Help the struggling RIAA/MPAA, they need your cash now

They've made it very clear that they consider digital copies to be just as valuable as the original. That makes it a lot easier to pay them back in two ways: a. We can email them scanned images of dollar bills instead of bulky paper and b. We don't have to worry about the hassle of shipping huge quantities of cash.

Take a picture or scan an image of your money. Send digital copies to the MPAA & RIAA in whatever quantity you feel you can afford. Don't go overboard. If you can only afford 20 copies then that's good enough. If enough people contribute we should be able to fully satisify even their most outrageous demands.


Read + Share + Donate = Save the poor RIAA/MPAA
The Problem. The MPAA & RIAA claim that the internet is stealing billions of dollars worth of their property by sharing copies of files. They're willing to destroy the internet with things lik...
Jason Gruber's profile photoChris Gallaty's profile photoTom Talbott's profile photoSasha Walker's profile photo
Just sent a $100! Remember to be generous, give what you can. ;)
Know who else needs my cash?
<-------- this guy...
Why not? I'll send pics of gold bullion in case they need it. Bloody pirates are robbing them blind, poor things.
For those who have never consciously pirated any assets owned by the MPAA or RIAA, the answer is simple. Just by visiting their contact page, you are downloading copyrighted graphics and text, which may have values approaching millions, if you consider the value of a trademark for a major movie publishing company, such as the MPAA shows across the bottom.

And, you can not avoid making a copy of these images that are valued at several millions of dollars, unless you use software specially designed to acquire only text... and even then, that text is copyrighted and is considered to have a value by these various litigious organizations.
It's only fitting we send them cash... I mean, thanks to pirates (and hey we're all pirates - guilty until proven innocent -- that's why passing laws that'll give them ultimate authority to break the internet is mandatory & not doing so is un-democratic, un-American and just plain wrong) they're going broke & can't afford the basics of every day life...

I mean did you see that report that the MPAA made ONLY 10 billion in 2011? Obviously it should have been 100 quad-trillion....

Or how Will Smith couldn't afford to keep a 2-story personal gym trailer and a 3-story personal crash-pad trailer parked on the NYC streets while filming MiB3...

Or how rappers like Lil' Jon now have to settle for plain every day 14 karat solid gold toilets for their small, 50-room pool houses instead of the 24 karat, diamond crusted one....

Obviously these organizations & those they represent are in dire financial constraints & need all the help they can get...
*Sniffle* I tear up just thinkin' about it! TT
+Adam Alexander " unless you use software specially designed to acquire only text..."

text based web browsers exist in many forms, and aren't exactly special, lynx and its variants do not download images by default. There's a community of nerds out there who have no use for "web 2.0" style interactions.

Aside from that, +5 for everything else in your post! Hit the nail right on the head.
Wow! I just realized I'm a billionaire. Copyright math FTW.
Whooo-hoooo! I'ma going shoppin'! (jokes)
just learned that photoshop CS5.5 can recognize dollar banknotes and refuses to edit it :)..
+Omer Can Karadagli use GiMP (GNU Image Manipulation Program) it does 95% of what photoshop does, and it's PERMANENTLY FREE.

Proprietary software in its present implementation is a crime. Seriously, what has Adobe really done for imagine manipulation since Photoshop 3? Or MS Office since '95? They're just fleecing consumers.
+Michael Bennett Actually, their new motion-sensitive blur removal is really an incredible piece of software ingenuity. That being said, I agree w/ you 100% on proprietary software being criminal. I don't have a problem with selling software in packages that make it easy to install or find for the average consumer. That, in it self, is a worthwhile market that should not hinder the forward-momentum of creativity, ideas and growth of software and other technological advancements.

