hah RIAA hacked again

Originally posted by e-nonymous
Seem's he has had nothing cunstructive to say beside's is, 'moral high ground' remark's.

Let me understand your position:

You begin this thread with apparent glee that a corporate website has been hacked... obviously condoning illegal activity.

The illegal activity you're condoning has cost taxpayers and consumers millions (if not billions) of dollars over the past few years.

The site that was hacked represents the music industry and is against rampant music pirating... and obviously you continued to support hacker-style activity by condoning the pirating of music.

And further, can't seem to understand that these activities are wrong.

Finally, my posts supporting the concept of respecting musicians so that they are paid for their efforts are seen as "attacks", "arrogant" and "not constructive".


Constructive.


Why in the world do you think Microsoft is building restrictive digital rights management into their media player and next operating system? Why in the world do you think Intel, AMD, Motorola, and IBM are building restrictive digital rights management into their chips? The actions of a selfish few are harming the legitimate masses.


Constructive.

Originally posted by Inspectah
Can somebody explain what the RIAA is?

The Recording Industry Association of America. www.riaa.org...

The Recording Industry Association of America is the trade group that represents the U.S. recording industry. Its mission is to foster a business and legal climate that supports and promotes our members' creative and financial vitality. Its members are the record companies that comprise the most vibrant national music industry in the world. RIAA� members create, manufacture and/or distribute approximately 90% of all legitimate sound recordings produced and sold in the United States.

Ah yes, and the RIAA are the good guy's right?

www.extremetech.com...

From what I understand, the distrobution of malicous virii code is also illegal. Someone forgot to tell the RIAA that. When I buy a CD, which I have, and I want to copy it to my hdd knowing that CD media doesn't last that long, and I convert the music to .mp3, that is my right. But no, if I download an mp3 off kazza lite I will lose not only the downloaded mp3's but MY legitiment copie's of cd's I already OWN!? How is this more right for the RIAA to do, then for someone to grab one lousy song off the internet instead of just recording it off the radio? o.0

I never presented that the RIAA organization was the "good guys" in any way. As is the case with any corporate organization, there will be degrees of ethical and unethical policy within. However, your opinion of this group is no justification for illegal computer attacks.

As far as the often feared P2P worm devised by the recording industry, as far as I've heard, it's not functional yet, and my never be. It's interesting that in this case, you have a fellow hacker to blame for the development of the worm. But certainly even you must be aware that any attempt at an anti-P2P software device is a response to a problem... a problem of unethical behavior initiated by the hacker culture.

Let me pose to you a question: Certainly you've either seen in person or in video, musicians who play in public places with a container accepting money tossed in by the listening public. Would you think that it's fine to step up and scoop out a few dollars from their collection? Certainly your current stance would make one think so.


DISCLAIMER: I would like nothing more than to do away with the current music and literary publishing system that often encourages artist gouging and other corruption. The technology exists to easily manage direct-to-artist payments and would be easy to initiate. However, the current publishing system is the only existing method to ensure artists get paid... therefor I purchase and use music and literature legally. Disbelieve if you must.

*blink*

a) I'm not a professional writer, I just happen to write, and what I write happens to sell.
b) I couldn't tell you what a possessive pronoun is let alone use one... and I still get nominated for awards, gawd that must really chew you up. heh.
c) hacking costs me tax? great, I'd love to see more of my tax sucked up in petty irellevances, beats having it used for the construction of yet another super-death-killbot-missile
d) who cares about moral consistancy, its an impossibility, we're all engaged in illegal acts on a day to day basis, they probably ~also~ cost money to somone, probably ourselves, we still do it.

Sorry Winny, this facade you've constructed around yourself simply doesn't hold up to the practicalitys of every day life.

I think you need to start living in the real world.

Winston,

I think you should take Lupe's advice. Be forewarned though, it's a cruel harsh world for the like's of people like you. Join the dark side...

Lupe,

What do you write? Please say sci-fi.

theres a difference between supporting the artist and supporting the riaa. cds could be sold for like $10 a pop and the riaa would still make millions of dollars (i think its even lower than $10), just not billions. there greedy and i dont care if i take money out of there pockets. they say there standing up for the artists when the artists make an average of 3% of that $20 u pay for a cd. alot of the artists dont even care about the money, its the riaa that does. notice how the artists signed to indy labels havent suffered as much from napster, kazaa, etc.

want an example? swollen members (www.battleaxerecords.com) there own indy label sell cd for $10 a pop the way it should be. stop supporting the riaa and support the artist, there are plenty of ways to support the artist without paying $20 for a cd.

