RIAA site hacked - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-11-2003, 04:29 PM   #1
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 04:08 AM
RIAA site hacked

www.riaa.com

two hours, phat hack... nuff respect... lmao!
__________________

__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 01-11-2003, 05:10 PM   #2
New Yorker
 
sharky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,637
Local Time: 09:08 PM
saw it, laughed my ass off. stupid riaa
__________________

__________________
sharky is offline  
Old 01-11-2003, 09:57 PM   #3
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 02:08 AM
I'm an idiot. I can't figure out what the hackers did to the site now. I guess they fixed it, huh?
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 01-12-2003, 02:22 AM   #4
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,255
Local Time: 09:08 PM
Ah! I would have loved to see this. Could you give me the rundown of what was on it?
__________________
BigMacPhisto is online now  
Old 01-12-2003, 03:42 AM   #5
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
daisybean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Born under a bad sign with a blue moon in your eyes
Posts: 8,577
Local Time: 09:08 PM
what did they do?
__________________
"....But all I ever hear from you is "
daisybean is offline  
Old 01-12-2003, 04:08 AM   #6
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 04:08 AM
It is still being controlled by the crew.

Second approach is more subtle... some donīt realize

Click www.riaa.com, then news, then "a new vision for the recording industry"... its neat.

quote:

A New Vision for the Recording Industry


The past year has been one of the worst in the previous decade for the music industry. While factors beyond our control, such as the down-turn in the American economy, have no doubt contributed to this, the industry itself can certain not completely escape blame. In an attempt correct this, representatives from our member labels recently met to discuss ways of reforming the industry. The result of the meeting was a set of changes to current policies, outlined below, which, when implemented, we hope will pull the industry out of its current slump.

Our member labels will halt all plans to sell copy-restricted CDs. Restricting the use of CDs devalues the product, reducing the incentive for consumers to buy them. Also we believe that as time goes on, the public will realize, as we have, that due to the viral natural of distribution through file-sharing networks copy-restriction will never be effective at preventing online piracy but rather is indented to force our customers to buy the same music on multiple media.

We also vow to stop pursuing the companies behind file-sharing networks in court. In light of studies by reputable pollsters that have shown that most users of file-sharing networks reported that their music purchases increased in frequency, there seems to be little reason to continue spending millions in an attempt to shut down these services. Instead, we plan to propose to settle out of court in exchange for a royalty system based on a fraction of profit (only fair, given that these profits are derived in part from our products).

We will also stop lobbying politicians to impose draconian copyright laws on the American people. Last June, Rep. Rick Berman, who received more campaign donations from the entertainment industry than any other Congressperson, proposed legislation that would exempt rights-holders from anti-hacking law in order that they might exact vigilante-style justice on file-sharers. Initially we were thrilled at the display of the political might of our money, but later were sickened as we realized the implications for democracy in America. Morally, we cannot continue this manipulation of the political system.

In addition to the reasons just given, we also are doing both of the above, halting the lawsuits against the companies file-sharing services and stopping our coercive political contributions, in an attempt to restore consumer confidence in the music industry. Our customers will know longer will feel guilty after buying a CD, now knowing that the proceeds from their purchases will not be used to support causes that harm them and their peers.

To further convince consumers that the proceeds from their music purchases are well spent, we will be attempting to treat our talent more fairly. At the core of this effort will be the halting of collusion between labels on recording contracts. While overlooked by anti-trust law, the elimination of competition caused by collusion is just as harmful to the producers of content as it is to the consumers. No longer will artists be forced into signing contracts which reduce artist''s royalties for a multitude of arbitrary or antiquated reasons for if any label attempts such abuse, they''ll be certain to lose their talent to a competitor. We believe that this can be undertaken without damaging industry profitability. Firstly, the previously mentioned reduced legal and political expenditures will help to offset the cost. Secondly, we plan fix the sobering statistic that nine out of ten industry ventures end up failing recovering their costs. This figure would be unacceptable outside the entertainment industry and, while it was viable inside it due to the abuse of artists, there is no reason it should not be possible to vastly improve upon it.

