The Riaa
Perdition
Join Date: 2004-07-02 Member: 29692Members
Join Date: 2004-07-02 Member: 29692Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">What's your take?</div> Well, a new discussion for you all. Might not be Grade A material, becuase most people hate the RIAA, but I wanted to know what everyone thinks of them. Personally i'm disgusted by the way they would sue their own mothers if they caught them downloading...well...anything for that matter.
Here is a little quote I got from www.boycott-riaa.com.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Fact is, not to many people today have read the Declaration since High School, or have read it in High School for that matter.
We have a government that is abusing the powers that WE THE PEOPLE have given them. They have decided, sometime within the last 100 years; that it isn´t WE THE PEOPLE but WE THE CORPORATIONS, who is who they really serve at this point.
When government becomes abusive to the point that they are a threat to the population of this great nation the Constitution gives us two choices, either 1) scrap it all and start over or 2) vote the bastards out, a silent revolution if you will.
Jefferson once said that every generation needs a revolution and that those who would trade their freedoms for security deserve neither.
In this day we find the course of human events once more screaming for Americans to once more step up and defend the world. There is an evil loose in the world, an evil possibly as great if not worse than that which was loose during WWII.
We have a right and a responsibility, to ourselves and to the world, to destroy the enemies of our great nation, both foreign and domestic. When Americans band together and act in righteousness, history shows that we cannot fail.
Amen.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I't felt rather appropriate and truthful. Once again, I just wanna see what you all think of the RIAA.
(I did do a search to see if there were any previous topics about this, and I found none.)
Here is a little quote I got from www.boycott-riaa.com.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Fact is, not to many people today have read the Declaration since High School, or have read it in High School for that matter.
We have a government that is abusing the powers that WE THE PEOPLE have given them. They have decided, sometime within the last 100 years; that it isn´t WE THE PEOPLE but WE THE CORPORATIONS, who is who they really serve at this point.
When government becomes abusive to the point that they are a threat to the population of this great nation the Constitution gives us two choices, either 1) scrap it all and start over or 2) vote the bastards out, a silent revolution if you will.
Jefferson once said that every generation needs a revolution and that those who would trade their freedoms for security deserve neither.
In this day we find the course of human events once more screaming for Americans to once more step up and defend the world. There is an evil loose in the world, an evil possibly as great if not worse than that which was loose during WWII.
We have a right and a responsibility, to ourselves and to the world, to destroy the enemies of our great nation, both foreign and domestic. When Americans band together and act in righteousness, history shows that we cannot fail.
Amen.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I't felt rather appropriate and truthful. Once again, I just wanna see what you all think of the RIAA.
(I did do a search to see if there were any previous topics about this, and I found none.)
Comments
*Edit spelling <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->*
I like something for nothing as much as the next guy, but I do understand that the point of business is to make money. You getting a product or service is simply a means to this goal. It's like ripping off the kid who shovels your driveway in the winter.
Of course, that didn't stop me from finding several gigabytes worth of patterened sound oscillations. I don't like children on my property.
Theres a good reason people warez/download mp3's/etc, For the fact its almost an accepted defense against the greedmongers. I wouldn't mind the RIAA so much if they realized no matter what they do the underground will survive. I warez games before I buy them. Why? Because business figures "Why release a demo when we can just sucker them into getting it, and because they cant return it we win!" If all games had to release a demo before shipping I think that would make up for the slack.
About the RIAA? I think theyre just greedmongers who want that 5th or 6th yacht this year and can't afford the 6th. THose poor babies. <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Lawsuit > CD
All that will be left are the people who are serious about filesaharing, who do it as a political statement, and those aren't the people the RIAA is trying to stop with these lawsuits.
Also, it's a buisness. They've got the right to earn money. Sure, it might not be ethical, but this country was founded on the ideal of giving people economic freedom, not equality. They'll burn in hell, but it's not legally wrong.
Lawsuit > CD
All that will be left are the people who are serious about filesaharing, who do it as a political statement, and those aren't the people the RIAA is trying to stop with these lawsuits.
