RIAA Demands YouTube Pirates Personal Details

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Raise your hand if this comes as a surprise to you.

After focusing on P2P file-sharers in the past, the RIAA is now going after pirating YouTube users. This month the music group obtained a subpoena at a federal court in California and has asked YouTube to hand over the IP-address, email and all other identifying information related to user(s) who uploaded two leaked Chris Brown videos.
Click to expand...
 
That's the last straw, no more Justin Beiber and Lady Gaga CD's for me. Actually this goes back to the fact that an IP address doesn't link to a single person. It's really sad the RIAA has no fkn idea what the internet is and how broken their business model is. Iron Maiden figured it out and instead of suing they went out and performed concerts for their biggest pirates. made like 50 million and had a blast doing it.
 
But with Google combining user logins on google+ and youtube, the RIAA will be getting your username, real name and possibly other info if they get your youtube info.
 
az_max said:
But with Google combining user logins on google+ and youtube, the RIAA will be getting your username, real name and possibly other info if they get your youtube info.
Click to expand...

Wrong.
 
I haven't watched a music video purposely in what seems like a decade. Today's stuff is pure trash.
 
DPI said:
Wrong.
Click to expand...

How is this wrong? When I go to youtube (not even signed in), and click on a user name, it brings me to a page with their activity on it. If I click 'about', there's a g+ logo in the corner. If I click that, I'm on that user's G+ page. You don't think the RIAA will request that information in their subpoena?
 
az_max said:
How is this wrong? When I go to youtube (not even signed in), and click on a user name, it brings me to a page with their activity on it. If I click 'about', there's a g+ logo in the corner. If I click that, I'm on that user's G+ page. You don't think the RIAA will request that information in their subpoena?
Click to expand...

And do you post leaked videos likely to get you banned for copyright hoopla on your official account, or would you use your fake persona, Ubar Jaboffi, who lives in a pyramid on the island of Madagascar with his 4 foot beard, instead?

I think his meaning was the information they get will be useless, not that YouTube wouldn't give it to them.
 
PeaKr said:
Iron Maiden figured it out and instead of suing they went out and performed concerts for their biggest pirates. made like 50 million and had a blast doing it.
Click to expand...

I remember when they released one of their albums, don't remember if it was Dance of Death or A Matter of Life and Death, after Metallica got all sue-happy over Napster, etc, they posted the opening song up for anyone to download free from ironmaiden.com. Bruce said "If you like it, go out and buy the album. If you think it sucks, then delete it!" Maiden has always stood by their fans, and right there what you posted speaks volumes. They know the people pirating their music are doing so because they want to hear it, so why not give them what they want, but do one better, and do it live? Now those fans are more likely to buy more Maiden stuff because of what the band went out of their way and did for them. They didn't treat their fans like criminals, they treated them for what they were - music fans that were just a little too hungry. That's one reason they're still my favorite band of all time. They get it.
 
Draxanoth said:
And do you post leaked videos likely to get you banned for copyright hoopla on your official account, or would you use your fake persona, Ubar Jaboffi, who lives in a pyramid on the island of Madagascar with his 4 foot beard, instead?

I think his meaning was the information they get will be useless, not that YouTube wouldn't give it to them.
Click to expand...

Let's not forget people can post stuff through proxies, or from an internet cafe, etc. This is just the RIAA engaging in more strong-arm tactics that will ultimately fail. Personally I hope Google tells them to go spork themselves.
 
Google should comply with a take-down notice. There is no logical need to know the who in any of this.
 
The first half of this century will perhaps be defined by many things, one of them will most certainly be the complete and utter extinction of the middlemen in all facets of the market, both in the mundane and the profound the world over. They will scratch, claw, stomp their feet, scream and yell, throw away vast sums of money in futile attempts at litigation. They will rage and fume and bend governments and armies to their will, they will use any means necessary to influence and convince their perceived subjects (the consumer) that they are still relevant and finally in their waning days, in their temper tantrum infused death throes, they will try to bring all civilization down with them into the grave. In this century, the 21st century, we will move on and they will die.

Mark my words.
 
Blue_Scholar,

I've said the same thing for years myself. The middle men are what makes things so expensive. Everyone jumps on someone elses work and bumps up the price to try and get a free lunch (or BMW and Mansion in most cases). Partly due to how the work is structured (everyone needs money to live instead of needed food). But at least most genuine poeple WORK for their money and not free load!! Marketing and Media i consider a branch of these middle-men that need to die ASAP as well!
 
