The RIAA!!!!!!!!

[TrueSlide]

Iam sorry, I completely think the RIAA has completly gone outta control, desperate and fighting a battle in the end will probley lose, that was evident in them sueing a 12yr girl?!?!? The EFF(Electronic Frontier Foundation) has setup a online petition on their site, which is suppose to goto congress and hopefully get some stuff done.

Sign the petition at the EFF site:http://www.eff.org/share/petition/

Something to stop this abuse of rights/power the RIAA currently has. There is a better way to handle things then sueing your own customers.

*open to discussion*

[Jesda]

wtf is up with your signature.

Anyway, there's no reason to worry about the RIAA unless youre a 12 year old girl living in the projects.

-Jesda

[Nismo_Freak]

or some guy downloading songs the RIAA doesn't even record or sell......

[Nismo_Freak]

or some guy downloading songs the RIAA doesn't even record or sell......

[Nismo_Freak]

Holy double post batman!

[Cold_Zero]

Iam sorry, I completely think the RIAA has completly gone outta control, desperate and fighting a battle in the end will probley lose, that was evident in them sueing a 12yr girl?!?!? The EFF(Electronic Frontier Foundation) has setup a online petition on their site, which is suppose to goto congress and hopefully get some stuff done.

Sign the petition at the EFF site:http://www.eff.org/share/petition/

Something to stop this abuse of rights/power the RIAA currently has. There is a better way to handle things then sueing your own customers.

*open to discussion*

Trueslide-You know I agree with you on this. Lets also add the MPAA into the whole equation as well. I am sick of those stupid anti piracy commercials where people (not actors) that work in the movie industry are crying about how they are loosing money due to piracy. No they are just sticking up for Corporate Greed.

[Mr1der]

I'm waiting on them to kill some guy named Frank Castle's family, don't think we'll have to worry about them after that!

[fiznat]

people forget that online piracy still IS stealing... the music you're getting for free is a PRODUCT that is supposed to be paid for. there's a lot of argument saying that "well music is too expensive these days" and "the RIAA is just being greedy," but if a candy bar in a store costs more than you think it does, do you then have the right to just take it for free? no.

I mean, I download as much music as the next guy, but at least I dont try to make it sound like I'm justified in any way for doing it. The RIAA is sueing people as a scare tactic: christ they only tagged like 260 people (out of millions and millions), and to most of them they're offering their amnesty program that'll pretty much let them off scott free.

Think about it, if you were selling a product and people were stealing it, wouldnt you do pretty much the same thing? For every 12 year old that gets caught stealing, there are thousands and thousands more who are getting away for it every day... so quit crying about one "poor" girl. She got caught. Case closed.

[Mr1der]

I wonder how microsoft feels, not that I really care or anything...

Most of the time however, if I think the band I download is good enough and not some one hit wonder, I'll actually go out and buy the album, at the cheapest price possible of course, which sadly seems to be creeping closer and closer to 15 a piece...

[toki]

ok. a new CD costs $20. The total production costs is probably closer to $2 from start to finish, if that. If the managers, producers, record labels, shipping companies, distributors, etc wern't so GREEDY, the prices would be lower and I don't think anyone would have a problem with buying a CD. And oh, some artists just suck these days other than one single that someone likes to dance to, and instead of paying $7 for a single, they hop on kazaa. Legally is it stealing? Yes. Morally does anyone give a f***? NO. Why? Becuase it's generally not thought of as stealing. It's still illegal for women to wear pants in Arizona, you don't see anyone enforcing that, do you?

[Cold_Zero]

ok. a new CD costs $20. The total production costs is probably closer to $2 from start to finish, if that. If the managers, producers, record labels, shipping companies, distributors, etc wern't so GREEDY, the prices would be lower and I don't think anyone would have a problem with buying a CD.

Yes sir,That is called Collusion.

[Touchdown038]

It's still illegal for women to wear pants in Arizona, you don't see anyone enforcing that, do you?

How do you find out about a law like that?

[fiznat]

Morally does anyone give a f***? NO. Why? Becuase it's generally not thought of as stealing.

I guess if that makes you feel better man...

The fact is, you (and millions of others) are still stealing, even if it's "generally not thought of" as such. I think it's true that people do have some sort of an obgliation to keep merchants in check to make sure that they dont get greedy, but I think - ideally - those feelings should be expressed through boycotting and public information rather than simply TAKING the product.

YOU dont know how much it really costs to put out a CD, nor do I think you fully understand the economic factors that are involved when people just decide to steal instead of pay...

