RIAA Claims Music On Car Radios Meant Only For Original Vehi

[Culley]

Trade Group Vows To Go After Passengers Who Illegally Share Soundwaves (satire)

The Recording Industry Association of America announced today it would be expanding its crackdown on copyright infringement by suing family members, hitchhikers and carpoolers.

Lawyers for the RIAA maintain that the radio in each car was never meant to be listened to by anyone else except the original owner of the vehicle.

Therefore, any additional passengers who listen to music on the radio in another individual's car are doing so illegally and without the express permission of the copyright holders of the respective songs that are broadcast.

RIAA attorneys were preparing to go to Federal District courts across the country to have subpoenas issued to every car maker in America in the hopes of forcing them to disclose the names and addresses of all purchasers from the last 20 years.

"We think this is a no brainer," said an RIAA spokesperson who declined to be identified. "These drivers have been illegally sharing music on their radios and their passengers have been getting a free ride for way too long," he continued.

Legal representatives for the RIAA also warned that they would especially be targeting the "big fish" like charter bus drivers and RV owners who blatantly turn up the radio volume allowing others to hear.

In addition, RIAA lawyers said they were hoping to get a court order to exhume the bodies of Scottish physicist James Clerk-Maxwell, who developed the theory of electromagnetic waves and Guglielmo Marconi, who discovered and harnessed wireless radio in order to sue both corpses for unfair business practices.

- Corey Deitz

This Article Is Satire
Courtesy of About.com

[Capmaster]

It's only a matter of time :P

Another thing we can probably see coming is having to pay a royalty fee for whistling a copyrighted song. And if you want to really get in trouble, whistle in front of a crowd where all those people might go buy tickets to see the real performer of the song, but now they won't because you can whistle the song

[Timmychuck]

How the hell they come with this shit.

so what's next, are going to sue a Dj's for sharing music in night club.

[gitreel]

It's only a matter of time :P

Another thing we can probably see coming is having to pay a royalty fee for whistling a copyrighted song. And if you want to really get in trouble, whistle in front of a crowd where all those people might go buy tickets to see the real performer of the song, but now they won't because you can whistle the song

Or if you are caught whisling, they will staple your lips shut, take your money, your first child, beat you up, rape your wife, spit a lugi on you and leave you for dead on the side of the road.

[gitreel]

[Capmaster]

That guy in the front with the shield is really a gangsta in disguise. Look how he's holding his gun He needs to get homey sights for that thing (mount on the side of the slide so you can "go ghetto" and look dope doing it )

[bugster]

But what about hire cars. Do you get a temporary license when you hire a car or should you leave the radio switched off

[Timmychuck]

Are they talking about listing to a tape,cd, or radio?
If it radio they can't do anything, its are ready pay for by commercials.
So any one can listen to it.

[adam]

Timmychuck its a joke.

[indolikaa]

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that my eyes are a 'dual-use' technology that allows me to infringe upon copyright by seeing a picture and remembering it.

Would someone please call FulciLives? The court has ordered that my eyes be gouged out of my orbital sockets, and I'd like to think I could have it done with the proper dignity and respect it deserves.

[marvel2020]

I really feel sorry the RIAA now, don't they know how stupid they're becomming.

Bunch of f**king wankers.

[Culley]

I hope people realize this is a satire. Right? You all do? It says so... twice.

[ViRaL1]

I seriously wonder what would happen if for just ONE single solitary Tuesday, everyone agreed not to buy music, or movies...even if you wanted to turn around and buy them the next day. It would be such a rude awakening for the RIAA and the MPAA to see how easily the balance of power could be swung. Without at least attempting to satisfy consumers, they can't survive.

[Madz]

OK, what next? Music on the phone while you're on hold and the background music that plays at the supermarket? Is that going to be illegal, too? :P

[SydneyGuy]

OK, what next? Music on the phone while you're on hold and the background music that plays at the supermarket? Is that going to be illegal, too? :P

You will find that this is already under control, at least here in Australia. People are supposed to pay for the right to use music on hold, music in supermarkets etc. The local version of the RIAA is responsible for policing this. I'm sure it is probably only large corporations that actually bother with staying legal though.