"What do you write? Please say sci-fi."

mainly plays, mainly social satire.
my last one concerned a stone Gollum who works on an IT help desk.
My next play is a rip roaring comedy musical concerning a young man who rapes and murders 3 12 year old girls and keeps them in the kitchen cupboard.
Its tentatively titled "paedo-a-go-go" and will hopefully satarise exactly the sort of knee jerk moralising concerning societys moral decline that winston is so worried about.

[Edited on 15-1-2003 by Lupe_101]

It is certainly amazing how simple complacency allows people to feel satisfied with what they do. If no one asserts "greater good" thinking anymore, where will we be in the end? I fear to contemplate.

they do assert it winston, they assert it all the time, and they do it quietly and inconspicuously and they don't bang on about it ~at~ other people in the misguided assuption that they're the only person in the world concerned with social issues, and they're the only person in the world doing anything about it.

My self, and several friends are highly proactive concerning certain aspects of society we feel need to be addressed, but we don't run around complaining no body else is doing anything about it, we simply get on with the hard work of actually doing somthing about it.

I fail to understand how your opinion of my so-called "misguided assumption" has anything to do with the issue of musicians loosing income due to music pirating on the Internet.

There seems to be too much focus on me, and not on the problem.

to feel guilty for musicians losing money, when they hop in their jets and hop from mansion to mansion, etc.

Seriously though...most of the time, I'd rather go spend the $14 for a cd than spend hours searching and burning my own. Of course, I'll still do it for personal mix cds for the road and such (as I want different songs by different artists on as few cds as possible, for the changer) but most of my music is store bought.

Lupe,

aww. No sci-fi

Winston,

"If no one asserts "greater good" thinking anymore, where will we be in the end?"

Errm... Where have you been living? Certainly not on Earth for the past 2 million some odd year's.

"I fail to understand how your opinion of my so-called "misguided assumption" has anything to do with the issue of musicians loosing income due to music pirating on the Internet. "

Thats because this thread has very little to do with musicians losing income, that article was removed, this thread is to do with personal morality in the face of illegality, and I believe it went in that direction because you suggested that the person supporting the article was supporting criminal behaviour and you thought he was wrong.

your moral outlook against his.

The opinions are both fair enough, however I feel yours springs from a suggested detachment from the real world. One suggests you have commited many crimes knowingly and unknowingly based on your attitude to the acts relative morality in your opinion.

Many will be benign in nature but if we assume everything has repercussions then your law breaking almost certainly effected somone else in some way. Probably financialy.

as such, how can you take the moral highground in an issue your almost certainly also guilty of?

Originally posted by Lupe_101
The opinions are both fair enough, however I feel yours springs from a suggested detachment from the real world. One suggests you have commited many crimes knowingly and unknowingly based on your attitude to the acts relative morality in your opinion.

I respect your opinion, but I'm sorry to say it is wrong.

While I have indeed been online for a long time, and have constantly had opportunity to download works that are not mine, I have not... ever.

This is indeed the focal point of this discussion.

I never claimed a pristine morality, you and others in this thread applied that assumption based on my opinion of certain illegal activities; hacking, and the outcome of the hacker culture, music pirating.

Hacking is the bane of modern society. Plain and simple. It is the graffiti of the digital realm. The availability of easy-to-download free music has resulted in diminished respect for musical artists. These two concepts are undeniable.

"Hacking is the bane of modern society. Plain and simple. It is the graffiti of the digital realm. The availability of easy-to-download free music has resulted in diminished respect for musical artists. These two concepts are undeniable."

these two points may well be undeniable they're not as clear cut as you suggest.
Some musicians, Like Metalica for example, have, through their actions lost a lot of respect, one suspects that their diminished fan base cost them more than the people who downloaded their music for free in the first place.

on the other hand, online writing, music, soft ware and art have all benifited massively from the audience the web grants them, there has never been a better tool for a young band to promote its first single or an author to get their novel read.

When we look at the big picture, the big bands suffer from pirated music, the small bands however thrive on the publicity, they are used to being poor so they don't miss the revenue and their music reaches a massive audience.

As there are far more unknown bands on the web than there are big names doesn't it suggest that the distribution of free music, whilst detrimental to an affluent minority is actually very positive for the majority of artists and as such improves and promotes diversity, creativity and community.

Secondly, I disagree that hacking is the bane of the internet, Capitalism and transparency are, as usual, its main problem.

The net coukld have been a tool for the free distribution of knowledge for the good of all people. unfortunately it is being hijacked against the wishes of those who initiated it, by corporations.

they wish to make money, so the net becomes capitalist, they don't want people to see their inner workings so they put up electronic defenses denying transparency and accountability.

look at whats just happened to friends reunited.

if these electronic barriers weren't there, hackers would not exist, if this internet world was free, copying music wouldn't matter.

I feel your taking a fairly narrow view of all this.

