I think i read that on Madonnas new CD, she (or someone) released a mp3 of madonna cursing saying like "this is what happens when you try to download my song before the cd is out" and stuff like that. But anyways, I guess hackers didn't like it too much, so they went to her site and showed her who was boss. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You don't have to tell me if you download music or not, but please dont preach me by saying it's like stealing because I know what it is and what it isn't.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It seems you misunderstood the analogy. Obviously a copyright infringement is not comparable with theft.
The point of the analogy, however, was that taking legal action against an illegal activity is not pointless just because it doesn't completely stop said activity. It's done to deter potential criminals.
Hmmmm....are you flaming or am I reading this wrong? ANYWAYS, PEOPLE STICK TO RIAA TOPICS PLEASE <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
CplDavisI hunt the arctic SnonosJoin Date: 2003-01-09Member: 12097Members
Just some additional info in current events Ive gotten from CNN or other places.
RIAA has sued people for sharing as little as 5 songs.
A grandfather is being sued by the RIAA for something upwards of like $95 million b/c he downloaded some "oldies from his time".
A senator from VA ( I think its VA cant remember for sure) is leading an investigation against the RIAA b/c several innocent people are being sued. Parents or people who own "Shared PCs" are bing sued for ubknow actions of other users. The RIAA blew him off.
The US Department of Justice has had to divert resources and man power from other important cases to filling out al the paperwork for the RIAAs nonstop supeonas.
The monetary fine for sharing a SINGLE MP3 can range from $750 to $150,000 for <b>each</b> song offered illegally on someones PC. The RIAA is willing to accept Money settlements.
Kazaa Lite's new version has IP blocking technology.
Is the RIAA aware that there are many artists out there that ALLOW their songs to be shared? For instance <a href='http://www.epitonic.com' target='_blank'>http://www.epitonic.com</a> allows for free files and other sites such as <a href='http://www.tranceaddict.com/' target='_blank'>http://www.tranceaddict.com/</a> use file sharing as ways to (with artists concent) promote their music. ANd does the RIAA take note of this in deciding what is illegal and what isnt when sueing people.
I saw some former prosecutor on CNN or some news network that was either doing a counter lawsuit against the RIAA or just telling them to back the freak up. Basically he was saying that yes the RIAA has the right to claim their copyright, but they don't have the right to drive families bankrupt.
<!--QuoteBegin--Cpl.Davis+Aug 5 2003, 05:37 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cpl.Davis @ Aug 5 2003, 05:37 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Is the RIAA aware that there are many artists out there that ALLOW their songs to be shared? For instance <a href='http://www.epitonic.com' target='_blank'>http://www.epitonic.com</a> allows for free files and other sites such as <a href='http://www.tranceaddict.com/' target='_blank'>http://www.tranceaddict.com/</a> use file sharing as ways to (with artists concent) promote their music. ANd does the RIAA take note of this in deciding what is illegal and what isnt when sueing people. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Ditto. Most of my mp3's are actually video game themes and such (I kiss you <a href='http://www.minibosses.com' target='_blank'>Minibosses</a> and <a href='http://remix.overclocked.org' target='_blank'>remix.overclocked.org</a>), perfectly legal.
Good thing I'm just a leech though and don't have anything no share :P See RIAA? I'm doing my part in helping to destroy the P2P networks! :P
<!--QuoteBegin--eediot+Aug 5 2003, 06:17 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (eediot @ Aug 5 2003, 06:17 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> This has nothing to do with hackers... stop being a media lapdog, spreading ignorance. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Of course it does, he showed a perfect example of uprising due to things done by the recording industry and it's artists.
Madonna posts fake "WTH do you think you're doing" mp3s on kazaa, and someone hacks HER site and uploads the REAL mp3s to it saying "this is WTH i think im' doing"
It has everything to do with this topic, as it's showing that the community of net users won't stand to have their fellow men sued into submission by what I now believe to be a terrorist organization (they are trying to instill terror in 60million people, aren't they?)
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->ter·ror·ism P Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm) n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sounds like the RIAA is a terrorist organization to me... threatening force upon people with the purpose of intimidation or setting an "example" upon downloaders.
