The Riaa
MrMojo
Join Date: 2002-11-25 Member: 9882Members, Constellation
Join Date: 2002-11-25 Member: 9882Members, Constellation
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">What do you think?</div> Well, we've been over it. No matter what RIAA does, they'll be made to look like fools. The latest news is <a href='http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/5349.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/5349.htm</a> .
On the surface, it seems evil. A little 12 year old girl was sued. Boo hoo. However, music sharing is illegal. Like it or not, most of the file sharers download full cds with no intent to buy, and distribute them. That makes artists unhappy. I download individual songs, sure, but not full zipped up cds.
I'm doubting that the RIAA sued the girl over sharing 2-3 songs. These songs were just the most "childish" and thus were selected by the news to make the RIAA look like the bad guy.
The logic used by the girl is rather impressive. "I didn't know it was illegal, so why should I be attacked?". It's really the kind of logic Acts of Gord makes fun of. Her age doesn't really matter. It's not relevant at all.
Soo....what do you think of the RIAA?
On the surface, it seems evil. A little 12 year old girl was sued. Boo hoo. However, music sharing is illegal. Like it or not, most of the file sharers download full cds with no intent to buy, and distribute them. That makes artists unhappy. I download individual songs, sure, but not full zipped up cds.
I'm doubting that the RIAA sued the girl over sharing 2-3 songs. These songs were just the most "childish" and thus were selected by the news to make the RIAA look like the bad guy.
The logic used by the girl is rather impressive. "I didn't know it was illegal, so why should I be attacked?". It's really the kind of logic Acts of Gord makes fun of. Her age doesn't really matter. It's not relevant at all.
Soo....what do you think of the RIAA?
Comments
GG moneygrubbing
and its fair to say that copying music isnt exactly up there with homocide, or narco-terrorism (or whatever they're calling it these days).
But the fact remains that the sharing of music is wrong. Realistcaly though, the RIAA has no hope of ending it. Which leads me to worry about the future of the entertainment industry. The more widespread piracy, of music, of movies, of software, gets, the smaller the amount of money will get back to the industry. If it gets to the point where a studio can't make a movie and make a profit, they will stop making them. A label can't afford to carry an artisit, they will stop signing new ones. Same goes for games (though as NS proves, a good game <i>can</i> be made in a non-comercial setting, though I doubt that Half-life engine would have). It seems unrealistic with the massive amount of money you hear being made, but sooner or later, if piracy continues to grow it is what will happen.
I hope society can find a middle ground soon, one where some of the RIAA's more....um...insane policies are abadoned, and where what is right and wrong within the concept of sharing music/movies/games is better defined. Truely that is the problem, our technology has advanced faster than our morals about it have.
It doesn't seem like stealing to download something on our side, but to the RIAA it seems little diffrent than shoving a CD down your coat and walking out of the store. Which side is right? I'd say neither.
I think these suits are the first legal things the RIAA has done in a while. But it's not going to stop it.
I tend to agree with the EFF's view that the natural state of the internet is anarchy, and that it is impossible to enforce anything else upon it.
I think this issue is paving the way for the end of capitalism. Capitalism works well in an economy of limited resources, but as much of our property becomes virtual, the resources become essentially limitless. The Marginal cost of producing any additional copy of a piece of information is effectively 0. Viewing economics from a utilitarian standpoint, there is no reason why every person shouldn't have a copy of every piece of information that they want. We are capable of producing this level of distribution through P2P. The lacking bit of infrastructure to make this possible is just the capitalistic byproduct of the neccessity of collecting money. This is only essential due to the inefficiencies of capitalism. The RIAA served two functions: distributing the media, and relaying money to the people produced it. The first role has been superceded. The second is ideally unneccessary. I don't think this leaves them in a good place.
The next 50 years are going to be incredible. Enjoy the ride.
