Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

RIAA Targets 21 Sites For Shutdown

Soulskill posted about 9 months ago | from the go-big-or-go-home dept.

Piracy 140

New submitter souperfly writes "The Inquirer has a list of 21 sites that the RIAA is looking to get shut down by ISPs this week. The list includes sites filestube, Bomb-Mp3, Mp3skull, Bitsnoop, Extratorrent, Torrenthound, Torrentreactor and Monova, and at least one ISP — Virgin Media in the UK — has confirmed the number of targeted sites. BT confirmed it will block the site, but didn't say when. Before, it was thought that only six sites were lined up for a chop."

cancel ×

140 comments

Dear Anonymous (5, Funny)

intermodal (534361) | about 9 months ago | (#45273297)

Please, find a violation on RIAA.org and get them shut down. I'm begging you.

Re:Dear Anonymous (4, Funny)

0racle (667029) | about 9 months ago | (#45273329)

Not your personal army.

Re:Dear Anonymous (3, Informative)

Xicor (2738029) | about 9 months ago | (#45273357)

lol, obviously we know they arent our personal army... that being said, there would be an argument to say they are an army for the good of the american public. i would hazard a guess and say that it would be beneficial to the american public if the riaa and mpaa would go fuck themselves.

Re:Dear Anonymous (3, Insightful)

intermodal (534361) | about 9 months ago | (#45273385)

I agree except the part about "American". Anonymous are not restricted to only being an army for the good of the American public. and clearly the *AA groups are detrimental to all nations' publics.

Re:Dear Anonymous (2)

operagost (62405) | about 9 months ago | (#45273461)

I agree except for the "good" part. Try "lulz". Anonymous is an army of vainglorious narcissists without any real sense of what person freedom really is.

Re:Dear Anonymous (1)

intermodal (534361) | about 9 months ago | (#45273489)

Then let them and the RIAA destroy each other. At that point, it's win-win if your characterization is correct.

Re:Dear Anonymous (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45273517)

As Jefferson said:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and Lulz.

Re:Dear Anonymous (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45273669)

+1 would read again

Re: Dear Anonymous (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45274429)

"the pursuit of lulz". It's funnier if you leave the original phrasing intact.

Re:Dear Anonymous (2)

TheP4st (1164315) | about 9 months ago | (#45273705)

Re:Dear Anonymous (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45273951)

If the rest are as much of a joke as the Lolita City "hack" there's not much to fear, they found a bunch of public nicks (you know, like slashdot nicks) and tried matching them to people using the same nick on regular sites. In other words if I wanted to frame you I could just make a user on LC called TheP4st, "accidentally" reveal some details that match yours and you'd be exposed as a kiddie porn surfer. About 98% of the users weren't that stupid, nobody took them seriously and nobody was arrested. The site itself was never down and never stopped working, the lulz were all ours.

Re:Dear Anonymous (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 9 months ago | (#45275635)

Given a choice between the survival of Anonymous, and any of the *AA groups - my thumbs up goes to Anonymous. Any organization that represents corporate interests over citizen's rights will get the thumbs down from me. I'm pretty neutral regarding Anonymous - they do as much or more good than they do bad. None of the *AA groups can claim the same.

Re:Dear Anonymous (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about 9 months ago | (#45273391)

Why would an amalgamation of anonymous people from all over the world care about a specific country's public?

Re:Dear Anonymous (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45274853)

Someone should. Why not them?

captcha: backpack

IFPI and MPA (1)

tepples (727027) | about 9 months ago | (#45274873)

Then let me internationalize Xicor's comment: I would hazard a guess and say that it would be beneficial to the global public if the IFPI and MPA would go f themselves.

Re:Dear Anonymous (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45273691)

It would be beneficial if you would stop using "lol" as if you're just so much smarter than everyone.

Considering you're probably under the age of 18 and terribly recent to Slashdot given your user number.

Re:Dear Anonymous (1)

war4peace (1628283) | about 9 months ago | (#45273759)

Then they won't do shit about it, because the story comes from the UK.