<!--QuoteBegin--GWAR+Aug 5 2003, 12:07 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (GWAR @ Aug 5 2003, 12:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> My thoughts on the RIAA: Maybe they should put all those millions towards lowering the prices of CD's nowadays.
Filesharing would be nothing if CD prices were kept reasonable. (25$ for a album with only one song I like, waste of money) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> i agree on that point, but i'd prefer if the cut was made with games....
These people promise to "scramble/spoof" IPs they are just starting iut so there isnt much to them yet. But from what I hear they are growing fast, amd IP spoofing will be the norm in a few months.
This is mainly do to a company called "Comcast" out on the west coast that sent an e-mail to all their user reguaring the RIAA and how they would help the RIAA in any effort to "stop" the distribution of "illigal" music on their network.
Like I've stated previously on this subject: it costs them 15 cents to manufacture a CD and they sell them on average for $22, so that's what a 2300% return? Aside from that most of the revenue a record label makes is from their artists which in most cases are locked into a nice iron-clad contract which gives about 1/4 of the money they make directly to their label. And for those of you who still don't know the artists make their money from touring not from record sales, the only reason an artist even cares how many albums they sell is because once they go "platinum" it guarantees sold out venues. They make their money on ticket sales, merchandise, and royalties from airplay on the radio, all of which are not directly affected by record sales.
On a side note any of you who have actually downloaded music before know how difficult it is to get CD quality music (320 hz) from p2p means as most of it averages around 128.
And why aren't the companies asking themselves "Gee maybe the reason so many people would rather download music of lesser quality, risk getting bogus music, and now even risk law suits is because we are simply charging too much for our product?"
going to go on a mini rant.
The reason all of this is happening is because when it comes to CD sales it doesn't follow any kind of basic principle of business. Because artist have an agreement with a certain record label to only allow them to produce their music there is no alternative source to get their albums. If Sony decided to start charging 500 dollars for CD players that Panasonic sold for 90 no one in their right minds would pay for it, but when it comes to music there is no 2nd party to compete. As long as there isn't an alternate source for the product the rules of supply and demand can't apply to it, and even if a smaller chain wanted to produce the CDs and sell them for say $10 each they would quickly be sued by the Label for copyright infringements.
I took this from howstuffworks.com; just some basics for those ignorant like me:
<a href='http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/music-royalties6.htm' target='_blank'>How Music Royalties Work</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Mechanical Royalties Record companies and recording artists, as well as the writers and publishers, all make money based on the sale of recordings of their songs. How those royalties are calculated, however, is about as intricate and controversial as everything else in the music industry.
Writer/publisher mechanical royalties First, there is the calculation of mechanical royalties for writers and publishers. These royalties are paid by the record company to the publisher. The publisher then pays the writer a share of the royalty (typically split 50/50).
In the United States, the royalties are based on a "statutory rate" set by the U.S. Congress. This rate is increased to follow changes in the economy, usually based on the Consumer Price Index. Currently, the statutory rate is $.08 for songs five minutes or less in length or $.0155 per minute for songs that are over five minutes long. So, for example, a song that is eight minutes long would earn $.124 for each recording sold.
As in most areas in the business world, however, there is room for negotiation. It is not uncommon -- in fact, it is more the norm -- for record companies to negotiate a deal to pay only 75% of the statutory rate, particularly when the writer is also the recording artist. (See the "Controlled Composition Clause" below.) Although there is a statutory rate, there is no law against negotiating a deal for a lower one. Sometimes it is in the best interest of all parties to agree to a lower rate.
Recording-artist mechanical royalties Recording-artist royalties (and contracts) are extremely complex and a hotbed of debate in the music world. From the outside, the calculation appears fairly simple. Artists are paid royalties usually somewhere between 8% and 25% of the suggested retail price of the recording. Exactly where it falls depends on the clout of the artist (a brand new artist might receive less than a well-known artist). From this percentage, a 25% deduction for packaging is taken out (even though packaging rarely costs 25% of the total price of the CD or cassette).
That sounds simple enough, but there are many more issues that affect what a recording artist actually makes in royalties.
Free goods - Recording artists only earn royalties on the actual number of recordings sold -- not those that are given away free as promotions. Rather than discounting the price to distributors, many record companies give a certain number away for free (about 5% to 10% depending on the artist). Recording companies also give away many copies to radio stations as "promo" copies. There is also a reduction in royalties made for copies of the recording sold through record clubs.
