Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

DefectiveByDesign Supporters to Call on RIAA Execs 444

Posted by CowboyNeal
from the letting-em-know dept.
johnsu01 writes "DefectiveByDesign.org is organizing a call-in campaign for today. People around the country will be calling high-ranking RIAA officials to deliver the message that DRM is an unacceptable restriction on the freedom of consumers and citizens. DefectiveByDesign will provide the numbers to call when you sign up. This action should attract the people who thought that Apple was not a good target because it is the RIAA that requires DRM and those who think that wearing HazMat suits is obnoxious. Everyone can vote with their dollars, but that doesn't tell the RIAA why they aren't getting the dollars. With a few thousand people signed up already, they will undoubtedly know after today."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

DefectiveByDesign Supporters to Call on RIAA Execs

Comments Filter:
  • by Entropy (6967) on Friday June 23, 2006 @07:32AM (#15588493)
    DefectiveByDesign will provide the numbers to call when you sign up.

    Why should I have to sign up? Just post the damn numbers and then request I sign up, and explain why it's important. I mean, I know that requiring registration is by no means the equal of DRM, but on some philosophical levels it does present it's ironies ..
    • by Kaitiff (167826) on Friday June 23, 2006 @07:42AM (#15588543) Homepage
      While I can understand your point on 'some philosophical level', it shows a level of dedication to stand up and be counted. In this day and age, marches and protests are superseded by our ability to bitch and whine on message boards and blogs. Anonymity is something we need to protect on the 'net, but stepping into the limelight makes a much bolder statement. It takes a lot more courage and dedication to a cause to have your name be listed than using a pseudonym. Please take note of my hypocrisy; I do believe this will be posted as an anonymous coward because I can't recall my nick on here. :)
    • by Eideewt (603267) on Friday June 23, 2006 @07:59AM (#15588613)
      My guess would be that they want to balance the number of calls to each phone number, and they want to know how many people participated. Sounds pretty reasonable to me.
      • My guess would be that they want to balance the number of calls to each phone number, and they want to know how many people participated. Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

        Those goals are reasonable - but can be attained without forcing a signup to get the numbers.

        You can ASK people "if you participate, please let us know".

        And you can ask them to choose a number by rolling a die.

        I'm not saying that the registration is evil, it's just counter intuitive in this context, not to mention annoying.
    • by Lumpy (12016) on Friday June 23, 2006 @08:25AM (#15588697) Homepage

      Why should I have to sign up? Just post the damn numbers and then request I sign up,


      simple.

      Trolls. They are trying to limit the number of trolls. for every one moron spewing profanity and "1 0wn J00!" at them that destroys the credibility of 20 honest and professional calls.

      So limiting the idiots and morons that screw things up helps make the ration of intilligent to idiot much higher.

    • by Lurker187 (127055) on Friday June 23, 2006 @08:35AM (#15588754)
      Why should I have to sign up? Just post the damn numbers and then request I sign up, and explain why it's important. I mean, I know that requiring registration is by no means the equal of DRM, but on some philosophical levels it does present it's ironies ..


      My guess is they want people to register for the same reason that internet petitions aren't worth crap -- anonymity is ultimately a form of obfuscation, and when you're trying to tell someone something they don't want to hear, they'll jump on any excuse to devalue the legitimacy of your position.

      But yes, it's a perfectly valid point, there is certainly some irony there.
      • by Asphalt (529464) on Friday June 23, 2006 @09:53AM (#15589124)
        My guess is they want people to register for the same reason that internet petitions aren't worth crap -- anonymity is ultimately a form of obfuscation, and when you're trying to tell someone something they don't want to hear, they'll jump on any excuse to devalue the legitimacy of your position.

        I just don't understand whatsoever how "registration" is supposed to make anything more credible by making people use "real" information.

        Name: Joe Blow
        Email Address: joeblow123456@yahoo.com
        Postal Code: 12345

        It's a ilttle silly to assume or even expect people to give real information on "registration" forms these days.

        BTW, my real name isn't Asphalt.

  • by Professor_UNIX (867045) on Friday June 23, 2006 @07:34AM (#15588497)
    It sounds more like a bunch of people are going to be calling up and harassing people. If you don't like their policies, DON'T BUY THEIR MUSIC! It's that simple. You don't need to explain why you're not buying it since you're not doing business with them anymore. Go buy from Indie labels. You're acting like a kid who says he's not going to talk to you anymore and then spends the next 2 hours trying to get you to ask him why he's not talking to you anymore. You know what? They don't care!
    • by kjart (941720) on Friday June 23, 2006 @07:39AM (#15588517)

      If you don't like their policies, DON'T BUY THEIR MUSIC!

      I couldn't agree more. Nobody is being forced to buy their stuff. Even if the big labels were the only outlet of music (and they're most certainly not) you _still_ wouldn't have to buy anything from them. You don't see me protesting McDonalds because the Big Mac is a piece of crap - I take my business elsewhere.

