UPDATE: Latest news says that they will now only have to pay $50,000....

7/13/2007 6:11:35 PM

dagnabbit

7/13/2007 6:23:17 PM

I just don't understand how anyone can believe the justifications...

"The royalties go to the artists..."

Sure, but what about stations that don't play any songs written by artists in the RIAA? Hell, radio stations that play Gregorian chants have to pay these fees to the RIAA.

It stinks like shit and I hope people hold their congressmen liable. I had the opportunity last week to talk to a state rep., and the first thing I brought up was this internet equality act.

7/13/2007 7:27:41 PM

There were a couple of threads about this including links to the act that you mentioned. I don't know how much traction it got in Congress but it looked very promising.

7/13/2007 8:47:27 PM

^^Not true. If the radio station negotiates a contract with the copyright holders it will automatically super-seed the federal royalties.

Of course, before now it was always cheaper to pay the fees than try to get rights from the copyright holder. Not because the holder wants a lot of money, most musicians are desperate to get their music played they would give the rights away for free. But it takes money to contact them and sign a contract with a lawyer present (otherwise the government will come after you for the fees).

Now, if congress does allow the fees to become prohibitive, it is likely that large holders such as the RIAA will get together and start their own clearinghouse with reasonable fees and standardized forms, bypassing the government. But such things take time and effort, so don't expect anything over-night.

That said, it is quite possible that internet radio was never worth the effort and was only possible given the generous rules of the past.

[Edited on July 14, 2007 at 12:17 AM. Reason : ^]

7/14/2007 12:16:43 AM

^ what do you mean "not worth the effort"?

Are you saying there is no future in internet radio in principle ?

I mean it seems to me in time it might well surpass the usual radio, surely there is room for profit.

If nothing else talk radio seems it might find a home on the internet in the future.

Is it just a matter of inane government regulation ?

7/14/2007 2:28:46 AM

I said it was quite possible that there was no future in internet radio, it is too soon to tell. If in fact the new fees are prohibitive, then the future will be determined by how effective the internet radio industry is at getting access to copyrighted material through other channels, as I described.

Quote :

"there is room for profit"

This is the question, is there? Internet radio has almost no barrier to entry, except for the problem of gaining access to music content. Therefore, given the balance of market power, copyright holders will goble up all the profits of whatever popular music internet radio exists. I suspect in the end such negotiations where one party always loses do not continue long. Ultimately, any internet radio stations playing popular music will likely be owned and operated by the copyright holders themselves, flipping the market upside down with one radio station that is then approached by copyright holders to get their music on the internet.

Now, like I said, unpopular music is where internet radio could shine. While there is no profit in playing popular music, the copyright holders have all the cards at the negotiation table, unpopular music will flourish since the bands are desperate just to be heard (praying to sell CDs) and therefore eager to have their music played even for free. Such bands would join a clearinghouse, making their music available on ready contract to any would-be internet radio station.

So, to sum up, the most likely future (again, assuming the current government fees are prohibitive) will have two tiers of internet radio. the first tier will have a small number of large stations owned and operated by the record industry playing popular music. The second tier will have a large number of small stations playing un-popular music. As bands are discovered and grow in popularity they leave the small stations to join the RIAA on the large stations.

7/14/2007 8:54:38 AM

The thing that really bugs me is how RIAA is getting their panties in a wad when a HUGE number of stations don't play ANY music by RIAA artists.

7/14/2007 11:21:30 AM

well if they can get them shut down, less competition for the RIAA to push their product

[Edited on July 14, 2007 at 11:36 AM. Reason : +]

7/14/2007 11:31:20 AM

but, I thought the deal was that you HAD to pay the royalty fees, NO MATTER WHAT. is that not true now?

7/19/2007 9:07:40 PM

wtf.

if the usa is really a democracy therefore if the majority of americans wanted to "download" pirated music why should the RIAA nazi's have any power to stop it. i think something needs to be done. The RIAA shouldn't be allowed to harass the put the american people to its knees

7/19/2007 9:42:19 PM

^ Hmm, the American people today, yesterday, and always have strongly supported the spirit of copyright laws and making sure content producers profit from their creations. It is because so many people dream of creating their own song/book/movie and don't want the law changed to pull the rug out from underneath their dream of one day having such laws make them rich.

Similarly, the push against such laws is minor, since most people refuse to believe they will ever get caught.

So, is it any wonder that a democracy would repeatedly increase the duration and voracity of copyright laws to the extreme?