Finally, we promise to stop trying to brainwash the world into thinking of music as property, something that an artist has an innate right to control, even after the media that embodies that music has changed hands. Rather, we will recognized only the original goal of copyright law in America, to benefit the average citizen by creating a incentive to produce creative works. We will also launch a publicity campaign to remind the public of this principle, unknown to many. We hope that upon learning that the true purpose of copyright law is to benefit them, average citizens will be more likely to respect it.

It is our hope that these policy changes will revitalize the industry and make it deserving of the unique place it holds within American culture.

__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 01-12-2003, 04:22 AM   #7
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
daisybean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Born under a bad sign with a blue moon in your eyes
Posts: 8,577
Local Time: 09:08 PM
__________________
"....But all I ever hear from you is "
daisybean is offline  
Old 01-12-2003, 11:55 AM   #8
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,543
Local Time: 03:08 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars
A New Vision for the Recording Industry


The past year has been one of the worst in the previous decade for the music industry. While factors beyond our control, such as the down-turn in the American economy, have no doubt contributed to this, the industry itself can certain not completely escape blame. In an attempt correct this, representatives from our member labels recently met to discuss ways of reforming the industry. The result of the meeting was a set of changes to current policies, outlined below, which, when implemented, we hope will pull the industry out of its current slump.

Our member labels will halt all plans to sell copy-restricted CDs. Restricting the use of CDs devalues the product, reducing the incentive for consumers to buy them. Also we believe that as time goes on, the public will realize, as we have, that due to the viral natural of distribution through file-sharing networks copy-restriction will never be effective at preventing online piracy but rather is indented to force our customers to buy the same music on multiple media.

We also vow to stop pursuing the companies behind file-sharing networks in court. In light of studies by reputable pollsters that have shown that most users of file-sharing networks reported that their music purchases increased in frequency, there seems to be little reason to continue spending millions in an attempt to shut down these services. Instead, we plan to propose to settle out of court in exchange for a royalty system based on a fraction of profit (only fair, given that these profits are derived in part from our products).

We will also stop lobbying politicians to impose draconian copyright laws on the American people. Last June, Rep. Rick Berman, who received more campaign donations from the entertainment industry than any other Congressperson, proposed legislation that would exempt rights-holders from anti-hacking law in order that they might exact vigilante-style justice on file-sharers. Initially we were thrilled at the display of the political might of our money, but later were sickened as we realized the implications for democracy in America. Morally, we cannot continue this manipulation of the political system.

In addition to the reasons just given, we also are doing both of the above, halting the lawsuits against the companies file-sharing services and stopping our coercive political contributions, in an attempt to restore consumer confidence in the music industry. Our customers will know longer will feel guilty after buying a CD, now knowing that the proceeds from their purchases will not be used to support causes that harm them and their peers.

To further convince consumers that the proceeds from their music purchases are well spent, we will be attempting to treat our talent more fairly. At the core of this effort will be the halting of collusion between labels on recording contracts. While overlooked by anti-trust law, the elimination of competition caused by collusion is just as harmful to the producers of content as it is to the consumers. No longer will artists be forced into signing contracts which reduce artist''s royalties for a multitude of arbitrary or antiquated reasons for if any label attempts such abuse, they''ll be certain to lose their talent to a competitor. We believe that this can be undertaken without damaging industry profitability. Firstly, the previously mentioned reduced legal and political expenditures will help to offset the cost. Secondly, we plan fix the sobering statistic that nine out of ten industry ventures end up failing recovering their costs. This figure would be unacceptable outside the entertainment industry and, while it was viable inside it due to the abuse of artists, there is no reason it should not be possible to vastly improve upon it.

