Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Launchcast Sued

michael posted more than 13 years ago | from the daily-dose-of-RIAA-goodness dept.

Music 174

siimat writes: "Move over Aimster, the RIAA also filed a lawsuit against Launch on Thursday. What's interesting about this one is that Launch does have licenses with the major record companies to broadcast their music; the problem is that Launchcast is too customizable. Imagine - playing the music listeners want to hear instead of the tripe the Record Giants have preselected for everyone! :-P"

cancel ×


Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

You want out-of-the-mainstream music? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#197893)

Try WDET [] ; their webcast stuff is here [] .

Re:Which begs the question... (1)

Ranger Rick (197) | more than 13 years ago | (#197895)

Rarely... have a friend who was a DJ at the local pop station; they would mark down the names of people who requested the crap they were going to play anyways, but they would never actually go out of their way to play something that was requested (ever called and requested something and had them tell you "I'll see if I can get it in, but I don't think I'll have time to play that..."?)

Often their playlist was mapped out before they even came in for their shift.

Next to be sued... (2)

jd (1658) | more than 13 years ago | (#197900)

  • Graphic Equalizers
  • Speed Controls
  • Non-Compliant Loudspeakers
  • Non-Compliant Ears
  • Anyone left with money

Re:Indy Music (1)

richieb (3277) | more than 13 years ago | (#197902)

Hey, can you give me some indy Blue artist recomendations? I'm always looking for new people to listent to.



Re:Sue my Local Radio Stations! (1)

gmezero (4448) | more than 13 years ago | (#197904)

Actually from what I understand it was an RIAA issued complaint to the local FCC office that got "The Box" yanked from local syndication here in Phoenix, Arizona under the guise that they were broadcasting outside the scope of their license and were not providing the required percentages of educational/community service/etc... bullsh*t. As I understand it, they're trying to get the service completely shut down nationwide.

I'm just sick of this, I was so happy to finally have a station where I could watch music videos instead of lame-ass reality TV showing twenty-year olds get pissy with each other all day!

Re:Which begs the question... (1)

gmezero (4448) | more than 13 years ago | (#197905)

Well, "The Box" used to be this, but I just hit their site and find to my great horror that they've been absorbed into the MTV collective.


Re:Sue my Local Radio Stations! (1)

gmezero (4448) | more than 13 years ago | (#197906)

Oh damn... strike that... I just went by "" to see what the status of the network was, and to see if there has been any news, and I see that they've been absorbed by MTV. Just damn it all to hell... I'm glad I don't poor money into cable anymore... screw them. I get more entertainment out of playing my video games... and more interaction for that matter, than I ever got out of cable TV. Hell, I actually interact with my kids more playing multi-player games in the livingroom, than just all of us veging into the tube.

Fat FREE radio does this also... (1)

Archfeld (6757) | more than 13 years ago | (#197908)

users vote on songs, medio-core or worse songs are cycle out and the good stuff is left in the juke box. I suppose they are doomed now as well.

"If the RIAA fell down in an empty concert hall would anyone care ?"

Re:Well they did sign an agreement (2)

Archfeld (6757) | more than 13 years ago | (#197909)

To call the RIAA a pit weasel is to insult PIT BULLS and WEASELS alike. The only way you could get lower than an RIAA member is to graduate law school as well :)

Re:What Launch(Cast) Does (5)

MAXOMENOS (9802) | more than 13 years ago | (#197915)

Makes sense from the RIAA point of view. They spend way the fuck too much money Britney Spears and they want to recoup their costs; people buying records put out by some other band that they didn't blow as money on doesn't do it, because those bands will eventually earn more than their advance and actually collect royalties. The exception to this is Classic Rock (in case you were wondering why there are so many Classic Rock stations out there and all the contemporary music coming from the radio sounds like total shit).

What this lawsuit indicates, to me, is that the RIAA, for all their talk about copyright protection, is really just trying to adapt the Internet to their old, tired, payola-centric business models. It isn't going to work. The sooner they figure this out and adapt, the less expensive it will be for everyone involved. The worst thing that could happen from the RIAA point of view would be if a group of independent labels (Alternative Tentacles, Atomic Pop, etc.) with a sufficient pool of talent got together, licensed Launch's technology, and started their own Launchlike site. A company like that would soon become a major player, and the RIAA's constituent companies would be forced to (a) become like the independent, artist-friendly labels or (b) become unable to sign new talent and rely solely on their old recordings. It's a sure bet that they'll all choose (a), but they'll be playing catch-up once they make that decision. You do not want to play catch up in that business.

ObJectBridge [] (GPL'd Java ODMG) needs volunteers.

Here's who the RIAA is sueing . . . . (1)

davebo (11873) | more than 13 years ago | (#197916)

Why, our good friends at the RIAA are only too happy to provide us with all sorts of information [] about the various folks they're currently sueing.

Unfortunately, no information is yet listed about their problems with et al.

Re:Indy Music (3)

Requiem (12551) | more than 13 years ago | (#197917)

I wouldn't say that's always the case. You could certainly say that certain indy artists are better than certain mainstream artists, but really, generalizations like the one you're making are hard to swallow. Sure, I'm not a huge fan of mainstream music, myself (I prefer to listen to classical and electronic), but I do understand that there's a certain minimum talent level you have to have before you can be paraded before your average music listener. I may not like most of what is given to music listeners these days, but that doesn't mean it has no musical merit.

It's way too easy to be aloof and say "I don't like it, therefore it's not good."

Re:Indy Music (3)

Mullen (14656) | more than 13 years ago | (#197918)

Indy music would be music that comes from Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.

Yah, RIAA "Indie" music is much like the Indianapolis 500.

It goes around in one big circle for a long time and is really boring. It only gets exciting when something crashs with tragic effects and is no longer with us.


Assassination Politics, not just for politicians (1)

bee (15753) | more than 13 years ago | (#197920)

(WARNING: -1 Flamebait ahead)

If you've never heard of assassination politics, go read the following url: []

But why limit it to politicians? Thugs like this need to be resisted, and no, 100 people from Slashdot refusing to buy their music isn't going to be noticed. Sure, it's a radical and extreme idea, but frankly I'm tired of getting fscked around by the likes of the RIAA.


Re:We can do something about this kind of thing. (2)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 13 years ago | (#197923)

The truth is that the RIAA has them where they want us, much like the oil companies. That is they know that most people are too dependent on the product that they offer. You could probably organize not to buy DVDs or CDs, but when the number of CDs being bought goes down the internet will get the blame, rather than the RIAA admitting that this was a protest reaction.