^^ Nope, the royalties are merely a means of escaping copyright laws. You can play anyones music on your station, whether the copyright holders wants you to or not, as long as you pay the royalties to the government which then is supposed to disperse the money to the copyright holders (so far millions go undistributed every year).

If you get contractual legal access to the copyrighted material from the owners, then you can avoid paying the royalties to the government; perhaps paying them directly to the copyright holders or even paying nothing at all.

[Edited on July 19, 2007 at 11:29 PM. Reason : .,.]

7/19/2007 11:26:08 PM

oh really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SoundExchange

7/20/2007 12:07:51 AM

7/20/2007 9:07:27 AM

It doesn't matter if a majority of people oppose it, when the RIAA has Congress in their pockets. This currently isn't a salient enough issue for elected officials to think it would hurt them at the polls.

The RIAA already gets a cut of the sale of each blank CD, even if you use them for data. They actively seek the legal authority to hack into people's computers on fishing expeditions, and delete what content they suspect *might* be a copyright infringement. Add onto this the barriers to shift the content between mediums (if I buy the music, I should be able to listen to it on my computer, in my CD player, wherever I want), and their authority is sickening.

7/20/2007 9:18:43 AM

I bet you money that Michael Moore's next movie is about the RIAA. Think about it, they're the next big unstoppable entity that does all this stuff that everyone hates.

That and the MPAA. GOD I HATE THE MPAA SO MUCH.

7/20/2007 9:46:32 AM

Geez, why do you hate them so? What did they do to you? Are you one of the 100 people that got sued?

As organizations they go too far, so sue them; otherwise, I think they are pretty harmless. If you fear them that much then stop listening to their crap.

Are you two seriously suggesting the American people oppose copyright laws?

7/20/2007 12:17:51 PM

No I think its pretty universally accepted that the RIAA is a mob of an industry organization.

Stop trying to play devil's advocate for an organization thats done everything in its power to keep record corporations as profitable as possible.

"BUT THATS THE SPIRIT OF CAPITALISM :saddowns:"

Doesn't make them any more endearing.

7/20/2007 12:48:18 PM

^^well this internet radio thing could affect me directly. plus they're at least partly responsible for a lot of the garbage that you hear coming on terrestrial radio stations across the country. the whole idea that they (through soundexchange) are the ONLY entity that can accept royalties for music in this country is fucking preposterous.

7/20/2007 1:02:57 PM

What is also noteworthy is that when they were cracking down on Napster, etc. and fighting for special authority to hack machines on private fishing expeditions, the justification was that this was hurting the industry, hurting the artists, etc. In fact, record sales and profits were at all time highs during that same time period. Of course, artists weren't doing any better.

What this is really about is the RIAA's biggest fear, the fear of losing their power and control, the fear of becoming outdated and irrelevant. When the internet medium took off, including P2P networks, the record industry realized that artists could cut out the middleman and sell their music directly online. Artists could sell their music over the internet for far less than the price of a CD in the stores, sell a fraction of the copies, and still keep much more money. Prince released a CD in that timeframe on his website, and made far more money than he ever did through a record company. The internet showed promise to usher us into a much more advantageous situation for both fans and the artists, but not for the RIAA. Through extensive lobbying efforts and strong-arming, the RIAA has managed to avoid the inevitable, when the natural course of events should have reduced their role to little more than a promotional organization.

7/20/2007 1:24:59 PM

Quote :

"Geez, why do you hate them so?"

If you're asking about the MPAA, I could make an entire thread about it, but I'll just post this:

Quote :