Return privilege - Recordings in the form of CDs or cassettes have a 100% return privilege. This means that record stores don't have to worry about being stuck with records they can't sell. Most other businesses don't work this way, but the music industry has to be more flexible and timed to demand. What's hot today may be forgotten tomorrow... This leads us to reserves. The recording company may hold back a portion of the artist's royalties for reserves that are returned from record stores. (Usually about 35% is held back.)
90% - Back in the days of vinyl records, there was a lot of breakage when record albums were shipped out for distribution. Because of this, recording companies only paid artists based on 90% of the shipment, assuming that 10% would be broken. Even as vinyl was phased out, this practice continued. Today it is gone for the most part, but there are still a few holdouts. So, here is how it looks so far. Let's say a CD sells for $15. Right away we deduct 25% from that for packaging, which makes the royalty base $11.25. Now let's say our artist has a 10% royalty rate and that his CD sells one million copies. That sounds great! The artist would earn $1,125,000! Except 10% of those were actually freebies, so we really have to calculate that royalty based on 900,000, which makes the royalty $1,012,500, and of course, there are few costs we haven't talked about yet. Advances and recoupment
Typically, when recording artists sign a recording contract or record a song (or album), the record company pays them an advance that must be paid back out of their royalties. This is called recoupment. In addition to paying back their advance, however, recording artists are usually required under their contract to pay for many other expenses. These recoupable expenses usually include recording costs, promotional and marketing costs, tour costs and music video production costs, as well as other expenses. The record company is making the upfront investment and taking the risk, but the artist eventually ends up paying for most of the costs. While all of this can be negotiated up front, it tends to be the norm that the artists pay for the bulk of expenses out of their royalties.
Let's see what these recoupable expenses do to our artist's $1,012,500 royalty we calculated earlier. Suppose the recording costs were $300,000 (100% recoupable), promotion costs were $200,000 (100% recoupable), tour costs were $200,000 (50% recoupable), and a music video cost $400,000 (50% recoupable). That comes out to:
$300,000 + $200,000 + $100,000 + $200,000 = $800,000 Suddenly our artist isn't making a million plus, he's making $212,500. But don't forget there is also a manager to be paid (usually 20%), as well as a producer and possibly several band members. The artist won't see any royalty money until all of these expenses are paid. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Multiplatinum artists like TLC and Toni Braxton have been forced to declare bankruptcy because their recording contracts didn't pay them enough to survive. Florence Ballard from The Supremes was on welfare when she died.
Collective Soul earned almost no money from "Shine," one of the biggest alternative rock hits of the '90s, when Atlantic Records paid almost all of their royalties to an outside production company.
Country music legend Merle Haggard, with 37 top-10 country singles (including 23 #1 hits), never received a record royalty check until he released an album on the indie punk-rock label Epitaph.
<i>Source:Courtney Love's letter to recording artists</i><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--DOOManiac+Aug 5 2003, 12:10 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DOOManiac @ Aug 5 2003, 12:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I don't know what is wierder: that the RIAA is being compared to terrorism, or the fact that they do pretty much fit the definition... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> It's true though...
With all this middle east, al queta terrorism, etc. most people will NEVER be effected by ANY of this mumbo jumbo, and what IS causing the most terror is that 60 million people are uneasy about a looming threat of complete financial ruin.
The RIAA is quite the weapon of mass destruction, Mr. Bush.
CplDavisI hunt the arctic SnonosJoin Date: 2003-01-09Member: 12097Members
<!--QuoteBegin--Diablus+Aug 5 2003, 07:03 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Diablus @ Aug 5 2003, 07:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> i swear, if they come to my house if they even DECIDE to... i will use my pet onos, getem Killer!!!!!!! ROAR!
most likly theyll use notices in the mail? after they find out? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Aww man! Where did u get a pet Onos? Ive been looking all over. Only one pet store so far was selling them but then they stopped b/c the onos kept head butting his way into the other pens to eat the bunnys and puppys.
I dont know, maybe a pet onos woundlnt be such a great idea. Think of how big a pooper scooper you would need...