Re:Dear Anonymous (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about 9 months ago | (#45274021)

it would be beneficial to the american public if the riaa and mpaa would go fuck themselves.

Corporations can only reproduce asexually so, that probably wouldn't be all that good for us.

Re:Dear Anonymous (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45273537)

Someone please mod parent up. He actually recognized the ironic joke in the post he responded to.

Re:Dear Anonymous (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45274291)

translated as: We're too lazy to do anything for anyone because we're lazy fucks, unless "we" are personally hurt.

GJ NECKBEARDS.

Re:Dear Anonymous (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45273399)

Nah, we're all washing our hair this weekend.

Re:Dear Anonymous (0)

intermodal (534361) | about 9 months ago | (#45273505)

I understand completely, gotta get the chlorine and AIDS out of your 'fros.

Re:Dear Anonymous (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45273555)

An odd attitude to take when begging for a favour.
Expect us.

Re:Dear Anonymous (1)

intermodal (534361) | about 9 months ago | (#45273751)

I always expect Anonymous.

Re:Dear Anonymous (2)

Kell Bengal (711123) | about 9 months ago | (#45274927)

Unlike those Spanish Inquisition guys - they surprise me every time!

Re:Dear Anonymous (4, Interesting)

Solandri (704621) | about 9 months ago | (#45273499)

The thing is, the RIAA knows how to play the game - they paid for the rules after all.

You can only get the extravagant fines for copyright infringement if you've registered your copyright with the Library of Congress (which involves paying a fee and sending them a copy of the work). If the copyright isn't registered, the owner can only claim damages suffered. So when the RIAA "steals" artwork or text from a random web artist/author, worst case they have to pay what they would've paid if they had licensed it, best case they're not caught and they pay nothing.

Re:Dear Anonymous (2)

BradMajors (995624) | about 9 months ago | (#45273579)

The registration fee is $35.

Re:Dear Anonymous (3, Insightful)

fredprado (2569351) | about 9 months ago | (#45273969)

So? Even when it is cheap it still needs to be done, and many times it is far from cheap. For a photographer, for example, registering each picture he takes for 35 can add up to very high amounts.

Re:Dear Anonymous (3, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | about 9 months ago | (#45274911)

Couldn't a photographer register copyright in an entire album of photos taken in a week or month or whatever?

Re:Dear Anonymous (1)

fredprado (2569351) | about 9 months ago | (#45275965)

I don't know, but the point is the more prolific you are and the more fragmented is your work the more expensive it becomes to formally copyright it.

That's a file system design problem (1)

tepples (727027) | about 9 months ago | (#45276021)

I don't see how it should necessarily be so hard to select all of one's photos whose timestamp is last month, paste them in a document, verify that they're actually photos that one remembers taking, save in some format accepted by copyright.gov, and submit the file for registration.

Re:Dear Anonymous (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45273835)

What? Are you saying large corporations steal stuff from bloggers because they somehow know it doesn't have a registered copyright? That doesn't make any sense. Please show proof that this has happened.

Re:Dear Anonymous (2)

TheSeatOfMyPants (2645007) | about 9 months ago | (#45274545)

Solandri: You can only get the extravagant fines for copyright infringement if you've registered your copyright with the Library of Congress (which involves paying a fee and sending them a copy of the work). If the copyright isn't registered, the owner can only claim damages suffered.

Evidently we can't file suit at all without registering with the LoC first -- though this is the first I've heard of it despite having read a hell of a loton the matter as a writer over the past couple of decades. From the USCopyright Office FAQ [copyright.gov] :

Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Copyright Registration [copyright.gov] .”

Ihaven't seen anything related to the kind/sum of fines involved in the suit based on registration status. IIRC, all infringement suits are supposed to focus on loss of income ("damages"), with the US law originally written to target companies/individuals selling unauthorized copies, as they rarely gave the creator a share of the resulting proceeds.

what the flying fuck? (-1, Flamebait)

X0563511 (793323) | about 9 months ago | (#45273347)

"We highlight certain sites that are so central to the activities of a particular society that they almost single-handedly prevent the development of a legitimate online music marketplace," the RIAA said in a statement penned by EVP Neil Turkewitz.