      • by Anonymous Coward
        Managers are usually happy when people call up and complain and explain why they're not getting peoples' money.

        The RIAA might be very surprised to hear that they're actually losing money to DRM, and how DRM actually PROMOTES piracy.

        If I have the choice between for-pay content, and pirated content, I'll take for pay, because it's neutral re functionality, and thus I make the moral choice. If I have the option between pirated and DRMed, I will select pirated, because pirated is superior (no restrictions).
      • by CowboyBob500 (580695) on Friday June 23, 2006 @07:51AM (#15588580) Homepage
        Voting with your feet is a useful tool of protest, but why not attack them on two fronts? It should be any individuals right in a free country to protest peacefully. That includes phoning up perpetrators of stupid laws and harrassing them (work hours only, at their office - not at their homes). Make their lives uncomfortable both in their work lives AND in their pockets.

        Bob
      • by repvik (96666) on Friday June 23, 2006 @08:19AM (#15588674)
        It would help a bit to tell them why we're not buying the products. If they've lost a sale to me because of DRM, they don't automatically know, you see. If enough people tell them that "I won't buy your DRM'ed shit", they might even listen!


        I'm no longer buying CD's, for two reasons:
        1. I don't like having to check each CD I buy to see if they're DRM'ed
        2. CD's are old-fashioned anyway.

        I like buying music online, but I don't use stores that enforce DRM, simply because I want to be in control of my music collection. So, where does this leave me? I can buy from AllOfMP3, and hope that some money goes to the artist(s), or I can download for free using various filesharing apps. If I didn't have a credit card, I would have no option but to pirate.

        The record companies/riaa need to know that their distribution methods are getting too old, and that DRM doesn't work the way they want it to. What they need to do is to make their music easier to access/buy (And screw prices that makes an album online cost the same as a jewel-case in a store!). And they should be told so. By enough people to be heard!

        • by Hrodvitnir (101283) on Friday June 23, 2006 @09:41AM (#15589065)
          If I didn't have a credit card, I would have no option but to pirate.

          Or, simply not derive pleasure from someone's work without due compensation. Unless you think it's your 'right' to listen to good music. Something tells me those with the money, but not the card, to purchase the music aren't sending checks to the artist after they pirate their music.
          • by Asphalt (529464) on Friday June 23, 2006 @10:07AM (#15589200)
            Something tells me those with the money, but not the card, to purchase the music aren't sending checks to the artist after they pirate their music.

            Actually, you just roughly described the business model of a record label.

          • Or, simply not derive pleasure from someone's work without due compensation.

            That is what live shows are for. CDs should not be the big moneymaker. Charge for them what it costs to make them, maybe a little more. Sell them for $5 a piece at a cd release party show. Etc.

            I don't see any local bands freaking out because people enjoy their music and share it. They love it, b/c it gets people to their shows, and lets those people enjoy their art.

            If you suck, you have no right for huge profit simply bec

          • by StarvingSE (875139) on Friday June 23, 2006 @11:42AM (#15589839)
            Something tells me those with the money, but not the card, to purchase the music aren't sending checks to the artist after they pirate their music.

            Sounds like a good idea to me. Download an artist's music off of limewire or whatever for free, and send a check directly to the artists saying "hey, I downloaded 10 tracks, here's a check for $10.00. F*** the RIAA." That would get the RIAA's attention real quick, and show that people aren't against paying for stuff, they are against being treated like criminals.
            • by thc69 (98798)
              That's something that I'd like to do -- but it's fraught with difficulty.

              --I don't want to be anonymous to the artists, but I don't want to be identifiable to the RIAA, having just confessed about piracy (Legally, it still is piracy, since the RIAA owns those recordings)...

              --Some artists would probably share a percentage with the RIAA...

              --Having thought of that, it occurs to me that the RIAA still deserves a cut for the marketing that they did which resulted in me discovering the mus
      • by plasmacutter (901737) on Friday June 23, 2006 @09:12AM (#15588916)
        I couldn't agree more. Nobody is being forced to buy their stuff. Even if the big labels were the only outlet of music (and they're most certainly not) you _still_ wouldn't have to buy anything from them.

        If the only supplier of housing was a monopoly who imposed DRM and high prices on all housing, would you suggest they not buy housing too? granted we can survive without shelter too.. exposure to the elements does not necessarily equal death after all.

        of course.. you could live like an animal.. do nothing but eat, sleep, work, and crap.. without culture we are not human. I'm sorry but culture and cultural participation are essential to humanity, nearly as essential as food, we've had this argument before but since you've decided to post redundantly so have I, and damn the karma, i wont have this "just dont buy it" fallacy bandied about without rebuttal.

      • by migloo (671559)
        You don't see me protesting McDonalds because the Big Mac is a piece of crap - I take my business elsewhere.