Also, it's a buisness. They've got the right to earn money. Sure, it might not be ethical, but this country was founded on the ideal of giving people economic freedom, not equality. They'll burn in hell, but it's not legally wrong. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
And he is right.
I've based a lot of what I do in life on ethics and morals. People without either of these drive me insane, they make me absolutely furious.
If an artist (Though I dare call some crap on the radio today art) wants to sign the rights to THEIR music over to a publisher/ producer, that's their choice. If said publisher wants to sue someone for copying and STEALING their music, more power to them.
If an artist (Though I dare call some crap on the radio today art) wants to sign the rights to THEIR music over to a publisher/ producer, that's their choice. If said publisher wants to sue someone for copying and STEALING their music, more power to them. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The manner in which they do things is very unethical. Suing families because their 12 year old daughter was downloading music.
I remember the day when minors got away with harmless crimes like that. It isnt like the band sees much more than a few cents for every record they sell...so don't try to give me the crap about putting bands out of business, either. Plenty of Indie bands do just fine.
*edit spelling*
*edit spelling* <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Since when has age been an acceptable excuse for violating the law? Parents should be looking after what their kids do online. Ignorance of the law has never been an applicable defense anywhere in the world.
Of course it's a crusade for the dollar. They're in business to make money, not deliver warm fuzzies via the Internet because, gosh darnit, you're a good person and people like you.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Then how do you feel about the fact I have no way 70% of the time to try a software product without buying, then if Im dissapointed have no way to return it as most if not all retailers deny it. Their policy is "return for exact item"
Theres a good reason people warez/download mp3's/etc, For the fact its almost an accepted defense against the greedmongers. I wouldn't mind the RIAA so much if they realized no matter what they do the underground will survive. I warez games before I buy them. Why? Because business figures "Why release a demo when we can just sucker them into getting it, and because they cant return it we win!" If all games had to release a demo before shipping I think that would make up for the slack.
About the RIAA? I think theyre just greedmongers who want that 5th or 6th yacht this year and can't afford the 6th. THose poor babies.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then don't buy a product that you can't try first. You could always use word of mouth reviews or reputable reviewers for various software review companies, too. I don't see why you're jumping in without looking, then complaining that you hurt yourself on the shallow end of the pool. I don't usually purchase a game without reading several reviews from game sites and people on message boards I frequent with similar tastes. As a result, I haven't been too disappointed with my game purchases in a long while. The same goes with software.
Musicians do release demos. They're called music videos. If you don't care for the visual medium, there's still the radio and good ol' fashioned word-of-mouth. I've been listening to a lot of streaming internet radio lately and I've already lined up a few purchases I'll be making or requesting for the Christmas season, because we all know the baby Jesus loves it when we stimulate the economy with rampant consumerism.
Within our current framework of intellectual property, I agree that the RIAA's actions are completely ethical. We have a well defined concept of intellectual property, and it includes the right to control copies of works regardless of their form.
I'm not convinced though that this is the correct framework for dealing with intellectual property however. In every other industry in history, after the initial disruption period in which everyone is figuring out what to do with the new technology, the product ends up being produced as cheaply as it can and for the widest possible audience. Competition ensures that in the long run, no one can really be ripped off because someone will do it better and cheaper.
The current situation doesn't correspond well to any historical analogues. Rather than improving the backend processes and making something cheaper, or bringing a new type of product to the market, what we have here is a completely new method of distribution. Clearly the most effective way to get digital content to people is P2P. Its so efficient that millions of people do it for themselves in their spare time.
Though it is nice and clean to stick to the old rules, I can't help but think that we are ruling out a new type of economy that could be a truly beautiful thing. We clearly have the technology to get music to anyone who wants it in whatever quantity they want. Should we abandon this just to preserve the old economic structures? I think if America tries to back away from this possibility, not only will we be missing out on an earth shattering opportunity, we will also fall drastically behind the rest of the world, particularly south east asia, in which the idea of copyright doesn't have much of a cultural foothold. That said, I don't have the foggiest idea how to implement this.