Finally, we promise to stop trying to brainwash the world into thinking of music as property, something that an artist has an innate right to control, even after the media that embodies that music has changed hands. Rather, we will recognized only the original goal of copyright law in America, to benefit the average citizen by creating a incentive to produce creative works. We will also launch a publicity campaign to remind the public of this principle, unknown to many. We hope that upon learning that the true purpose of copyright law is to benefit them, average citizens will be more likely to respect it.

It is our hope that these policy changes will revitalize the industry and make it deserving of the unique place it holds within American culture.
The sad thing about this statement is that, while it was put on the site by some crackers, it is largely true. Only, the music industry is still not accepting that they are destroying their own investments! As reported, file-sharing (Napster, Gnutella, Kazaa, Morpheus, etc.) does increase music spending (2000 was the year Napster went in overdrive. It was also the year the music industry had its highest revenue). Nurturing talent does create a longlevity and constant stream of revenue to a label and has more success than trying to hit it big with some manufactured pop act (Coldplay were signed on expectations of selling around 50,000 copies of their debut album. Parachutes has sold more than 5 million). And many are generally more willing to pay for music if they know the artist gets his share of royalties and if they (= the consumers) are not treated as criminals.

Still, I'm addicted to buying CD's...

C ya!

Marty
__________________
Popmartijn is offline  
Old 01-12-2003, 03:51 PM   #9
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:08 AM
Despite the poor economy, I do think that file sharing hurts the music business and that consumers who use file sharing simply want to find anyway to justify their actions which are essentially stealing. I have friends that no longer by CDs anymore because they can get perfect digital copies of the CDs they want with no reduction in sound quality. They can also print out the art work for the album cover and everything and essentially make a virtual copy of what you would buy in the store. Bottom line, there is no incentive for them to buy CDs at the store anymore when they can get them for free. Its easy to see how this will hurt artist who are struggling to make it in the industry. The only way the industry will survive long term is through CD encryption.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-12-2003, 04:32 PM   #10
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 02:08 AM
OMG, there's no way the RIAA would actually write this.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 01-12-2003, 06:55 PM   #11
New Yorker
 
sharky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,637
Local Time: 09:08 PM
The original hack also included links to file sharing sites.

As for the file debate, what's the difference between copying a song off the Internet and sitting in front of your stereo with a blank tape constantly taping songs off the radio.

If the record industry is hurting so much, how were they able to sell 4 million copies of Avril Lavigne's album? 5 million 8 Mile soundtracks? The record industry cares way to much about making a quick buck and not enough on cultivating an act. And when the boy band phenomenon starts to fizzle, they blame file sharing.

And what if I want to buy a CD and transfer it in to MP3 for my own personal use like an MP3 player.

Two cases to consider:

Sony Corp. vs. Universal City Studios (1984) which stated that if you buy a VCR and want to record a show to watch at a later time you have a right to, even if the show is copyrighted by a studio.
The case

The second case involves a teen that hacked the copy protection on DVDs. A court ruled that once he bought the product, he could do what he wanted with it, including hacking the copy protection code to view DVDs on a Linux-based computer for his own purpose.
the story
__________________
sharky is offline  
Old 01-12-2003, 09:17 PM   #12
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 04:08 AM
Funny, I didnīt expect the start of a file sharing debate here.

STING2: File sharing doesnīt hurt the MI at all. It could have been the ultimative promo.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 01-12-2003, 09:38 PM   #13
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:08 AM
#1 Home taping with cassettes either from radio or CD or other cassette cannot be compared to the file sharing and burning of CDs which does not suffer from any degradation of quality in the process. Thats the key difference and a major reason why its so popular and having an effect on the music industry. Album sales are down by 10% from last year, a massive drop. The fact that there are artist that are immune out there to these effects at this point is not relevant. It is easy to see what could happen if things continue in this direction.

This is about the right of someone to be able to sell and profit from a product they have created. If I were able to duplicate any product or service on the planet and then offer it for free, I would have the capability to destroy any business on the planet.