        Fallacious comparison:

        If McDo had a DRM, your only choice would be either junk food or starve.

        • by ElysianAudio (651965) on Friday June 23, 2006 @11:55AM (#15589914) Homepage
          Actually, I just got the strangest mental image. Let's work on that analogy a little. (Slightly OT)

          If McDonalds fell under the DMCA, you can choose to buy a Big Mac or not (see exceptions below). Regardless, you still have the option of finding food elsewhere. However, if you purchase the Big Mac, you will be bound by a very specific set of rules found on the inside of the wrapper: You are the only person authorized to consume the Big Mac, you may not sell it or offer it to others. You may not examine, disassemble or modify the Big Mac (e.g. you cannot take the pickles off, or add more mustard, cut the burger in half). You may not tell others how to perform these actions, or possess or traffic in tools to assist with these actions (e.g. a knife). You must consume the Big Mac from the original wrapper; it may not be placed on a plate, in a lunchbox, or in a fridge. The Big Mac must be purchased and consumed within the US, and the right to consume may be revoked at any time without warning. Violation of any of these conditions will make you subject to civil fines (upwards of $150,000US per instance) and possibly criminal penalties.
      • by dpilot (134227)
        It's not the music or the DRM, it's the legislation!

        I can not-buy-music, too. In fact, I generally do - I buy very little music, largely because of this set of issues. There's also a pragmatic/economic issue lumped in with it. If CD prices were halved, I'd likely buy more than twice as many. If they were cut in thirds, I'd likely buy more than 3 times as many. But as the price declined further, taste and storage would become the limiting factors, so from their perspective, it wouldn't make sense to lower my
      • >You don't see me protesting McDonalds because the Big Mac is a piece of crap - I take my business elsewhere.

        That would be a better analogy if McDonald's was trying to require that every plate and fork in the world refuse to work if the plates and forks thought you were eating McDonald's food in your car when the food was only licensed for home. McDonald's doesn't try to interfere with the plate and fork market. The RIAA and the Movie And Film Industry Association are, right this minute, trying to get an
    • by famebait (450028) on Friday June 23, 2006 @07:48AM (#15588566)
      The problem with that is that the resulting sales drop will
      be blamed on piracy, and used as lobbying ammo for keeping and
      extending draconian DRM/copyright laws.
    • by burnetd (90848) on Friday June 23, 2006 @07:52AM (#15588588)
      If you do not explain why you're not buying their CD's then the following will happen...
      • They won't know you are not buying them due to DRM.
      • They will just put any reduction in sales down to 'piracy' and use more DRM.
    • If we go down the route of dollars as votes to protect rights (access to cultural heritage is a right), then your average American has 37,000 votes a year and the multimedia industry has billions. There is a body which is supposed to protect our rights, it's called the government. But it isn't doing it's job so I guess you have to use what means are necessary to protect them. Members of the RIAA have a monopoly over the recent cultural heritage of the United States, which is an infringement of the rights of
    • by Aim Here (765712)
      No, it's not that simple. The idea is to change their behaviour so that they stop trying to inflict DRM on consumers. For that, they need to know WHY you're not buying their music, because otherwise they might just carry on saying 'these people aren't buying our music because uhhh, they're a bunch of pirates who need to be policed'. If we can boycott the fuckers out of business, yeah, fine, wonderful, but it's hardly likely to happen, so other tactics might be necessary.

      "It sounds more like a bunch of peopl
  • by kjart (941720) on Friday June 23, 2006 @07:35AM (#15588499)

    Call me cynical, but does anyone else find it sad that this is promoted as such a "cause" to fight for? Has consumerism come so far that we are now protesting the things we buy? This [defectivebydesign.org] isn't really the context that I think of when I think of a 'freedom fighter' (their label, not mine).

    Though, I suppose, it's not like there are any wars or civil liberty issues to protest nowadays.....

    All that being said, DRM sucks.

    • by plasmacutter (901737) on Friday June 23, 2006 @07:44AM (#15588551)
      in this age of globalism and a world where international borders become less and less meaningful the elite can no longer subjugate people through conquering other lands and calling them "colonies".

      Despite this the elite long for those days long ago when serfs were forced to work without pay and without the right to property for the enrichment of their masters receiving only "security" in return. (that was the case.. after all the "lords" were there to protect them from raiding hordes after the fall of the roman empire)

      As such, they have now found a new way of stripping away our right to own and govern property using technology and the great constitutional end-run known as contract law.

      Make no mistake, this is a fight for freedom. It may not be as glorious, as roudy, or as conventional as you remember, but then again the american revolution was unlike any war since as well.. no grand columns of soldiers, but guerrilla attacks which the british considered "cowardly" and "childish". (see the original lyrics to yankee doodle for references)
      • by kjart (941720) on Friday June 23, 2006 @07:53AM (#15588590)

        As such, they have now found a new way of stripping away our right to own and govern property using technology and the great constitutional end-run known as contract law.