Like I said before, I download music all the time also, so it's not like I think I'm above everyone or anything, I just think it's funny when people try to act like they're some sort of moral visionary out to teach the RIAA not to be greedy. Please. People saw an oppertunity to get music for free and they took it. I think this would happen regardless of how much a CD cost.

[toki]

you're a fvcking idiot. sometimes things are too retarded to enforce. remember the guy who invented and patented HTTP, went to court and got laughed out? YOU DO YOU REALIZE EVERY TIME EVERYONE CLICKS A LINK THEY ARE STEALING, RIGHT?! RIGHT?! I MEAN I CLICK LINKS TOO SO I DONT THINK I'M ABOVE EVERYONE. If no one cares, and no one other than the people who THINK they need $100million rather than $90million a year, those people are the only ones who care, and honestly no one gives a s*** about them making an even more insane amount of money. The point to all this is, sometimes people don't have the resources to buy a CD, so if someone else can provide it for them, why not? Alot of people still buy CDs, and there is no conclusive unbiased results that show ANY WHAT SO EVER significant change in people buying CDs. Artists arn't suffering and neither is any one else down the chain of greed, and honestly, if you stick up for these people then you deserve a swift kick in the face just like they do.

[fiznat]

relax buddy, it's just a friendly argument.

anyways:

Alot of people still buy CDs, and there is no conclusive unbiased results that show ANY WHAT SO EVER significant change in people buying CDs.

hangon for just a second, the New York Times had an article about this a couple days ago, along with some graphs showing that very decline in sales that you say doesn't exist. I'm sure you read the paper every day though, and you already knew that. Hangon, Ill make it nice and easy for you and put the graph up...

[fiznat]

Okay I'm having some trouble finding the graph, I'm not sure they post them on the NYT website, but here's a direct quote from the article:

Quote »from the New York Times, September 8, 2003 "]The music industry says file-sharing is a violation of copyright laws and blames the practice for a three-year decline in compact disc music sales, which have dropped 31 percent drop since mid-2000[/quote]

Dropped 31% since mid 2000. I'd say that's pretty conclusive.

[pstickne]

fiznat, maybe everyone is listening to the [satellite] radio? :icesangel

[fiznat]

heh whatever they're doing, it blows my mind how uninformed (or even misinformed) people really are. christ, is it that hard to read the newspaper??

[Cold_Zero]

I will remind everyone that this is a friendly discussion. I will comment later, I have Repoman and his wife coming over for dinner.

bud

[lessthanjakejohn]

I'd say that downloading music is NOT illegal, but letting people download from you is.

[Aztek72]

you're a fvcking idiot.

Quite clever aren't you?

I work in the recording industry so I'll testify to the fact that record sales are in decline as a result of file-sharing software.

Here are some facts to chew on:

The bigger the corporation, the less a CD costs to manufacture and the easier it is to market. The big labels like Sony, Interscope, Geffen, etc. do everything from recording the tracks, mixing to printing the CD's in-house. Smaller labels like the one I work for and independent artists alike rely on outsourcing and send their master copies to printing houses which run-out batches of thousands of CD's. Everything from the CD cover art to the CD design itself is produced by a third-party design team OR the CD printing house may have integrated services and can do it for you.

Say if I have a fledgling band signed on and we're producing their first album. To test the waters, we get the print-house to produce 10,000 copies and that ends up costing $14,000. Because this is a band that lacks exposure, the best we can do is sell them for $6.00. That leaves a profit margin of ONLY $5.60 per disc and there's no guarantee all units will be moved. Not split up the cost between the label and a band subsequently has to split the cost between multiple members and you can see why lots of artists are lamenting over file-sharing.

2) File-sharing can damage independents and small labels, big time. Note that not all musicians in the music industry are signed on big labels. From your posts you seem to assume all artists rake in millions from every CD they put out. Nothing could be further from the truth. Niche labels like ours cater to indie bands who'd be lucky to sell 20k copies of their albums.

Your tirade against the record industry as a whole is unfair and your facts are egregiously distorted. There's this thing called research, you might wanna give it a try next time.

[Aztek72]

That said, the RIAA has gone off the deep end with their tactics. We need to come to a resolution that's mutually beneficial for all parties, music labels, artists AND consumers.

[BaliLover]

Down 30% Since 2000 huh? TAKE A LOOK AT THE REST OF THE ECONOMY. At our shop, we're down almost 70% since 2000, the major shop across the street is down 70% in since 2002.... Is this because of file-sharing? IS filesharing effecting the bodyshops of Florida?Of course their charts will show their profits down, everyones is.