Re:Makes sense (1)

Shadowlion (18254) | more than 13 years ago | (#197925)

Oh, I'm not necessarily saying that people "get" the concept or existence of the RIAA.

I'm simply saying that the attempts by the music industry to shut down online music services (whether right or wrong) has the effect of alienating their online customers.

Similarly, the attempts to watermark and encrypt physical CDs will alienating their offline customers, especially when some new encrypted format requires them to buy all-new equipment just to listen to it (because their old equipment is incompatible). It will alienate their offline customers when they can't create a personal mix CD, or create a backup CD on a burner (some people do it so that the original CD doesn't get used, and thus scratched or damaged), etc.

Regardless of whether the customer knows _who_ is the person or organization doing it, it still remains that the customers are being alienated by the music industry. Maybe it's not a cataclysmic event, but even a steady creep of dissatisfied customers adds up over time.


Re:Makes sense (4)

Shadowlion (18254) | more than 13 years ago | (#197926)

It's not so much that perspective is needed, really.

Look at it this way. Right or wrong, the music companies have been suing almost everyone, and everything, as of late, including a lot of pet services that people enjoy. There are some things that probably deserved it (Napster), some that didn't (, and some that are only peripherally relevant in comparison to some of the things the music industry has gone after (Aimster). However, as a result of being litigation-happy, people have come to view the music industry/RIAA as 800 lb. gorillas. Essentially, the music industry is pissing off their customer base.

So, when something happens that the music industry can legitimately sue over (licensing violation), a lot of people look at that and say, "The music industry has lied, cheated, stolen, and bribed their way to quashing stuff they didn't like - I hope those bastards deserve what they get!" and cheer for the guy in the wrong - even if they know the guy in the wrong is IN the wrong!.

As for living in a land where legal contracts are routinely flouted, you already do. That's why we have the court system. If you have enough money, you can flout contracts and get away scot-free. Contract law generally only helps the richest party to the contract in quashing violations by the less wealthy party or parties.


Re:imagine this... proper grammar... hell freezing (1)

Whizard (25579) | more than 13 years ago | (#197930)

Which the above article *obviously* wasn't.

Oh, OK, Mr. Sentence Fragment.

Like anything that competes with RIAA's Monopoly.. (1)

bteeter (25807) | more than 13 years ago | (#197931)

They think it is illegal - and they probably are right. The RIAA has lobbied for years to have the laws of the US reflect their interests.
Their efforts have paid off and now they own their market. Any competiton can be quashed at any time.

It is an enviable position. One I bet many companies wish they had. I wish *my* company had that position. :-)

Brian [] - Talk, Tips and Tricks for Web Developers

Here's an idea.. (1)

schon (31600) | more than 13 years ago | (#197932)

Contact their ISP

If that doesn't fix it, contact MAPS - I'm sure their ISP will contact them on your behalf if they get threatened with the RBL.

Re:Another day, another lawsuit (3)

Another MacHack (32639) | more than 13 years ago | (#197933)

Please at least read this before modding it through the floor.

This anti-RIAA ankle-biting is getting silly. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to be frustrated with them; it's not necessary to start making them up. Yes, they're bastards. Yes, their member companies churn out a lot of pop that many people think is crap. Yes, they're lawsuit-happy, and yes, it's cool to hate them, and with some justification.

However, the RIAA does NOT create boy-bands, the record companies do. The RIAA may be the legal arm of the industry, and for many purposes its useful to think of them as literally the same, but they are not themselves the creators of the Backstreet Boys.

More importantly, just because you don't happen to like the Backstreet Boys or Savage Garden, or whatever, doesn't mean that it's all talentless crap. Maybe it's talent that you don't much appreciate (I know I don't), and maybe their "art" if you want to even call it that isn't groundbreaking or anything, but it's not like what they do is trivial. Rail all you want about how The Public (which you, of course, are not a member of, being too "special" for that) are a bunch of sheep who will eat any manufactured tripe thrown at them, but that's simply not true, and it's easy to demonstrate. You've heard of a "one-hit wonder"; some trendy, heavily-marketed zombies pop up out of nowhere, get heavy play, and are never heard from again. Why? Because they weren't popular. Music consumers didn't like it. I guess they do have standards, even if you don't share them. If the industry could just wave its magic wand and turn any old schmuck into a pop star, they would. The unfortunate part of the music oligopy is not what gets produced, but what -doesn't- get produced. There are a lot of financial barriers to entry for musicians these days which technology could help erode; to the extent that the RIAA stands in the way of that is a legitamate reason not to like them.

I'm not particularly fond of this crop of pop and "rap-metal" bands, but for me to say its because they have absolutely no talent or that their songs are just cheeze would just be an attempt to justify the unpopularity (by top 40 standards) of my own standard of music.

Just accept that you have different taste from many other people. It's frustrating that the existing record companies don't cater to that taste sufficiently, but that's just an opportunity for other labels and other musicians. Don't blame the RIAA for "other peoples' poor taste."

Re:Well they did sign an agreement (3)

slickwillie (34689) | more than 13 years ago | (#197934)

Yeah, they signed agreements with Universal, Sony, et al. Where does the RIAA get off? Should'nt the individual companies sue Launch it they want" Or if the RIAA has a beef it should be them.

This is NOT a case of copyright infridgement.

You mean "infringement"? "Infridgement" is what you do with beer.

Re:The Death of Radio (1)

sirinek (41507) | more than 13 years ago | (#197937)

Opennap died with MusicCity going to their lameass Morpheus tool. Who else has nearly the amount of music online, accessable with a napster (or clone) client? I havent found any yet.

Re:Did they win? (2)

brianvan (42539) | more than 13 years ago | (#197938)

Litigation is a substantial enough threat to make very large companies change their entire course of direction to avoid anyone from following through on the threat of a lawsuit. Furthermore, companies are much more willing to settle cases on minimally favorable terms for their business just to get the lawsuit out of court: the threat of a decision going toward the undesired outcome is usually considered too great to have the luxury of avoiding a settlement.

Basically, two companies can grandstand all they want and claim that they are right in front of a judge, but most companies don't want to risk a court case and want to minimize legal fees... this is why the RIAA sucks. They are mind-bogglingly rich and can afford whatever legal onlslaught is necessary to get another organization to give up the ghost. Most small organizations can't afford a prolonged legal battle and can't stay in business if a crippling injunction is issued... the RIAA has the legal power and the money to attack both of these ways. And it's not as if a small company can just hire a cheap lawyer to run in and give a quick argument... they'll almost certainly lose the case that way. This is one way how the RIAA manipulates the legal system to get whatever they want.