Actually more than two-thirds of the artists revenue comes from touring. The make their money on filling up stadiums with 40 thousand people and charging 70-80 dollars a ticket, not from CD sales. And seeing as how the record labels make all of their money from their artists I don't see where the sales of CDs play "major part of their income". The fact is the only reason an artist cares if he goes platinum is because it means they now have huge recognition, until we can download live concerts from the internet there is no threat to their business.
What you also don't understand is that the more file sharing there is, the higher the prices will go. If the people are buying less, you have to sell for more to make more profit. Increased file sharing activity will eventualy make cds cost outrageously more.
Don't try to pretend that you'd buy a cd if it cost 9$ instead of 12$. It's a rather fair price, actually.
Actually more than two-thirds of the artists revenue comes from touring. The make their money on filling up stadiums with 40 thousand people and charging 70-80 dollars a ticket, not from CD sales. And seeing as how the record labels make all of their money from their artists I don't see where the sales of CDs play "major part of their income". The fact is the only reason an artist cares if he goes platinum is because it means they now have huge recognition, until we can download live concerts from the internet there is no threat to their business. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Popular artists. This doesn't reflect a majority of the bands. Small artists rely on cd sales and playing in small clubs to get enough money to continue. Besides, no one tours ALL the time. Lastly, live shows are downloadable ( the music, video files aren't that popular ( if at all))
So like I said up-top instead of burning their money (and reputation) on suing people they should re-think their marketing strategy.
For example, when was the last time you saw a DVD that came without "extras" Absolutely every single DVD that comes out now days has bonus material which adds value to the product and helps people justify the price. Something like 2% of CD on the market are currently "enhanced" or have "bonus" material.
<a href='http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?id=cat02010&navHistory=cat00000%2Bcat02000%2Bcat02001&type=category&navLevel=4' target='_blank'>http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?id...gory&navLevel=4</a>
And those are new cds.
Maybe if they weren't price gouging capitalist dogs we wouldn't BE downloading them.
I understand its art, and that downloading it is a slap in the face. Asking huge prices for the sake of "art" is a slap in MY face, and I won't be a part of it. <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif'><!--endemo-->
Off-Topic: Mojo, did you get my PM?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
While I agree that the prices are way too high as of right now, that still doesn't make it right to download it. If you think it's too expensive, don't buy it. I might like a new car, but can't afford one. Would I be justified in stealing one of the lot, becasue the prices were to high? Obviously not.
I think part of the problem with this is that we have been brain-washed by the media, by commericalism, into thinking that:
<ul>
a) There are things that we HAVE to have, beyond food, shelter, and clothing.....
b) We are special and deserve anything we want.......
c) material things will bring us happiness.......
</ul>
Kinda ironic if you think about it, in making us good little consumers, they set the stage for justifaction of what they see as theft.
As an aside I'd recomend thinking long and hard about those three points and you. I did and was disgusted by how much those three asumptions had invaded my life. You don't relise just what a hold they have on your life. I've never been happier since I've started to work on removing the influences of them on my life. It took a long time, but I think I'm almost there.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"WARNING:
It appears that you are offering copyrighted music to others from your computer. While we appreciate your love of music, please be aware that sharing copyrighted music on the Internet without permission from the copyright owner is illegal. Victims of this process are the artists, songwriters and musicians who create the music and the other talented individuals who are involved in bringing you the music.
More than 40,000 Canadians work hard producing and supporting the music you appear to enjoy, including producers, engineers, retailers, music publishers, distributors, manufacturers, record companies, concert promoters and broadcasters.
When you break the law, you risk legal penalties. There is a simple way to avoid that risk: Don't distribute music to others on a file-sharing system like this. For further information, please go to www.cria.ca.
Remember that you need music and music needs you"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->WTH has this world come to? the riaa has now gone after a girl cause she was downloading music and her mom payed a service fee to kazaa to download songs... they are a few of the almost 250 people who are getting sued 150,000 bucks a song (some settled for 3,000 o.O) but WTH why a little girl? Like she even knows WTH the RIAA is!?!?!?!? I just can't believe that they would do this. The mom payed a service fee even so they had no clue that wasn't valid (30 bucks)... this really makes me **** off about this whole music thing... there truely is no way to stop it cause there will always be some type of way to get music...