Fuck off and die in a fire. You do not have the right to dictate changes to a society so that it fits your business model better.

Re:what the flying fuck? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45273449)

And, ah, yes, iTunes, AmazonMP3 are just terrible market failures that prove no one still pays for music.

Re:what the flying fuck? (4, Insightful)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 9 months ago | (#45274607)

Well, kinda. Music sales are way down, even including MP3s. What is booming is streaming. Most music is shit, or at least not worth 50p to own, so people just stream it instead of owning it. Streaming doesn't make as much money as sales.

The other worrying thing is that apparently streaming and MP3 are good enough quality for most people. The music industry was rather hoping that there would be a market for higher quality than CD, in the form of SACD an DVD-Audio. It's their own fault really, modern music (even re-releases of old stuff) is so heavily compressed and distorted that there really isn't any point trying for higher quality recordings.

Protip record labels, if you want to sell more discs. The last two I bought were re-issues of ones I already owned but properly mastered. The only people still buying your warez care about sound quality. Everyone else listens for free on YouTube or the radio.

Re:what the flying fuck? (3, Informative)

DigiShaman (671371) | about 9 months ago | (#45275299)

I don't pirate online, but that's not to say my previous collection is from umm...dubious origins. In any event, I do stream music rather than listen to FM radio because it opens me up to whole genres of music I would otherwise not be exposed to short of making a random purchase of music. Which BTW was the norm back in the mid 90s's and prior. Back then if you wanted to hear music other than what was on radio rotation, you got exposed to music from other peoples collection (which was often limited), or close your eyes and pull an LP/CD/Cassette and random and hoped for the best. However today, I'm finding all sorts of obscure bands that range from absolute shit to pure genius-why-isn't-this-top-40 level of stuff. Eventually, I'll find something I like and will do one of two things. 1; find a used CD and purchase online or, 2; purchase music from iTunes. Come full circle now, I'm purchasing more music thanks to legitimate internet streaming than I've ever did before. As for the RIAA, they can go fuck themselves!!! They're not the sole arbiter of what music should and shouldn't be popular. I'm not fucking cattle!

Re:what the flying fuck? (5, Interesting)

intermodal (534361) | about 9 months ago | (#45273469)

I'm glad the whip and buggy industries were not as organized as today's IP industries.

Also, I find it insulting that Mr. Turkewitz considers shared music illegitimate by default. What music I have released, and most of my friends have released, was free and distribution was encouraged. In fact, my first release was on ocremix.org, where all the music is free and torrents of their content are an encouraged distribution method. I'm sure glad this RIAA shill has set us straight and made it clear how illegitimate our free community-minded distribution of our works is. Sure wouldn't want to encourage that kind of illegitimate "online music marketplace."

Re:what the flying fuck? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45273585)

What music I have released, and most of my friends have released, was free and distribution was encouraged.

Indeed. I, too, make music and release it for free, encouraging distribution. I have to put big disclaimers on my site saying that yes this is legal and no I am not affiliated with any RIAA record labels.

(Posting anonymously so as not to appear as a self-promotion.)

Re:what the flying fuck? (1)

intermodal (534361) | about 9 months ago | (#45273719)

Good on you! Keep up the good work.

And I thought I checked anon as well. I bet I anon-posted on the wrong response tab.

Re:what the flying fuck? (1)

bzipitidoo (647217) | about 9 months ago | (#45276083)

One thing I like to do in discussions of this subject is check out links to music. So please, post some links. Since you've blown your cover anyway, might as well.

Re:what the flying fuck? (1)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | about 9 months ago | (#45273651)

As a huge fan of ocremix and a man who couldn't carry a tune in a bucket, I'd like to thank you and people like you for remembering what it's like to be an artist.

Re:what the flying fuck? (5, Interesting)

intermodal (534361) | about 9 months ago | (#45273701)

oh, I'm no artist. I was a post-surgical kid on Vicodin with a demo version of Fruity Loops on Win98. But I have since taken up guitar, partially inspired by that experience.