Food wouldnt be a problem. The pet shop clerk said they eat well on a diet of noobs (No newbies, but noobs, there is a difference), rambos, morons, and others that dont contribute anything positive to society.
I feel like a fugitive, always making sure the RIAA wont find out about my files, hey whats that black car that parked across the street? <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--404NotFound+Aug 5 2003, 12:00 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (404NotFound @ Aug 5 2003, 12:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--eediot+Aug 5 2003, 06:17 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (eediot @ Aug 5 2003, 06:17 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> This has nothing to do with hackers... stop being a media lapdog, spreading ignorance. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Of course it does, he showed a perfect example of uprising due to things done by the recording industry and it's artists.
Madonna posts fake "WTH do you think you're doing" mp3s on kazaa, and someone hacks HER site and uploads the REAL mp3s to it saying "this is WTH i think im' doing"
It has everything to do with this topic, as it's showing that the community of net users won't stand to have their fellow men sued into submission by what I now believe to be a terrorist organization (they are trying to instill terror in 60million people, aren't they?)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You might want to go and talk to some non-idiot and ask them to define "Hacker" for you.
And then ask them to define "Cracker".
And compare.
Edit: In fact, I'll be that person.
Dictionary.com defines 'Hacker' as:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->One who is proficient at using or programming a computer; a computer buff. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
[However, it cancels out this brief stint of intelligence with the second definition of: "One who uses programming skills to gain illegal access to a computer network or file. "]
Ah, found a definition of cracker.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->cracker n. One who breaks security on a system. Coined ca. 1985 by hackers in defense against journalistic misuse of hacker (q.v., sense 8). An earlier attempt to establish `worm' in this sense around 1981-82 on Usenet was largely a failure.
Use of both these neologisms reflects a strong revulsion against the theft and vandalism perpetrated by cracking rings. While it is expected that any real hacker will have done some playful cracking and knows many of the basic techniques, anyone past larval stage is expected to have outgrown the desire to do so except for immediate, benign, practical reasons (for example, if it's necessary to get around some security in order to get some work done).
Thus, there is far less overlap between hackerdom and crackerdom than the mundane reader misled by sensationalistic journalism might expect. Crackers tend to gather in small, tight-knit, very secretive groups that have little overlap with the huge, open poly-culture this lexicon describes; though crackers often like to describe _themselves_ as hackers, most true hackers consider them a separate and lower form of life.
Ethical considerations aside, hackers figure that anyone who can't imagine a more interesting way to play with their computers than breaking into someone else's has to be pretty losing. Some other reasons crackers are looked down on are discussed in the entries on cracking and phreaking. See also samurai, dark-side hacker, and hacker ethic. For a portrait of the typical teenage cracker, see warez d00dz<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->.
<!--QuoteBegin--eediot+Aug 5 2003, 10:34 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (eediot @ Aug 5 2003, 10:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--404NotFound+Aug 5 2003, 12:00 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (404NotFound @ Aug 5 2003, 12:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--eediot+Aug 5 2003, 06:17 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (eediot @ Aug 5 2003, 06:17 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> This has nothing to do with hackers... stop being a media lapdog, spreading ignorance. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Of course it does, he showed a perfect example of uprising due to things done by the recording industry and it's artists.
Madonna posts fake "WTH do you think you're doing" mp3s on kazaa, and someone hacks HER site and uploads the REAL mp3s to it saying "this is WTH i think im' doing"
It has everything to do with this topic, as it's showing that the community of net users won't stand to have their fellow men sued into submission by what I now believe to be a terrorist organization (they are trying to instill terror in 60million people, aren't they?)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You might want to go and talk to some non-idiot and ask them to define "Hacker" for you.
And then ask them to define "Cracker".
And compare.
Edit: In fact, I'll be that person.
Dictionary.com defines 'Hacker' as:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->One who is proficient at using or programming a computer; a computer buff. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
[However, it cancels out this brief stint of intelligence with the second definition of: "One who uses programming skills to gain illegal access to a computer network or file. "]
Ah, found a definition of cracker.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->cracker n. One who breaks security on a system. Coined ca. 1985 by hackers in defense against journalistic misuse of hacker (q.v., sense 8). An earlier attempt to establish `worm' in this sense around 1981-82 on Usenet was largely a failure.
