Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis

Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis (http://www.gamingforce.org/forums/index.php)
-   Media Centre (http://www.gamingforce.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   The RIAA lawsuit engine is in FULL GEAR. (http://www.gamingforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=7651)

galen Jun 15, 2006 12:54 PM

The RIAA lawsuit engine is in FULL GEAR.
 
In another bold move to combat music piracy, the RIAA is now suing kids who make homemade music videos and post them to YouTube:

Source

Quote:

We already know that the entertainment industry loves to try to get people to pay for every possible use of their content. Remember the filmmaker who almost couldn't release his documentary because there was a four and a half second clip of The Simpsons playing in the background in one scene? It seems that with the rise of user-generated video, a lot more people are learning about the fun of licensing rights. The RIAA is apparently sending out cease-and-desist letters to YouTube users who dare to put up videos of things such as themselves dancing to music they haven't licensed. It's difficult to see how the RIAA can make a credible claim of "losses" in this case. Clearly, some kids videotaping themselves bopping along to some song aren't going to pay a license fee -- and these sorts of viral videos tend to help build up more interest in artists. So what good does it do to go after these videos?
Awesome, RIAA. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

Monkey King Jun 15, 2006 12:56 PM

Do the artists themselves actually condone this sort of nonsense? There comes a time when you need to quit letting your lawyer speak for you and put your damn foot down.

Schadenfreude Jun 15, 2006 01:00 PM

I'm willing to guess that any artists who do disagree with the RIAA will be branded as "deviant" (or something of the sort) and totally ignored. After all, it is in their best interests, isn't it?

Musharraf Jun 15, 2006 01:01 PM

Why did they crash into the WTC towers, why couldn't they hit the RIAA headquarters

Sir VG Jun 15, 2006 01:05 PM

Hopefully the RIAA will sue themselves broke sometime soon.

ComCrimson Jun 15, 2006 02:22 PM

God, that's a joke. The RIAA really need to get over themselves. I couldn't stop laughing whilst reading that. Shows how seriously they are taken by me at least

guyinrubbersuit Jun 15, 2006 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schadenfreude
I'm willing to guess that any artists who do disagree with the RIAA will be branded as "deviant" (or something of the sort) and totally ignored. After all, it is in their best interests, isn't it?


Or the ones who do disagree with them are not a part of the RIAA.

Crash "Long-Winded Wrong Answer" Landon Jun 15, 2006 05:50 PM

I'd think that most studios and artists would approve of incidental usage in these amateur videos. In the marketing industry, there's a maxim: "there's no such thing as bad publicity."

I fail to see where profits are being made from incidental footage on YouTube, since I'd estimate that 99.9% of contributors aren't making a dime from their efforts. Most studios and labels trip over their bureaucratic forms to see that their works are "donated" to non-profit use. Normally this implies charitable foundations but if people are making videos just for fun, then that's technically non-profit as well.

The moment any of them makes a taxable earning from their video, then the RIAA might have reason to ask for a fair consideration. But this is definitely on a case-by-case basis and not to be implemented as a blanket policy for all YouTube users.

I think this world fell into a downward spiral the moment the merchants and lawyers seized control.

Mucknuggle Jun 15, 2006 06:11 PM

So the RIAA is going to get those "hardcore dancing" videos taken off the internet? Yay.

Otherwise, RIAA sucks. This new thing is totally useless.

Cirno Jun 16, 2006 12:20 AM

I guess I better turn the music down whilst drivin' the Honda. Don't wanna share the music for people who haven't paid for it yet.

Technophile Jun 16, 2006 02:53 AM

God, the RIAA has it's head so far up it's ass that if it was a woman, it'd be feeling it's ovaries on it's nose. They're to the music scene what Anne Coulter is to politics. A joke.

Soluzar Jun 16, 2006 05:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monkey King
Do the artists themselves actually condone this sort of nonsense? There comes a time when you need to quit letting your lawyer speak for you and put your damn foot down.

They have no rights. As part of their contract, their recordings became the property of the label, and therefore, of the RIAA. They have no right to interfere with the activities of the RIAA whatsoever.

SemperFidelis Jun 16, 2006 05:31 AM

That's fucking fair use under copyrights. Reading that makes my blood pressure spike.

dagget Jun 16, 2006 05:39 AM

Goodbye creativity. RIAA doesn't want people to be creative it seems. "OH NOES! SOMEONE MADE A MUSIC VIDEO AND POSTED IT ON YOUTUBE! IT'S GOOD! SUE THEM!!!1111"

Makes me want to create a music video and post it on YouTube now.

Keep cleaning the gun, RIAA. There's an "accidental discharge" waiting to happen.