Don't forget: if a company believes that they are right and decides to endure endless litigation to prove their point at whatever cost, the shareholders will be infuriated, and then THEY can sue the company for mismanagement. The record labels, on the other hand, will never sue the RIAA for mismanagement... they gladly feed them the money they need to bully around whomever they want. It's a puppet organization. Plus, only money matters to the record labels... the music is of no concern. Only the artists and the fans have anything to say about music at all, yet the RIAA has no interest in representing their needs at all. I think that last point is what Congress needs to see in the near future so that they can tweak the legal system to avoid these kind of dirty battles.

Re:Sue-o-rama (1)

maX_ (46318) | more than 13 years ago | (#197939)

Having been an intern in the broadcast industry when I was younger.....

This is almost as bad as making radio stations submit a playlist to the RIAA in order to keep from getting sued.
You're not too far off. Radio station "Program directors" have great pressure thrust upon them to play certain songs. It's not free for them to choose what songs they want to play from the records they recieve.
The record companies are very much in bed with the owners of the stations. The PD's are told what Genre to play from the owners (Obviously), and if they want to recieve promotional items from the Record companies, damn well better play the singles being pushed at them.
In the time frame I worked at the now defunct radio station, the repeat time for Top 40 music was an Hour and seven minutes . We could give callers an approximate time the song they wanted to hear would be played again. (not officially mind you, but "listen in about 40 minutes" type of response.
The Queue was made up of 90% "station mandated" airplay, 5% requests, 5% DJ choice. The DJ had the choice to play songs in any order he chose, as long as the same song was an hour apart.
To me the RIAA is pulling the same thing with, they don't want to over saturate the "airwaves" with the same artist or song too much for fear of losing future revenue. Just think, how many artists have more than two singles on the Top 100 at the same time? How many of those songs were released the same week? Very Few. They can prolong an artist by draggin out the releases from an albulm 5-6 weeks apart.

Ok, enough ranting from me, no back to you're regularly scheduled consiracy theory.

Re:imagine this... proper grammar... hell freezing (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 13 years ago | (#197940)

what the fuck are you on about?

people aint gunna see shit. (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 13 years ago | (#197941)

you give way way too much credit to the average music listener. Figure it out, no-one gets their neck bent out of straight for this kind of crap. It's just music, they don't care.

fair enough (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 13 years ago | (#197942)

they could always make their own boy bands.

so you never get exposed to new music (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 13 years ago | (#197943)

That way you can always listen to the same small set of music for the rest of your life. ie. say I like rap, and I say, no that sux to a whole lot of non-rap music and eventually all I ever hear is rap -- but out there somewhere is a bunch of non-rap songs I would like if I ever heard them, but I never will, so I will live my sheltered little rap life and never be aware that there are songs to be appreciated in other genres. Sure, 99.9% of christian rock music sux ass, but there is maybe 3 songs that are really quite good, but I'll never know because I want to listen to rap. (In case you actually care about my music preferences, it aint rap, but there are 3 or 4 rap songs that I like). Thank god the rest of the world doesn't work like this. *cough* Slashdot *cough*

Re:Makes sense (2)

The Original Bobski (52567) | more than 13 years ago | (#197945)

If they are acting outside of the prescribed boundries of the license, then the RIAA is following the only reasonable course of action.

Uh, no. Reasonable action would be for the RIAA to quietly approach them and try to come to an agreement first, before they bring out the Big Guns. If the RIAA keeps up this kind of heavy-handed tactic it will surely start raising some congressional eybrows.
Haven't they heard? Bullying is no longer PC.

Which begs the question... (1)

TheTomcat (53158) | more than 13 years ago | (#197946)

Are request shows REALLY controlled by the listeners in any OTHER mainstream media?

Re:The Death of Radio (1)

Saige (53303) | more than 13 years ago | (#197947)

About the only time I ever listen to the radio is when I take the cartridge out of my car CD changer for the day, and head home at lunchtime without it. With a 12 disc CD changer there, a 200 disc jukebox at home, and a nice mp3 collection on my computer, there's no need for radio.

Though since I lost my DSL connection I haven't touched Napster (OpenNap actually), and as a result I haven't found as much music to buy recently. Napster was my method of being exposted to new music, music I hadn't heard before, and I've lost that... and the radio does really really poorly, except for letting me know when new stuff comes out by the few artists I like that they play. (Informed me that Counting Crows and Sarah McLachlan should have new albums out later this year, for example)

Re:What Launch(Cast) Does (2)

Saige (53303) | more than 13 years ago | (#197948)

And the RIAA has a problem with this?!?! This seems like it would be a GREAT thing for them! But putting a large amount of music on there, as people define what they like and don't like, it would find other artists in the areas the person defines for themselves, and custom target the music right to them. It seems like it should INCREASE sales, by giving people music they're much more likely to want.

It should be the radio stations that are afraid of this, not the RIAA. It's the type of thing that could make radio obsolete.

Re:Another day, another lawsuit (3)

Saige (53303) | more than 13 years ago | (#197949)

What else do they have to spend it on? It's not like it costs them money to put a few guys who can sing together and plaster them all over the place, like the boy bands, or find some girl who's attractive, give her some cheezy songs, and watch the money roll in.

They don't seem to dig for talent now that they've learned how to "create" it. It's not about music, it's about money.

This is pathetic. (4)

Saige (53303) | more than 13 years ago | (#197950)

I think the RIAA is working really hard on trying to shoot themselves in the foot. By seeming to go after everyone and everything that doesn't play exactly the way RIAA wants them to play, people are going to get really tired of this big bully. It's one thing to go after people copying copyrighted songs, but to say it's a problem to let people have this level of customization? People are going to start seeing through the show they're putting on, all their claims, and see what they're really doing.

I have to admit that I'm not familiar with LaunchCast, but it doesn't sound like they're doing anything wrong, except giving people the chance to hear what they'd like and not what the RIAA likes. (Which is what radio has become anymore as the middlemen between the publishers and stations serve as little more than a means for the publishers to decide what songs get played, while the middleman gets rich for doing nothing - but then again, isn't that what the point of a middleman is?) It is totally possible that they could have signed some really stupid deal that they're breaking...

I need to go find out who all the RIAA represents so I can make sure to only purchase music that is independent of them...