        I'll say it again - DRM sucks. But I really dont see how it is stripping away your right to own and govern property. It may be restricting your ability to use the property they are trying to sell you - but guess what? You don't have to buy it. Nobody is forcing you to buy music from major record labels. Even if they were the only show in town (which they aren't) you still wouldn't have to buy a single CD from them.

        That's where your analogy colapses. Whereas the British had soldiers with guns that actually did force you to do something (i.e. pay taxes) the only one you have to blame for buying a Britney Spears (or whatever) CD with DRM is yourself.

        • by plasmacutter (901737) on Friday June 23, 2006 @08:01AM (#15588615)
          I'll say it again - DRM sucks. But I really dont see how it is stripping away your right to own and govern property.

          Part of the term "property" involves the owner's right to fully govern it, not some corporation or elitist slobs.

          It may be restricting your ability to use the property they are trying to sell you - but guess what? You don't have to buy it. Nobody is forcing you to buy music from major record label

          And nobody is forcing you to breathe air.

          I think its about time this straw man was debunked. Culture is as essential to humanity as air, food, shelter and water, and like it or not the RIAA and their related organizations have a near monopoly control over the most popular and dominant expressions of our culture. If we do not own our culture and have a right to participate in it I say our "sentience" is highly overrated, and we need to go back to the trees where we belong.
          • by kjart (941720)

            Culture is as essential to humanity as air, food, shelter and water, and like it or not the RIAA and their related organizations have a near monopoly control over the most popular and dominant expressions of our culture. If we do not own our culture and have a right to participate in it I say our "sentience" is highly overrated, and we need to go back to the trees where we belong.

            Holy hyperbole batman. Culture is not as essential as air, food, shelter or water. Try not buying a CD or DVD for a month and t

            • by plasmacutter (901737) on Friday June 23, 2006 @08:22AM (#15588693)
              Why in that order? Because the second will kill you whereas the first will - what? Make you a little bored? I wouldn't even go that far. There is far more to culture then what the major music and movie companies offer - and that's not going to change anytime soon.

              Why not? Because people _are_ free to participate in culture. If what exists sucks (or at least does in your opinion) you can go out and create your own works or, if your talents don't lay in that area, can support someone who does make something to your liking. Modern technology has even made this (arguably) easier to do nowadays then ever before.


              look.. participation does not mean simply "consumption".. it means remixing, sharing, communication, etc. DRM prevents that, so no, we _are not_ free to participate in culture.. thanks to DRM we are only free to _consume_ what they dispense.

              Further, youre right there is far more to culture than what the music and movie industries offer, just like there is far more to the world than what major industrialized nations have to offer, that doesnt change the fact that what these music and movie industries have to offer makes up the _majority_ of our culture and we deserve the right to participate in it rather than simply _consume_ it.

              Finally, we are not human if we do not participate in culture.. we are no better than the animals we claim differ from us..

              why not extend that argument from culture to food.. we can go much longer without food than we can air and water.. why not cut out food.

              would you tolerate it if the government mandated we eat nothing but kibble for food? dog food is more nutritious than our food but would you tolerate it?
              • Further, youre right there is far more to culture than what the music and movie industries offer, just like there is far more to the world than what major industrialized nations have to offer, that doesnt change the fact that what these music and movie industries have to offer makes up the _majority_ of our culture and we deserve the right to participate in it rather than simply _consume_ it.

                So you are suggesting that all cultural work should be free to everyone to do with as they wish? I respectfully dis

          • Hold on... Since when is the homoginized, processed, bleached and dary free material produced by the record companies culture?

            The tail is waging the dog here... the entertanment producers have figured out how to tell us what to like, our "culture" does not reflect a greater truth about our humanity other than how it has been diminished.

            Having said that, I am a hypocrite, I have a modes music collection, I watch some TV and I enjoy movies. I at least try to form my own opinions about what to like and not lik
    • I agree that DRM sucks but I also agree that this is going to be an uphill struggle. Most consumers who use iTunes don't mind (or aren't even aware) of the DRM they're using.

      My REAL problem with the recording industry/RIAA isn't DRM (although it sucks)...it's the PRICING! Let me get this straight. I supply the internet connection, the computer, the portable player, the CD burner, and I still have to pay 0.99 a song? Gimme a break. Normally I wouldn't quible over 0.99 but if songs were cheaper (0.25) I'd
    • by damburger (981828) on Friday June 23, 2006 @08:14AM (#15588659)
      Given that the underlying issue is freedom of speech vs. property rights, this issue is FAR from trivial.

      We live in a society that worships at the alter of the free market. The invisible hand can do no wrong and anyone who claims otherwise is a dirty commie. The abundant nature of data on an open network is heresy to this new religion though - the market requires scarcity to function. A scarcity must be introduced so that the glorious march of capitalism can continue.