Music is not an industry. Music is practically a food group.

Re:what the flying fuck? (1)

jbmartin6 (1232050) | about 9 months ago | (#45274137)

Music is not an industry

I think this deserves repeating.

Re:what the flying fuck? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45274433)

No one gives a shit about your bedroom music creations. I am a huge fan of torrents, and guess what, I use them to torrent mainstream, label-signed artists, while I give your lame-ass Creative Commons stuff as wide a berth as possible. While I am no fan of the RIAA, I'm sick of people attacking the RIAA by pretending that 1) any significant portion of torrent traffic is going to community music distributing, and 2) that said community music distributing poses any threat to entrenched interests (who also own airwaves and can ensure an audience for their product).

Re:what the flying fuck? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45275115)

Nice one Captain Shill.

Less obvious next time please.

Lol: captcha: paranoia

Re:what the flying fuck? (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 9 months ago | (#45274507)

Doesn't even have to be free music. If I own a CD and I lend it to a friend, or share it with a friend when they come to visit, or I make a copy for my phone or computer, that's perfectly legitimate.

Re:what the flying fuck? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45274917)

Hello, music as a concept belongs to the RIAA. Didn't you get the memo:

Eventually ocremix.org will get sued (1)

tepples (727027) | about 9 months ago | (#45274943)

So what happens once video game publishers, who own copyright in the compositions underlying all of OCR, start cease-and-desisting OCR?

Re:what the flying fuck? (2)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 9 months ago | (#45275737)

You are obviously poorly educated, my friend. Let me help you with a basic concept. Any activity which fails to enrich either an American corporation, or the wealthiest 1%, or both, is by default "illegitimate". Your purpose in life is to help to amass more fortunes for those who already have more money than they can ever hope to spend. If you are not fulfilling that purpose, then you are illegitimate.

Check your sarcasm meter - the above is sarcasm because I have posted it. Had a RIAA rep posted it, there would be no sarcasm at all - he would be 100% serious.

Re:what the flying fuck? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45273527)

It would be fitting for Neil Turkewitz and people like him to find themselves in a Saw type device which is recorded and shared about via the very locations they wish to get shutdown.

Re:what the flying fuck? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45273565)

You do not have the right to dictate changes to a society so that it fits your business model better.

So, how about the bills before Congress authorizing more H1B's? American companies should be able to hire the best talent to compete in the global economy, right?

Oh sorry... it's only someone else's business model that needs to adapt to the changing times. When it's our personal business model that's at stake, then it's, like, personal.

Re:what the flying fuck? (4, Insightful)

jedidiah (1196) | about 9 months ago | (#45273761)

H1Bs are an underclass. That's the real problem with H1Bs.

If someone is important enough and their skills important enough that you want to drag them half way across the planet then treat them like a real person and give them a green card or even instant citizenship.

No republic should tolerate the creation of an underclass. It's a threat to the liberties of everyone. It's also ultimately bad for business since the bottom line is entangled with individual liberty.

Also, the idea that corporations can poach talent from across the planet is also unequal. If they can do that then we should likewise be able to do the same (work where the cost of living is cheap).

Re:what the flying fuck? (1)

TheSeatOfMyPants (2645007) | about 9 months ago | (#45275133)

Also, the idea that corporations can poach talent from across the planet is also unequal. If they can do that then we should likewise be able to do the same (work where the cost of living is cheap).

Isn't that what work visas or outright immigration are for?

Aside from that, one country letting businesses import underpaid labor (via H1B or unreported illegal immigration)to keep wages artificially low shouldn't force all other countries outside that arrangement to do the same. After watching the damage that approach has caused California over the last few decades, I wouldn't wish it on another country's citizens unless they were truly vile individuals.

FWIW, the above is due to anger at the socioeconomic situation and associated problems (e.g. rise in crime). My schools, friends & extended family already had a high degree of racial diversity (including plenty of 1st-to-3rd gen immigrants), so it's not an "omg non-white people" issue.