Re:Another day, another lawsuit (1)

Spyky (58290) | more than 13 years ago | (#197955)

Well *someone* has to pay those poor starving lawyers :-)


The Death of Radio (2)

citizenc (60589) | more than 13 years ago | (#197956)

It should be the radio stations that are afraid of this, not the RIAA. It's the type of thing that could make radio obsolete.
In my eyes, radio died a LONG time ago. Here in Winnipeg, there are 3 different radio stations devoted to "what's new" or "what's hot". It's a load of crap -- radio is no longer about the music, it is about selling CDs. I actively avoid stations like Hot103, which plays a constant stream of hip hop, pop, and rap. The DJs don't play music they like, they play music they are paid to play. It's like one 24/7 commercial.

I felt the same way about Survivor and the other reality TV shows. I avoided them as well. Why? They're just a stupid marketing gimmick.

However, I DO listen to radio stations that play OLD stuff. (Not ICKY old, like the Beatles.. Led Zeplin, old Metallica before they were sell outs.) This is GOOD radio playing good music.


Gnutella (2)

citizenc (60589) | more than 13 years ago | (#197957)

If you have the connection to sustain a connect, you can find pretty much ANY mp3 you want on Gnutella. (For hosts, connect to *Surprise*

I'm currently running a Win32 box for gaming, so I use both LimeWire [] and BearShare [] , although BearShare has been a touch flaky lately. Not sure why.


What Launch(Cast) Does (5)

citizenc (60589) | more than 13 years ago | (#197958)

I have to admit that I'm not familiar with LaunchCast, but it doesn't sound like they're doing anything wrong, except giving people the chance to hear what they'd like and not what the RIAA likes.
What Launch(Cast) does is this -- you start listening to music, which plays every different kind of genre imaginable. However, as you listen to them, you rate the songs -- yes, I liked Nine Inch Nails, no I didn't like Britney Spears, etc etc etc. Eventually, the system (which is errily accurate) figures out what kinds of music that you like, and stops playing the rest of the crap.


Re:Indy Music (1)

cetan (61150) | more than 13 years ago | (#197959)

Uhm. Is it just me or isn't it:



Indy ?

Indy music would be music that comes from Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.

Maybe I just need sleep...

The RIAA is suing me also (1)

BMonger (68213) | more than 13 years ago | (#197960)

So I get home the other day, minding my own business. I go out to check the mail and there's this letter from the courts. I'm being sued by the RIAA! Why? Well I don't know. So I read it. I guess one of their spies overheard me humming one of my favorite songs (I would disclose the song but my lawyer advises me not to talk about it). So anyhow watch out. I told them I would just not hum anymore and they seemed to think that was okay but if I do it again... well... ya know. Anyway, just a heads up. The spies are everywhere.

Imagine playing music listeners want to hear (2)

dsplat (73054) | more than 13 years ago | (#197962)

Imagine - playing the music listeners want to hear instead of the tripe the Record Giants have preselected for everyone!

Imagine that. No, wait. I know a radio station that does just that. I can't stand at least a third of the stuff they play. Of course that still makes them at least twice as good as most stations. But I have heard dozens of excellent bands on their station months or years before anyone else played them. Oh, and they're on the Web [] .

Re:Makes sense (2)

The Good Reverend (84440) | more than 13 years ago | (#197966)

Essentially, the music industry is pissing off their customer base.

Unfortunatly, 99% of people who buy music have no idea who the RIAA is or what they do. While the /. crowd is pissed off, it doesn't change the fact that even people who can't "find what they want on Napster anymore" don't know much about the case or the reasons behind it. We all know about the RIAA, but Joe Musicbuyer doesn't.

The Good Reverend
I'm different, just like everybody else. []

Re:so you never get exposed to new music (2)

cot (87677) | more than 13 years ago | (#197968)

What an inane argument.

What do you think happens when you listen to a radio station with a specific format (which is just about EVERY radio station except for maybe college stations or something)?

This is no different, except for the fact that the "station"'s format is tailored to your tastes, rather than having to settle for the local station whose format is as close to your tastes as you can find. For some people, this involves a massive compromise and a service like this actually sounds like a pretty good idea.

Solution to RIAA (1)

Brazilian (98980) | more than 13 years ago | (#197971)

I'm just curious: why not digitize a music stream into non-copyright-infringing blocks (however many seconds are legal), Reed-Solomon code all the blocks, then distribute all the blocks to a variety of servers?

Then only the actual reassembly of the blocks into a complete file would (possibly) be illegal...

Sue my Local Radio Stations! (1)

AirP (99063) | more than 13 years ago | (#197972)

Every few months my local station decides to play certain songs every damn hour. SUE THEM, that's too often. I can't handle hearing "WHO LET THE DAMN DOGS OUT" 30 times a day on the same station. What about the top songs list where listeners get to vote for the songs they hear, isn't that kind of the same thing?

Well they did sign an agreement (4)

Sc00ter (99550) | more than 13 years ago | (#197973)

"The music lobbyist alleges that Launch's licenses with Universal, Sony, BMG and EMI do not allow for the level of interactivity and customization offered by LaunchCast, which allows users to decide how often they want to hear particular songs. After LaunchCast users rate songs, albums and artists, the service "learns" to play the types of music the user wants to hear."

Later on they say they are going to come to some kind of agreement. We don't know what they signed, so we can't really judge here. Lauch could have signed something that said that the user can't select what songs to play. This is NOT a case of copyright infridgement.


Re:Well they did sign an agreement (2)

Cyberdyne (104305) | more than 13 years ago | (#197974)

Lauch could have signed something that said that the user can't select what songs to play.

That's the RIAA's problem in a nutshell: they just can't handle the idea of paying customers having any say in what they receive! (Yes, paying; via ads, perhaps, but it isn't the RIAA paying their bandwidth bills...)

AFAICS, the RIAA just wants new technology to turn into a copy of the current system - a handful of channels, all tightly controlled by the RIAA cartel, playing and saying exactly what they want, and paying them for the privilege. They can't seem to accept the difference between "old media" and the Net: the Net is interactive. WE control what we do, and when we do it. No scheduling, no playlists, no DJs - just one huge menu, available to us all 24x7 - when we want it, how we want it. They are losing the control they've always had, and that scares them. The RIAA's sole function is to monitor and control what happens, on behalf of the labels - and they just became obsolete.

