a cause.
  • r00tus3r, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Ok, this is bordering on tiresome. If you hate them so much STOP SUPPORTING THEM ALREADY. Don't buy music from these artists, or listen to their music. Simple. I stopped a long time ago, and now support indie artists like Iron & Wine.
  • jmccorm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The say whatever they need to say to win the current battle at hand. It is as simple as that.
  • burstlag, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Non-linkjacked content here: http://hrrc.org/news/PressRelease051706.html
  • falcon707, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Only Jack Bauer can stop them now...
  • gameboyhippo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0Perhaps I'll get sued next. Since I have a zero piracy policy at home, they'll sue me for not giving them the opportunity to sue me. I have a saying, "Help stop piracy, run Linux". Well in the same way, one could say, "Help stop piracy, don't buy from the RIAA".
  • XStatic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Serves XM right fr working with the RIAA in the first place. They should know etter than to expect treatment any different from RIAA than they give anyone else.

    Sleep with the dogs and you get fleas and smell like ...

    So everyone take a break from Digg and write congress asking for fair use legislation.
    Here is a good start if you need some help: http://www.digitalconsumer.org/bill.html
    • XStatic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Digital Consumer Bill of Rights in its own Digg
      http://digg.com/links/Fight_back_support_a_Digital_Consumer_Bill_of_Rights
    • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1"Large companies, those with the greatest wherewithal to help, are surprisingly minor players in the roll-up-your-sleeves work of open source development"

      XM screwed the RIAA. RIAA gives them permission to stream music, so XM screws them by providing a stream ripping device. It seems XM is the company you can't trust. They're just propping up their failed business model of selling commercial free radio by allowing customers to steal copies of songs for themselves.
    • skatingrox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Oh, my. If recording a song from the radio is 'fair use,' it should apply to satellite radio as well. Is using StreamRipper for Winamp illegal now?
    • XStatic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4geekee you have got to be kidding me!

      I should have the right to:
      1. "time-shift"
      2. "space-shift"
      3. make backups
      4. use platform of choice
      5. translate formats
      6. use technology to do 1-5

      For any content that is boadcast to me either in the open air or via a pay distribution method or purchased on media.
  • deusdiabolus, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3...and frat boys always promise that they will always pull out of your mouth in time.
  • shade73, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I hope XM takes them down. It's about time consumers started having rights again ;). Oh never mind, we have rights.. we can buy the cd.. but then we can't rip it and move it, stream it or carry it, or use it as a ringtone without buying it again, because that's fair right?
  • wilf_brim, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Wow. The RIAA sues a partner. What a surprise. Ref: Fable of frog and scorpion. Its in their nature.

    It still pisses me off, though. ***** the RIAA. ***** them up their stupid what asses.
    • Midas7g, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I digg the fable reference. RIAA is definitely stabbing their consumers in the back. Repeatedly. Until dead.
  • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I hope XM wins and puts iTMS out of business. Why pay $0.99/song, when you can pay XM $10/month or whatever and get perfect DRM free recordings for free as a byproduct.

    As for going back on their word, only a moron would compare stream ripping perfect copies of digitally transmitted songs, to time shift on a VCR, or music storage on an iPod, and claim it's the same.
    • fugitiveALiEN, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0XM is 64kbps and iTunes is 128k. And how do you get DRM free recordings via XM? The only way to currently "record" anything is to use a MyFi recorder, and if you stop paying your monthly fee the songs wont play anymore. And XM isn't a "partner" with the RIAA they hold the music licenses and royalties for music. =/
    • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Actually, I'm not sure if you can get music off of the device, after reading the spec. However, if XM pays a broadcast fee to play a song, and then the recipient plays a recorded version over and over, that means the artist is getting screwed. If XM want to pay the same rate for songs that Napster does, then their model is fine, but obviously they're not, or the RIAA would not be suing.
  • Bigcat1021, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The American Bar Association must love the RIAA.

    Seriously, that is one busy legal department.
    • skatingrox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1In addition, they're all drunk, so the 'bar' part of that association must be making a hell of a profit off of them. They have to be drunk/wasted to do something this stupid.

      And yes I know, the Bar Association is a legal association. Shoot me.
  • CyrusG, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3These acts by the RIAA and other bodies inspire one to purchase less and pirate more.
    • manbergur, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1i agree.. i have been downloading more and more music and video and apps lately even with the rising propaganda about people getting sued and whatnot.. no matter what they do there will allways be a way around it.. its the people using kazza and morpheus that are getting *****, not the irc users
  • shortkid422, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What a suprise...
  • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1"Oh, my. If recording a song from the radio is 'fair use,' it should apply to satellite radio as well. Is using StreamRipper for Winamp illegal now?"

    Recording a digital copy of a song from the radio shouldn't be fair use, especially in mp3 format that you can transfer to other devices. It's not fair to anyone if you can avoid paying $0.99 and get the songs for free. That violates the fundamental spirit of copyright. AT least with XM however, I don't think you can transfer songs off of the device, so they'retrying to do the Napster model while paying labels radio broadcast fees instead of the fees Napster has to pay.
  • cybershoplifter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1RICO and that ain't Rico Suave ...... It sure would be cool if this flys.


    p2p news / p2pnet: We've been calling the members of the Big Four record label cartel the Organized Music family since around October last year.


    Tanya Andersen, 42, a disabled mother, lives alone with her eight-year-old daughter. The two exist on government disability payments.


    EMI, Warner Music, Vivendi Universal and Sony BMG are accusing her of downloading and sharing music online but she says the accusation is entirely false and, like Patti Santangelo, is demanding a jury trial to prove it.