Tellurian Jun 16, 2006 06:31 AM

About time they took action.
Pirate Video-ing, that's what I called it!
In my days we HANGED pirate video-ers on the town square, that's what we did!
You know what damage Pirate Video-ing does to such respected and established brands as Music Television? VH-1? Does that ring any bells?

niki Jun 16, 2006 06:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crash Landon
I think this world fell into a downward spiral the moment the merchants and lawyers seized control.

Damn right.

Reminds me of that old hairdresser boutique down my street that had to close because of lawsuits about the music on the radio he had in his shop. <_<

OmagnusPrime Jun 16, 2006 07:00 AM

If this wasn't so depressingly sad it might be funny. I can only assume that having your brain surgically removed must be a job requirement for working at the RIAA.

Secret Squirrel Jun 16, 2006 07:09 AM

I don't think this is aimed so much at videos where people are dancing to some music playing in the background; it's more likely aimed at skits and amateur movies which are becoming more common. I saw something on CNN yesterday about an Italian movie that was entirely filmed with a cellphone camera.

As much as I think the music industry shoots itself in the foot, they do have a point. While most of u-tube is low-grade crap, it's possible that the next big internet fad will originate there, something that'll propel the video and it's author to fame and fortune, partially on the back of a work owned by the RIAA. On the flip side, I can also see why they wouldn't want their music "product" associated with a crap video.

I see one positive thing coming out of this - maybe now we'll see fewer videos where the producer tries to be urban and hip by using gangsta rap as BGM.

WolfDemon Jun 16, 2006 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Secret Squirrel
As much as I think the music industry shoots itself in the foot, they do have a point. While most of u-tube is low-grade crap, it's possible that the next big internet fad will originate there, something that'll propel the video and it's author to fame and fortune, partially on the back of a work owned by the RIAA. On the flip side, I can also see why they wouldn't want their music "product" associated with a crap video.

Come to think of it, you never heard Dragostea Din Tei (That annoying ass Numa Numa song) over here until that fat kid put up his stupid dancing video. Now it's playing during movie trailers and such.

Still, where exactly do they think these kids are gonna get the money to go to court or pay any fines, if need be? Most of these idiots are still in high school probably, and not everyone has rich parents.

Koneko Jun 16, 2006 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Musharraf
Why did they crash into the WTC towers, why couldn't they hit the RIAA headquarters

Because that would have been an act of mercy?

What's next? Suing people for watching those videos? Where's that thread about the RIAA charging everyone for even thinking about music? That pretty much sums this up.

Dark Nation Jun 16, 2006 09:22 PM

Ahahahahahahah. Oh WOW.

Since my digital camera can record audio+video, I think I'll make
a shitty video with incidental music, and carefully have it so that
the music is NOT affiliated with the RIAA, just to see what they will do.

As I see it, RIAA = Monopoly. After all, they have the word INDUSTRY in thier name, and INDUSTRYs are typically not to have monopolies in them. Can't wait to see how they would get around that one, given thier own sideways interpretation of law.

Sarmoti Jun 16, 2006 09:30 PM

How long will it be before they import a Chinese Death Van to deal with the pirates?

Makes me wonder how long it will be before music is nothing but taboo.

Eleo Jun 16, 2006 09:49 PM

My prediction is that the RIAA is going to destroy itself. Maybe the MPAA too, but from what I've seen they're not as bad.

I wonder if it's only in recent history that capitalism gets out of control like this.

Helloween Jun 17, 2006 10:19 PM

God, what the hell. If this keeps up, music lovers are gonna have to maintain a listener's lisence if they wanna listen to music. How much do you think the people down at the RIAA actually listen to music? It's probably drowned out by a recording of a cash register going off every second, cause that's all they care about.

avanent Jun 18, 2006 05:22 AM

pathetic... how pathetic.

Bush's next campaign on terrorism should target the RIAA.

Soluzar Jun 18, 2006 06:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Koneko
hat's next? Suing people for watching those videos? Where's that thread about the RIAA charging everyone for even thinking about music? That pretty much sums this up.

Funny you should mention that... the last time a piece of news similar to this came up, I had a vision, you might say. A vision of the possible future, in a world that could even be our own. I posted it once already, but what the hell? It's only getting more and more revelevant as the days go by.

Spoiler:
Personally, I'm thinking that the day is not far off when the RIAA pass a bill allowing them to charge you every time you hear one of their songs. After all, if you listen to a song that you didn't purchase, that's like stealing. Then, when your guard is down, RIAA employees will jump out from behind a tree, with a portable stereo, and impose large on-the-spot fees. After all, you heard it, so you stole it. Thieves, like other criminals, must pay the price.

