RIAA strikes again - corporate distopia comes to life

Ratty Sr.

Ratty, except old
Moderator
Orderite
In the latest desperate attempt to maintain fascistoid control over music distribution, Recording Industry Association of America, commonly known as RIAA, is working with a biometrics company Veritouch and a Swedish design company Thinking Materials on a brand new copy protection system that is supposed to completely prevent illegal copying of music. Result of their labor will be a wireless music player that will require fingerprint authorization (!!!) in order to play music! Yes, you read correctly - once you purchase Metallica's latest single, you will only be able to listen to it if you press your finger against a small reader that will scan your fingerprint and verify your identity by matching it with identical fingerprint in RIAA's database!

Implications of this are tremendous - not only will listening to music become extremely impractical, since you will have to go through process of identification every time you want to hear your favorite song, but you will also no longer be able to lend your music to friends! Basically, your music will be invalid when you are not around.

But that's not even the worst part. Obviously, for this system to work, RIAA will need to have fingerprints and personal information of every individual user in its database! Basically, what RIAA is proposing is a violation of privacy of unseen proportions! It will be like having a police record without having committed a crime!

If this policy is legalized (and it most likely will be, since US government is a puppet of world's corporate leaders who are united in a discussion forum known as the Trilateral Commission), it will basically abolish all democratic rights on privacy that were ever conceived. It will be a breach of privacy so huge it would give George Bush a boner. The realizeation of the corporations-rule-the-world distopia. First major step in creating a totalitarian corporate dicatorship where consumers are nothing but mindless drones and corporations have absolute control over every aspect of their life. If this mischievious system is ever applied, it will mean effective end of democracy.

It is obvious that RIAA are bent on establishing totalitarian control over music industry, and it is also obvious they don't intend to let trivial things such as "law", "Constitution" and "human rights" get in their way. Never mind the fact that almost every unbiased research so far has shown that music sharing has absolutely no detrimential effect whatsoever on record sales. You know, I'm in a way sorry P2P sharing was ever invented, since it seems to have opened a Pandora's box of persecutions, attacks against privacy and violations of democratic principles. Someone should definitely put an abrupt end to RIAA's fascist reign before consumers themselved decide they had enough and take matters (and baseball bats) in their own hands. Though I normally don't promote violent solutions to problems, with its latest initiative RIAA has gone so far out of line that physical attacks against anyone associated with this neofascist organization would be completely justified. If this keeps up, next global revolutionary movement will begin with music, and you can bet I'll be in the front lines when masses begin to (literally) demolish the columns of the New World Order.

We must dissent.
 
Calm down, if the RIAA want's to increase piracy (for crying out loud people will just be able to plug the headphone jack into something and record it, there is no possible way to prevent something which can be heard from being recorded) it's there business


if they think their sales are in the shitter now, just wait till they do this
 
Links! give us some links!

Bah it would take the hackers 5 days to breake it and then noone will buy the actuall CD plates, they will burn even more, i know i will.
 
Link please?
But that's not even the worst part. Obviously, for this system to work, RIAA will need to have fingerprints and personal information of every individual user in its database! Basically, what RIAA is proposing is a violation of privacy of unseen proportions! It will be like having a police record without having committed a crime!
No it won't. The RIAA won't force anyone to give them their fingerprints, therefore there is no invasion of privacy.

Never mind the fact that almost every unbiased research so far has shown that music sharing has absolutely no detrimential effect whatsoever on record sales.
Teh link.

That said, it's interesting that people see copying and downloading music for free as their "right" because "prices are so high". Hah.
Anyway, the RIAA could have every right to do this. Of course, it'll soon notice that this will have no effect whatsoever since:
A) Musicians (or rather publishers) will not want to take a risk with a very little widespread item such as that to severely limit their music sales.
B) The electronics industry will protest since every single one of those nifty littl e things called a "cd-player" will have become completely obsolete.
 
Sander said:
No it won't. The RIAA won't force anyone to give them their fingerprints, therefore there is no invasion of privacy.
That's a dumb way to justify what is obviously a crime against democracy. If RIAA introduces its fascist system, you will be faced with a choice to either become part of that system or not listen to music at all. Imagine if you had to give your fingerprints and private information to the grocery store where you buy your food, or not eat at all. This is similar, except music is food in spiritual sense.

Several researches have shown that online music sharing doesn't hurt record sales. I'll provide the link to a very comprehensive survey and analysis done on Harvard Business School. A similar research was also done around that time by the University of North Carolina, with similar results. Google it if you are interested.

http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/FileSharing_March2004.pdf

It's obvious that RIAA is deliberately ignoring these results and using file sharing as an excuse to extend its grip over music distribution and restore at least some of the music sales profits that were lost over recent years due to general low quality of music.