"Controversies Rating system Main article: Motion Picture Association of America film rating system Some of the MPAA's actions have been controversial. One example is the film rating system. Many believe that the intent of the various ratings has been subverted. For example, there is widespread access to R-rated movies even for those under 17, while the NC-17 rating spells commercial death for a film, undermining its purpose. Film critic Roger Ebert has called for an entirely new system of ratings designed to address these issues. Some people criticize film-makers for editing their works to conform to the various ratings. For example, they might excise some extreme violence or sex to avoid an NC-17, or even "spice up" a children's movie so as to move from G to PG and appeal to older children. The ratings system itself is attacked as de facto censorship by free-speech activists, and conversely as too lenient in its content standards by some conservative critics, priest, lawyers, and parental review sites. A criticism that has come from both sides is that the MPAA tends to be considered more complacent with violent content than sexual one. Other criticisms have included that there is more bias against homosexual sexual content than heterosexual. Also, movies with male genitalia tend to get a "harsher" rating than those with female genitalia. Copyright issues Other critics attack the MPAA for its action on copyright issues. They claim that it inhibits legitimate uses of its products through laws such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and that it is too draconian in pursuing copyright infringers. The MPAA replies that it is attempting only to limit the reduction in profits caused by file sharing and other types of copyright infringement although many valid arguments exist to make its moves highly controversial. In 2006, the MPAA's moral authority on this subject was questioned. Filmmaker Kirby Dick's documentary This Film Is Not Yet Rated, itself an attack on the ratings system, was submitted for rating consideration. The organization then made unauthorized copies of it for certain employees of the MPAA itself.[3] The MPAA was responsible for a police raid on the servers that hosted a Torrent Tracking website called The Pirate Bay on May 31, 2006 by pressuring the Swedish government (where the servers were located) to take action. The Pirate Bay, in response, claimed that they had no basis for the seizure, and were back up and running on backups two days later. The MPAA issued a press release shortly after this raid in which they stated that they lost 6.1 billion dollars nation wide to piracy in 2005, and that internet piracy alone had cost the studios 2.3 billion. [4] However, contrary to MPAA statements, a wide array of studies have found that one download hardly equals a lost sale, casting doubt on how these numbers could have been calculated. This is especially true considering that a good portion ($1.4 billion) of the figure represents what could be viewed as simply making a non-commercial backup, either virtually on a device or physically on another disc, which is protected under United States law. These numbers are further suspicious due to the private nature of the study, which cannot be publicly checked for methodology or validity.[5][6][7][8][9][10] Though the MPAA has won several victories against online piracy such as the Razorback2 raid and a series of successful lawsuits against public torrent websites, piracy is still growing steadily with modern studies showing more and more participants. The effect MPAA raids have had on overall online pirating traffic is, to date, limited - the day Razorback2 (a major server on the Edonkey2000 network) was shut down, Edonkey2000 network traffic stayed the same, showing negligible change. [11] [12] [13] However the MPAA has had a very successful history shutting down networks of pirated material and torrent sites, bolstering a record of approximately 75 just in the last year. [14] The MPAA has also forced some well known fanfiction sites such as Fanfiction.net to cease using the MPAA Rating System to rate fanfictions on the site due to copyright infringement on the rating system. Allegation of copyright infringement by the MPAA In 2007, English software developer Patrick Robin reported that the MPAA was illegally using his blogging platform, Forest Blog. Forest Blog is distributed for free under a linkware license; anyone who uses it must link back to his site where Forest Blog is offered for download. To remove the links back to his site, they must purchase a license. The MPAA had removed the links, without paying for a license. Torrentfreak stated, "Amazingly, the MPAA seem to think they’re above 'formalities' like licenses and such.... Clearly, there seems to be a lack of concern by the MPAA of others' copyrighted works. Therefore, is it unsurprising that their customers seem to have the same attitude towards their movies?"[15] Monopoly Since the MPAA members are the motion picture industry's most powerful studios, representing some of the world's largest media corporations, allegations of monopoly are often brought up by critics. Critics also point to the MPAA's support for closed standards that hinder competition. Other critics have suggested that films released by major studios (members of the MPAA) are given more deference in terms of ratings than films released by independents.[16] MiiVi.com MPAA has been caught in creating a website claiming "fast and easy downloads" of hundreds of full-length movies after the user would install the MiiVi client-program which would then search the user's harddisk for illegal copies of movies and report them to MediaDefender. The website has currently been shut down."

7/20/2007 1:34:46 PM

Quote :

"the RIAA has managed to avoid the inevitable, when the natural course of events should have reduced their role to little more than a promotional organization."

How did they do this? If it is as you say and artists can make far more money selling their wares online, then why not do that? The RIAA has done nothing to prevent artists from doing whatever they want with their copyrights.