What if a song is played on the radio and I record it? Is that illegal? I didn't pay for the song, I simply took what was being provided free of charge. Even if I didn't copy it, the radio waves were invading my space free of charge. Say I do copy the song, then digitize it and put it on my computer. Is this illegal? The song was provided to me free of charge via the radio stations and I'm providing it free of charge to other people.

[Touchdown038]

Well put, Aztek.

Personally, I wouldn't mind paying a one-time fee for a download of a good song, as long as it was legal and you had a way to back it up. Maybe that's what coming next instead of CD's.

[fiznat]

Well said, Aztek

I agree that the RIAA needs to come to a better solution than simply sueing random people, but I also understand their need to show people that they're serious about the issue. I think some houses are heading in the right direction by lowering CD prices (shoot I forgot which company was doing that, but you should know what I'm talking about), so I like that there is agreement that there is a problem as far as demand and pricing in the system. It's not "us versus them" really, try to be a little more open minded than that.

[fiznat]

Down 30% Since 2000 huh? TAKE A LOOK AT THE REST OF THE ECONOMY. At our shop, we're down almost 70% since 2000, the major shop across the street is down 70% in since 2002.... Is this because of file-sharing?

That's a good point, I agree that there are other factors to consider. But honestly though man, do you REALLY think that the avaibility of FREE MUSIC to anyone with an internet connection hasnt hurt the music industry?? Seriously, if there was some guy giving out free oil changes across the street, dont you think that would hurt your shop?? It just makes sense this way. If you want to argue about where that 30% came from and all the various economic factors that might have contribuited to the number, we'll be here all month working out the numbers. You can boil it down to this: if I walk around my 30,000-student campus right now, I guarantee I'll be LUCKY to find someone that has purchaced a CD within the last month. There really is no "need" to pay for something that you can easially get for free.

Quote » What if a song is played on the radio and I record it? Is that illegal? I didn't pay for the song, I simply took what was being provided free of charge. Even if I didn't copy it, the radio waves were invading my space free of charge. Say I do copy the song, then digitize it and put it on my computer. Is this illegal? The song was provided to me free of charge via the radio stations and I'm providing it free of charge to other people. [/quote]

The logistics of copywriting (and enforcing) intellectual material will always be complicated I think. I'm no expert: just a guy with an opinion, I admit this. I just feel like there are people working hard to produce this product, and lots of money goes into promotion and other things to get it public... It's a PRODUCT just like anything else is, and taking it for free just doesn't seem right.

[BaliLover]

If it were truly the artists getting ripped by the RI, I might feel sympathetic, but when all these lawsuits are said and done, how much of the money will go to the artist?

My argument has always been, that there is no where you can go to preview a CD before you buy it if it's not something popular. You can't go to the music store and ask to listen to just any CD before you buy now can you? Suppose you buy this CD, listen to it one time and realize it's garbage. Can you take it back because you are unsatisfied?

There are very few things in this world that you can't take back if you aren't satisfied with them. Even food products can be sent back to the manufacturer if you aren't completely satisfied. With DVDs, at least I can rent it for $3-$4 and see if I really want to buy it, software offers you free demos, but CDs offer nothing. You can't preview them, you can't return them, and you can't sell them for anything close to what you paid.

They offer no way to see what exactly you're buying, and there is no recourse if the CD has one hit and 10 POS songs. Talk to some older people, say, in their 60s. Ask about record stores and what they were like. From what I've found you used to be able to walk into a record store and ask to listen to any record on the shelf before you bought it, can't exactly do that now can you?

Hell, I can buy a toothbrush, bring it home and realize it doesn't work that good, or its too hard on my gums, and return it if I really want to. Even a slightly used roll of toilet paper can be returned. But a CD that can be more than 2 hours work for someone to buy, cannot be.

[fiznat]

They offer no way to see what exactly you're buying, and there is no recourse if the CD has one hit and 10 POS songs. Talk to some older people, say, in their 60s. Ask about record stores and what they were like. From what I've found you used to be able to walk into a record store and ask to listen to any record on the shelf before you bought it, can't exactly do that now can you?

Heh, evidence that you havn't been in a record store lately.

Go to a Sam Goody or a FYE or Best Buy or Virgin or any big record store like that and they have computers now that you scan the UPC code on the back of the CD, and you can listen to the whole thing on a set of headphones that they provide. It's decently new - the store in my town has had this system for about a year and a half - so maybe you havn't seen it yet I donno...