(P.S. note mods that i tried not to swear as much as I would like due to this news really **** me off <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->)
read <a href='http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,96797,00.html' target='_blank'>here</a> and then post your comments.... truely im outraged by this so what do you guys feel about this? Are they taking it too far? I think yes they frickkkin are
BTW intelligent comments only<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> srry it sounds like its a topic starter cause it was gonna be one <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"WARNING:
It appears that you are offering copyrighted music to others from your computer. While we appreciate your love of music, please be aware that sharing copyrighted music on the Internet without permission from the copyright owner is illegal. Victims of this process are the artists, songwriters and musicians who create the music and the other talented individuals who are involved in bringing you the music.
More than 40,000 Canadians work hard producing and supporting the music you appear to enjoy, including producers, engineers, retailers, music publishers, distributors, manufacturers, record companies, concert promoters and broadcasters.
When you break the law, you risk legal penalties. There is a simple way to avoid that risk: Don't distribute music to others on a file-sharing system like this. For further information, please go to www.cria.ca.
Remember that you need music and music needs you"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
rofl. If you had the workgroup/IP i'd net send them this tidbit "ROFL NUB"
Support independent labels (and stores), and rip off the big ones.
Simple enough, especially considering that (a) the majority of the music I like wouldn't be findable online reliably and (b) quite frankly independent labels carry much better music. My conscience is clear - I didn't stop buying records because I found ways to download music. I just stopped buying bad ones in overpriced stores.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What you also don't understand is that the more file sharing there is, the higher the prices will go. If the people are buying less, you have to sell for more to make more profit. Increased file sharing activity will eventualy make cds cost outrageously more.
But perhaps you could also say that the converse is worth exploring-- the lower the CD prices, the less people will file share.
Don't try to pretend that you'd buy a cd if it cost 9$ instead of 12$. It's a rather fair price, actually.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't pretend. I have. Case in point: Sparta, Wiretap Scars. A <i>terrific</i> album that I purchased for $9 in a <i>chain</i>. It was so good, and the price was so low, that in the following months, I purchased the cd for three of my friends. Had it cost over 10, I can say definitively that I would <b>not</b> have bought multiple copies, and if it had originally cost $18, I might not have purchased the first. There's something psychological about that figure, I guess.
At any rate, there are several factors here.
Is stealing music wrong? Certainly, but so is collusion (remember, capitalism is based upon <i>competition</i>). Considering that I own over 2,000 cds, and most (pre-amazon) were purchased at chains (since I didn't grow up near any good independent shops) I'd say it's likely that I bought (conservative estimates) 800 from stores where the major labels were enforcing <a href='http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,38103,00.html' target='_blank'>MAP</a>. Let's say that they were overcharging, oh, a dollar fifty per cd (anyone have a better figure than this? Please post if you do, this is a rough guess), then I overpaid by $1200. I'll take 1,200 mp3's for free, thank you very much. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Yes, I know there are a lot of other factors in there, and none of that would stand up in court, but I'm using the situation to illustrate a point-- there are valid reasons why a consumer wouldn't shed a tear for the RIAA.
I'll elaborate more later, but seriously-- the RIAA is known to fudge their figures in order to scapegoat file sharing for <i>all</i> their ills. I've seen studies (I'll try to find and post) which demonstrate that part of the reason for falling record sales is because the figures from previous years were inflated due to an ongoing media switch-- people upgrading tape and vinyl to CD. That can only last for so long before that reaches an equilibrium.
Nevermind that their lobbying efforts also include neat-o things like <a href='http://www.audiorevolution.com/news/0402/18.fritz.shtml' target='_blank'>this</a>, where they'd like <b>you</b> to pay for mandatory computer hardware which will allow them to-- rather than adapt or evolve-- continue to <i>enforce</i> their current, arrogant, fault-ridden business model.