Then the MPAA will implement a technology to prevent you from showing your HD DVD and Blu-Ray movies to your friends. After all, if you watch a film you didn't purchase, that's like stealing. Sony and Microsoft will build this technology into their next consoles, because after all, if you play a game at your friends house that you didn't purchase, that's kind of like stealing too. Sony were already considering locking you out from loaning your games to a friend, so this is the logical next step.

The next step after that is the bill that allows them to charge you for thinking about, or remembering one of their songs. In order to enforce it, they will need to implant their CRM (Cerebral Rights Managent) chip into your brain. This will become compulsory,to prevent mental infringement of intellectual property. Thinking about it, or remembering it is almost like hearing it, and they already passed the bill that makes hearing a song without purchasing it a crime. Don't try to steal music by thinking about it, they will catch you.

Of course the MPAA will be on board with the deal, so that you can't think of, or remember films either, without paying. After all, if you think of a film that you don't own, isn't that like stealing? Naturally you won't be able to watch the movie channels on TV at someone else's house anymore. They paid for the film, but did you? You weren't planning to watch a film that you didn't purchase were you? That's definitely stealing.

Naturally, once the chip is in your head, the logical next step is thought-censorship. In order to make it palatable to the public, the first measure will be an anti-terrorism law that makes it illegal to even think of committing terrorist acts. As a rider, it will also be illegal to consider seditious acts of any kind, or to believe that acts of that nature could ever be justified. It will also become illegal to contemplate acts of Intellectual Property theft, or to tdissaprove of the combined MPRIAA, who by now are the political party who control both houses, and the Oval Office.

Once that's gone through, and the public are used to the idea of thought censorship, in order to appease the Bible Belt, it will become illegal to be an athiest. Other religions than Chrisitianity will still be tolerated, by way of throwing a bone to the few remaining liberals, who by now live lives of quiet desperation, and contemplate suicide daily.

At this time it will also become illegal to think about doing drugs, or having pre-marital sex. Thinking that the fees are unjust, or how nice it would be to have some freedom will be punished instantly by electric shocks, as will breaking any of the other mental laws. This will serve as negative reinforcement, and lead to a 100% approval rate for the government within 2 generations.

Having finally gained control of every aspect of our waking lives, the MPRIAA will then decree that we are not even permitted to watch, or listen to even the music that we have purchased without sending in a written request for permission, and paying an additional "appreciation fee". After all, paying for something once, and then listening to it twice would be like stealing. What isn't like stealing these days?

At this point, it will become illegal to enjoy yourself in any way whatsoever, without paying a fee to the MPRIAA. After all, wouldn't having fun that you didn't pay for be like stealing? Your chip will record all instances of enjoyment, and the degree of pleasure experienced, and you will be billed at the end of each month.

Finally, the MPRIAA will assume the role of the Papacy, and the United States of America, joining forces with the European Union, will be formally renamed as the Holy American Empire, forcibly annexe the whole of Asia, and the Middle East, and the twin scourge of piracy and terrorism will be wiped out once and for all. By this point, of course, the government (and there is only one government) will not recognise any meaningful distinction between "terrorism" and "piracy". Naturally the tenets of the Christian faith will have become somewhat modified in the process, but you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs. In particular, the first commandment, "Thou Shalt Not Steal Intellectual Property" will become the cornerstone of the faith. His Holiness, the head of the MPRIAA, hath decreed that this commandment stands above the other ten about loving people, and serving God, and that sort of thing. After all... you have to remember what is important in life.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Helloween
God, what the hell. If this keeps up, music lovers are gonna have to maintain a listener's lisence if they wanna listen to music.

You can relax. Maitaining your required licences will all be taken care of automatically once your Cerebral Rights Management chip is implanted in your brain. You'll then be free to listen to as much music as you can afford, and you won't have to worry about inadvertently stealing anything. The minute that you even begin to think about music without paying the proper licensing fees, your chip's punishment circuits will kick in, and the appropriate fee (plus a fine) will be deducted instantly from your bank account.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avanent
Bush's next campaign on terrorism should target the RIAA.

If by "next" you mean "previous", and by "should target" you mean "was paid for by", then I agree entirely.

galen Jun 18, 2006 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crash Landon
I fail to see where profits are being made from incidental footage on YouTube, since I'd estimate that 99.9% of contributors aren't making a dime from their efforts.

It's not so much an issue of whether or not they're making money off it, but that they are not paying the RIAA for use of the song. In the RIAA's eyes, they are losing out on money because kids aren't licensing the song to be used in their homemade video.

Deusanimus Jun 18, 2006 11:39 AM

This is sad. Honestly, what is the RIAA trying to do? alienate anyone and anyone who might have wanted to listen to thier music?

Makes me glad there are other places to buy music. The RIAA can burn in hell.