Re:what the flying fuck? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45276035)

No republic should tolerate the creation of an underclass. It's a threat to the liberties of everyone. It's also ultimately bad for business since the bottom line is entangled with individual liberty.

That's an incredibly patronizing attitude. You don't think that adults are able to make that decision for themselves, considering the tradeoffs with the benefit of discussion with local townspeople who have done the same?

It's amazing how creative the people on this site are coming up with self-serving arguments. Oh this is not for me, this is to protect the would-be professionals living in India and China from casual exploitation from the Microsofts of the world. Then others chime in: How informative. How insightful!

How hypocritical. Now go back to your little RIAA bashing.

Re:what the flying fuck? (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about 9 months ago | (#45273973)

That would mean anything if I, or the people being discussed, had anything to do with Congress or H1Bs.

Re:what the flying fuck? (1, Interesting)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 9 months ago | (#45273631)

Fuck off and die in a fire. You do not have the right to dictate changes to a society so that it fits your business model better.

Easy there cowboy, no need to get angry. None of the sites they I'd ever heard of before today, and I pirate the everloving fuck out of anything stamped as owned by the British Emp--er, RIAA. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go dump some more of their junk in the river while dressed like one of the village people...

As long as they maintain this level of incompetence, piracy will live on forever.

Re:what the flying fuck? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45274955)

Pretty sure the 'dressed like one of the village people' part was redundant. I imagine you always dress that way.

Re:what the flying fuck? (1)

stox (131684) | about 9 months ago | (#45273639)

For a second there, I thought he was describing RIAA.

Re:what the flying fuck? (1)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | about 9 months ago | (#45273773)

Remember when it was England who used to tell Americans what to do?

Re:what the flying fuck? (3, Funny)

X0563511 (793323) | about 9 months ago | (#45273975)

Vaguely. I seem to remember lots of violence being the result, incidentally.

Re:what the flying fuck? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45274457)

Burn in hell, thief! I hope you spend some time in the cell for being a fucking fuck.
 
And your homepage sucks a bag of dicks.

Thanks for the list (5, Insightful)

neo-mkrey (948389) | about 9 months ago | (#45273351)

I didn't know about half of those before.

Re:Thanks for the list (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45273947)

Fortunately the RIAA doesn't represent any of the artist I listen to and you can't find their music on those sites... ie local/unsigned bands...

Sad to say not only do I not purchase music {except at concerts by local/unsigned bands}, I don't even turn the radio on anymore let alone take the time to pirate any.

Re:Thanks for the list (1)

jamstar7 (694492) | about 9 months ago | (#45274277)

Yeah, awful nice of them to point out these guys. New torrent sites to loot...

And all will have due process (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45273361)

And all these sites will have due process rights and a day in court before any of thier sites or livelyhoods are ruined... Oh wait a minute....

Re:And all will have due process (1)

Hamsterdan (815291) | about 9 months ago | (#45274977)

No, they will just fine them 100,000$ per song and 2 million per movie, plus 50,000$ punitive damages for each .torrent found.

(after seizing the servers located in other countries that is)

What happened to Siri??? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45273373)

I just asked my iPhone:
"Remind me to do my laundry when I get home."

And Siri replied:

"I'm sorry, David, I may be a black iPhone but I am certainly not your nigger!"

WTF?

Whew (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45273459)

Good thing they don't know about t******z.eu

That's been the best one for years.

Re:Whew (1)

fisted (2295862) | about 9 months ago | (#45273709)

.eu ... RIAA
Hint, hint...

Re:Whew (2)

X0563511 (793323) | about 9 months ago | (#45273993)

If you'll kindly read the article, you'll find out that doesn't actually seem to matter to these clowns.

Shutting down Virgin Media? (2)

Aguazul2 (2591049) | about 9 months ago | (#45273519)

I thought for a moment this was going to be more interesting. "But you can't shut down our ISP, how will we connect to the internet?" "We don't care. Virgin Media has been used for copyright infringement and must be eliminated from the face of the earth. Our business model requires it, and we all know that the well-being of the music industry overrides all other concerns."