^ As for the MPAA, it is not a government organization. It was formed in response to threats of regulation from the government, so much of its structure is tainted (its formation was involuntary). But, while it is imperfect, it is still not a Government institution. We do not have a right to a well run MPAA. We live in a diverse society of millions of people, if some of them want to be dicks that is their choice. If companies keep submitting their works to the MPAA for grading, that is their choice. They do it because viewers demand ratings. Yes, this is undoubtedly a monopoly, but it is a justifiable monopoly as we need a single objective scale to rate content, and having three or four such scales around will simply confuse everyone (rated R by whom?). Nevertheless, this is not a protected monopoly, as I can think of no quicker way to diminish the acceptance of MPAA ratings than to unfairly rate movies. Viewers would quickly become fed-up taking their kids to inappropriate movies, while missing out on real gems. If it is bad enough and documented, other truly independent organizations could quickly take over as audiences burned by inaccurate MPAA ratings refuse to watch a movie until it has been rated by Consumer Reports or some other organization. After awhile it would settle down again to a monopoly, but with the firm reminder about how quickly it goes away.

That said, this has not happened. It sounds to me like the people at the MPAA realize the unique position they have, and do not want to risk it by abusing it. So while unfair ratings probably occur, it is only at the margins.
As for the rest of your complaints, namely going after piraters, they are merely private citizens acting within the confines of the law. If you want to end the lawsuits then we must get the law changed. Banning the MPAA and RIAA will not end the lawsuits; copyright holders will simply form new associations to resume litigation. Which brings us back to the real question at hand: is it your assertion that content producers should not be granted any special rights to their works?

[Edited on July 20, 2007 at 9:36 PM. Reason : .,.]

7/20/2007 9:26:59 PM

Yeah that piracy extra part was just from Wikipedia. My big beef with them is their lack of accountability. They have a tremendous amount of power in the film industry. They have the power to cause a movie to either make hundreds of millions or next to nothing and they can rate a movie simply based on their own morals (a good example being homosexual themed movies getting NC17 while heterosexual movies getting R). And they can do all of this without any oversight. And saying that a filmmaker doesn't have to submit their movie to the MPAA is a joke. Of *course* they have to submit for a rating. If a movie is not rated it will be played in art house only, which is about 1% of all nationwide theatres.

7/20/2007 9:46:13 PM

^ Right, *of course* they have to. But they don't have to. It is a choice, it is just that the cards are stacked against the other options.

But this is one of those situations where you have a choice while it is not any choice at all.

If a large enough percentage of society turned against the MPAA then it would go away, no question. Movie theaters require an MPAA rating because they are accustomed to getting them. But, as I said, if an MPAA rating of 'R' started to be attached to hard-core pornography, movie theaters would quickly find other more reliable benchmarks and the MPAA would go the way of the dodo.

Everyone trusts them, so whatever they say is accepted as fact, therefore they have immense power. But like the journalist that fabricates stories, their power can vanish overnight.

7/21/2007 9:21:09 AM

Quote :

"Now, if congress does allow the fees to become prohibitive, it is likely that large holders such as the RIAA will get together and start their own clearinghouse with reasonable fees and standardized forms, bypassing the government."

reasonable? this is the RIAA. the fees may be reasonable enough to allow stations to keep operating, but the RIAA will have stations by the balls, thus having the power to limit what gets played. that's the problem.

i'm guessing i missed a previous thread on this topic, as i haven't been spending much time here lately.

but also, a lot of stations may resort to advertising to stay in business, which also gives advertisers the power to limit what they play. i know it's hard for some people to fathom how the market could actually produce a better product without working solely to maximize profits, but that's what's so great about internet radio: they can deliver vastly better and more varied content because they're not controlled by the interests of advertisers and industry lobbyists. this is totally about the record industry trying to push out competition that obviously has a huge demand.

i called my senators...and i hardly ever do that. i doubt it helped any, though.

7/21/2007 1:38:05 PM

spaced guy, of course customers love receiving the produce of others for free. But that set-up was unnatural. In the spirit of copyright laws, content users (radio stations) are supposed to be beholden to content producers and their agents (RIAA).

"Banning the MPAA and RIAA will not end the lawsuits; copyright holders will simply form new associations to resume litigation. Which brings us back to the real question at hand: is it your assertion that content producers should not be granted any special rights to their works?" Musicians and movie makers want to get paid for their work, it's why they produced it in the first place. Sure, consumers love getting content for practically free, as internet radio has provided for awhile; but that doesn't make it right.

7/21/2007 4:38:14 PM

Quote :

"content users (radio stations) are supposed to be beholden to content producers and their agents (RIAA). "

But the thing is that all the stations I listen to DO NOT PLAY ANY SONGS THAT ARE FROM ARTISTS OWNED BY THE RIAA.

The best example is Digitally Imported radio, http://www.di.fm. None of their main popular stations play any music owned by the RIAA. Why the hell do they have to pay the RIAA ANYTHING?