Use of both these neologisms reflects a strong revulsion against the theft and vandalism perpetrated by cracking rings. While it is expected that any real hacker will have done some playful cracking and knows many of the basic techniques, anyone past larval stage is expected to have outgrown the desire to do so except for immediate, benign, practical reasons (for example, if it's necessary to get around some security in order to get some work done).
Thus, there is far less overlap between hackerdom and crackerdom than the mundane reader misled by sensationalistic journalism might expect. Crackers tend to gather in small, tight-knit, very secretive groups that have little overlap with the huge, open poly-culture this lexicon describes; though crackers often like to describe _themselves_ as hackers, most true hackers consider them a separate and lower form of life.
Ethical considerations aside, hackers figure that anyone who can't imagine a more interesting way to play with their computers than breaking into someone else's has to be pretty losing. Some other reasons crackers are looked down on are discussed in the entries on cracking and phreaking. See also samurai, dark-side hacker, and hacker ethic. For a portrait of the typical teenage cracker, see warez d00dz<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Jesus....Well in that case, your name is spelled wrong. In your case, you might want to find a non-idiot and ask them to spell idiot for you, not "eediot". In fact, I'll be that person.
It's idiot, not eediot.....I guess that means I'm as smart as you! Joy! <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Obviously you are <span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'>WAY</span> too intelligent for me and everyone else on this board, eediot. Please people, if you are going to post, please take it seriously and not be smart **** like the master-mind, eediot.
Comments
Have songs, then edit them to have a mic of you going "SUCK ON THIS ****'s" before the song
and label it
Song artist - Song name [RIAA destroyed Me].mp3
<!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
then share on kazaa, and get others to do the same
could be funny =]
It's really how they uphold the law that I'm against.
I think i read that on Madonnas new CD, she (or someone) released a mp3 of madonna cursing saying like "this is what happens when you try to download my song before the cd is out" and stuff like that. But anyways, I guess hackers didn't like it too much, so they went to her site and showed her who was boss. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Kind of humorous tho...
It seems you misunderstood the analogy. Obviously a copyright infringement is not comparable with theft.
The point of the analogy, however, was that taking legal action against an illegal activity is not pointless just because it doesn't completely stop said activity. It's done to deter potential criminals.
/edit
Not towards you Twex.
RIAA has sued people for sharing as little as 5 songs.
A grandfather is being sued by the RIAA for something upwards of like $95 million b/c he downloaded some "oldies from his time".
A senator from VA ( I think its VA cant remember for sure) is leading an investigation against the RIAA b/c several innocent people are being sued. Parents or people who own "Shared PCs" are bing sued for ubknow actions of other users. The RIAA blew him off.
The US Department of Justice has had to divert resources and man power from other important cases to filling out al the paperwork for the RIAAs nonstop supeonas.
The monetary fine for sharing a SINGLE MP3 can range from $750 to $150,000 for <b>each</b> song offered illegally on someones PC. The RIAA is willing to accept Money settlements.
Kazaa Lite's new version has IP blocking technology.
Is the RIAA aware that there are many artists out there that ALLOW their songs to be shared? For instance <a href='http://www.epitonic.com' target='_blank'>http://www.epitonic.com</a> allows for free files and other sites such as <a href='http://www.tranceaddict.com/' target='_blank'>http://www.tranceaddict.com/</a> use file sharing as ways to (with artists concent) promote their music. ANd does the RIAA take note of this in deciding what is illegal and what isnt when sueing people.
Ditto. Most of my mp3's are actually video game themes and such (I kiss you <a href='http://www.minibosses.com' target='_blank'>Minibosses</a> and <a href='http://remix.overclocked.org' target='_blank'>remix.overclocked.org</a>), perfectly legal.
Good thing I'm just a leech though and don't have anything no share :P See RIAA? I'm doing my part in helping to destroy the P2P networks! :P
Of course it does, he showed a perfect example of uprising due to things done by the recording industry and it's artists.
Madonna posts fake "WTH do you think you're doing" mp3s on kazaa, and someone hacks HER site and uploads the REAL mp3s to it saying "this is WTH i think im' doing"
It has everything to do with this topic, as it's showing that the community of net users won't stand to have their fellow men sued into submission by what I now believe to be a terrorist organization (they are trying to instill terror in 60million people, aren't they?)
