Two California consumers file class-action lawsuit against recor

vbimport

#1

I just posted the article Two California consumers file class-action lawsuit against recor.

looser used our newssubmit to tell us that two California consumers have filed a class action lawsuite against Universal Music Group, EMI Music Publishing, BMG Entertainment, Sony Music…

Read the full article here:  [http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/4019-Two-California-consumers-file-class-action-lawsuit-against-recor.html](http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/4019-Two-California-consumers-file-class-action-lawsuit-against-recor.html)

Feel free to add your comments below. 

Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.

#2

About time somebody sticks it to these money hungry worthless pour excuse for people.Maybe they will learn oh no they wont cause their a bunch of assholes.


#3

Thr RIAA didn’t address the complaint! Ever notice how people try to turn a righteous issue into their own little world? RIAA said the suit is bunk because they have a right to encrypt their stuff. Prick, trying to confuse us: The suit want them to LABEL their stuff as protected, a warning sticker saying that it can’t be used in XYZ devices. Not ban it altogether. This is GREAT! Because it will ban it. Because the RIAA knows that when they put a warning on the cd/dvd, NO ONE WILL BUY IT! They only way the RIAA can make it is to have it secret, like it is now, or have ALL of them protected, so we have no choice. OOOH, this is getting good! Now we can actually make an informed buying decision and let the copy-prtected rot on the shelves.


#4

Good! I hope the stick it to those assholes :slight_smile: 18 bucks for an album that I cannot rip tracks off of to make mixes or just store on my HDD for easy acces. Fuck you RIAA :r


#5

I forgot where I heard/read it before but I heard someone say that the greater majority of copy protections are actually a false sense of security. Like someone else said, any type of protection made by man can be circumvented by man. These big corporations and companies think that having copy protection will make them sleep better at night, but they’re wrong. It’s like a placebo effect. It actually does nothing useful but makes people THINK it’s actually doing something useful. Even if the riaa people put a simple statement as "don’t use this product in any computer as it won’t play in it. We are not responsible for any damages to personal property that might happen if this product is used in a computer. This product is ONLY to be used in an audio cd player, not a computer.


#6

Another slightly off topic excursion I’ll make quickly is this… I think and believe that NO company has ANY right to tell someone who bought their product (now it belongs to the “consumer”, or does it?) to tell them how they can and cannot use it. Like a funny example that I just thought of, what if someone bought something from a store. Then the company who made the product found out that the person bought the product. Then the person who bought it decided to take a hammer and smash the product to pieces because they just wanted to for no particular reason. The company claims they have some sort of say-so over what the consumer can and can’t do with a product. IMO, when you pay for a product, it’s yours for life. What does the company care if you use it for something else or deside to destroy it? They got their money for it so why should they care?


#7

In this country, if I was to set up traps to protect my property and an intruder was injured…I could and possibly would be charged with “setting man traps for the purpose to maim or injure” I ask whats 'is face sherman, morally what’s the difference. His company has knowingly released a product that can cause harm (albeit to an inanimate object) regardless of it’s original and main intent. I hope we see this smartarse in 5 years time with the backside out of his pants begging for money for a coffee…:7


#8

Pirates will always find ways to steal music, videos, software, etc. That is fact. I think the RIAA and other such organizations should just give up on battling this group of people since they make up only a small percent of the population. Even if warez wasn’t a possibility, these are people who probably would just result in not buying the product at all. IMO, the recording industry is not losing much, if any, profit from them at all. I feel like the biggest loss (which still is not very much at all) is from average consumers who buy a CD and burn copies for friends or to sell. That is why I believe the best type of copy protection would be one that could be bypassed by anyone, but that person would have to go through many steps and spend a lot of time creating a backup. This time consuming process would prevent most people from making copies while still allowing those determined to successfully backup their CD.


#9

Boycott the RIAA :slight_smile: Someone had to say it! hehe