Re:Shutting down Virgin Media? (3, Interesting)

suutar (1860506) | about 9 months ago | (#45273599)

This brings to mind a persistent fantasy of mine: buying a substantial share of an RIAA member, and having them repudiate the RIAA and otherwise stop being evil, and watching the rest of the RIAA panic as they lose market share. The reason this comes to mind is that while I don't have the resources to do it, Richard Branson might...

Re:Shutting down Virgin Media? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45274453)

Uhh I'm guessing you missed out on Virgin Music?

Re:Shutting down Virgin Media? (1)

suutar (1860506) | about 9 months ago | (#45274521)

I figured they were one of the member labels (there's a crapload of those, after all), but they're not on the board, which means they have no control, they're just paying their protection fee.

Re:Shutting down Virgin Media? (1)

bzipitidoo (647217) | about 9 months ago | (#45276159)

If a mutual fund formed for the express purpose of buying out the music industry and releasing their entire catalogs to the public domain, I'd buy. True, the share value of the fund might tank once they achieve 50% ownership and the power to force the release of all the music, but share value wouldn't be the point of it. It might also not tank, to the vast surprise of the old guard predicting doom.

Re:Shutting down Virgin Media? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45275015)

...we all know that the well-being of the music industry overrides all other concerns.

Including that of making actual music (rather than the shite they call music these days.)

P2P was probably a godsend for them. "Oh yay \o/ we don't have to 'struggle' to make money by selling 'music' and managing these troublesome artists etc. - we can now just sue grandmothers and gradually eliminate music production from our portfolio of activities."

Lichtenstein Photocopy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45273615)

I ask myself why would anyone support this industry with manufactured superstars, wealthy clowns that shudder and flop to braindead pulsing all the while ancient disc media is shifted around the world as if some shadowy currency

the day music died was long ago but from it arose a gigantic undead corpse in the 60s, going through the motions of art while fuelling on greed until only the hunger for money was left

this beast was slow to understand the impact of a new communications medium, its reptilian brain finally sensing threat began its strangling trying to lock our culture in a box and charge admission, building the weapons of silence for the defence of a dusty ledger

furthermore I think I may have taken NyQuil instead of DayQuil and shouldn't be modifying this database script... UG

Really easy not to do business with Riaa. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45273671)

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

I no longer do.

Sharing cassette tapes in my day was how we learned of new music.

Notice the sansui g 8000-35000 are in storage not the living room.
We shared listening experience Who cares the crap mp3 on someones ipod no one.

Music publishers (1)

tepples (727027) | about 9 months ago | (#45274969)

So if I were to write, record, and release an album outside the RIAA system, how should I defend myself from plagiarism accusations brought by the music publishers that share a parent company with the RIAA labels? For example, what should George Harrison have done differently when writing "My Sweet Lord"?

The RIAA can kiss my ass (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45273681)

They stole from Canadian artists and are suing people who pirate albums from Canadian artists, against the will of said artists.

Re:The RIAA can kiss my ass (3, Informative)

HiThere (15173) | about 9 months ago | (#45275011)

They steal from US artists, too. Never believe them when they say they're doing something for the sake of the artists. The artists never see any of that money (bar one or two out of a thousand or so). They drive more artists into debt than they make wealthy. And by debt I mean they get them to sign a contract allowing the company to promote the artist as they choose, and commiting the artist to pay for it, and when the promotion costs more than (by *their* accounting) they bring in, the send the artists a hefty bill. And every time they've been reviewed by an external auditor (it's rarely possible to force this) they've been found to be under counting the profits.

You are, on the average, better off if you never sign anything they offer you. The exceptions occur, but they are so rare as to be an anomoly.

Bitsnoop, Torrenthound and Torrenreactor (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45273785)

These have been high-quality torrent sites. I'd be outraged to see them go.

One less reason to like 'murika >:(

Re:Bitsnoop, Torrenthound and Torrenreactor (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about 9 months ago | (#45274007)

Please don't dislike us because of these skidmarks - there's plenty of other reasons you might dislike us for that we actually have control over.

