Old 25th June 2003, 20:22   #81
papadoc
Comfortably Numb
(Forum King)
 
papadoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 4,612
Well...The RIAA has proven my point once again,
that the lawsuit against those college kids was not about money.
(Funny how they keep doing that)
They've released a press statement today stating they are now ready
to legally come after you, by collecting data about you
and your system, as evidence to use against you.
Yes you personally, at your home, or wherever you sit behind
a computer and download music.
They'll find you and send your ISP a letter to release your name.
Because of that one lawsuit against those students,
your ISP is now legally obligated to give the RIAA your name
and your address.
And all this starts tomorrow.
Now that they have that one lawsuit in their favor,
(starting to get the picture?)
they're wasting no time coming after you.

Also Washington Post Story

Last edited by papadoc; 25th June 2003 at 20:57.
papadoc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th June 2003, 21:14   #82
Cylob
Forum Music King
(Forum King)
 
Cylob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: The Future
Posts: 7,175
Well, I wouldn't co-operate (seriously). I'd have to be arrested. My kids will understand.

Secret Snacker & Accomplished Pen Thief At:
Cylob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th June 2003, 03:02   #83
ShyShy
Amazon Bush Woman
Forum Queen
 
ShyShy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Sticks, Queensland
Posts: 8,067
damn... i wonder how many people will be hacking into their system because of this. techno war has been declared and it's going to get reaaaalllll nasty.
ShyShy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th June 2003, 04:55   #84
knowmadic
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 7
Quote:
I'm finding myself wanting to support DRM, and the DMCA (how ironic), and let's force computer manufacturers to put chips that fucking force the assholes of the world like YOU to pay for some fucking music! And let's raise CD prices to $200! That way, you're fucked, the artists are fucked, and the record companies have to pay 198.50 in taxes per CD so that the government can ensure that every computer has mandatory DRM! AND EVERYONE IS FUCKED, BECAUSE ALL THE STUPID FUCKS LIKE YOU CAN'T SHELL OUT FIFTEEN FUCKING DOLLARS FOR A FUCKING CD!
This goes to mr. xzxxxzxzzyzxzx. i seriously do not appreciate your rudeness directed towards me. you sound seriously pissed off and you need to chill out. are you fighting to prove you're right or something?? because obviously, there's A SINGLE CORRECT OPINION ON THE SUBJECT AND IT'S YOURS. AM I RIGHT? shit, you're the stupid fuck for getting so angry in a freaking forum. and plus, you don't know me. not everyone's as wealthy as you, being able to just go out and pay $15 every time they like the sound of some fucking music. it makes you sound like a SPOILED LITTLE BRAT, because it sounds like that's what you do. for some people, downloading free music may be the only way they can get a listen to their favorite artists. did you ever think of that? maybe you should be more considerate and stop being such a pissy little bitch. seriously chill out dickhead. besides, my opinion is my opinion, and yours is yours. PERIOD.
knowmadic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th June 2003, 16:44   #85
papadoc
Comfortably Numb
(Forum King)
 
papadoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 4,612
@xzxzzx and knowmadic:
We've tried to keep this thread civilised and as mature as possible.
That's why I post in it and not the one in General Discussions.
If you two want to go at each other do it in that one, please.
Because once a thread goes in the toilet, I refuse to be a part of it anymore.
I'd hate to think I've wasted all my effort here,
in bringing thoughtful posts and relevant links to everyone,
just to get turned off by silly uncalled for flames and attacks,
which give no credit to this debate.
Now that you've both had your swipes at each other,
lets leave it at that, please?
Thanks!

papadoc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th June 2003, 19:12   #86
xzxzzx
Forum King
 
xzxzzx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 7,254
I say what is on my mind, and what I figure will be effective on getting my point across. I've had this argument time and time again, and it *does* piss me off, having unethical people steal other's hard work. It has, of course, nothing to do with the media the idea is presented on. Actually, I'm 17 years old, and don't get a dime from my parents, except indirectly (food and shelter). I pay for all my CDs (etc) myself, WORKING. Unless you're under 15, you can work, at least 3 hours/day, in most states (40 during the summer), as far as I know. Isn't 3½ hours of minimum wage work worth, say, 10,000 hours of the artist's time, and $200,000 of the artist's money?

Anyway, back to the more generalized topic:

As you might have noticed in my signature, I am firmly against the DMCA. I think it's pretty clear that if the RIAA had it's way completely, then every device that could record music would check for a watermark, etc. Basically, total DRM. And the DMCA is the first step, making it illegal to get around the 'copyright protection'. Personally, I would like to keep my fair use rights, thank you. I'm also not a fan of the government putting a chip in anything, whether it be my brain or my PC or my walkman.

http://www.fatchucks.com/z3.cd.html

Here is a nice list of hundreds of CDs that are not CDs. There is one reason why these CD protections are effective: The DMCA. Do you think, for one minute, that between a firmware change and a special piece of software, *ANY* of these protections couldn't be gotten around? NO.

But with the DMCA, that is illegal. Even LINKING to a site that you can get that from (tools to get around copy protection) is illegal. Down with the DMCA!