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->ter·ror·ism P Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sounds like the RIAA is a terrorist organization to me... threatening force upon people with the purpose of intimidation or setting an "example" upon downloaders.
Filesharing would be nothing if CD prices were kept reasonable. (25$ for a album with only one song I like, waste of money)
Filesharing would be nothing if CD prices were kept reasonable. (25$ for a album with only one song I like, waste of money) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
i agree on that point, but i'd prefer if the cut was made with games....
These people promise to "scramble/spoof" IPs they are just starting iut so there isnt much to them yet. But from what I hear they are growing fast, amd IP spoofing will be the norm in a few months.
This is mainly do to a company called "Comcast" out on the west coast that sent an e-mail to all their user reguaring the RIAA and how they would help the RIAA in any effort to "stop" the distribution of "illigal" music on their network.
most likly theyll use notices in the mail? after they find out?
On a side note any of you who have actually downloaded music before know how difficult it is to get CD quality music (320 hz) from p2p means as most of it averages around 128.
And why aren't the companies asking themselves "Gee maybe the reason so many people would rather download music of lesser quality, risk getting bogus music, and now even risk law suits is because we are simply charging too much for our product?"
going to go on a mini rant.
The reason all of this is happening is because when it comes to CD sales it doesn't follow any kind of basic principle of business. Because artist have an agreement with a certain record label to only allow them to produce their music there is no alternative source to get their albums. If Sony decided to start charging 500 dollars for CD players that Panasonic sold for 90 no one in their right minds would pay for it, but when it comes to music there is no 2nd party to compete. As long as there isn't an alternate source for the product the rules of supply and demand can't apply to it, and even if a smaller chain wanted to produce the CDs and sell them for say $10 each they would quickly be sued by the Label for copyright infringements.
<a href='http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/music-royalties6.htm' target='_blank'>How Music Royalties Work</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Mechanical Royalties
Record companies and recording artists, as well as the writers and publishers, all make money based on the sale of recordings of their songs. How those royalties are calculated, however, is about as intricate and controversial as everything else in the music industry.
Writer/publisher mechanical royalties
First, there is the calculation of mechanical royalties for writers and publishers. These royalties are paid by the record company to the publisher. The publisher then pays the writer a share of the royalty (typically split 50/50).
In the United States, the royalties are based on a "statutory rate" set by the U.S. Congress. This rate is increased to follow changes in the economy, usually based on the Consumer Price Index. Currently, the statutory rate is $.08 for songs five minutes or less in length or $.0155 per minute for songs that are over five minutes long. So, for example, a song that is eight minutes long would earn $.124 for each recording sold.
As in most areas in the business world, however, there is room for negotiation. It is not uncommon -- in fact, it is more the norm -- for record companies to negotiate a deal to pay only 75% of the statutory rate, particularly when the writer is also the recording artist. (See the "Controlled Composition Clause" below.) Although there is a statutory rate, there is no law against negotiating a deal for a lower one. Sometimes it is in the best interest of all parties to agree to a lower rate.
Recording-artist mechanical royalties
Recording-artist royalties (and contracts) are extremely complex and a hotbed of debate in the music world. From the outside, the calculation appears fairly simple. Artists are paid royalties usually somewhere between 8% and 25% of the suggested retail price of the recording. Exactly where it falls depends on the clout of the artist (a brand new artist might receive less than a well-known artist). From this percentage, a 25% deduction for packaging is taken out (even though packaging rarely costs 25% of the total price of the CD or cassette).
That sounds simple enough, but there are many more issues that affect what a recording artist actually makes in royalties.
Free goods - Recording artists only earn royalties on the actual number of recordings sold -- not those that are given away free as promotions. Rather than discounting the price to distributors, many record companies give a certain number away for free (about 5% to 10% depending on the artist). Recording companies also give away many copies to radio stations as "promo" copies. There is also a reduction in royalties made for copies of the recording sold through record clubs.