Thats not fair and will hurt new music. What incentive will new artist have to try and make it in the music business if there is a dramatically smaller possibility that they will be able to make any profit.

I don't wan't to see gifted musicians and people robbed of the profits of their hard work. If you think that the new music that comes out now is bad, wait to you have 10 years of file sharing with nothing to defend against it. There is no point in most people going out and purchasing a product if in a few years at the click of a mouse, they can get it for free. There is no point in new musicians and artist pursuing a career in the music business if there is no profit. The result will be that new talent will dry up and will be left with a group of popular older artist who are immune from everything and have large devoted fan bases who will buy anything their favorite artist come out with. But even they will sell less than they use to.

The recording industry has played a vital role in bringing many great artist over the years to millions of people. There is no substitute for their ability to promote and finance and distribute and artist around the world. Without the help of Island Records, we may never of had the opportunity to hear U2.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-12-2003, 10:36 PM   #14
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 06:08 PM
Sting,

I was a wee boy in the 60s, I remember the 70s, 80s and 90s very well.

I have always liked and listened to music. As a boy 9,10 years old I would take my dad’s radio he used to listen to the Dodgers, (Sandy Kofax and Don Drysdale were his favorites) to bed with me to listen to early rock.

There is some truth in many of the things you say. As more time goes on the labels become less and less relevant. CD sales are down because they are offering us crap.

Avril is crap, she is the next big thing? There was once a need for labels they have made themselves obsolete.

Give Gordon Sumner an acoustic guitar and let him sing in Roxanne or Spirits in a Material World in a coffee house in L. A or N. Y. That is all it would take for him to be on his way being a number one artist.

Why? Not because of marketing by labels, but because his music is that powerful.

This actually is a true story, for Beck Hanson (Beck)

If artist want to make the big bucks they should do soundtracks like Randy Newman, Danny Elfman.
They can license their songs for commercials for the almighty dollar, also.

If they want to make money from CD sales they should give the customer more than mp3s can.
Cds suck, the packaging everything about them. They are way overpriced. The artist does not get very much of the money.

Two labels gave something like 30 million and 50 million to Mariah Carey? What the f*ck for?
These are the people we should be grateful to? Their day is over!
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 01-12-2003, 10:49 PM   #15
Refugee
 
bonoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Edmonton, Canada- Charlestown, Ireland
Posts: 1,398
Local Time: 07:08 PM
Well the RIAA wont accept the fact that this is best thing to ever happen to them. They cant see past that people arent buying their cds. This is such a great means of publicity, and for them not to try to utilze it is dumbfounding.

I d/l music, and i burn cds. Though i would have NEVER bought any of these cds regardless if they were free or for sale. I have found alot of music that i love in the past few years but i wouldnt have ever found them going out and buying a cd for 20-25 dollars because i dont have the money to buy the cds. But now that i know whats on them and i know i love that music i go and buy the cd. I have bought the whole catoulogs of led zeppelin, rolling stones, Simon and Garfunkel, beatles, tom petty, pink floyd. Though not many of these artists still put out records they are great.

You know why the music industry had a 10% loss last year. Because the music industry is shit and there isnt any artists out there worth paying 20$ for. I am sorry but music is to commercialized and way too watered down. Maybe if they were to relize this and change it the music industry would still make gains every year. Avril will only make another albulm then see will get replaced. They have to try and make a artist to be appealing for years and years. Bon Jovi, Rem, U2 these are only a few that made it out of the 80's, and they wonder why sales decline. They need to take care of artists and bands and put them on the path for long carrers so their fan base get very big.

Dont blame us we dont want to buy the shit your selling, we want one or two songs from your album and we arent willing to pay 20$ for it. Go out and make records we want to listen to again and again and meybe we'll buy some.
__________________

__________________
bonoman is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright ÂĐ Interference.com