    In addition, she launched a counter suit against the Big Four's RIAA under the Oregon RICO Act, claiming the RIAA qualified because it had committed at least two acts of racketeering.


    RICO is short for Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization and it was originally created to combat Organized Crime as epitomised by the Mafia families.


    The Big Four's RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) wants Andersen's RICO suit dismissed and she, in her turn, has asked to have the RIAA's complaint thrown out, says Recording Industry vs The People.


    Andersen, who lives off a fixed income from Social Security, says she's never shared or downloaded music in her life and before the RIAA attacked her, told its 'investigators' they could examine her computer any time they wanted.


    But the record companies have never bothered.


    "I have always been against music downloading," said Andersen last year after being approached by Mark Eilers from the Tukwila, Washington, 'Settlement Centre' who was demanding money to make the RIAA go away.


    "In fact, I have been a member of BMG's music club for quite some time and I purchase my music either from there or from Target," said Andersen. "When I first got my computer set up almost three years ago, I had a friend set it up for me since I did not know how to do it. She had put Kaaza Lite on there and told me what it was. I never used it and had no interest in doing so. I deleted it since I had no use for it. Even though I deleted it correctly, as is recommended by Microsoft, Mr. Eilers has told me it can hide out in my system and play without me knowing about it. I have done a total check of my computer and it is no where on there.


    "These files you are speaking accusing me of sharing (which Mr. Eiler told me about), are not and never have been on my computer system. Several of those artists, I have never even heard of! One, I understand, is a rap song. I am 42-years-old and do not even like rap music. The login that this person who did this apparently used, which Mr. Eiler told me of, is not a login name I have ever used or heard of.


    "There is no one at my household who could have done what is being said at all. Mr. Eiler had brought up the fact that maybe a babysitter could have done it and that is impossible because I seldom have a sitter since I can't afford to pay one and am usually home."


    The RICO pattern Andersen accuses the RIAA of, "constituted a common course of conduct used by plaintiffs to target thousands of citizens throughout the United States," says Lory R. Lybeck of Lybeck Murphy, the Washington law firm which is acting for her.


    "These activities shared the common objectives of seeking payment of thousands of dollars from each person targeted, regardless of their innocence. These acts had the same or similar purposes, results, participants, victims and methods of commission.


    "The predicate acts of racketeering include, but are not limited to attempted violations of Oregon’s coercion statute ORS 163.275 in furtherance of a plan to commit coercion is a violation of ORICO 166.720.


    " These unlawful activities were not isolated. The record companies have repeated this coercive conduct with many other victims throughout the United States. Settlement Support Center, has reportedly engaged in the same pattern of threatening and coercive conduct.


    "In 2004, the record companies targeted another innocent person in this scheme. When presented with evidence that the defendant did not engage in any of the downloading activities, plaintiffs insisted that her lack of involvement was irrelevant and that plaintiffs reportedly threatened that they would sue her for hundreds of thousands of dollars whether or not she had ever engaged in the alleged file sharing, 'It didn’t matter. Someone is responsible and someone is going to have to pay'."

    • TheHours, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I want to give you a thumbs down so bad cause I don't want to read a word of that novel you got going there.

      TUW - Organization for those TAKING UP WHITESPACE!
    • cybershoplifter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Sorry, justed copied and pasted (lazy) but I love that RICO ***** cus it makes sense and I think it just might have legs, it's a longshot but....and I promise never ever to be lazy again regarding TUW!
  • nicepants, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Great story. I really wish stuff like this would make the mainstream press. I want to see a spokesperson from the RIAA try to spin this one away.
  • ShadowVlican, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"The lawyer that signed the complaint against XM is the same lawyer who told the Supreme Court that ripping a CD to a PC and then to a handheld device (without paying any royalty) is lawful. He represents the same industry that, in seeking 'inducement' legislation, promised that it would never be applied against devices such as a TiVo personal video recorder. But yesterday the complaint against XM claimed that consumers who use their devices in such ways are violating the copyright laws, and that XM is therefore guilty of inducement."

    well.. they are lawyers for a reason ;)
  • spaceguyspiff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0There seems to be a lot of whining and whatnot about RIAA and their practices. I'm not pointing any fingers. I don't like it either. But still, in all articles I've read, I've failed to read about a solution. No one wants to hear a problem without a viable solution. In other words, Congress is never going to pass legislation to keep the RIAA from being absolutely ridiculous if they can't think of a viable way to do it.
  • bobbybobington, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Simple solution: Don't buy their crap
  • cybershoplifter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2don't download or share RIAA crap..just fuk-em and the artist who r a part of them...got it flea/lars..
  • RobotCitizen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3At this point I wouldn't be surprised if the RIAA sent pirates smallpox blankets.
  • sophiaperennis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Yes, the RIAA is fighting, not for the artists, but for their own existence.
  • David01, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1IM GOING TO MURDER THE RIAA. DIGG IF YOU ARE WITH ME!
  • JackHallows, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I hate the RIAA.
  • bennyboy371, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Whats with all these people saying "quit bitching, stop supporting them." I don't. I've never bought music before in my life. In fact, before they started the lawsuits I was actually going to start buying the quality music. YES, theres quality signed music out there! There are artists out there with quality albums that don't support the RIAA doing these things (despite staying signed with them). Its not ALL Britney Spears. I now don't buy music for moral reasons. I don't feel I'm entitled to downloads. I am a criminal. Give me a non-DRMed subscription service with unlimited MP3 downloads per month (that conform to the uberstandard). Even at fifty, sixty bucks a month, I would pay for a service like that, and I'd love it. If they learned to go WITH their potential customers, they'd have more profit than ever before.
  • flaterates, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Never, ever buy major lable music or movies. Piracy rules!!!
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.