It is true that they have the right to sue the pants off anyone who pirates music as the law is on their side, but morally every intellectual property theft is actually justified. This is because the major RIAA partaker companies do to artists what pirates do to the record companies, but tenfold. It is impossible to discuss RIAA without taking a look at their major members' practices.
Someone here mentioned that "if an artist wants to sign the rights of their music over to the publisher...". This is not an option. If you want to be signed on the major companies, you must consent to the fact that they own what they publish and they decide how it's used. This leads to situations that can be insulting to the artists, like when the record company decided to allow the All Saints cover of Red Hot Chili Peppers' "Under the Bridge" to be published. Anybody who knows what the song is about can probably understand why the decision made the vocalist Anthony Kiedis very angry.
Most of the time young artists and bands realize too late that they are dealing with wolves, not people. The major companies have talent scouts on the field looking for new bands. Since suits are intimidating, the A&R people of today are young guys, about the age of the guys in the bands they are talking to. The idea is to make the A&R rep look like a person the band can trust; someone of whom they can say "he's like us and he's on our side". In truth, even the younger A&R agents have no idea that instead of helping a band get its music out there, they are just taking lambs to the slaughter.
It is in fact possible, and not altogether uncommon, to sell millions of copies of an album and still end up in debt to the record company. If you want to know how, see <a href='http://www.negativland.com/albini.html' target='_blank'>here</a> for an article where producer/recording engineer Steve Albini explains why it doesn't pay off to be in a rock band.
While it is legally right for the RIAA member companies to attack pirates who share their music, in reality they are just getting what they deserve for profiteering off people who thought the companies actually cared about them, even if just a bit. Even the cocaine market is more honest to the original maker of the unprocessed product and the enduser than the music industry. Even the copyright laws are set up to protect the companies, not the actual artists.
As for myself, I am just happy that over 90% of the music I buy (and I buy a lot) has no affiliation to the major labels or RIAA (or other alike organizations), and as such I am not supporting their racket.
Quoted, because it's true.
If an artist (Though I dare call some crap on the radio today art) wants to sign the rights to THEIR music over to a publisher/ producer, that's their choice. If said publisher wants to sue someone for copying and STEALING their music, more power to them. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Fleecing the consumer is never ethical. The simple fact is, music today is (even with the recent steps taken) still overpriced to the point of ridiculousness, and artists get paid jack squat. If the RIAA is allowed to use these un-ethical means to make money, then I should be able to use the non-ethical means of theivery to combat them. Same goes for the movie industry, and software.
Different amounts of money, still the same thing. I just used an extreme example. The prices of music aren't going to change because people are pirating music rather than buying it, if anything, short sighting producers are going to increase the costs to cover their losses.
Legally, the RIAA do nothing wrong. If you want to get them to lower CD prices and so on, bouycott them. Just don't buy any new music, and get everyone you know to do the same. Sooner or later they'll have to drop the prices. Stealing is stealing, just because you think it's right doesn't mean that it is. Especially since this is a luxury item (music), not something you need. I mean if you were starving and a loaf of bread cost $100, it'd make sense to nick one, but you don't need music.
Hi, welcome the real world, where corporations own artists. The only way, until the Internet came about, for artists to make any money was to wh0r3 themselves out to corporations who give them the money, the name of a producer, and the radio time, as long as the artist signs over their entire musical existence. When a record company can sue you for sounding too much like yourself, there's clearly a power issue.
As an independent artist, I know the score. There are some cases where bands are signed to a big name label <i>just so another record company cannot sign them</i>. These bands don't go anywhere, don't ever get successful, don't ever get the monetary support they need, and cannot leave without their arbitrary 5 year, 5 album contract being fulfilled.
The RIAA represents an abuse of capitalism in my book, and the internet is its deadlist adversary. Welcome the Internet Revolution. May the RIAA be crushed.
Edit: The swear filter on this forum is rediculous.
Copyright infringement is not stealing. I'm not arguing that it is morally correct, but it is a fundamentally different thing.
Suppose you steal A.
You now have A. Someone else doesn't have A.
Suppose you infringe the Copyright on A.
You now have A.