Return privilege - Recordings in the form of CDs or cassettes have a 100% return privilege. This means that record stores don't have to worry about being stuck with records they can't sell. Most other businesses don't work this way, but the music industry has to be more flexible and timed to demand. What's hot today may be forgotten tomorrow... This leads us to reserves. The recording company may hold back a portion of the artist's royalties for reserves that are returned from record stores. (Usually about 35% is held back.)
90% - Back in the days of vinyl records, there was a lot of breakage when record albums were shipped out for distribution. Because of this, recording companies only paid artists based on 90% of the shipment, assuming that 10% would be broken. Even as vinyl was phased out, this practice continued. Today it is gone for the most part, but there are still a few holdouts.
So, here is how it looks so far. Let's say a CD sells for $15. Right away we deduct 25% from that for packaging, which makes the royalty base $11.25. Now let's say our artist has a 10% royalty rate and that his CD sells one million copies. That sounds great! The artist would earn $1,125,000! Except 10% of those were actually freebies, so we really have to calculate that royalty based on 900,000, which makes the royalty $1,012,500, and of course, there are few costs we haven't talked about yet.
Advances and recoupment
Typically, when recording artists sign a recording contract or record a song (or album), the record company pays them an advance that must be paid back out of their royalties. This is called recoupment. In addition to paying back their advance, however, recording artists are usually required under their contract to pay for many other expenses. These recoupable expenses usually include recording costs, promotional and marketing costs, tour costs and music video production costs, as well as other expenses. The record company is making the upfront investment and taking the risk, but the artist eventually ends up paying for most of the costs. While all of this can be negotiated up front, it tends to be the norm that the artists pay for the bulk of expenses out of their royalties.
Let's see what these recoupable expenses do to our artist's $1,012,500 royalty we calculated earlier. Suppose the recording costs were $300,000 (100% recoupable), promotion costs were $200,000 (100% recoupable), tour costs were $200,000 (50% recoupable), and a music video cost $400,000 (50% recoupable). That comes out to:
$300,000 + $200,000 + $100,000 + $200,000 = $800,000
Suddenly our artist isn't making a million plus, he's making $212,500. But don't forget there is also a manager to be paid (usually 20%), as well as a producer and possibly several band members. The artist won't see any royalty money until all of these expenses are paid. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>They're BROKE?</b>
Multiplatinum artists like TLC and Toni Braxton have been forced to declare bankruptcy because their recording contracts didn't pay them enough to survive.
Florence Ballard from The Supremes was on welfare when she died.
Collective Soul earned almost no money from "Shine," one of the biggest alternative rock hits of the '90s, when Atlantic Records paid almost all of their royalties to an outside production company.
Country music legend Merle Haggard, with 37 top-10 country singles (including 23 #1 hits), never received a record royalty check until he released an album on the indie punk-rock label Epitaph.
<i>Source:Courtney Love's letter to recording artists</i><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's true though...
With all this middle east, al queta terrorism, etc. most people will NEVER be effected by ANY of this mumbo jumbo, and what IS causing the most terror is that 60 million people are uneasy about a looming threat of complete financial ruin.
The RIAA is quite the weapon of mass destruction, Mr. Bush.
most likly theyll use notices in the mail? after they find out? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Aww man! Where did u get a pet Onos? Ive been looking all over. Only one pet store so far was selling them but then they stopped b/c the onos kept head butting his way into the other pens to eat the bunnys and puppys.
I dont know, maybe a pet onos woundlnt be such a great idea. Think of how big a pooper scooper you would need...
Food wouldnt be a problem. The pet shop clerk said they eat well on a diet of noobs (No newbies, but noobs, there is a difference), rambos, morons, and others that dont contribute anything positive to society.
Of course it does, he showed a perfect example of uprising due to things done by the recording industry and it's artists.
Madonna posts fake "WTH do you think you're doing" mp3s on kazaa, and someone hacks HER site and uploads the REAL mp3s to it saying "this is WTH i think im' doing"
It has everything to do with this topic, as it's showing that the community of net users won't stand to have their fellow men sued into submission by what I now believe to be a terrorist organization (they are trying to instill terror in 60million people, aren't they?)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You might want to go and talk to some non-idiot and ask them to define "Hacker" for you.
And then ask them to define "Cracker".
And compare.
Edit: In fact, I'll be that person.