Sander said:
That said, it's interesting that people see copying and downloading music for free as their "right" because "prices are so high".
Though that way of thinking is inherently criminal, one must not also forget that concept of intellectual property is undemocratic and it is therefore justified to violate it. Human knowledge belongs to the world. Period.
 
Helloo? People will find ways around this. There will probably be an army of hackers out there who will crave for the challenge of destroying such a system.
 
King of Creation said:
How about a link to show stuff about the RIAA plan? I tried looking for news about it, but nothing showed up.
I learned this information from a very respectable Croatian computer e-zine, which only has articles in Croatian. Sorry, you'll have to look it up on your own.
 
Found an article about it here: http://www.mi2n.com/press.php3?press_nb=67285

That article gives the phone number and name of the Veritouch CEO, so voice your concern!


Also, I don't know if they're going to try and phase out cd players or existing hardware. I think they're just going to introduce this new player as an alternative (maybe by offering some really cool and new features), and by doing so, they'll try and cut down on some illegal file sharing. Its not going to work, though. People will still download just as much as now, especially with programs like DC++ where it is illegal for anyone representing the RIAA or any agency seeking to prosecute filesharers to even enter a hub, nevermind try and prosecute them.
 
that last article said:
In practical terms...
aaaaahahahahaha :rofl:
Yeah, there's a lot of practical sense about this whole situation.

Since Veritouch already supplies security authentication systems up to Homeland Defense standards (in partnership with an Israeli defense contractor), we do forsee exciting synergies ahead, should budget cuts force the War on Terror and the War on Piracy to be consolidated into just the one unwinnable "war".

Truth.
 
That's a dumb way to justify what is obviously a crime against democracy. If RIAA introduces its fascist system, you will be faced with a choice to either become part of that system or not listen to music at all. Imagine if you had to give your fingerprints and private information to the grocery store where you buy your food, or not eat at all. This is similar, except music is food in spiritual sense.
Music is not in any way necessary to live. Therefore there is no problem, unless you view music as your "right". Wich is what you are doing now, and that is just silly. Music is no-one's 'right'.


It's obvious that RIAA is deliberately ignoring these results and using file sharing as an excuse to extend its grip over music distribution and restore at least some of the music sales profits that were lost over recent years due to general low quality of music.
Duh. So? That's really really old news.


Though that way of thinking is inherently criminal, one must not also forget that concept of intellectual property is undemocratic and it is therefore justified to violate it. Human knowledge belongs to the world. Period.
Wow. What bullshit. "Human knowledge belongs to the world," Bwaahaaa! Why? How? Explain! That's no rule, it's no universal obligation to share your knowledge with the world. There may be a moral obligation for you to do so, if you could save lives with it, but it certailny is nothig that someone must do. Hah!
Oh, and in case you hadn't noticed, you're making a huge argumentational error. You take the principal of sharing all knowledge, then equate knowledge with intellectual property and therefore call intellectual property bad.
How, exactly, is Harry Potter or Metallica part of human knowledge? Most intellectual property does not fall under the header of human knowledge.
 
Sander said:
Music is not in any way necessary to live. Therefore there is no problem, unless you view music as your "right". Wich is what you are doing now, and that is just silly. Music is no-one's 'right'.
It is needed for spiritual fulfillment. Tell me, did you have psychology in your high school? Didn't they teach you that people have other motives and goals besides physiological ones? Just because people don't have a universal right on free access to music at this point, that doesn't mean there shouldn't be such right. A few centuries ago personal freedom wasn't considered a universal human right, and you don't see any slaves running about nowadays, do you?

As our civilization evolves, so does the concept of human rights. At some point, knowledge and information will become free and widely available to everyone, and no capitalist industry will be able to stop that from happening.

Wow. What bullshit. "Human knowledge belongs to the world," Bwaahaaa! Why? How? Explain! That's no rule, it's no universal obligation to share your knowledge with the world. There may be a moral obligation for you to do so, if you could save lives with it, but it certailny is nothig that someone must do. Hah!
I believe it does. So do many other people. And many more will. Knowledge must be available to everyone, regardless of their financial status or social standing. In a future society, knowledge will belong to the entire humanity, and those who would seek to profit from their ideas at the expense of betterment of humanity will have no place in such society. Have you ever lived under socialism? Let's say you are a scientist or an inventor in a socialist country, and you come up with something new and revolutionary. You may find the prospect of trading your discovery for a substantial amount of money tempting, but you will never be able to do so, because as soon as you've made your discovery, it automatically no longer belongs to you, but to entire society. Your comrades have as much right on your knowledge as you, and any attempt to profit from it at their expense is considered a treachery to principles and ideals of socialism. And rightfully so.

Though I find the prospect of entire world turning into a repressive communist dictatorship frightening, I think some socialist principles such as this one should be adopted into our democratic, capitalist societies.