Service providers, not consumers (1)

Galvatron (115029) | more than 13 years ago | (#197978)

Consumers may not give a damn, but as online music consumption increases, more and more content providers will be setting up music distribution channels. If the RIAA won't play ball the way the providers want, and the way their consumers demand, then they'll look for alternative sources of music.

The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.

Ancient Proverb (1)

Sunriath (116137) | more than 13 years ago | (#197980)

Go to bed with the record companies and your bound to get screwed. I guess they just didn't expect it in the butt.

Re:The RIAA is going to hurt itself (2)

donglekey (124433) | more than 13 years ago | (#197986)

The RIAA already sued themselves when they sued Nullsoft for creating gnutella. Nullsoft is owned by AOL. AOL merged with Time Warner. AOL Time Warner is part of the RIAA.

Another day, another lawsuit (1)

atathert (127489) | more than 13 years ago | (#197987)

I think it would be interesting to know how many companies that the RIAA is currently suing. Seems like everyday another announcement is posted. Isn't it nice to see that your entertainment dollars are being used in such a manner.

Same issues as with Napster... (1)

mini me (132455) | more than 13 years ago | (#197988)

Imagine - playing the music listeners want to hear instead of the tripe the Record Giants have preselected for everyone!

I believe this to be the main reason the RIAA was against Napster. They knew darn well they were making more money with Napster but Napster allowed each person to decided what they want to listen to, not what the RIAA tries to shove down our throats and make us like it. Personally I can't stand the "mainstream" music of late (or ever, but it seems even worse lately!), but there are others who listen to it to be trendy or what have you, not because they truely like it. Imagine if you actaully had to search out bands that you actually like, that would just be awful, I think I'll just turn on MTV and see what the RIAA wants me to listen to.

The whole music industry is based around money (obviously) and they know that they can make more money telling Britney Spears what to do then some band that actually understands what the RIAA is up to. But if they can't tell us to like Britney Spears then they have lost their money making platform.

Okay, enough ranting...I'm just fed up at all the junk they are giving us when there is some amazing music out there that everyone is missing (including myself).

Re:Indy Music (1)

hardburn (141468) | more than 13 years ago | (#197991)

99% of everything is crap. I hate almost everything coming out of the music industry, but I don't really like a lot of indy music, either. However, since I would much rather give money to a small, aspiring group then a huge, faceless corperation, I'll take the indy artists over the corperate monstrosities any day.


Slow down cowboy! (2)

Eloquence (144160) | more than 13 years ago | (#197993)

The legal system requires you to wait 1 minute between each lawsuit in order to allow everyone to have a fair chance to litigate.

It's been 42 seconds since your last lawsuit.


Re:Makes sense (4)

Srin Tuar (147269) | more than 13 years ago | (#197995)

but we can't live without music

So, you for example would be able to live without britney and backdoor boys? :P

Just trying to point out that the majority of the most popular "music" is a soulless, brainless cash crop mass manufactured and mass marketted.

The music isnt really the fundamental argument here. Its just the first of the great Personal Freedom Debates to come. The reason is because it can be traded and consumed so easily (thanks to mp3 and sound blaster).

And people can live without music, but they dont like to. (im posting this while listening to stuff i dl'd from

Re:The RIAA is going to hurt itself (2)

sid_vicious (157798) | more than 13 years ago | (#197997)

The RIAA already sued themselves when they sued Nullsoft for creating gnutella.

I'm 99% sure that the RIAA *didn't* file a lawsuit against AOL (owners of Nullsoft) for Gnutella. To the best of my understanding, Justin Frankel's superiors at AOL asked him to take the site down, and he complied. Gnutella was completed by other individuals outside the Nullsoft/AOL ring of fire (presumably with Justin's passive blessing).

Re:Indy Music (1)

elfkicker (162256) | more than 13 years ago | (#197998)

It's the NASCAR underground baby! Heh... I used to run an indie room on napster. I always got people coming in and asking for Ravi Shankar and shit.

Next is Pioneer (1)

dilvish_the_damned (167205) | more than 13 years ago | (#197999)

For selling 100 disk changers with the ability to program large playlists and the ability to skip over some disks all together.
We will no longer be able to play Godsmack over and over while skipping over all those John Denvers.

Using your brain to store music. (1)

smack_attack (171144) | more than 13 years ago | (#198000)

Using your brain to store music:
A Napster In The Making?

reporting source: []

As if the music industry doesn't already have its share of digital headaches, it may have a new source of potential copyright infringement to contend with: human memory.

A British Internet monitoring startup calls the ability of the human brain to store music "another Napster in the making" and says the industry may be losing more than $1 trillion a day in related royalties.

Envisional Ltd., which sells software and services for monitoring intellectual-property rights violations, discovered the potential infringement while doing an MP3-related research project for the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry.

Co-founder and chief operating officer Ben Coppin said the company decided to pursue the research on its own.

Studies have shown that the human brain can store over 30 terabytes of information, and there are currently no copyright protections in place that allow recording artists to recover these financial losses due to downloading and sharing. The most common form of uploading was through auditory senses, or the ears.

Coppin said record labels are entitled to 7.5 cents for each memory and song in a person's brain that uses copyrighted material, but industry sources couldn't confirm that figure.

Envisional arrived at its estimate of potential losses based on analyst research indicating that very few individuals with brains who are paying the required royalties. Coppin said he considers his firm's estimate to be "rough," but adds that "our feeling is that it's fairly conservative."

He said Envisional has had discussions with multiple, well-known music labels about taking the research further.

Webnoize Inc. analyst Ric Dube said storing music in the human brain is becoming big business, particularly in Asia and other regions where humans have bigger heads and can store the music much easier.

The storage of copyrighted memories, Dube said, could present a revenue opportunity for the labels.

Meanwhile, Gartner analyst P.J. McNealy said concerns surrounding music memories aren't about to take on the magnitude of file sharing, at least not until streaming technologies allow flawless playback from the brain. He went on to explain that quite simply, many people just can't sing.

"I don't see the [Recording Industry Association of America] launching a round of lawsuits," said McNealy. "But rest assured we have the technology to stop these offenders, it's very easy to perform a lobotomy."


Re:Reacting to this is just plain silly... (1)

swv3752 (187722) | more than 13 years ago | (#198003)

Close, I consider this to be more of wielding a big stick to get the other guy to renegotiate.

Hrmmm, I bet if we threaten a Lawsuite, we can strike a better deal for ourselves.