      On the other hand, any IP law is a law that can be used to restrict what information is held on and communicated between computers is a restriction on free speech. Call me crazy, but governments shouldn't be adding more of those.

      I'm not sure if harassing certain people will have any effect on this struggle, but it might be worth a shot.
  • by davmoo (63521) on Friday June 23, 2006 @07:35AM (#15588500)
    And precisely how do these people expect to get past the front switchboard or the secretary to actually talk to Mr. Powerfull RIAA Person?

    • by creimer (824291) on Friday June 23, 2006 @07:42AM (#15588542) Homepage
      They don't. They want to pull a Denial of Service attack on the switchboards to force the Mr. Powerful RIAA Person to use their own personal cell phone minutes to make outgoing phone calls and hopefully get them to "feel the pain" of paying through the nose to talk. Unfortunately, Mr. Powerful RIAA Person can use that as an excuse to jack up retail prices and blame the "pirates" for the need to do so.
    • They don't need to (or probably even want to). The important thing is that a few thousand people call up and give their little speeches; it's not so important whether they tell the executives or their proxies.
  • by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohnNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday June 23, 2006 @07:37AM (#15588508) Journal
    I think I'll sign up for this and store a few of these numbers on my phone. I hope they remain active, that way I'll always be able to call the RIAA about the DRM on my sister's iPod or even just to remind them that their invited to accompany me and a certain politician on a "hunting trip."

    Something that I do when I'm drinking at 2 or 3 am is drunk dial people. This is pretty much a curse as I proceed to leave indiscernible/garbled phone messages for my victims.

    Thanks to this website, I'll now be able to leave those messages on RIAA answering machines. If I get an RIAA representative on the phone, it will be perfect because:
    • I've never lost an argument when drunk. At least, nobody's ever not conceded to me.
    • I'm twice as opinionated and polarized when I'm drunk compared to when I'm sober.
    • I constantly like to give people a "piece of my mind" and/or "settle their hash" when wrecked.
    • I love to sing when I'm drunk. This is bad because it usually comes out in an a-melodic fashion.
    • Phone conversations with me can last an hour or more. Sometimes taking as much as 10 minutes to figure out who I am, what I'm doing, where I am & (the hardest one) why I'm calling you.
    So, as you can see, there are so many good reasons for me to put the RIAA on the top of my drunk dialing list. Not because I want to call them and tell them how much I'm going to miss after everyone graduates and moves away ... but instead to let them know my true inner feelings about DRM, who they are and what they do.
  • Real-world DDOS (Score:5, Interesting)

    by quokkapox (847798) <quokkapox@gmail.com> on Friday June 23, 2006 @07:38AM (#15588514)
    I think it's inevitable that we'll see this technique used more and more frequently. Even a small group of people can use the internet to organize and even mediocre marketing/writing skills can be used to gather a large (overwhelming) group of people who will do something that annoys a company (calls to complain about something, buy a CD with DRM and immediately return it unopened, etc.)

    Imagine if every Wal*Mart in a given city had a swarm of "customers" walk in, fill up a cart with goods and then abandon it. You can bet it would make the local news if it were done right. Even the national news. Look how that guy who recorded his "cancel my account" AOL experience. He managed to get digg and slashdot to cover it, and then it spiralled out onto the cable news networks. That one story could have profound effects on the entire AOL customer service staff.

  • Old School (Score:5, Funny)

    by cloudkiller (877302) on Friday June 23, 2006 @07:39AM (#15588520) Homepage Journal
    I'm up for the old-school phone-a-thon, but can't someone just track down the blue frog killers and send the RIAA a message that way? 1000 or so calls just means a $5.15 an hour receptionist has a really bad day.
  • by GroeFaZ (850443) on Friday June 23, 2006 @07:39AM (#15588521)
    Return to them, via email, all .mp3s you ever obtained without paying.

    I know, old hat, but still funny :)
  • by gedeco (696368) on Friday June 23, 2006 @07:41AM (#15588534)
    Looks like a evaluation of the campaign itself.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 23, 2006 @07:42AM (#15588541)
    Chairman Ted Stevens (AK), (202) 224-3004
    John McCain (AZ), (202) 224-2235
    Conrad Burns (MT), Main: 202-224-2644
    Trent Lott (MS), (202) 224-6253
    Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX), (202) 224-5922
    Gordon H. Smith (OR), (202) 224 3753
    John Ensign (NV), (202) 224-6244
    George Allen (VA), (202) 224-4024
    John E. Sununu (NH), (202) 224-2841
    Jim DeMint (SC), (202) 224-6121
    David Vitter (LA),(202) 224-4623
    Co-Chairman Daniel K. Inouye (HI), (202) 224-3934
    John D. Rockefeller (WV), (202) 224-6472
    John F. Kerry (MA), (202) 224-2742
    Barbara Boxer (CA), (202) 224-3553
    Bill Nelson (FL), (202) 224-5274
    Maria Cantwell (WA), (202) 224-3441
    Frank R. Lautenberg (NJ), (202) 224-3224
    E. Benjamin Nelson (NE), (202) 224-6551
    Mark Pryor (AR), (202) 224-2353
    • This should be at the top of the page!!
    • Congress/Senate? (Score:3, Informative)

      by maillemaker (924053)
      These don't look like RIAA executive numbers to me...these look like the numbers of elected officials in washington?