The RIAA still doesn't understand the value of its own product.
They still dump millions into suing their own customers.
This makes them the most unpopular people on the planet.
Genius marketing strategy.
 
If I were one of the people they are searching for, the only thing on my mind would be whether I would also be forced to pay $675,000 fines.
 
I dont get it, youtube is like a version of the radio

1. People are unfamiliar with artist
2. People hear artist for first time
3. People become interested in artist and buy album
4. RIAA makes money

By removing step 1 they just removed steps 2-4. How am I supposed to become the next Chris Brown fanboy if I dont even know who he is because you shuttered him into silence on the internet? Jesus it really blows my mind how they are so greedy they cant even see profit when it slaps them in the face because some element of "free" made its way into the equation.
 
Phoenix333 said:
I remember when they released one of their albums, don't remember if it was Dance of Death or A Matter of Life and Death, after Metallica got all sue-happy over Napster, etc, they posted the opening song up for anyone to download free from ironmaiden.com. Bruce said "If you like it, go out and buy the album. If you think it sucks, then delete it!" Maiden has always stood by their fans, and right there what you posted speaks volumes. They know the people pirating their music are doing so because they want to hear it, so why not give them what they want, but do one better, and do it live? Now those fans are more likely to buy more Maiden stuff because of what the band went out of their way and did for them. They didn't treat their fans like criminals, they treated them for what they were - music fans that were just a little too hungry. That's one reason they're still my favorite band of all time. They get it.
Click to expand...

^this, just one of the reasons I've always been a big Maiden fan. :)
 
az_max said:
But with Google combining user logins on google+ and youtube, the RIAA will be getting your username, real name and possibly other info if they get your youtube info.
Click to expand...

You use your Google + log in for Youtube? Even before G+, I created a login that's got nothing to do with me.
 
teh_chem said:
Google should comply with a take-down notice. There is no logical need to know the who in any of this.
Click to expand...

Kinda depends. Let's say that only a handful of people had the video? Maybe their purpose is to fire whoever leaked it, not to sue them. With that said, I don't know why they care. If people are interested enough to watch a leaked video, then the leak should drive sales (assuming the album is already out).

Then again, I'm old and I buy music. Not Chris Brown, but there's plenty of good stuff out there if you look for it.
 
McFry said:
I dont get it, youtube is like a version of the radio

1. People are unfamiliar with artist
2. People hear artist for first time
3. People become interested in artist and buy album
4. RIAA makes money

By removing step 1 they just removed steps 2-4. How am I supposed to become the next Chris Brown fanboy if I dont even know who he is because you shuttered him into silence on the internet? Jesus it really blows my mind how they are so greedy they cant even see profit when it slaps them in the face because some element of "free" made its way into the equation.
Click to expand...

They make money if you buy stuff. They make a little if a ton of people watch something on youtube. People don't buy music. It doesn't take a genius to see that as downloads increased, sales decreased. Yes, I know about the studies that show heavy downloaders buy lots of music. I can promise you they buy less than they would have bought 20 or 30 years ago and, adjusted for inflation, music cost more then.

Some talk about Spotify (who, I believe pays the best streaming digital royalties), but you don't make dick from Spotify. A million spins is around $600 bucks. Pandora pays even less. Now if those streaming services translated into sales, it'd be great, but for the most part they don't. This is especially true if one pays $10/month. Why buy when you can stream it whenever you want and wherever you want?

I'm not a fan of the RIAA, but far too many people claim that d/l doesn't matter, and it does. Albums that would have sold 10 million a decade ago are lucky to sell a million. There are a few exceptions here and there, but they're rare. Today if you're not licensing your music for a commercial or a movie, you're probably not making much money.
 
nilepez said:
They make money if you buy stuff. They make a little if a ton of people watch something on youtube. People don't buy music. It doesn't take a genius to see that as downloads increased, sales decreased. Yes, I know about the studies that show heavy downloaders buy lots of music. I can promise you they buy less than they would have bought 20 or 30 years ago and, adjusted for inflation, music cost more then.
Click to expand...
While it's just an anecdote, I'm proof that your last statement is incorrect in a general sense. I have discovered more artists than I can count through YouTube, torrent sites, and other means of accessing songs for free. I have then purchased the large majority of music I enjoy enough to keep listening, which has been hundreds of discs over the years.

If it were 20 or 30 years ago, the only easy way to discover music wold be the radio. And I'd probably hear a couple albums worth buying per year, if that.
 
nilepez said:
Kinda depends. Let's say that only a handful of people had the video? Maybe their purpose is to fire whoever leaked it, not to sue them. With that said, I don't know why they care. If people are interested enough to watch a leaked video, then the leak should drive sales (assuming the album is already out).