As far as returning a CD, I'm sure that you cant because then everyone would just buy the cd, copy it, and then return it. It's the same reason why you can't return used software or anything like that: because there are too many dishonest people who know how to use technology to their advantage. This is nothing new man: you cant return a used newspaper, can you? What about used scratch tickets or phone cards?? There are so many more examples if you think about it...

Again, it's not like the music industry is out to sucker you into buying a product that you cant preview or return: it's just the nature of the CD.

[Cold_Zero]

Here are some facts to chew on:

The bigger the corporation, the less a CD costs to manufacture and the easier it is to market. The big labels like Sony, Interscope, Geffen, etc. do everything from recording the tracks, mixing to printing the CD's in-house. Smaller labels like the one I work for and independent artists alike rely on outsourcing and send their master copies to printing houses which run-out batches of thousands of CD's. Everything from the CD cover art to the CD design itself is produced by a third-party design team OR the CD printing house may have integrated services and can do it for you.

Say if I have a fledgling band signed on and we're producing their first album. To test the waters, we get the print-house to produce 10,000 copies and that ends up costing $14,000. Because this is a band that lacks exposure, the best we can do is sell them for $6.00. That leaves a profit margin of ONLY $5.60 per disc and there's no guarantee all units will be moved. Not split up the cost between the label and a band subsequently has to split the cost between multiple members and you can see why lots of artists are lamenting over file-sharing.

2) File-sharing can damage independents and small labels, big time. Note that not all musicians in the music industry are signed on big labels. From your posts you seem to assume all artists rake in millions from every CD they put out. Nothing could be further from the truth. Niche labels like ours cater to indie bands who'd be lucky to sell 20k copies of their albums.

Your tirade against the record industry as a whole is unfair and your facts are egregiously distorted. There's this thing called research, you might wanna give it a try next time.

1. Your first example shows only one side of the picture. If you sign a fledgling band and they make it big, so does your company. I doubt that your small artists are the ones constantly being downloaded on Kazaa and other gnutella software programs. I feel confident it is the big artists that are downloaded, like Britney Spears, Korn, Shania Twain....

2. What about the fact that some of the smaller artist use file sharing to get their music out to the public? Because the bigger corporations are "loosing money" to file sharing they want to quash the ability for smaller artists to share their music and build a fan base? Public Enemy a few years back put all their music out on the Internet free of charge. They were sued by their record label for doing so. They (PE) decided to give their music away for free and THEIR OWN record label sued them. You cant tell me that a portion of this issue is not based on Corporate Greed.

Is file sharing illegal? Yes. Is it stealing? Yes. But what I find funny is the fact that the Music Industry felt the same way about the Radio and Tape Players. They had everyone convinced that these mediums of communication would put them out of business and hurt the artists. What happened? Radio became an instant form of getting music out to the masses. Before MTV, you had to release your music on the radio and get airtime before you made it big. Now you have to promote your new music on MTV.

I also find it unconscionable that the RIAA acts like the artists are the victims in this case and that they are looking out for the artists’ best interest. Let us remember that it was these same record labels in the 40's and the 50's that signed African American artists to deals where they never saw one penny of their royalties. They produced the music for them and then put white faces in front of the Camera for the American public to see. Very few African American artists made it big in this time period that had anything to show for it at the end of their career. Most died broke or still owing the record labels.

I have no pity for record labels that want to cry about how unfair file sharing is and how it will put an end to music, as we know it. The Corporations don’t want to have to change or adapt to technology and society. They have gotten together and conspired to keep CD prices high and now they have been sued for it and have to give money back to the consumers. Instead of manipulating the technology and using it for their gain, they choose to use their draconian methods to put a stop to it. I have a great idea, offer a product that competes with files haring that is easier to use, sounds better and has more choices than Kazaa or any other program.

[Cold_Zero]

The logistics of copywriting (and enforcing) intellectual material will always be complicated I think. I'm no expert: just a guy with an opinion, I admit this. I just feel like there are people working hard to produce this product, and lots of money goes into promotion and other things to get it public... It's a PRODUCT just like anything else is, and taking it for free just doesn't seem right.

It is also illegal to make back up copies of the CD's that you buy. The big Corporations claim that you buy one license when you buy that CD. Copying it to a MP3 player or CD for a mixed compelation is illegal. You would think that after shelling out $15 for a CD you could do what you wanted to with that music.