They are on completely different tiers, and our moral analysis should reflect this.
Different amounts of money, still the same thing. I just used an extreme example. The prices of music aren't going to change because people are pirating music rather than buying it, if anything, short sighting producers are going to increase the costs to cover their losses.
Legally, the RIAA do nothing wrong. If you want to get them to lower CD prices and so on, bouycott them. Just don't buy any new music, and get everyone you know to do the same. Sooner or later they'll have to drop the prices. Stealing is stealing, just because you think it's right doesn't mean that it is. Especially since this is a luxury item (music), not something you need. I mean if you were starving and a loaf of bread cost $100, it'd make sense to nick one, but you don't need music. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, that example isn't even correct.
A more correct example would be this:
A huge corporation owns the entire computer industry. A band of thieves raids a corporate warehouse full of top of the line computers that are rediculously overpriced. The thieves bring the computers to another warehouse, where normal people like you and I can pick them up for free.
Now, was I involved with the stealing? Did I actually go into the company's warehouse and physically steal the computer myself? No, I did not.
A huge corporation owns the entire computer industry. A band of thieves raids a corporate warehouse full of top of the line computers that are rediculously overpriced. The thieves bring the computers to another warehouse, where normal people like you and I can pick them up for free.
Now, was I involved with the stealing? Did I actually go into the company's warehouse and physically steal the computer myself? No, I did not. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This example isn't even correct.
Here is a more correct version. (corrected cause even my last attempt wasn't accurate enough)
A huge corporation owns the entire computer industry. You know someone who has a computer, and you go over to his house to look at it. You figure out exactly how it is built and build one yourself.
Copy-right infringement is the same as if you walked down the street and saw something you wanted and magically a copy appeared infront of you.. Hardly stealing..
A huge corporation owns the entire computer industry. A band of thieves raids a corporate warehouse full of top of the line computers that are rediculously overpriced. The thieves bring the computers to another warehouse, where normal people like you and I can pick them up for free.
Now, was I involved with the stealing? Did I actually go into the company's warehouse and physically steal the computer myself? No, I did not. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This example isn't even correct.
Here is a more correct version. (corrected cause even my last attempt wasn't accurate enough)
A huge corporation owns the entire computer industry. You know someone who has a computer, and you go over to his house to look at it. You figure out exactly how it is built and build one yourself. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
This example doesn't work.
That would be like listening to the song and then reproducing it to sound exactly the same for yourself (which isn't really possible, but that's how your example is).
I'm just not appreciating the RIAA's absurd profit margins. It takes about $3 [<a href='http://www.wecopy.com/cdpricing.html' target='_blank'>Source</a> - does not include CD inserts, which would be about $.50 more...and this is a company trying to make a profit itself]. even on a $10 CD (which is about the cheapest you can get) that's a huge profit.
Boycotting them is not feasible. Most stores aren't going to let you on their property to influence people not to buy things. You'll get no media attention and the RIAA would probably try to sue you even if you did.
Even if it is ethical and fiscally sound - it sounds a lot like a monoply to me - if you only have one price source to go with (though it's not).
The thing about warez that you need to remember is: most of what people download they wouldn't buy anyway. I have quite a few songs on this computer (10% from my CDs, 60% from other people's CDs). But because I download "Generic Rock Song #1, by Generic Rock Band" doesn't mean I was going to buy the whole "Generic Rock CD!!!". The same why the games I have on my computer are solely for LANs, out of print or not worth buying.
[no, that doesn't make it any less illegal, but that does mean sueing someone for downloading stuff means you shouldn't really get anything out of them anyway]
...I own about 6 CDs, and I don't really plan on buying any for a while...everyone sucks <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> . There...now I've thrown some info and opinions out there for you <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> .
That would be like listening to the song and then reproducing it to sound exactly the same for yourself (which isn't really possible, but that's how your example is). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good point. Here's another shot at it.
A huge corporation owns the entire computer industry. You know someone who has a computer, and you go over to his house to look at it. You also happen to have a machine that can scan random objects and produce exact copies using nanites(!). You have your device duplicate the computer and take it back to your house.