Oh, and in case you hadn't noticed, you're making a huge argumentational error. You take the principal of sharing all knowledge, then equate knowledge with intellectual property and therefore call intellectual property bad.
How, exactly, is Harry Potter or Metallica part of human knowledge? Most intellectual property does not fall under the header of human knowledge.
My definition of knowledge extends to every form of information that exists, be it books, movies, newspapers, music, scientific ideas, and everything else that can be written, printed or recorded. "Intellectual property" is one of the worst capitalist concepts, a repressive instrument that enables corporations and individuals to make tremendous profit on something that should be considered universally free by default. Purpose of knowledge is irrelevant. From my point of view, there is no difference between a Harry Potter novel and a scientific paper on cold fusion. It's still knowledge, and it still indiscriminatingly belongs to entire humanity. You may or may not agree with me.
 
Yeah, IP is a legal concept (as is any kind of 'property').
But then again, even a right to live is also something people made up.
 
It is needed for spiritual fulfillment. Tell me, did you have psychology in your high school? Didn't they teach you that people have other motives and goals besides physiological ones? Just because people don't have a universal right on free access to music at this point, that doesn't mean there shouldn't be such right. A few centuries ago personal freedom wasn't considered a universal human right, and you don't see any slaves running about nowadays, do you?

As our civilization evolves, so does the concept of human rights. At some point, knowledge and information will become free and widely available to everyone, and no capitalist industry will be able to stop that from happening.
Explain to me then why exactly it should be a human right? You state this as if it is a simple fact of life that music "should" be free.
Simply put, you state that everything someone thinks belongs to the human race, and therefore to some form of human state. That doesn't sound like really decent policy to me.

I believe it does. So do many other people. And many more will. Knowledge must be available to everyone, regardless of their financial status or social standing. In a future society, knowledge will belong to the entire humanity, and those who would seek to profit from their ideas at the expense of betterment of humanity will have no place in such society. Have you ever lived under socialism? Let's say you are a scientist or an inventor in a socialist country, and you come up with something new and revolutionary. You may find the prospect of trading your discovery for a substantial amount of money tempting, but you will never be able to do so, because as soon as you've made your discovery, it automatically no longer belongs to you, but to entire society. Your comrades have as much right on your knowledge as you, and any attempt to profit from it at their expense is considered a treachery to principles and ideals of socialism. And rightfully so.

Though I find the prospect of entire world turning into a repressive communist dictatorship frightening, I think some socialist principles such as this one should be adopted into our democratic, capitalist societies.
See, more errors. Yes, everyone should have free access to information. But you make one mistake here: you equate free (as in everyone can get it) with free of cost. Freely available means that everyone can get the same information for the same price.

Also: I can tell my friends that, for instance, I'm in love with someone. That doesn't mean that the entire world should know it. Every bit of knowledge is thought of by individuals, and as these indivduals' minds thought of that information, they have the sole right to distribute this information as they see fit. If they don't want a certain Ratty to know that they're in love with someone (to continue with the same example), there is no obligation to tell anyone.
Everything changes, of course, when this information can save lives. Moral obligations and such come into play. But frankly, the writer of Harry Potter does not have the obligation to not make any money from the books just because someone from Croatia thinks "that's the way it should be" without actually arguing why.

My definition of knowledge extends to every form of information that exists, be it books, movies, newspapers, music, scientific ideas, and everything else that can be written, printed or recorded. "Intellectual property" is one of the worst capitalist concepts, a repressive instrument that enables corporations and individuals to make tremendous profit on something that should be considered universally free by default. Purpose of knowledge is irrelevant. From my point of view, there is no difference between a Harry Potter novel and a scientific paper on cold fusion. It's still knowledge, and it still indiscriminatingly belongs to entire humanity. You may or may not agree with me.
See, this is why I disagree with you: you lack all forms of nuance. Equating Harry Potter with a paper n cold fusion is the most ludicrous thing one can do. When it comes to scientific papers, I agree with you. One has the obligation to share it with the rest of the world, although one should not refrain from living off of it. If you spend a lifetime finding out some secret, it's only appropriate that you get some rewards from it. Write a book about it and sell the book, and make the money thusly.
But we're not talking about the benefit of mankind or science: we're talking about music and fiction. These two things have extremely little to do with the survival of mankind.
 
whoa, you are getting way too deep for this, it's a pretty cut and dry issue


If the RIAA forces people to jump through hoops to buy music, then their sales will take a horrible dive, it's that simple.

Such a system will be met with nothing but malice

Sure I download music off P2P sometimes, but I'm not big into music

how many cds have I bought in the last 5 years you ask? 3, how many in the last 15 years? maybe 7 or 8

so I've "cheated" the RIAA out of nothing, since I wouldn't have bought it anyway.

People could just buy music online for 88 cents a song at www.walmart.com or something anyway
 
Back
Top