Noun/verb (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45273787)

Please please please please because it makes my eyes bleed:

"Get shut down" --- verb.

"A shutdown" --- noun.

"Shut down," not "shutdown," dammit! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45273853)

Learn English.

Re:"Shut down," not "shutdown," dammit! (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about 9 months ago | (#45274023)

You might take your own advice. Perfectly valid, if you read in the missing "a" before "Shutdown" that is commonly dropped in headlines.

Re:"Shut down," not "shutdown," dammit! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45274179)

As you've corrected both GP and me (and linked to your comment, how cute!) and suggested that I am 'reading it wrong', let me assure you that I am not complaining about the headline, and I suspect GP is not.

If _you_ had read it right, you would have seen:

"The Inquirer has a list of 21 sites that the RIAA is looking to get shutdown by ISPs this week."

This should be "looking to get shut down".

Which is what I was complaining about. The headline is fine; this sentence is wrong.

Uh, ok (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45273945)

And I target the RIAA with my asshole

thanks for the list of 21 sites!! (2)

themushroom (197365) | about 9 months ago | (#45274089)

Yeah, that was nice, don't tell us what all is affected.
(MP3Skull will be no big loss, never saw a downloadable file ever.)

And I'm betting if KAT was on the list we'd hear about it.

AMERICAN MUSIC CARTEL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45274191)

I like it, so gangsta.

"This is not even my final form" (2)

oic0 (1864384) | about 9 months ago | (#45274603)

The RIAA is actually the music industries final form. The only way for them to remain relevant is to become a law firm that litigates non stop.

I love these RIAA site lists (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45274645)

I swear they were the ones who originally told me about last few sites I've used on the rare occasions I download music or a movie. Especially when it comes to ISP level filtering, this is basically an advert.

RIAA still exists? (1)

ALeader71 (687693) | about 9 months ago | (#45275231)

Didn't Apple (mostly) kill music DRM by proving that people will buy digital music if it isn't a major pain in the ass to purchase, store, recover, or access? Hasn't the rise of streaming services like Pandora, Rdio and Spotify places the final nails in RIAA's coffin?

Isn't the lack of live, streaming NFL and NBA games cable and satellite's last hope for DRM laced video? More and more people prefer NOT to sit with a bunch of self absorbed phone addicts in a dark theater to watch a crappy movie.

Re:RIAA still exists? (1)

jonwil (467024) | about 9 months ago | (#45275951)

Maybe if the movie theater owners did more to make the experience better, more people would go to the theater.

Why cant theaters just have conditions of entry that tell people that use of mobile phones in the theater is prohibited (along with recording devices, alcohol, glass bottles, metal cans and hot food). Anyone who violates the conditions of entry gets ejected from the theater.

Here in Australia, all theaters I have been to have such rules (and they usually have a message right at the start saying "please turn off your phones") and I have never experienced someone using a phone during the film itself in a way that is distracting or annoying.

HA-HA-HA! (1)

jennatalia (2684459) | about 9 months ago | (#45275241)

kat.ph is still around!....no wait, it's kickass.ph!....no wait, it's kickass.to!

Similar thing happened in Australia (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45275835)

Here in Australia, we went through similar motions last year (http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/04/20/0058202/australian-isp-wins-case-against-movie-studios), however our difference is that the local ISP fought back. In interviews with that ISP's CEO, he basically stated (paraphrased) "If MPAA/RIAA reported their findings to the police, and the police asked us for information on our customers - we would gladly provide those details. However we do not report to the MPAA/RIAA, so why should we get our customers in trouble if it's not warranted".

What the UK definitely needs, is an ISP who will stand up to the fact that the MPAA/RIAA actually have no rights both nationally and internationally. They can whinge all they want, but until the police/relevant local governing body with jurisdiction over the matter makes the decision, the ISPs should be free to provide access to whatever sites that the customers want.

This is absolutely ridiculous that an association has such influence in this regard. Emphasis that it's an association, not a governing body / police department.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...