What needs to happen is that one of the pressing plants should sue
the RIAA. This appears to be very similar to the court cases against ISP's
where a user has sent child pornography or death threats to someone over
e-mail. The suits alleged that the ISP was liable for this.
Every time, it turned out that the ISP could not be held liable for a
simple reason: there was no way to monitor every single word in every
single e-mail transmission someone sent. The same goes for a pressing
plant. There is no way every single release could be accurately monitored
by someone for "illegal samples". How could *anyone* know all of the music
releases ever published so as to compare it against the current release in
suspect?
The whole thing the RIAA is doing is rediculous. They know that the only
samples that would be recognized would be from huge, major label acts
because most people have (willingly or not) been exposed to them. The
smaller label acts that have been sampled from would not be recognized,
and would not receive the same "benefit".
-Jeremy
On Mon, 10 Aug 1998, Rodney Perkins wrote:
quoted 83 lines A friend just sent this to me and since a number of people run CD-Rs,
> A friend just sent this to me and since a number of people run CD-Rs,
> dubplates, and mix-CDs, it seems like a relevant post. Has anyone here hit
> this wall?
>
> >Subject: uncleared samples
> >
> >
> >Amazingly bad news has just come down the pike that I thought worth
> >mentioning here. It would appear that the R.I.A.A. (the dreaded
> >Recording Industry Association of America, they who wanted a blank
> >tape tax, among other things) has rather recently begun their latest
> >Major Crackdown on "piracy", this time on "uncleared" samples - and
> >the target is pressing plants.
> >
> >We were informed yesterday by our manufacturer for years of releases
> >that they were refusing to manufacture the new Negativland OVER THE
> >EDGE disc due to a Pink Floyd sample that they detected within which
> >we had not cleared. Trying to explain that this was a radio show with
> >lots of sources mixed in was obviously a failure and rather suddenly
> >our production schedule ground to a halt...but that's only part of the
> >story. Through this incident, we learned of an industry-wide R.I.A.A.
> >clampdown.
> >
> >Apparently, they've declared war on this heinous form of piracy by not
> >only citing disc manufacturers $100,000 per supposed infraction, but
> >by presenting new guidelines stating, among other things, that a
> >pressing plant possessing an item in question (and I emphasize IN
> >QUESTION) must turn over that item and all master parts to the
> >R.I.A.A. for "investigation". In other words, it's no longer the case
> >that a LABEL is solely responsible for its "content": the pressing
> >plants are both the new cops _and_ the new victims. Pressing plants
> >are actually LISTENING to the masters they get and looking for
> >ringers! It had previously seemed very hard to imagine some staff
> >person at a pressing plant sitting in front of a CD player, finger on
> >the scan button, searching for unauthorized reproductions. It's
> >happening. The R.I.A.A. has positioned itself as judge and jury. The
> >ramifications for this are rather enormous.
> >
> >We immediately learned of several other releases by various labels
> >around the country who have suddenly had their pressings refused by
> >different makers (this is by no means exclusive to our
> >manufacturer...we learned of huge fines being levelled at other
> >plants). In one case, a CD was refused that was to be a not-for-sale
> >short-run for club DJ's only.
> >
> >The R.I.A.A. is basically a corporate watchdog for the Big Six
> >mega-companies (Time Warner, et al) in the US. They are being
> >extremely vague about just what "guidelines" they have instituted,
> >which they expect to be complied with, are. My friend Steve (who was
> >on the committee which helped fund SONIC OUTLAWS) remarked something
> >to the effect of, "what AUTHORITY does the RIAA really have? They're
> >not the state, and a pressing plant might not necessarily be paying
> >them dues or considering them in any way, so what right do they have
> >to dictate manufacturing?" And if he's on-the-money here, WHY
> >shouldn't plants be telling them to fuck off or butt out?? He also
> >questioned how they could enforce payment of a fine.
> >
> >Naturally, everyone is immediately thinking the same thing: taking it
> >BACK into the home studio is such the logical choice. Big problems,
> >though: CD-R's are delicate. Accelerated aging tests have shown that
> >they don't retain their information indefinitely, and more to the
> >point, they are very sensitive to heat and light. And also to
> >touching the top layer (with a sticker or some sort of writing) is
> >risky. AND there are compatibility issues with them: evidentally they
> >have trouble being read by some CD players (www.fadden.com is a great
> >resource for CD-R FAQ).
> >
> >In any case, on the level of mass replication, this will very likely
> >have a huge effect on the entire found/recycled music culture should
> >the R.I.A.A.'s Big Brother tactics not abate soon. At the very least,
> >very close to home, the new Negativland release and the ENTIRE back
> >catalog is now completely up in the air. We think we've found a plant
> >to handle the current release but we have no idea if it will actually
> >go through or not! Who would have touched DISPEPSI under
> >circumstances like these??
> >
> >P C
> >on behalf of NEGATIVLAND
> >
>
>
>
>