Comments on: Moby: The RIAA Needs to be Disbanded

By: M@

M@ — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 07:01:14 +0000

Sad. Moby’s in a priveleged position of not having to care about people stealing his music. The rest of us aren’t so lucky.
Shame on you RIAA. Shame on you Moby.

Shame on you Torrentfreak…

By: fucktheauthoritys

fucktheauthoritys — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 08:27:24 +0000

Every now and then the copyright runs out for all the very old movies..Instead of going to the public domain,an orrible bastard goes to court and a beak from hell extends the copyright for another 15 years.(bigup to woodys dad)..America is not capitalism,but a quasi-totalitarian cartel.,deeply infected by pigys(the day will never come Zodiac boy)..If the orrible bastards try to take you to court,tell the judge,(point finger,shout)..BOO “I dont recognize this court ,for you have have destroyed this world”

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 10:27:27 +0000

Way to go Moby! It’s good to see that not all artists are greedy bastards focused solely on their income.

By: P3epe

P3epe — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 01:29:08 +0000

I am NEVER giving a penny to the music industry because of this case. I hope I’m not the only one, but if I am, so be it.
“Be the change you want to see in the world”:

By: @Reasoned Mind\neostyles

@Reasoned Mind\neostyles — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 16:15:00 +0000

@Reasoned Mind\neostyles

I really enjoy ripping your arguments to pieces. The slightly depressing thing about it is that 4nd seems to be better at it than I am (respect 4nd, btw)

Ho hum, tag in…

[Quote]..that is, piracy is (a fact we can all agree) a civil infraction at the moment and not yet has it been made criminal. [/Quote]
Great. Could you stop calling it theft, stealing and pilfering in the meantime? It’s damn annoying.

[Quote]Not buying was the smart and sensible, legal way to change business methods and models if that was your goal.[/Quote]
I haven’t bought for years…

[Quote]If you think there is more honor in being a mouse who by definition must sneak around while breaking laws, take your best shot I suppose.[/Quote]
No.

I think there’s honour in tearing down a corrupt, immoral, malignant scurge on society. The media cartels have thoroughly deserved their immininant fate, and I consider it my moral and social duty to be among those that help deliver it.

[Quote]The landscape is littered with the Daniel Doves and the Jammie Thomas’s and Tenenbaum will be next; punitive actions are really only just now getting started in earnest.[/Quote]
Wow, they sure are taking their time… You’re able to name every high-profile ‘victory’ of the cartels so far. Chuck in a few thousand faceless victims of the lawyer intimidation policy and… no, still doesn’t represent a drop in the millions-of-downloads-per-day ocean of the filesharing community. Utter, unabashed, FUD-spreading rubbish.

[Quote]So instead of arguing theory, why not build a good case why the work of one particular industry (and so far only one) SHOULD be demonetized and decoupled from long standing purchase and licensing agreements. If you are Communist, that might be your basis. If you really do see merchandise as mere “zero’s and one’s” with no other intrinsic value and therefore not worthy of sale or license, explain why, because more and more will be digitized in our future.[/Quote]
There is no point in arguing this. Any industry whose products can be digitised will have to adapt. Period.

That’s not to say that those industries don’t add value, simply that it’s impossible to quantify that value based on unit sales. Any attempt to do so is anachronistic and doomed to fail.

[Quote]If you really believe artistic creation is unworthy and in fact songs or movies or books or games should not be paid for, offer a good and workable solution how their creators can earn a living.[/Quote]
Sorry to be blunt, but it’s not the job of consumers to establish how companies should make money. Give the market a tenable product and it will respond. You reject outright the idea of mechandise and live performances. I would argue that trying to scarcify something that is inherently universal is just plain stupid. The only realistic options are to bring the product back into the physical realm or impose some kind of levy.

My prediction? At some point, the media companies will realise they’re about to go to the wall. At that point, they’ll ‘settle’ for being a minor facilitator, rather than the profit-creaming gatekeepers they’ve gotten used to being.

And we’ll all be better off. Even Reasoned Mind\neostlyes.

By: Bystander

Bystander — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 12:10:27 +0000

My respect for Moby just went up a couple of notches. Now what we need is for all the artists that feel this way to separate themselves from the record companies.