As for thier lawyers,they should all be shot. Repeatedly. With a .50 cal. In the nuts.

sabbey Jun 18, 2006 01:26 PM

What I don't get is, the more and more the RIAA does these things, the more and more people pirate their music and decide against buying them legitimately. It's no longer exclusively a case of doing so because of the pricing, but it is more a case of people's principles not allowing themselves to be screwed over by such greed or supporting those who are such kind of people. Add the fact the artists themselves can and are screwed over as well in a lot of cases, what the hell are the people at the RIAA smoking?! :rolleyes:

Damn, I still buy all my CDs but am buying way more imports now than ever before. I guess the RIAA should start worrying now, since people like myself are getting to the point that even we are considering giving them the finger and not buying their crap. Not that I do now for the most part! Only soundtracks, but still... ;)

The RIAA and those who think they are of a "needed" nature, well, they need to get a clue!

joshi Jun 18, 2006 03:19 PM

God forbid they lose two or three dollars in a fiscal year.

sabbey Jun 18, 2006 11:36 PM

Well, they lose billions a year according to their stats on the topic, but still make billions as well. Then, they have the audacity to say they make less profits, when all independent reports show an actual increase in profits. Full of shit, anyone? ;)

When it comes down to it, it's just greed, pure and simple. I assume they think because they lose money on illegal downloads that makes their profits percentage lower. Really, the numbers seem somehow fixed in my view! Like, how can they say they lost anything, when they can't know one way or another if those who downloaded would have bought the stuff to begin with...

Overall, their profits are lower because people steal their music?! I don't know, but their accountants must be cheap labor, college drop-outs!

http://www.boycott-riaa.com/article/5804
http://slashdot.org/articles/01/02/26/1812213.shtml

A nice read here: :)

http://www.stentorian.com/riaa/

joshi Jun 19, 2006 12:16 AM

I was just referring to trying to stop people from filming themselves dancing around. but the point is, people who don't need more money than they already have will do anything to get more. case in point: the RIAA.

Atomic Duck Jun 19, 2006 08:57 PM

Nowadays I honestly feel like by buying a CD I'm contributing to more people loosing money than I am if I simply download a CD. I stopped buying CDs because I felt dirty in doing so.
I'm serious - I really feel like it's more immoral to buy a CD just because it gives money to rich bastards who are just going to go and sue more people.

Monkey King Jun 20, 2006 09:22 AM

Quote:

Posted by Secret Squirrel
As much as I think the music industry shoots itself in the foot, they do have a point. While most of u-tube is low-grade crap, it's possible that the next big internet fad will originate there, something that'll propel the video and it's author to fame and fortune, partially on the back of a work owned by the RIAA.
Were this to happen, it would be a fantastic amount of free publicity for the song and the artist, which would in turn be gangbusters for the sales of the CD itself. One goofy little internet video made a household name out of an obscure Romanian band that nobody had ever heard about - that "unlicenced" use of Numa Numa was great for business.

No matter how you approach the situation, the RIAA has no footing to stand on. They're shooting themselves in the foot, and wasting an absurd amount of time and money chasing copyright threats that don't exist.

Soluzar Jun 20, 2006 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monkey King
Were this to happen, it would be a fantastic amount of free publicity for the song and the artist, which would in turn be gangbusters for the sales of the CD itself. One goofy little internet video made a household name out of an obscure Romanian band that nobody had ever heard about - that "unlicenced" use of Numa Numa was great for business.

I don't really recognise the name "Numa Numa", but since you said that it was by a Romanian band, that must be another name for Dragostea Din Tea. If so, I'm pretty sure that you're right about the RIAA shooting themselves in the foot. I can only imagine that the label that owns that tune have made a small fortune out of the free publicity from that weird video.

Monkey King Jun 20, 2006 09:50 AM

Whatever the song is called. I don't really care enough to look up the actual name.

Thanatos Jun 20, 2006 11:07 AM

omg

that's really bloody stupid. very very very stupid.

what the heck is the point of going after kids singing and dancing along to a song.

that's sheer bullsh*t, really. it's like the RIAA is run by ppl from a different dimension or something, that they can't think straight

TigerRaptorFX Jun 20, 2006 12:29 PM

I'll be honest; I could care less if the RIAA goes after YouTube. Most of those video fucking suck any way.

Snowknight Jun 20, 2006 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TigerRaptorFX
I'll be honest; I could care less if the RIAA goes after YouTube. Most of those video fucking suck any way.

While I can partially agree with that, I don't think the RIAA needs that precedent, unless we don't want any fair use left. If you don't stop them somewhere, they'll keep suing until it becomes illegal to think about playing music before paying them.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:15 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.