God, those guys need to go. I've boycotted CDs for the last few months, with few illegal downloads-- been doing all my purchasing at used shops and my e-music account.
F 'em.
Before the wonders of mp3 came into my life I just listened to the TV or radio or stuff like that; I never bought Music and probably never will. It's nice to have a big collection of your own tunes but I was happy enough before I had it and I have been just as happy without thanks to a Harddrive crash =P
one thing that bothers me is that radio is free (aside from buying a radio that is ^^ ).
If you listen to a tune on the radio is that stealing? If you remember the tune and play it to yourself in your head, is that stealing? You sure as heck didn't pay for it that's for sure =3
I just find it weird because I've never had to pay for anything radio related aside from the hardware itself <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Let's see how much CD sales really effect their profit.
They need to go to her house, Beat her mom to death and send her little brother to the Chair!
Thats will learn her to DL music, cheap **** can't buy a CD, I mean come on, they are only 14.99 to 59.99.
If I was the president, I would kill anyone who did anything illigal.
You sneeze in church, someone will break your nose!
You don't tip 15%, someone will hack off your baby finger.
Extream punishment is the only way to deal with kids like this!
Why isn't the RIAA going after all the people who tape songs off the radio? That's sure as heck stealing.
Why isn't Blockbuster lobbying to ban the sale of two-deck VCRs?
Well, actually, the entertainment industry HAS gone after prior generations of "pirate" duplication technology - Xerox machines, audio cassetes, VHS tapes, CD-Rs, you name it. P2P is just the latest in a long line of scapegoats, and it just so happens that traceable P2P "supernodes" actually give the industry something they can attack.
This does not make P2P any more industry-crippling than any of those other duplication methods. I don't think I ever bought CDs before I started using Napster, for the simple reason that I didn't want to spend my hard-earned money on a CD (up to $20 for something that cost 5 cents to manufacture, give me a break) unless I knew I'd like at least two of the songs on it.
Frankly, the motivations behind this stuff baffles me. Does the industry actually think that prosecuting file-sharers will give them more money? Do they believe their own twisted figures that claim that once the file-sharers are in jail their profits will go UP? Are they that dumb?
I just find it weird because I've never had to pay for anything radio related aside from the hardware itself <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
No its the physcialy having the song (and mp3s are phyiscaly on your harddrive) with out paying for it that is illegal. It's not illegal to smell the food in a resturant as you pass by, it is to go in and take the food without paying for it.
And let me state again, saying that CD's are too expensive doesn't make it okay to download them, if you would have bought the CD or not. Music is a comodity, and whom ever owns it has the right to charge what ever they want. All the consumer can do is buy it or not buy it.
Saying its not the bulk of their income isn't valid either, you wouldn't like if someone decided that it was okay to take a portion of your money, just because it wasn't most of your money.
I agree the RIAA sucks, and music costs too much currently, and most of it isn't very good. So I listen to what I already have, listen to the radio, or do without.
Saying its not the bulk of their income isn't valid either, you wouldn't like if someone decided that it was okay to take a portion of your money, just because it wasn't most of your money. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The fundamental problem with arguments like this (and they are common) is that downloading a song is not the same as stealing money, because you have no actually taken anything AWAY from the store, the artist, or the label. It's akin to smelling the food in a restaurant and reverse-engineering the recipe based on that so you can cook it at home.
The only thing that is lost is the "hypothetical sale" that would have taken place had you purchased instead of copying. And the fact is, you can't really prove that the hypothetical sale would have ever taken place anyway. In many instances, in fact, the sale is MORE likely if the customer can copy the music from elsewhere, because then the customer can feel more comfortable with the purchase, already knowing what he/she is getting.
If you really wanted to, you could go to a library and photocopy an entire book. You'd be breaking the same laws that file sharers are breaking. Is it worth the book publishers prosecuting library patrons, installing cameras over xerox machines to ensure that nobody steps outside the bounds of "fair use"? No. Because it's silly.