The follks over at EFF have put together a database of usernames and IP addresses for people that have been issued subpoena's.

Story here

The Story (http://searchenginewatch.com/searchday/article.php/2241591)

The Database

The DB (http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/riaasubpoenas/)

I was kind of uneasy as I punched in my ip address, and very relieved that it didn't return a result. When I download music, I am usually testing it out before I buy the CD.

I mean is it wrong to want to try a product? If I buy a CD at the local audio store, and open it, it is mine. They do not accept returns on VHS, DVD, or CD unless it is defective. That is store policy at most places I have checked.

I think it's a load of shit to persue people who are doing what radio stations are doing right NOW! Every time I go to a concert, I show everyone what I think with my anti-RIAA tshirt.

While it is wrong to steal the music, I don't think it's wrong for me to want to preview it before I sink 20 bucks into it. That shit adds up after a while.

Fuuuuck the RIAA.

I've said it before I'll say it again:

They dropped the ball when they rejected digital music formats as the next major method of music distribution. They could have adopted it as the next "cd".

Evo-fucking-loution.

I think it's a load of shit to persue people who are doing what radio stations are doing right NOW!You do know that radio stations pay the RIAA to play songs, right?

In the San Diego area we have 32 FM radio stations. 13 of those are broadcast out of Tijuana, most of which are operated by Clear Channel. Mexican law does not allow americans to own broadcast stations, but they can operate them. Do you think THEY pay the RIAA? Keep in mind the FCC has no authority in Mexico.

I have a friend that works for 91X out of Tijuana, which is operated by Clear Channel. He laughed when he told me NO stations in Tijuana pay the RIAA.

I realize this is just a small number of stations playing music without paying, but Clear Channel owns over 1,200 radio stations in the United States.

One more thing, these Tijuana stations can be tuned in from well into Camp Pendleton, about 50 miles. I can pick up 91X in my car from the NHCP parking lot, which is in a valley deep into the base.

i believe people in ocean side can hear 91x?

For purposes of the discussion, however, I think it's fair to say that "Radio stations pay to play songs."

I'm a fairly big believer in, "pay what you're gonna use" Piracy. Sure, it's evil, it's against the law, I violate copyrights, "steal" people's intellectual property; but I try to be responsible about what I copy.

If I do anything more than dick around in a piece of software for 10 minutes before deciding it's a pile of flaming crap, then I go buy myself a copy. Ditto on albums and DVDs.

While it *is* against the law to do what I do, it isn't against what I honestly believe to be "responsible" of me to do given my ability to acquire nearly anything I want without ever putting dollar-one on the counter at Best Buy.

You do know that radio stations pay the RIAA to play songs, right?

I thought the RIAA payed radio stations to play the songs they wanted promoted? (psuedo-payola) To the tune of 100$ million a year.

Biased source:
www.boycott-riaa.com/foru...tected/200 (http://www.boycott-riaa.com/forums/Copyprotected/200)

No idea what the balance of psuedo-payola is to copywrite charges.

You do know that radio stations pay the RIAA to play songs, right?
Internet based "radio" stations pay.
For purposes of the discussion, however, I think it's fair to say that "Radio stations pay to play songs."

I'd say it isn't fair.

Most commercial stations that you listen to on your radio don't have to pay for the music they broadcast since they are offering it on a "promotional" basis- in other words, they are allowed to broadcast (at least some) of the music they play so that the public can hear it and then go buy the CD.

Without mainstream radio force feeding the masses, a lot of bands would probably not be as popular as they are now- and a lot of bands that might very well make better music might be.
-----
Even if the stations are paying XXX dollars a year to broadcast, as stated in the link above, they might well be getting XXX dollars PLUS some payola back from the record companies- so they may very well be making a profit to play songs.

While radio stations undoubtedly receive fees and other benefits (appearances, concert plugs, etc) for playing certain artists, they still pay ASCAP and BMI for every last song they play.

It might be a positive-sum game for them - taking in more with the left hand than they're giving out with the right - but songs aren't free for them either.

Radio stations, for the most part, aren't public service. They're money making ventures. Can I sell enough advertising space playing these songs, or do I have to play some of the crap the RIAA wants me to play for a little more dough?

My point is if you are paying Palimax 100 plat to buy his geerlock items, but he is paying you 125 plat to give his geerlock items publicity...

In reality- You are not paying Palimax a damn thing- he is paying you 25 plat.

I'll also conceed that business law and the accounting practices or large companies have very little to do with reality in many cases.

I think you confuse the RIAA with BMI and ASCAP.

BMI and ASCAP enforce publishing copyrights, and most radio stations log what they play and pay BMI/ASCAP on the back-end. Those publishing fees go to songWRITERS and BMI and ASCAP keeps about half of the fees for their "overhead."

RIAA is a conglomorate group for recording labels.

http://ayonaero.dyndns.org/pirating.jpg

So:
RIAA members give $$$s to radio stations to play particular recordings (less directly, but in effect) via payola like mechanisms. This money comes out of general revenue for an album? or the artists cut of the profits?

Radio stations play songs, and pay $$$s to BMI-like companies for playing songs. The BMI like company does not decide what they can play, it just collects royalties, but the RIAA's $$$s influence their choice of music?

BMI-like companies give royalties to writers (directly? or via a label?) after taking 50% of the money off the top.

BMI-like companies: ownership and what decides which song is registered with which BMI-like company, the writer or the publisher or recorder? (ie, are they fronts for the recording industry, or are they their own beast).

Still some holes, but getting more interesting.

So, lets have fun. Lets say I was a weasly lawyer cross busnessperson, and wanted to maximize the cut of revenue from music I get (and minimize artists revenue), maximize my power over what is broadcast, and in general do things in my best interest:

RIAA-companies take money from the artist, pay it to radio stations to pay for songs. (promotional costs come directly from the artists chunk of profits)

Radio stations play what they are payed to play, and pay BMI-like companies money for each song played. (keep the payola and royalties high, so they have little choice but to play what is dictated that they play, but make the net income/loss via this mechanism relatively low)

BMI-like companies recieve money from the radio stations, take a chunk and spend it on operating expenses, another chunk as profit (feed it to investors, possibly RIAA-type companies -- they register songs with BMI-like companies they own, naturally), and another chunk and feed it to the writers representatives.

RIAA-companies are writers representatives, and they take this as part of the general revenue for the song. A small cut of general revenue is fed to the artists involved.

If this is the model (as bad as I can get it), we have the recording industry dictating what a radio station can play and pumping money away from the artists share via the payola and royalty mechanisms. But, all I did was take the worst case scenario I could think of, I have no evidence backing up these assumptions.