We can do something about this kind of thing. (5)

schwap (191462) | more than 13 years ago | (#198004)

This is and isnt a big issue. It is a big issue because it has become clear that organizations like the RIAA appear to have WAAAAYYY too much control over what we hear and how we listen to it. It is a big issue because we have handed them control. It is not a big issue, because, we as consumers, do not require music for our immediate survival.

How have we handed them control? We purchase the music from them. We listen to the radio stations they buy. I have a suggestion: Dont buy any more CDs, or tapes, or DVDs for a while. Go out to the park. Go see a local band, LIVE. Drop some money and start your own little recording studio with a Mac and a Tascam or Roland MultiTracker. Nobody has any more control over you than what you give to them. I dont like the RIAA or the MPAA, or Microsoft or oil companies; but there is something I can do about it, and if enough of us do something then, who knows what will happen?

Re:We can do something about this kind of thing. (1)

GemFire (192853) | more than 13 years ago | (#198005)

This is the reason why Boycotts need to be LOUD. If the companies involved, their retail outlets, the politicians, the news correspondents, and everyone else in the world know that YOUR GROUP (organize, organize, organize) is boycotting the Recording Industry for the following reasons.....

Several years ago the Fishing Industry came head to head with a very successful Boycott of Tuna products and now they use Dolphin safe nets. The boycott was noisy and organized and determined. That's what a boycott needs to be.

Get permission to picket, hand out flyers, write congress and the businesses involved. Don't just post on /. "I'm boycotting the Recording Industry - haven't bought a CD in months." That's not enough - the internet will be blamed for dropping revenues. But an organized and determined boycott is hard to ignore and lay blame elsewhere.

Re:Now I see (2)

sulli (195030) | more than 13 years ago | (#198007)

That and Britney Spears promos.

Re:What Launch(Cast) Does (2)

sulli (195030) | more than 13 years ago | (#198008)

Good idea. I guess RIAA and its members doesn't want users to have any way to distinguish between crap / non-crap.

Fuck 'em.

On A Related Note...... (1)

bitva (206067) | more than 13 years ago | (#198012)

.....John Doe, from Los Angeles, CA is being sued by the RIAA for putting in a CD he wanted to listen to sports......

That's when I go to Canada.

The RIAA is going to hurt itself (2)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 13 years ago | (#198013)

Have you ever noticed that dogs who have no other dogs to chase eventually end up chasing their own tail ?
Well, when the RIAA people are done suing the rest of the world, do you think they'll sue themselves ?

"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash

This is NOT a silly lawsuit... (1)

vslashg (209560) | more than 13 years ago | (#198014)

...because there is a definite line which Launchcast might have crossed.

Certainly if Launchcast allowed users to directly specify what songs they wanted to hear when, it would clearly be a violation (and if you believe in intellectual property, unethical). If they stuck with true radio-style broadcast, there would clearly be no violation. Their preferences system is somewhere in the middle, and thus might be on the wrong side of the line. Even if the RIAA is proven wrong, this is not a frivolous lawsuit.

I've got the answer. (2)

TheFlu (213162) | more than 13 years ago | (#198016)

Everyone just stop listening to music. It's just a waste of time anyway. Hey you, in the back...stop humming.

Re:Blah - I dunno... (2)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 13 years ago | (#198018)

The RIAA still view themselves as kingmakers and probably want to play a lot of groups full of people so extremely stupid that they don't realize they don't get any royalties or rights to any of the music after the party is over. You can probably walk down the aisle at Sam Goody (Goody's got it, and for a fat wad of cash you can get it, too!) and pick the groups out. If you're in favor, you can continue to make records, long past your prime. Fall out of it and they lawyers will find some way to keep you from ever performing again. People need to remember some history of the recording industry. It was very evil for a long time, now it's merely evil, but still evil.

All your .sig are belong to us!

KPIG - Still On the web (3)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 13 years ago | (#198019)

KPIG [] got around some hassles with having to pay extortion^H^H^H^H^H^Hroyalties and other fees with some pretty bizarre fake commercials and stuff. Not exactly mainstream music, fun station to listen to. Enjoy, until someone figures out a reason to sue them, too.

All your .sig are belong to us!

Re:Well they did sign an agreement (3)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 13 years ago | (#198020)

Sometimes it's not the songs the user wants to hear as much as songs the user does not want to hear. I like "Kryptonite", but have friends who have heard it so much they are sick of it. It would be a swell feature to to destroy a songs appeal because radio discjocks or computers or robots say it must be played every hour of every day.

Bit of a slashback: there was a radio station, near where I once lived, which featured a Phil Collins-free weekend. Absolutely no Phil Collins or Genesis (w/Phil) Fri-Sun. I was sympathetic, he'd had too many hits in a short period and I was sick of his voice (I can still listen to the music, but I'm still so burned out I don't buy any more of it.) Some listener actually called in and complained. Well, all the better for customizable, she could have Phil 24 hours a day and everyone else could just skip it for a few months.

Once again, the RIAA doesn't really have a clue. They're truly the pit-weasels of litigation.

All your .sig are belong to us!

Last Gasp of the Dinosaurs (1)

rhakka (224319) | more than 13 years ago | (#198022)

Man the RIAA sure seems desparate these days, fighting like a cornered animal.. probably because they are starting to realize their entire industry is rapidly becoming obsolete, and soon, completely ineffective. Sue all you want guys, we'll trade more. Just think about it, they are the "recording" industry.. how much longer will we really need an industry revolving around "recording" things? Cheap tech replaces services, and the tech is always on the move.. when was the last time you called up your home delivery milkman? When you can get fresh milk in the grocery store cheaper, it ceased to be a viable service. "Recording" as a service-based industry is dying, and we are watching its death struggle. Adapt or die already, please...

Re:Assassination Politics, not just for politician (1)

rhakka (224319) | more than 13 years ago | (#198023)

great idea, let's create a society where anyone with an opinion who has any kind of public recognition gets killed. brilliant. Man I can't even believe I was a Libertarian for so long.

go figure (3)

unformed (225214) | more than 13 years ago | (#198024)

not really surprising actually.... The RIAA initially went after Napster because it was an easy (and correct imo) win but more importantly it would provide a legal precedent. Now they're going after companies that do have licenses but who's practices might be a little iffy. If they can win this case, they can go ahead and try to make digital music either illegal or highly protected. They've realized that they're a bit behind on the times regarding creating a new medium, so the only way to get time is file suit...

Re:This is pathetic. (1)

canning (228134) | more than 13 years ago | (#198025)

people are going to get really tired of this big bully.