Then again, I'm old and I buy music. Not Chris Brown, but there's plenty of good stuff out there if you look for it.
Click to expand...
But I don't think google has any obligation to help an entity investigate their own internal leaks; that is a completely separate issue from copyright violations and infringement-related take down requests. and a very important differentiation that keeps this from turning into a slippery slope of tattling.
 
Phoenix333 said:
I remember when they released one of their albums, don't remember if it was Dance of Death or A Matter of Life and Death, after Metallica got all sue-happy over Napster, etc, they posted the opening song up for anyone to download free from ironmaiden.com. Bruce said "If you like it, go out and buy the album. If you think it sucks, then delete it!" Maiden has always stood by their fans, and right there what you posted speaks volumes. They know the people pirating their music are doing so because they want to hear it, so why not give them what they want, but do one better, and do it live? Now those fans are more likely to buy more Maiden stuff because of what the band went out of their way and did for them. They didn't treat their fans like criminals, they treated them for what they were - music fans that were just a little too hungry. That's one reason they're still my favorite band of all time. They get it.
Click to expand...

/thread win

Agree 100000000000000000000000000%

I immediately stopped caring about Metallica after they went on their "sue-happy" ohmagawd the piratz are taking our million$ rantfest.
 
How about they ban all RIAA musicians/artists/bands from Youtube? Kill the bootlegging via the Internet at the source. And more importantly, stop with the VEVO vids that look like they were filmed with a potato.
 
The RIAA is the 70 year-old man who complains about people using their cell phones in public. They are stuck in their old business practices and refuse to change with the times in order to stay relevant. But the RIAA has not been relevant since the turn of the century and they're scared of all of these labels and artists jumping ship to run their own business without the middle man. So the only real way to make any money for themselves is to sue people who are going with the flow of how the music market is now working.

I love labels like Sumerian who post everything put out by their artists on Youtube. When I discovered Periphery through Rock Band, it was Christmas when I first visited Sumerian's Youtube page. I was able to listen to full albums from other artists and decide whether or not I liked the band's music and if they deserved my money. This label has picked up a customer due to their marketing strategy using the internet. I now go to their Youtube page at least every other week to see what's new in addition to a few others that are doing the same or similar thing.
 
erexx said:
The RIAA still doesn't understand the value of its own product.
They still dump millions into suing their own customers.
This makes them the most unpopular people on the planet.
Genius marketing strategy.
Click to expand...
I do not think they care.
 
brettjrob said:
While it's just an anecdote, I'm proof that your last statement is incorrect in a general sense. I have discovered more artists than I can count through YouTube, torrent sites, and other means of accessing songs for free. I have then purchased the large majority of music I enjoy enough to keep listening, which has been hundreds of discs over the years.

If it were 20 or 30 years ago, the only easy way to discover music wold be the radio. And I'd probably hear a couple albums worth buying per year, if that.
Click to expand...

That's it? Hundreds? How is that different than 20 or 30 years ago? I'm not saying a single person can't find music. I always thought that Napster was a great idea. But sadly, the masses have done nothing but prove that Metallica was right. Virtually everyone I know under 30 buys very little music and these are people who absolutely LOVE music. 20 or 30 years ago, they would have bought albums. Now they just go to a torrent site or maybe they go to Spotify and then they go to a torrent site.

I know people who make 80k/year and they don't buy music. We can all rag on the RIAA, but at the end of the day, when you don't buy music, it's the artists that suffer. Not the huge ones...they may make less off of sales, but concert tickets have gone from $30-$60 (with fees) in '97 to 60-400 (give or take).

I know it was never easy working in a band, but at least the people who liked you actually bought your music.
 
teh_chem said:
But I don't think google has any obligation to help an entity investigate their own internal leaks; that is a completely separate issue from copyright violations and infringement-related take down requests. and a very important differentiation that keeps this from turning into a slippery slope of tattling.
Click to expand...

I wasn't arguing that Google should help them. I was arguing against those saying the RIAA are assholes for wanting the IPs of the person(s) who uploaded the videos and the implication (if not an outright statement) that they wanted them so they could sue the uploaders. That may be their intent, but I think my scenario is just as likely, given that the RIAA has generally gotten out of the sue the consumer business.
 
I like how they sue the fans, that's got to be the best way to build your fanbase and generate more sales....
 
I think they should go after youtube since they facilitate piracy.....apparently that is worth $41million these days, then also find he ISP's as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top