Dictionary.com defines 'Hacker' as:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->One who is proficient at using or programming a computer; a computer buff. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
[However, it cancels out this brief stint of intelligence with the second definition of: "One who uses programming skills to gain illegal access to a computer network or file. "]
Ah, found a definition of cracker.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->cracker n. One who breaks security on a system. Coined ca.
1985 by hackers in defense against journalistic misuse of hacker
(q.v., sense 8). An earlier attempt to establish `worm' in this sense
around 1981-82 on Usenet was largely a failure.
Use of both these neologisms reflects a strong revulsion against
the theft and vandalism perpetrated by cracking rings. While it is
expected that any real hacker will have done some playful cracking
and knows many of the basic techniques, anyone past larval stage
is expected to have outgrown the desire to do so except for immediate,
benign, practical reasons (for example, if it's necessary to get around
some security in order to get some work done).
Thus, there is far less overlap between hackerdom and crackerdom
than the mundane reader misled by sensationalistic journalism might
expect. Crackers tend to gather in small, tight-knit, very secretive
groups that have little overlap with the huge, open poly-culture this
lexicon describes; though crackers often like to describe _themselves_
as hackers, most true hackers consider them a separate and lower form
of life.
Ethical considerations aside, hackers figure that anyone who can't
imagine a more interesting way to play with their computers than breaking
into someone else's has to be pretty losing. Some other reasons
crackers are looked down on are discussed in the entries on cracking
and phreaking. See also samurai, dark-side hacker, and hacker
ethic. For a portrait of the typical teenage cracker, see warez d00dz<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->.
Of course it does, he showed a perfect example of uprising due to things done by the recording industry and it's artists.
Madonna posts fake "WTH do you think you're doing" mp3s on kazaa, and someone hacks HER site and uploads the REAL mp3s to it saying "this is WTH i think im' doing"
It has everything to do with this topic, as it's showing that the community of net users won't stand to have their fellow men sued into submission by what I now believe to be a terrorist organization (they are trying to instill terror in 60million people, aren't they?)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You might want to go and talk to some non-idiot and ask them to define "Hacker" for you.
And then ask them to define "Cracker".
And compare.
Edit: In fact, I'll be that person.
Dictionary.com defines 'Hacker' as:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->One who is proficient at using or programming a computer; a computer buff. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
[However, it cancels out this brief stint of intelligence with the second definition of: "One who uses programming skills to gain illegal access to a computer network or file. "]
Ah, found a definition of cracker.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->cracker n. One who breaks security on a system. Coined ca.
1985 by hackers in defense against journalistic misuse of hacker
(q.v., sense 8). An earlier attempt to establish `worm' in this sense
around 1981-82 on Usenet was largely a failure.
Use of both these neologisms reflects a strong revulsion against
the theft and vandalism perpetrated by cracking rings. While it is
expected that any real hacker will have done some playful cracking
and knows many of the basic techniques, anyone past larval stage
is expected to have outgrown the desire to do so except for immediate,
benign, practical reasons (for example, if it's necessary to get around
some security in order to get some work done).
Thus, there is far less overlap between hackerdom and crackerdom
than the mundane reader misled by sensationalistic journalism might
expect. Crackers tend to gather in small, tight-knit, very secretive
groups that have little overlap with the huge, open poly-culture this
lexicon describes; though crackers often like to describe _themselves_
as hackers, most true hackers consider them a separate and lower form
of life.
Ethical considerations aside, hackers figure that anyone who can't
imagine a more interesting way to play with their computers than breaking
into someone else's has to be pretty losing. Some other reasons
crackers are looked down on are discussed in the entries on cracking
and phreaking. See also samurai, dark-side hacker, and hacker
ethic. For a portrait of the typical teenage cracker, see warez d00dz<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Jesus....Well in that case, your name is spelled wrong. In your case, you might want to find a non-idiot and ask them to spell idiot for you, not "eediot". In fact, I'll be that person.
It's idiot, not eediot.....I guess that means I'm as smart as you! Joy! <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Obviously you are <span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'>WAY</span> too intelligent for me and everyone else on this board, eediot. Please people, if you are going to post, please take it seriously and not be smart **** like the master-mind, eediot.
Thnx.
I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to prove, however.