Kind of like Microsoft? The people that don't know anything about it won't care obviously (ignorance is bliss) and the people that do care hardley have any power anyway. We just have to continue to put up the good fight.

Murphy's Law of Copiers

Different brodcaster licenses... (5)

Xibby (232218) | more than 13 years ago | (#198026)

There are different licenses. For what they're doing, Launch probally signed the wrong license and got basic webcaster license. So they can loop a playlist that goes for 3 hours (minimum) without repeating, can't take requests, etc. I'm not well informed myself, but the RIAA's Licensing and Royalties [] page is a good place to start.

So why don't you figure out what kind of license Launch has, compare what the license covers to what their doing, then flame away. Just a thought...

Reacting to this is just plain silly... (1)

stonewolf (234392) | more than 13 years ago | (#198027)

We don't have enough information about this suit to even justify getting upset about it. We do not know the details of the licenses. We don't know what kind of talks were going on before the suit was filed. We don't know the nature of the talks that are going on now. This is actually a very private dispute between business partners. It doesn't concern us at all.

In a contract dispute a suit is often filed, or at least threatened, to get the attention of a party who is in violation of a contract who is refusing to discuss the problem with the other parties. It is the legal equivalent of grounding a teenager who thinks that "be home at 11:00" means "be home before I wake up." Sometimes you have to do nasty things just to get their attention.


Re:Sue my Local Radio Stations! (2)

spoocr (237489) | more than 13 years ago | (#198028)

I live in Phoenix and have heard nothing about this - care to fill me in?

-- Chris

The artists should take their piece of the pie (1)

Ska-Baby (237738) | more than 13 years ago | (#198029)

I wonder how long it is going for popular musicians and their agents to figure out how much money can be made by licensing their songs to companies like napster? Seems to me the artists could get napster and similar companies to pay them for exclusive online use of their songs. I'm sure it would be much cheaper for the consumer than going through our ever more greedy friends the record companies.

Next things they'll do... (1)

Xenopax (238094) | more than 13 years ago | (#198030)

  • Sue local bands for covering popular songs.
  • Sue radio stations for playing too much music.
  • Sue radio stations for not playing enough of their music.
  • Sue people who hum copyrighted songs in the shower.
  • Sue Karaoke bars for allowing people to learn the words to a songs so they can sing it in the shower.
  • Sue anyone who plays any music not affiliated with the RIAA since it hurts their music sales.
  • Sue me for talking about music without their written consent.

Re:Sue-o-rama (1)

A coward on a mouse (238331) | more than 13 years ago | (#198031)

Don't look now, but in the US and Europe, the recording and motion picture industries already get a cut of all blank media that could be used for fair-use^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hpirating or by independent^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hpinko commie production companies. This means that even if a wholly independent system were to be developed, the RIAA, the MPAA, and their European counterparts would get money for every Tape/Video/CD/DVD produced without their help.

Did they win? (2)

Calle Ballz (238584) | more than 13 years ago | (#198032)

Anyone can sue anyone for any reason, it's whether you win the lawsuit or not that makes the difference. If launch has the licenses necessary to broadcast the said copyrighted material, then the RIAA or anyone else doesn't have much of a lawsuit. I've been sued before; the plaintiff didn't get very far, but they still filed the lawsuit...

Big giant (1)

cramhead (241442) | more than 13 years ago | (#198034)

Seems like all these companies getting sued should get together to battle the big giant.
Once precedence is set it is very difficult to changes

How many licks does it take... (2)

Bonker (243350) | more than 13 years ago | (#198035)

How many lawsuits does the RIAA have to be engaged in before it's members start pulling out due to the extreme cost?

How expensive is/was the Napster litigation? If I'm any judge, I'm guessing that the RIAA isn't going to see a dime, even if they obliterate Sean and Co. with BFG 10k's. How expensive will the Aimster legislation be? How many ISP's will they have to sue for carrying the 'alt.binaries.sounds.mp3.*' hierarchy?

Now, the RIAA is very, very rich, but you still can't put out a volcano with a few firetrucks, if you get my drift. I know those 'wookie-defense' RIAA laywers don't work for free, and the people they're suing, at least in Aimster's case I think, are more likely to file Ch11 or Ch13 before they pay legal fees and court costs.

Of course, the answer to the to problem, at least from the RIAA's end, is to start buying legislation on wholesale, just like the oil industry is doing. Maybe we'll get to see Hillary Rosen run for Prez in 2004?

Re:This is pathetic. (1)

headless_ringmaster (248904) | more than 13 years ago | (#198038)

Who knew Senator McCarthy was in kahoots with the RIAA?! I know I could probably come up with something more intelligent to say, but come on! The RIAA is on a friggin witch hunt! It's gotten to the point, I think, where music will become solely business, and move away from art since the only way to allow your music to be heard is to submit to the RIAA. Not to mention being bought out by one of the big guys... they had a lot of good music from independent artists, and I worry that those artists won't have the oppurtunity to be heard without join the RIAA klan. We shall see. Paul -------------- hehe.... and they think I know what I'm doing

Indy Music (1)

rynix (253252) | more than 13 years ago | (#198040)

Again I would now like to take the time to reemphasize that Indy music is just as good if not superior to the "Main Stream Music" !

Re:Indy Music (1)

rynix (253252) | more than 13 years ago | (#198041)

I agree with you on the minimum talent level, and I am not trying to say that all record company music sucks ass. I'm just trying to open up some people's minds. Most people that I talk to have never even listened to Independent music before. Then when I introduce them to it they finally realize that not all good music is made or signed by a record company.

Makes sense (4)

quantum pixie (266938) | more than 13 years ago | (#198045)

The license Launchcast purchased no doubt specifies the allowed usage. If they are acting outside of the prescribed boundries of the license, then the RIAA is following the only reasonable course of action.

I would venture to say that there are more important matters than free music, and contract law is certainly one of them. Although I will readily admit that I enjoy not paying for music, it is not worth living in a society where legal contracts are routinely flouted. Perhaps a little perspective is needed in this issue.

I listen to launch all day at work.. (2)

banuaba (308937) | more than 13 years ago | (#198049)

It's a pretty good service, but it really isn't all that customizable.. I mean, I still get rap songs and garage about 5% of the time, when I have them crossed off of my genre list.

Launch provides a good service, the system of DJs and learning prefrences is good, and avoids being *too* customizable, the client is decent, they have bunches of music videos. I mean, I would actually PAY for the launch service, if they wanted the money.