Think about it: music can be marketed and distributed independantly online by anyone, and with todays technology it doesn’t take a million dollars (or even 10′s of thousands of dollars) to make an album. I’ve heard plenty of recordings done on laptops in garages that have sounded fantastic. So who needs these middlemen anymore? I swear that this whole exercise is less about pirating music and more about making it seem like the record label execs still perform a necessary function.

As new artists we have to say NO to the current system, and as consumers we have to say NO to the product of that system.

By: [TF]Moby: RIAA needs to be disbanded - Overclock.net - Overclocking.net

[TF]Moby: RIAA needs to be disbanded - Overclock.net - Overclocking.net — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:08:37 +0000

[...] into the non-profit organization. “The RIAA needs to be disbanded,” he writes. [Source] Hardly surprising that Radiohead are in on this. They’ve never been big on suing their fans. I [...]

By: [TF]Moby: RIAA needs to be disbanded - Overclock.net - Overclocking.net

[TF]Moby: RIAA needs to be disbanded - Overclock.net - Overclocking.net — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:43:14 +0000

[...] of dollars into the non-profit organization. ?The RIAA needs to be disbanded,? he writes. [Source] Hardly surprising that Radiohead are in on this. They’ve never been big on suing their fans. [...]

By: BIGJOHN

BIGJOHN — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:13:31 +0000

For every person taken down by the RIAA hundreds if not thousands take their place.
When will they get the idea that it is a loosing battle.
For every P2P site taken down many others take their place.
I may not be a huge fan of Moby but I agree with him.

By: darkriverguide

darkriverguide — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 20:59:06 +0000

As I recall the copyright laws were initially created to protect ARTISTS (specifically graphic artists but eventually others) from companies and corporations that would reproduce their work ad infinitum, FOR profit without either paying the artist or, in some cases, even acknowledging the artist. Interesting and kind of disgusting how that has evolved into the corporations being considered ‘the artist for purposes of copyright’. Blame the lawyers for that one.
Is filesharing stealing? Of course it is (in the case of files placed on the net for sharing by anyone other than the owner or their authorized representative). You’re obtaining something without the permission of the owner and sharing it with others, also without permission, so what do you think? On the other hand, is all stealing criminal? Of course not (see stealing an idea, stealing second base, stealing a peek at[not your neighbor in the shower; that is criminal], etc.).
I’m inclined to fall on the side of “file sharing isn’t criminal” unless the person doing it is in some way attempting to make a profit from it.
The record and movie industry seem to forget that, at some point, they will make these items available without cost to viewers via television or terrestrial radio. Sure they’ll get paid by the television and radio networks but does what they get paid always cover the actual number of viewers and listeners who get their products for free? I don’t know but I’d really like to find out.
What I do know is that when I see or hear something I like from one of these free avenues I’m far more likely to buy it than I am when I’ve already paid what is usually an exorbitant amount to see/hear it. I’m betting that others feel the same way. Many of the surveys I’ve heard of seem to agree with me.
Considering that downloading a music file doesn’t physically deprive the record label of anything (the music is still in their warehouse, on their cds and in their computers) a judgement such as the one rendered here is sublimely ridiculous.
As I understand it, it couldn’t even be proven that she actually shared files, just that she had them in a folder where they could be accessed. If this is the case, then an appropriate fine would be the iTunes/Amazon standard $0.99 and reasonable court costs. Allowing damages in the amounts cited in this case when, again, she made no profit from the file sharing, is ridiculously onerous.
As for Moby: nice that he spoke out on her behalf but it’d be nicer still if he contributed something to her legal fees.
It would also make my day (well, maybe not) if he and every other artist who disagrees with the tactics of the RIAA would, when their next contract negotiations come around, say, “No thanks. I don’t like the way you people treat my fans, so I think I’ll do it myself from now on.”
If they are half as business savvy as anyone who’s been in this industry for years should be they won’t go off into the woods of independent music and suffer a lingering death, as some people seem to think they would. Ani deFranco manages to survive, NIN gives the music away and yet still doesn’t seem to be going broke. Internet finds Jonathan Coulton, Geoff Smith and the Lascivious Biddies, among others may not be pulling in millions yet but they are gaining growing audiences with the simple act of giving away some of their music for free.
Speak with contempt all you like about those terrible, morality-bereft, criminal, internet PIRATES (shudder!) but they seem to be the ones who are actually willing to support the artists rather than the smug, glad-handing, corporate executives who claim to support the artists even as they nickel-and-dime them into owing on contracts that should have provided income to them.