IOW: Pay for the service, not the content.
+2 +Malick McGregor service is the way of the future. Also good to know about the new PS algorithms. Still doesn't explain why MS word can't figure out I'm not writing a resume.
I remember the first CD I bought many years back that didn't let me rip mp3s. Yep, no way to put it on my mp3 player. That was the day my younger self realized that the record companies only care about themselves, not even the music they hawk to us.
Can i just give them back all the music that I stole? I'm too poor to make money copies.
NICE people should get a list of all there fax numbers too
+Michael Ricard I had only one problem with GIMP. Last time I checked it didn't support vectors. Btw, I used paint to crop the scanned dollar bill.
this is great idea, cant seem to find the RIAA contact email tho... it is very hidden
okkk thats just strange you better not take my money or my internet if you value your self because they are most definintly important and only some little nerd will know how to steal the internet and i'm just sayin..... your'e gonna die my friend not me but some angry buisness man will eat you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Don't forget to mark down your serial numbers for future reference, I'm assuming they will be wanting to apply the same lending laws to their new found cash as the the rest of their 'tangible' assets.
Wow. I'm no fan of RIAA, but this is stupid. Your argument is that the digital copy doesn't hold any value, as a digital copy of cash holds no value. Tell that to any indie game developer/music producer that only creates/sells online. Ignorant.
It's all okay, unless your a starving artist. So mail your bucks to one of those people you know following a dream.
All in good humor, however it is illegal to make copies of money. Under federal statute 18 USC section 471, if you're found guilty of making copies "in the likeness and similitude of US currency", unless they are much larger or much smaller than US currency" (a minimum of 50 percent larger or 25 percent smaller) or unless they are "rendered in black and white," you face up to 15 years imprisonment.

The above information is not verified personally but you can go to prison for counterfeiting even if it's intended as a joke.
The love of money is the rut of all evil
Forget the internet. Send your excess cash to
<--------------------- to that guy please
Love the idea, but I hope you guys aren't risking a term in jail by doing this... :S
Easy. Depending on how it's done photographing or digital representations of money can become a federal offense. I digress, good post and love the comments.
Supposedly printers detect money as well and self destruct. lol
+Timothy Lang If I scan a copy of a dollar, by the laws that these two entities are responsible for crafting, I can actually claim a defensible copyright on that image, and in fact nail you under copyright law for reproducing it or distributing it without my permission. It is a serialized dollar, so I in a sense, retain the legal 'licence' to that version of a dollar image. Its really the terms of the agreement that I make with you that defines whether or not that image is 'worthless' to you. Where it gets interesting is that my value is limited my a physical asset. I can't give that dollar away twice, where as the RIAA can choose to give away a song one time, or a million times at no additional cost what it cost them and the 'value' of that song, is more subjective than the argument above.
That got me chuckling, heh heh.
I'm pretty sure that you're not allowed to scan money under counterfeiting law. that's why most scanners and photocopies as I recall have been programmed to not work when you put money down. (crazy but probably true)
and where were they when i and everyone i know was making vhs copies of tv shows and cassette recordings of radio and lps? clearly, all of us must have bottomed out the industry back then. hmmm..... nope they seem to be ticking along just fine.
Can I get my bank to let me pay my car note that way?
+Gythia Ingela Freyasdottir It's not illegal to make copies of U.S. currency. It is illegal to try and spend a note that you fabricate. The actual dollar bill is worthless, its just the tangible form of an agreement.
It's not counterfeiting until you print it...
Section 411 of Title 31 of the Code of Federal Regulations permits the printing, publishing or importation, or the making or importation of the necessary plates or items for such printing or publication, of color illustrations of U.S. currency provided that:

1. The illustration must be of a size less than three-fourths or more than one and one-half, in linear dimension, of each part of any matter so illustrated;

2. The illustration must be one sided; and

3. All negatives, plates, digitized storage medium, graphic files, magnetic medium, optical storage devices, and any other thing used in the making of the illustration that contain an image of the illustration or any part thereof shall be destroyed and or deleted or erased after their final use in accordance with this section.

Title 18, United States Code, Section 504 permits black and white reproductions of currency and other obligations, provided such reproductions meet the size requirement.

Don't forget to destroy your computer after sending copies of your money! ;)
Well I've just donated so I'm feeling good about myself about the pirating I do lol pats back
+Timothy Lang I'll gladly Google that for you. You can start here:

You can start here:

§202 · Ownership of copyright as distinct from ownership
of material object Ownership of a copyright, or of any of the exclusive rights under a copyright, is distinct from ownership of any material object in which the work is embodied. Transfer of ownership of any material object, including the copy or phonorecord in which the work is first fixed, does not of itself convey any rights in the copyrighted work embodied in the object; nor, in the absence of an agreement, does transfer of ownership of a copyright or of any exclusive rights under a copyright convey property rights in any material object.
I'm just guessing that the mention of a 'phonorecord' was in some way influenced by the RIAA. There's much more there if you care to read.
If it is so valuable, then don't release it to the public. Keep it private where prying eyes are not allowed to see or hear it. If you lose so much releasing it to the same public that you call customers then you have a problem. Either change the way you release it, or don't release it at all. I have never stolen music, or movies, or games; and right now the industry has a huge problem, and it isn't online sharing. It is the animosity of a public that will create a huge backlash now that their privacy is up for viewing by these monstrous companies that only care about their bottom line.
+Timothy Lang, +Chris Gallaty's mention of owning the copyright to the copy of the money reminded me of a case at least 4 or 5 years ago, maybe longer. A "gentlemen" had been arrested on (at least) child pornography charge(s). He had downloaded images from the net & burnt them to a CD/DVD. The judge allowed the charge of creation of child pornography, even though he himself didn't actually create anything. The judge clarified by claiming that the act of burning the images to disc created something that hadn't existed before, and thus he created child porn. So precedent has been set... You might be able to use it as past history in court...
Does that mean if I now copy that 1 dollar image and burn a million of images to my DVD, I am a millionaire? I am sure that judge would HAVE to approve that!
Yeah, I'm assuming the judge's intentions for that ruling were to have had very limited scope & apply to that specific case alone (probably just to "f" with the defendant & get another serious charge levied against him.

IANAL (I don't even play one on TV), but I would assume though, that by allowing the charge precedent has been set & someone might be able to (at least try) to use it. "No RIAA, I didn't copy 31 songs... I created 31 songs" (or in this case "No US Treasury I didn't counterfeit that dollar, I created 1 million new ones"). Though I suppose an IP charge would still hold, since what you created is identical to what the RIAA "created"... And I believe there is a law somewhere that only the US Mint has the authority to create US currency, so even if you got off with the counterfeiting charges, they could bust you for creating currency...
+Jason Gruber I think the notion of 'counterfitting' as clouded the metaphor. There are clear guidelines on reproduction. You can do something as simple as make it black and white, or reduce the rez to the point that you could not possibly print a passable dollar off the image, and you are clear of any wrong doing there. The point here is that this campaign is, by definition an exercise in absurdity, +Timothy Lang made the statement "as a digital copy of cash holds no value" which, in the irony of the discussion can actually be false, by the same laws. The argument here is not that no digital media has any value, its that not all digital media has implicit value, which is the side that the RIAA is arguing. If I took the same dollar, and say Andy Warhol or Christo did a giant reproduction of a dollar, they could sell it for many times over the original work. Warhol could have just tinted it odd and it would be a legally defensible copy that he has the right to sell. This says nothing of his talent (or anything bad about it, I'm sure it would be very nice) An analog would be to go and find a cutout disc of some record companies biggest flop. (Try this as an exercise at home kiddies) Take the same disc that stores are throwing away and upload it to the Internet.. at that point, despite the fact that the music industry could not sell that music at any price you have now harmed them under law.

The irony here is that the RIAA's work in lobbying has made the absurd notion of scanning in a dollar and sending it into something that could really actually have value. What's more is the further (again, made absurd but real) irony that if they agreed to my terms (much like we are forced to do with music) I could give them my dollar and they would be bound by the terms of my legal agreement to only use that cash as I dictated. i.e. I could give them a dollar and they may not be able to lend it (or use it) by the terms of the 'licencing agreement' that they are bound by.

Now, clearly, the RIAA would not have to agree to these terms, just like I don't really have to buy digital music. I tend to, in fact, really stick it to The Man(TM) and buy used CDs. Mainly because, A) I would never have to defend my ownership, B) I can lend the damn thing to who ever I want, and C) they don't see an additional dime of my cash. (At least not directly) I never much liked the notion of why CDs cost as much as they did, but at least on that side they could argue that they had to print them and ship them, and I got a physical token and real 'ownership' of something for my cash.

The real issue here is that with this digital age, the RIAA can now almost literally_print money_ They are doing the exact equivalence to you being able to take the effort of scanning one dollar bill and not only copy it as many times as they like, which is fine, but they are also claiming that if you copy that same set of bits, that cost them nothing to do, you have caused them tangible damage.

I respect artists, I think they should be compensated for their work to the level that society values it. I do not respect an industry that was built on controlling and distributing intellectual property flailing and jacking up my rights as a citizen as they struggle to cling to a business model that is as dead as a pay phone.
I agree with +Chris Gallaty. The only thing I'd add, and he does this a bit with his mention of buying used CDs, is that we create the demand that gives these groups power. Ultimately, we have to reprioritize what is important to us. Lower the demand, lower the power. Personally, I cut the cord many years ago. I don't pirate, they just lost me as a customer. As long as we think we need this stuff, these groups will have power over us. We could have the power, if we only had the will...
Add a comment...