      Steve
      • by vertinox (846076)
        These don't look like RIAA executive numbers to me...these look like the numbers of elected officials in washington?

        Oh... Our bad. We thought you were looking for RIAA Executive lackies? Not the Exceutives themselves.
    • Not the RIAA... (Score:3, Informative)

      by Jzor (982679)
      These numbers have nothing to do with the RIAA.... They are all Senators, some on the Senate Appropriations Committee and some are on the Commerce Committee and others.
    • by papskier (263483) on Friday June 23, 2006 @09:56AM (#15589143)
      and here's the "official" list from defective by design...

      Brad Buckles RIAA USA (202) 857-9607
      Mitch Bainwol RIAA USA (202) 857-9651
      Cary Sherman RIAA USA (202) 857-9632
      Mitch Glazier (202) 857-9673 USA RIAA
      Neil Turkowitz RIAA USA (202) 857-9647
      Steve Redmond BPI UK +44 (0)20 7803 1324
      Peter Jamieson BPI UK +44 (0) 20 7803 1311
      Matt Phillips BPI UK 44 (0) 77 3951 4963
      Michael Haentjes IFPI Germany +49 (30) 59 00 38-0
      Peter Zombik IFPI Germany +49 (30) 59 00 38-0
      Jean never Foitzik IFPI Germany +49 (30) 59 00 38-23
      Herve Rony SNEP France +33 (1) 44 13 66 66
      Graham Henderson CRIA Canada 1 (416) 967-7272 ext. 102

      a good email address was sacrificed to spam to get this information... use it wisely.
      • a good email address was sacrificed to spam to get this information... use it wisely.
        But how many Bothans died? No sacrifice can be understood unless converted to the universal measurement of Bothan deaths.
      • At the US numbers, they're jerking people around pretty good, on hold forever, disconnected, routed to voicemail with bad extension numbers, etc.
        Try dialing (202) 857-9600, which is the root of their voicemail system, then use the person's extension to get to their direct voicemail.

        (202) 857-9600
        Brad Buckles 9607
        Mitch Bainwol 9651
        Cary Sherman 9632
        Mitch Glazier 9673
        Neil Turkowitz 9647

        Try to be polite and professional.
  • by William Robinson (875390) on Friday June 23, 2006 @07:43AM (#15588545)
    Though, I would love to see RIAA disappear as much as the next person, I serously doubt what this canpaign would achieve. RIAA (and all almighty power they have) would not have existed in first place if there were no need of them.

    If they can be convinced not to make too much fuss about everything on this earth, maybe things will be OK.

    my 2 cents

    • RIAA (and all almighty power they have) would not have existed in first place if there were no need of them.
      Exactly! Unfortunatly the sole purpose of the RIAA is to add plenty of cash to the big chiefs bank account.
      The RIAA is like a union. It gets started to increase the strength of its members, but by the time it is no longer needed, certain people have intrests in keeping it around.
  • by Nicodemus101 (960204) on Friday June 23, 2006 @07:53AM (#15588591)
    Spread the word about this call-in by asking your friends to register today! When you log in on Friday we'll give you a special number to call. After you've made your call, you can let us know how it went.

    I think the email would go something like this:

    Dear defectivebydesign Team
    I called that fantastic number you supplied me with. I was confronted with a recorded message stating "Welcome to RIAA, DRM department, the person you are looking for is not available at the moment. Please leave a message and he'll/she'll get back to you as soon as possible. Your call is important to us. Have nice day"

    How to get a lot of people to sing up to your page:
    1) Find a lot of people on the internet
    2) Find a cause they all hate
    3) Give them a little hope by signing up to your page
    4) Sell thier details to the highest bidder for spam production
    5) Profit profit profit
  • Voting with Dollars (Score:5, Interesting)

    by professionalfurryele (877225) on Friday June 23, 2006 @07:53AM (#15588593)
    "Everyone can vote with their dollars, but that doesn't tell the RIAA why they aren't getting the dollars."

    I do love this idea. Has any one else noticed that if we reduce ourselves to voting with our dollars, then ordinary people get about 37,000 votes a year if they are lucky, while Corporations and the super rich get millions or billions of votes?