7/21/2007 5:40:18 PM

Quote :

"Musicians and movie makers want to get paid for their work, it's why they produced it in the first place"

true artistic expression


I'm sorry, but art freedom will eventually reform capitalist intellectual property as soon as the economy can survive it......
.....quite the same way human freedom reformed capitalist slave property as soon as the economy could survive it.


It's sad to see fellow libertarians so clueless about human expression's unstoppable demand for freedom…

I hope they get a clue soon, before the people become so impatient as to throw out capitalism altogether in favor of socialism.

7/21/2007 6:55:19 PM

Snark, please go to http://savenetradio.org and read http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/news/2007/07/webcasters_face_music. You have spent this entire thread talking about RIAA and copyright laws which has little to nothing to do with the intent of the thread. This is now the third thread that has tried to get he message out about unequal treatment of internet radio and extremely unfair rate hikes that aren't at all on level with tv nor terrestrial radio broadcasts.

7/21/2007 7:45:10 PM

Quote :

"But the thing is that all the stations I listen to DO NOT PLAY ANY SONGS THAT ARE FROM ARTISTS OWNED BY THE RIAA."

Then when they continue to play their music, if the RIAA sues them, they can successfully win the suit because the RIAA has no copyrights at issue and therefore has no grounds to bring suit. Far more likely, it will be the actual content owners, not the RIAA, that bring the suit. This is because failure to enforce your copyright results in forfeiture.

Quote :

"quite the same way human freedom reformed capitalist slave property as soon as the economy could survive it."

Interesting theory, but I know of no defensible economic arguments to justify it. The economy could survive without slavery as of the dawn of man, we as a species simply opted not for liberty. While slavery was never necessary, it was always easier.

Quote :

"I'm sorry, but art freedom will eventually reform capitalist intellectual property as soon as the economy can survive it"

Again here; we do not and never have needed copyright laws. There are plenty of content producers that work for free. See the producers of Linux and numerous free bands available online. What it will do is eliminate the existence of filthy rich content producers. This is both good and bad. Bad, in that the millions of garage bands and independent movie makers today dreaming of getting rich on their talents will quit and pursue other fruitful labor. This is good, because all this effort will be diverted towards production, such as at McDonald's. Or at McDowell's, since I trust you are also doing away with trademarks.

HockeyRoman, I am not arguing one way or the other, simply pointing out what I feel the outcome will be if you fail to "save net radio"

[Edited on July 21, 2007 at 11:33 PM. Reason : ,.,]

7/21/2007 11:31:06 PM

Quote :

"spaced guy, of course customers love receiving the produce of others for free. But that set-up was unnatural."

actually, i did give a few bucks to soma fm....but i think it's a very natural arrangement. lesser known artists get wider exposure, and listeners get better content. everybody wins. conventional radio is free too...but it mostly sucks because it's diluted by commercialism. so the market created an alternative, even though it's not profit driven omg!!

7/22/2007 6:02:10 AM

It was not created by the market, but by an act of congress. Sure, it was only providing a loophole around copyright laws, but there is nothing natural about cutting a check to the government every year so you can continue to use the property of others without asking the owners.

7/22/2007 7:39:16 AM

Quote :

"spaced guy, of course customers love receiving the produce of others for free. But that set-up was unnatural."

So you're saying that normal radio stations and network television is unnatural? Because I can get both of those for zero dollars.

7/22/2007 12:09:35 PM

i meant the market created internet radio as an alternative to conventional radio.

and it's not cutting a check to the government...the government only determines rates that webcasters pay to artists.

and i fully believe they should pay royalties to the artists, just not rates so high as to put them out of business.

7/22/2007 4:34:53 PM

Well, under the old system the royalties were determined by a government agency, and were a fraction of the stations revenue. As some stations had little revenue, they paid very little for the same material that other stations were paying dearly for, just because they managed to find advertisers.

Quote :

"and it's not cutting a check to the government"

Yes they are. The check is written out to a government agency which then engages in "best efforts" to find the artists and get them their money. Every year, millions in royalties go unpaid and are claimed by the national treasury.

Quote :

"So you're saying that normal radio stations and network television is unnatural? Because I can get both of those for zero dollars."

Have you never heard of advertising? By giving advertisers your ear, you are paying for it through the products you buy.

