posted
Okay, to preface: I don't want to support the RIAA.
Therefore, I've pretty much abandoned the Idea of buying music.
Honestly I still want to support the bands/artists that I like, but didn't want to buy any music because it seemed like a ton to sift through the labels to find out if they were supporting the RIAA or not, then to find out which bands/artists ar on what label. Then I found this site: http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/
Now, all I have to do is search for it. There is even a button to check it out on Amazon.
I thought I'd help out anyone that was also looking for this kind of thing.
Posts: 1132 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally, I think more people need to realize that musicians are people, too. They need to pay for their Frosted Mini-Wheats just like you. I'm in favour of things like iPod, or Wal-mart's new dealie that charges $.88 a download.
Most of the lectures turned into "music for music's sake" debates.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- In a surprise setback for the recording industry, a U.S. appeals court said Friday its methods for tracking down those who copy its music over the Internet are not authorized by law.
The Recording Industry Association of America, a trade group, has sought to force Verizon Communications and other Internet service providers to reveal the names of customers it suspects may be copying music without permission.
The recording industry says the widespread copying of music over the Internet is partially to blame for falling CD sales.
Verizon has argued that existing copyright law does not give the recording industry such authority and its customers' privacy was being violated.
A lower court earlier this year upheld the recording industry's tactics, which have served as the basis for hundreds of lawsuits filed against individual Internet users.
But in a strongly worded ruling, the appeals court sided with Verizon, saying a 1998 copyright law does not give copyright holders the ability to subpoena customer names from Internet providers without filing a formal lawsuit.
"In sum, we agree with Verizon that (the law) does not by its terms authorize the subpoenas issued here," Chief Judge Douglas Ginsburg wrote.
Neither Verizon nor the RIAA was immediately available for comment.
Posts: 986 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sure they'll try to take it to the supreme court, or else will call on the members of congress that they've already bought to pass another law so that they can go back to not having to grant people their rights.
Posts: 851 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm just happy the RIAA decided to take on Verizon, instead of a smaller company. At least Verizon has the legal resources ($$$) to handle the issue, unlike say, a local telephone company.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
)