Something like seems like it would be right up the RIAA's alley. They provide a robust service for the consumer, they have a large (300K+ song db, iirc) music base, they use a fairly secure client (WMP streaming embedded in Flash) and they continue to improve services on a weekly basis.. I fail to see the problem here.


RIAA License terms (1)

terrymr (316118) | more than 13 years ago | (#198050)

This case is as much to do with bizzare riaa licensing terms as anything else.

If you broadcast random music at people you are covered under their blanket internet radio license.

If you allow the user to choose what they hear you are not and have to negotiate separate licenses with the record companies. (and usually pay more $$$)

Isn't it time for an open licensing process where the RIAA lists the fees for playing a number of songs per hour and you just pay it instead of all these backroom deals that nobody understands ???

Re:Makes sense (4)

dorkstar (318427) | more than 13 years ago | (#198051)

No. I think you have lost your perspective.

Music is our culture. Legal contracts are a simple mechanism of law, a means to an end. Music partially defines who we are. Contracts do not. We can live without contracts, but we can't live without music.

Music influences how we think. It's a metaphor for sex. It's an educator. It's a disseminator of wisdom. To have music commodified into a soulless, brainless cash crop is more than a tragedy. To have a contract of law slightly breached is at most a misdemeanor, in the grand scheme of things.

Sometimes the rule of law is wrong, but it cannot be changed. In such cases, it is morally justifiable to break it. Ask the founding fathers of America. Ask Ghandhi. I don't mean to melodramatize the issue, but the larger picture is that the culture of the human race is being co-opted and turned into drivel, not that some obscure legal bullshit was violated.

You just hit on something important there (2)

Spamalamadingdong (323207) | more than 13 years ago | (#198052)

I mean, I would actually PAY for the launch service, if they wanted the money.
Don't you see it? The RIAA wants to force Launch into a takeover situation, so that one of the RIAA members owns it. By shutting down the last real independent Internet music channel, they can own it all.

It's all about monopoly and control, just like Microsoft.

Sue-o-rama (2)

Aerog (324274) | more than 13 years ago | (#198053)

Could it be that the RIAA is just now realizing that they can use the courts to keep anything that remotely resembles a breach of control away from the public? It seems that they're suing everybody that they can get their hands on that has anything even barely close to the "flames of anarchy" that Napster stood for.

Let's see. . .AIMster. They are almost like napster, but harder to track down. Looks like it's time to shut them down with a high-profile lawsuit. . . .Launchcast. . . .sue them because they aren't playing what we tell them to?! Now this is just ludicrous. This is almost as bad as making radio stations submit a playlist to the RIAA in order to keep from getting sued. If they can pull this lawsuit off, it's just paving the way for the complete RIAA control of anything even musically related on the Internet.

Maybe it's just my opinion, but isn't there something very wrong about using legal action to do what amounts to preventing individuals from listening to the music that they want? I know that it probably sells some more CD's if a person has to buy the music just so that they can hear something other than the (IMHO) plodding alt. rock / pop drivel that dominates the airwaves lately, but this is just wrong.

Before long they'll probably be suing recordable media manufacturers for "inticing consumers to pirate media".

Enough is enough! (1)

famazza (398147) | more than 13 years ago | (#198055)

That's it, for me that's enough! I am declaring a personal war against RIAA. I was trying to understand that they need to own their money, and all that boring chat about copyrights. NOW THIS? What do they want? They want me to listen only what they want! Oh, c'mon.

I've talking about this since they began to sue napster. "WHERE ARE THEIR TECHNICAL ADVISORS?". Do they have any technical advisor to tell them that no matter what they do, there always will be another network, another way, another site, another anything?

They are trying to kill Napster, maybe they can do this, but then they'll have to kill Aimster, after this kill gnutella, and later kill freenet. And these are technologies that is avaiable today!

They don't have the right to sue Lauchcast, but as Stallamann said: US Government does not work for the people of USA, it works for RIAA, for MPAA, or whoever has tons of money! (patriots, I'm sorry, but that's my opinion, and Stallmann's too)

Please, somebody, help me to finish this dam thing!

Don't worry, I'm too angry with GWBush [to|every]day

Seems like what we really need... (1)

AnotherSteve (447030) | more than 13 years ago | (#198059)

What we really need is a lawyer tax. Groups like the RIAA obviously have so much money to buy lawyers that they don't know what else to do with it. If the government taxed them per lawyer, we'd probably be able to do away with income tax in the U.S. and still have enough money left over to pay for our B3 bombers.

It's the end of internet as we know it (1)

wubc (450153) | more than 13 years ago | (#198061)

Maybe RIAA should just sue every company that help shaping the internet today. RIAA people must be thinking: File sharing comes from internet, kill the internet, solve the problem and we can get all the revenue again :P

Indies? Yeah, right.... (1)

maxpublic (450413) | more than 13 years ago | (#198062)

It seems a badge of honor to some people to proclaim the superiority of independent artists over those sponsored by corporations, decrying the evil sell-outs as unable to compete against underfunded garage bands.

Really, now, swallow that crap before you choke on your own shallow self-righteousness. What you like ain't what I like and my music preferences have nothing to do with getting up on a high horse and 'sticking it to the man' by not buying CDs. I *enjoy* alot of mainstream artists and could care less for idiot geeks who politicize what is essentially an enjoyable time-waster of an activity - listening to music.

When you do the lemming and run down this 'Indies rule!' path you sound just as ridiculous as the vegans who call us meat-eaters 'murderers': so far out in left field that you almost aren't worth the time or effort required to pay attention to.

Collectivist, borg-like extremism advertised as 'independent' thought has zero to do with the original topic, that being that every alternative avenue to purchasing overpriced cds of mainstream music is being squashed by profiteering monopolists. *This* is the issue. Screw the indies - they have nothing to do with the topic other than to inflate the moralistic pinings of weak egos.


Re:Indy Music (1)

night_flyer (453866) | more than 13 years ago | (#198065)

I agree for the most part, especially when it comes to the various genres of Blues. I have over 200 mp3s from various INDY blues artist which are every bit as good, if not better than the national acts... to top it off I have purchased some of their albums.... one way to hurt the RIAA though is to purchase your music used, either from a used CD dealer or from pawnshops...

Now I see (5)

PhreakinPenguin (454482) | more than 13 years ago | (#198066)

So this is why I pay $14.99 for a cd, to cover the cost of lawyers and propaganda releases from the RIAA

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>