Lupe, you've obviously never tried to make a living playing music. Or writing. Or drawing/painting.

The fact is, that if nobody will pay us for our works (but wants to distribute them for free), we have only a few options. One is to get a job (and the creativity goes away after awhile). The other is to sell out to someone who will pay you (Disney or whomever.)

Lupe said: "on the other hand, online writing, music, soft ware and art have all benifited massively from the audience the web grants them"

You really believe this? One could argue there is simply more noise (works of dubious merit), not more access to quality. Indeed the web audience is large and growing, but the audience is rarely focused on the search for art.

Lupe said: "they are used to being poor so they don't miss the revenue and their music reaches a massive audience."

What a socially inept response! Shall I take from the subway musician's coin bin because he is used to being poor as well? Your corporate distaste aside, why do you suppose comfortable profit margins are built into music sales? Why to further the corporation which searches out poor new musicians. If music publishing is denied profit, how will poor musicians of merit ever see financial reward?

Lupe said: "doesn't it suggest that the distribution of free music, whilst detrimental to an affluent minority is actually very positive for the majority of artists"

Again, no. You misunderstand, yet again, the point. The current system in place to establish remuneration to professional musicians is being subverted by the socially irresponsible hacker culture. This hurts every garage band with hopes of getting a recording contract and distribution. It doesn't matter that you can download their MP3 and are able to remember their name, if they cannot hope to gain compensation for their efforts, their efforts may soon cease. This scares the hell out of me.


Your excuses for your socially irresponsible stance do not stand up.

You really believe this? One could argue there is simply more noise (works of dubious merit), not more access to quality.

One could, one could also argue that greater diversity of accessable music will naturally provide a great deal more music that I don't like but also a great deal more music that I do like.

Certainly There are plenty of bands I would never have heard if I simply picked and chose from HMV or from what the press and charts instruct me is "Good"

More bands does not mean a drop in quality, it simply means there will be more stuff out there you don't like.

Consider the British Library, theres plenty of appaling dross in there, but theres a hell of a lot more good stuff than my local lending library could afford to house also.


Lupe said: "they are used to being poor so they don't miss the revenue and their music reaches a massive audience."

"What a socially inept response! "

On the contrary. I used to busk. The difference between me and Metalica is that I never expected to make millions of pounds doing it, If I had reached a few hundred people and paid my travel, the odd coffee and enough for dinner I was pretty happy, it was more than I had that morning when I started and, regardless of the number of people who didn't chuck me a quid and heard my music for free I was still better off than I had been, they simply didn't bother me.

Metalica on the other hand are "wealthy" they may loose a few million in pirated sales but unless their complete idiots with their cash then they will allways be "wealthy" The only way they could not be wealthy, however many people "steal" their music would be if they were stupid with their cash. And if they are, and end up on the streets its not going to be because of some downloaded tracks.


Lupe said: "doesn't it suggest that the distribution of free music, whilst detrimental to an affluent minority is actually very positive for the majority of artists"

"Again, no. You misunderstand, yet again, the point. The current system in place to establish remuneration to professional musicians is being subverted by the socially irresponsible hacker culture. This hurts every garage band with hopes of getting a recording contract and distribution."

This is just another industry myth. people have been downloading music for ages and I still see plenty of bands getting signed.
But if you really think it influences music publishers consider this.

spending time and effort stopping people ripping off CD's is a massively costly process and ultimately pretty impossible, hell I can buy a recordable DVD from tesco's and bang out a hundred copies of Star wars for my mates and they'd never be able to stop me, more to the point, the amount of revenue they'd loose is insignificant compared to the cost of sueing me for a large sum of cahs they'll never recieve because I don't have it.

Far better and cheeper to simply sign up more bands thus increasing the pool that can be stolen from in the knowledge that this will counterbalance any loss of revenue from downloads.

i.e. I put it to you that music companys would love you to believe that hackers cost them vast amounts of cash because that disuades a small minority like your self, but ultimately, they can deal with it just fine.

"Your excuses for your socially irresponsible stance do not stand up. "

no winston, your attitude is simply out of touch and founded on some knee jerk moralising concerning an issue that simply isn't as black and white as you suggest.

I think maybe you need to get off your high horse and come chat to us little people who can only stare at your ivory tower with a mix of awe and smirking.

as a foot note I'd like to add I've never downloaded copyrighted music off the internet. I enjoy the process of nagotiating my financial limitations. But thats just me.
it has nout to do with some moral high ground.

Winston,

I'd like to know what your definition of a hacker is...

From what I can gather so far, you think hacker's in general are nothing but malicous turd's. Is that about right?

I'd also like to know, why you associate hacker's with pirating music on p2p network's...

Seem's you have a narrow view on the term 'hacker' ...

I'd relly like to know what you think though...