    Boycotts may or may not work, but they should not be the primary means of collective bargaining for the people. The collective bargaining agency supposed to stand up for the rights of the people is called the government. Or at least, that was the impression I got.
    • >Has any one else noticed that if we reduce ourselves to
      >voting with our dollars, then ordinary people get about 37,000 votes a year if
      >they are lucky, while Corporations and the super rich get millions or billions of votes?

      Ah, at last you see the light. This is precisely the way the world works.

      Steve
    • by ajs (35943)
      Actually, if poor people stopped buying music, I think the music companies would be terribly, terribly screwed.

      Purchasing power is not always proportional to purchasing, especially with respect to entertainment.
      • I think you missed the point. The parent suggested we use a boycott to protect ourselves from DRM. However DRM is an infringement of citizens right to access the cultural heritage of humanity. I was pointing out that if we decide to fight this one using dollars as votes then the RIAA, who as a collective organisation and not an individual should have precisely no say on a rights issue has billions of dollars (votes), while the average Armerican has a few tens of thousands of dollars (votes). That system is
  • by yeremein (678037) on Friday June 23, 2006 @08:22AM (#15588692)
    I blogged [blogspot.com] about why I won't purchase any "Plays for sure" music. The DRM is practically guaranteed to make your music collection disappear.

    Any system that restricts copying the music you paid for will eventually lock out the paying customer. I refuse to spend real money on a disappearing product.

  • by dbmasters (796248) on Friday June 23, 2006 @08:46AM (#15588793) Homepage
    The RIAA is just like labor unions, they were a decent idea, but they have gotten too big and too powerful and have grown themselves into a counterproductive entity that is hurting those that they profess to help and profit from them a great deal, which is also the exact reason they will never go away.
  • by broothal (186066) <christian@fabel.dk> on Friday June 23, 2006 @08:46AM (#15588794) Homepage Journal
    Everyone can vote with their dollars, but that doesn't tell the RIAA why they aren't getting the dollars.

    Yes it does. If you stop buying RIAA music because you are against DRM they will blame it on pirates and make even worse DRM initiatives. Either way - we lose.
  • IMHO. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DoctorDyna (828525) on Friday June 23, 2006 @08:51AM (#15588817)
    The RIAA is a business. Their customers are record label execs. As has happened in the past, business are most hurt by robbing them of customers. People calling the RIAA isn't going to discourage anybody from conducting business, especially not record label execs.

    If you want to hurt them, we need to convince record labels that they don't need to employ what is basically a "task force posse" to protect their interests. Striking at the heart of the beast would be most productive. What we need to do as good, strong minded, mostly intelligent people is start some new record labels that are specifically designed with low profit margins and realistic salaries, and start campaigning to get major artists moved over to our labels that pass on more profit to them. We need to rob the RIAA supporting labels in the good old fasioned american way, which is build a better alternative.

    • Re:IMHO. (Score:3, Informative)

      The main problem is money. Studio time is very expensive, and you'd either have to replicate it cheaply or fork over the rental cash (I'd favor a build-a-mini-studio option). CD songs might be a mix of upwards of 50 recordings per song - requiring good computers and lot of work to clean up each part.

      That said, I'm in: zachary.pruckowski@gmail.com Let me know if I can help. I've done a lot of work at concerts in college (still there).
      • Re:IMHO. (Score:3, Informative)

        by DoctorDyna (828525)
        Speaking from an audiophile point of view, some of the best recordings you can get now are from labels that use minimalistic techniques, IE single blumlein mic techniques, direct-to-disc recording and so forth. I think using some of these techniques could probably same a considerable amount of money and time when talking about studio time, as well as save folks like me alot of time when designing and building speakers. It's more difficult to do with bands that sound horrible when they "really" play (The Whi
  • by thunderpaws (199100) on Friday June 23, 2006 @09:15AM (#15588945)
    A telephone harrasment campaign will be viewed by executives as coming from a bunch of crack pots who want something for nothing. They can easily plug in the numbers into their arguments about piracy. The reality is they do have the right and responsibility to protect the products they represent. The problems exist because current copy right laws apparently do not adequately address digital content. The vacum that exists is allowing the RIAA to abuse consumers under the banner of anti-piracy. Whether or not we agree that Apple's 'FairPlay' is a good thing, it is an example of a very resonable implementation of DRM. What is really needed is educating the multitudes of consumers about the issues. All too often consumers just accept things as they exist. I wonder how many consumers have computers that are hobbled by Sony's rootkit fiasco without a clue. These are people who would blame 'pirates' and 'hackers' for problems they might experience with their computers rather than the true villans, because they just don't know.
  • Chicken Meet Egg (Score:3, Insightful)

    by delire (809063) on Friday June 23, 2006 @09:16AM (#15588948)
    This action should attract the people who thought that Apple was not a good target because it is the RIAA that requires DRM..
    While Apple may not be the primary target, they most certainly shouldn't be delisted from those considered responsible; Apple is proving that DRM business is big business, and so indirectly affirming the RIAA's idiotic war. Despite the fact it is trivial to bypass the AAC copy restrictions/'lock-in', users are still disallowed the legitimate rights to use the stuff they bought the way they want to use it. Apple is making this work in their favour, not ours.