[nufan292]

I seriously wonder what would happen if for just ONE single solitary Tuesday, everyone agreed not to buy music, or movies...even if you wanted to turn around and buy them the next day. It would be such a rude awakening for the RIAA and the MPAA to see how easily the balance of power could be swung. Without at least attempting to satisfy consumers, they can't survive.

I hope your joking, because this would be stupid. Wouldn't you just buy it on Wednesday (or any other day)?

Same for gas boycotts, the most pointless thing I have ever heard of. If you were planning on boycotting gas for a day, wouldn't you just buy it before the day of the boycott or afterward? It's just so irrational.

[MOVIEGEEK]

I hope Sen. Hatch doesn't read this satire...he might get some more lame ideas.

[ViRaL1]

My point was just to show the effect of one day's lost sales for record and movie labels; and that it could be done at will. I realize that in the end, we as a society are consumer whores who can't go long without a purchase. Luckily for me I'm overextended in my present low-paying job. A gas boycott is a whole different animal. Finding an entirely different method of transportation is more of a lifestyle change and vastly different from curtailing entertainment spending for a day.

[painkiller]

Nice thought, but it would take more than a day to have a significant enough impact.

At least one month's time would be in order, perhaps longer - since most businesses are measured (financially) by quarrters (3 months out of the year).

It would have to be a well-coordinated event, and advertised, as well as carefully timed to have the most significant impact.

Say, Christmas/December - actually beginning with Black Friday.

Now, given all that, do we (you) really think the public can be swayed long enough to make a difference?

[gitreel]

There is a good web site that I recommend called www.diariaa.com

This exposes every lie that the industry has used. 8)

[MOVIEGEEK]

RIAA ARRESTS CLAY AIKEN FOR STEALING OTHER ARTISTS MUSIC AND IMPERSONATING A SINGER.


Sgt.Stedenko(holding pistol Ghetto style) said "this punk has been a menace to society",when asked about future arrests he remarked "we are still searching for Michael Bolton".

:P

[ViRaL1]

Now, given all that, do we (you) really think the public can be swayed long enough to make a difference?

I'd be all for it. I think it could be done, but it would take a great deal of coordination. I like your idea for the timing, Black Friday would be perfect. No Christmas for the entertainment industry. :P

[indolikaa]

Michael Bolton. Why did you have to bring up that name?

[Nilfennasion]

The best way to make this campaign more effective is to limit it to one month, and use that time to buy nothing but records the RIAA wishes you didn't know existed. Peaceville and Moonfog are my two usual sources in that regard. Instead of simply saying "we're not buying your records for X months", say "not only are we not buying your records, we're going to spend the money elsewhere". It would force the RIAA to face up to the fact that the artists they want to sweep under the carpet are universally better, even on bad days, than the ones they put in the spotlight. Once you've done the one-month version, tell the RIAA "next year, we'll do it for two" and so on.

[FulciLives]

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that my eyes are a 'dual-use' technology that allows me to infringe upon copyright by seeing a picture and remembering it.

Would someone please call FulciLives? The court has ordered that my eyes be gouged out of my orbital sockets, and I'd like to think I could have it done with the proper dignity and respect it deserves.

Always willing to help when needed!

Now stand still ...



Serves you right you damn copyright stealing bastard! :P

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[Nilfennasion]

Well, that sure cured me of my desire to eat lunch.

[indolikaa]

Sweet! I knew I could count on my friends to help me through these difficult judicial times...

[FulciLives]

Well, that sure cured me of my desire to eat lunch.

Just keep repeating to yourself:

IT'S ONLY A MOVIE ...

IT'S ONLY A MOVIE ...

IT'S ONLY A MOVIE ...

IT'S ONLY A MOVIE ...

IT'S ONLY A MOVIE ...

Of course I've probably just violated a copyright since that AD LINE has been used for countless films

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[Nilfennasion]

Well, that worked for me during Cannibal Ferox, I suppose.

[FulciLives]

Well, that worked for me during Cannibal Ferox, I suppose.

A very kewl movie that one is but of course CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST is the best of the lot but the image above is from ZOMBIE HOLOCAUST which is another kewl one

I know LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT used that ad compaign but I know that other movies did as well BUT I think LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT was the first to do so.

- John "FulciLives" Coleman