7/22/2007 5:25:33 PM

ok...you made it sound like they were paying the government instead of artists.

i'm not forced to buy anything from advertisers. advertising is not necessary for broadcasters to operate. it may be necessary for them to be profitable, but some people are actually willing to sacrafice that in favor of more diversified, higher quality programming.

the webcasters i listen to are simply people who love music and love supporting good musicians who don't get exposure elsewhere. not only do they play the music, but they also provide info about the artists and links to websites where you can buy the albums. they survive on donations from listeners, maybe a little merchandising, banner ads on the website, possibly kickbacks from online music retailers, i don't know. but they're not in it solely for the money (one day i hope you'll grasp this concept). they pay royalties, but the artists they play need the exposure far more than they need higher royalties.

the essence of the issue remains: creative expression being stifled by record execs (via government) who benefit from the status quo of conventional broadcasting.

7/22/2007 7:01:32 PM

If they need exposure more than royalties they should pick a different label.

7/22/2007 7:11:30 PM

^^ I don't think you have bothered to read by earliest posts in this thread. If in fact the artists (copyright holders) are more interested in exposure than music royalties then all they need to do is sign a licensing contract, old rules or new, setting a contractual licensing fee at zero.

The government paid royalties need to be paid in order to circumvent copyright laws. You can always get content within the laws, no need for circumvention. If your station is so tight with its content producers, then they will have no difficulty conjuring up a licensing agreement, so you can stop worrying about your pet station. This rule change is only going to be deadly for internet radio stations playing N'Sync without any source of revenue.

7/22/2007 8:22:09 PM

^^you seem to think that most bands can rely on classic terrestrial format radio stations for exposure, but for MOST genres it's simply not the case. it seems that there only a few niche markets that the radio even caters to anymore. for proof that they're not even trying to cater to a number markets on the radio anymore, note commercials these days. you like those songs you hear on a lot of commercials? well you'll never hear them on terrestrial radio (aside from a handful of publicly-supported radio stations). internet radio is pretty much the only way that most people can hear this sort of music.

7/23/2007 7:59:12 AM

G105 has like 50 songs in rotation at one time.

Internet radio stations have like a thousand.

7/23/2007 3:38:50 PM

Which just goes to show G105 sucks.

What's your point?

7/23/2007 4:40:48 PM

Forgive me, LS, but most people who oppose the RIAA don't do so on the basis of wanting to deny them copyright benefits. Rather, they oppose the RIAA for its extortionist tactics and outright lies to the American public about its supposed drop in profits due to filesharing. so don't pull the bullshit about opposition to copyright laws.

7/23/2007 10:53:13 PM

Quote :

"As for the rest of your complaints, namely going after piraters, they are merely private citizens acting within the confines of the law. "

I don't know how they are "merely" private people, they are a very wealthy organizations whose wealth buys them power beyond the average private person that they use to manipulate the political system to benefit themselves at the expense of other people.

Power scales super-linearly with wealth which is why we have gov., to try and control this.

7/24/2007 12:00:10 AM

^^ Not spaced guy and 392, they actually dream of free information.

That said, it is a God given right to lie about yourself. Like I said, the RIAA has a right to be an asshole, leave them to it.

This is not to say you should stop speaking out against them, go right ahead. Just try to keep the political process out of the dispute.

7/24/2007 7:58:47 AM

^ sure, they have the right to be an asshole, but they DON'T have the right to use extortionist tactics to bilk people out of money while depriving them of due process. And unforunately, the RIAA is so deep into the political process, that one can hardly help but complain about the process that allows them to continue their abhorrent practices unscathed

7/24/2007 8:01:15 AM

We have the right to sue each other, therefore it is not extortion to threaten a lawsuit. But I agree with you in principle.

7/24/2007 9:25:48 AM

Quote :

"This is not to say you should stop speaking out against them, go right ahead. Just try to keep the political process out of the dispute. "

you mean unlike the RIAA itself?

7/24/2007 10:26:26 AM

i just hate repeat commercial radio

and the RIAA loves it

so i'm pretty much balled from the get-go

7/24/2007 10:30:43 AM

^^ Yes, unlike the RIAA. Two wrongs do not make a right.

That said, why laws have been changed by the RIAA? To the best of my understanding, all of the underhanded tactics they use are perfectly within their rights as private citizens.

7/24/2007 11:44:49 AM

so your argument is: the riaa is wrong. but since they're a collection of citizens, they have the right to be wrong?

i mean, surely you aren't in favor of monopolies strongarming the public at large into compliance?

7/24/2007 12:46:05 PM