    Futhermore no one forced Apple to adopt support for DRM, and so we should be wary of the notion that Economic Rationalism somehow renders them inadvertent victims of these lobbyists and would-be legislators. Apple are actively supporting the reduction of use-rights and will no doubt continue to develop technologies to these ends.
  • they won't care (Score:3, Insightful)

    by livingdeadline (884462) on Friday June 23, 2006 @09:19AM (#15588963) Homepage
    The music industry won't care about some users protesting about DRM, since their only goal is to turn the whole market into a standardless pay per view system, and they will succeed sooner or later when people get used to the idea of using only specific software and hardware for managing music. With comments like these [arstechnica.com] (original story in finnish mirrored here [homeunix.org]), it's pretty clear that not only the 'merican music industry seriously wants to assure those responsible for various judicial systems that increasing incompability is the only way to go in the digital age.
  • CDs (Score:3, Funny)

    by EvilIdler (21087) on Friday June 23, 2006 @09:24AM (#15588986)
    This is as good a place as any to post this link:

    http://foamyhost.com.nyud.net:8080/swf/cds.swf [nyud.net]

    Funny, and too true.
  • by Kev_Stewart (737140) on Friday June 23, 2006 @09:25AM (#15588994)
    We all think that when music is bought it should STAY bought.

    The RIAA thinks exactly the same thing...

    ...about their politicians.

  • by lcde (575627) on Friday June 23, 2006 @09:56AM (#15589145) Homepage
    It seems to me that the poor secretary will be the one having to handle these 1000 calls.

    Wouldn't it be much better to write a letter, put it in a manila envelope and send it directly to the RIAA exec. The key is to pay the extra dollar or so and get the Signature Confirmation [usps.com] service that the USPS offers. I think when an executive gets 1000 letters on his/her desk that ALL need signatures you tend to notice.
  • by teamhasnoi (554944) <.teamhasnoi. .at. .yahoo.com.> on Friday June 23, 2006 @11:32AM (#15589761) Homepage Journal
    Boycotting the RIAA will only result in more cries of, "Pirates! Pirates!". I think a different boycott is in order.

    On the RIAA page, there is a list of labels that associate themselves with the RIAA - remember, the RIAA is a group of labels, and other music related 'entities' that like the lobbying power that the RIAA gives them.

    Not buying CDs, videos or DRMd files is not going to hurt the RIAA - they make their money from 'dues' from the individual labels. Not buying CDs will only help the RIAA make a case that it's due to piracy, and make that case to those who make the laws.

    However, if a boycott was organized that picked, let's say five, (smaller) labels from that list, and let them know that no CDs from them will be purchased that month or year by the organized boycott, calls of piracy hurting sales could be refuted on that smaller scale,(Not that they can't be refuted now...)

    Labels who think that calling their customers thieves, handing out lawsuits, restricting fair use, and lobbying for the demise of independent music is ok will get a message that their customers will not stand for it.

    Issues with this:

    In order to work this boycott has to be big, organized, and educated. Big, so the set of music the particular few labels include intersect with the boycotting group. The boycott doesn't work if no one was going to buy that music anyway. Those sales 'lost' to apathy will be blamed on piracy, and used to lobby for more restrictions and copyrightholder power.

    Oraganized, so that the chosen labels (picked by size and choice of music: see above) get an actual message : "You are being boycotted by x number of people who have agreed that they will not buy your labels offerings until: (insert ultimatum here - hell freezes over, a year passes, or my favorite, disassociation with the RIAA) This notice should be sent anywhere that would reproduce it, and those not 'signed up' should be ...

    Educated, so that they know what the RIAA is (not a company per se, but a collection of companies), why the boycott is happening, and how they can help.

    There are certainly other things to take into account, such as the 'list' is by design, not accurate. There have been cases where the RIAA has claimed membership by some small (and suddenly successful) lables, in order to present a 'united front' and spread the message that RIAA=success/no RIAA=obscurity.

    I'm convinced that the only way to kill the RIAA is to go after the legs - small and medium labels that support it. Once these smaller labels have severed their connection with the RIAA, the RIAA will have less money to lobby for DRM and the extention of copyrights, less money to pay lawyers to sue your dead grandma, less money to push their skewed facts, figures and arguments to an uneducated public.

    Remember, the RIAA's money comes from labels and manufacturing, whose money comes from you. Small, focused strikes by a large educated group are the only way to win.

"The greatest warriors are the ones who fight for peace." -- Holly Near

Working...