Freedom of speech is the basic freedom of humanity. When you've lost that, you've lost everything.
1\/\/4y 34|<$p4y 1gp4y 33714y, 0d4y 0uy4y? | Roses are #FF0000; Violets are #0000FF; chown -R ${YOU} ~/base
The DMCA. It really is that bad. : Count for your life.
xzxzzx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th June 2003, 20:34   #87
Janus Lunar
Space: 1 Pilot: 0
(Senior Member)
 
Janus Lunar's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Chronopolis (AD 55358)
Posts: 320
Send a message via AIM to Janus Lunar Send a message via Yahoo to Janus Lunar
xzxzzx:

I am legally blind and thus getting a job in my general area is next to impossible (DragonSon can back me up on this) so for those of us that are in effect disabled downloading free music is the ONLY option!

And not everyone has a lack of ethics....... unlike the RIAA

"Love is what you make of it, if you wish it to last for all time, then you must be willing to risk it all for the one you love."

- Sean T. Wiliams (1983 - )
Janus Lunar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th June 2003, 00:22   #88
papadoc
Comfortably Numb
(Forum King)
 
papadoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 4,612
Today the RIAA and the Music Industry (?) took out a full page ad
in the New York Times, trying their best to justify their actions.

Article

I've recreated the ad as it was printed in the Times,
so you can judge for yourself:

Ad.pdf

Personally, I think these shotgun scare tactics
are going to backfire on them.
The future is going to be interesting to say the least.
papadoc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th June 2003, 02:21   #89
sq3ak
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1
um, lotsa stuff

Well, I been following these posts for some time now and its kinda interesting so I thought I'd drop in my 2 cents worth...

First, I gotta admit I'm sorta in the middle as far as being pro- or anti- as far as P2P music sharing goes. Personally, I think P2P is genius, theres just so many opportunities for its positive use. In a way its sad to see that the most widespread use of the networks is basically to get something for nothing.
Having said that, I do download music from it, but I also buy a helluva lot of CDs too. I use Kazaa etc mainly in order to find out about bands that I've heard about but haven't actually heard. I also get the odd song where I like the song but aren't so keen on the rest of the work by the artist.

As far as the RIAA goes, is it power or money they're after? I think both really. Money basically buys you power, but my gut feeling is that they're not really out for world domination, they just want to make money, same as any other business.
I don't think anyone really buys the idea that they are simply protecting artist's copyrights. They're in it for the money, same as any other business, because at the end of the day, they basically ARE a business. On the other hand, I think they probably underestimated the resistance they'd encounter. I don't think they will ever win their fight, how can they? Theres millions of P2P users out there, and half of them won't care if its deemed illegal... as far as tracking users through some kind of spyware and the like, no chance - there'll always be cracks and patches available. The amount of money that the RIAA would have to invest purely in getting users to court would be HUGE. And if they lose cases, they have lawyers fees and the like to pay.

To be honest, I do mostly agree with the fact that record company pofiteering is driving people to filesharing. Its a pity that the record industry has developed along the lines that it has... if only we could take all the middlemen out of the equation and pay the artists directly! Unfortunately, that really isn't going to happen. There are so many people involved in the production of CDs that it inevitably costs a load of money to release them. As people have pointed out earlier, a blank CD is dirt cheap - when you buy a £16 CD, your money goes towards buying studio time, hiring producers, session musicians, promotion, marketing etc etc...

Its been pointed out in previous posts that there are independent artists who aren't dependant on the record companies for all these extras, and so sell their music for a lot less. Thats a valid point, but lets face it, independents are rarely as successful as label-backed bands, probably because they cannot afford the promotion and marketing needed to get their name out and make larger numbers of people buy their records, and also because they usually lack the polish of the big-name label bands who can afford better technology and better studios.

If we want to see more independents, then we really need to do more to promote them ourselves. This is where I see P2P really coming into its own. It's the ideal medium for these bands to get themselves known. Trouble is, most of us would rather just download music from a "name" band instead of doing something about offering a viable alternative to the current record company business plans that, quite frankly, tends to promote shit artists.

And to think I'd got so far without swearing

I've noticed a lot of people justify their downloading large amounts by making out that they are striking a blow against fat-cat record companies, but that rings a little hollow... By downloading artists backed by a label, its seems to me that you are still feeding the demand for record companies and to a certain extent justifying the existence of the RIAA. If you're after a freebie, hell, just admit it, theres no need to bullshit people

Anyway, for those of you who have read this far, sorry! My 2 cents worth turned out more like a coupla dollars
Worst part is, I don't even have any real answers to the issues raised. The whole business structure of the music industry isn't about to change overnight, so unfortunately we're stuck with it. The choice left to us is, do we try and change it slowly, do we work against it, or is there maybe some kind of compromise that can be reached?
sq3ak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th June 2003, 03:12   #90
ShyShy
Amazon Bush Woman
Forum Queen
 
ShyShy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Sticks, Queensland
Posts: 8,067
sq3ak, it was a good read.
ShyShy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th June 2003, 05:10   #91
ase500
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 8
RIAA should be against the law.

The RIAA should be against the law, let us really look at what it is.Recording Industry Association of America. As a computer Manufacturer should I go find all my the other makers of computers out there and form an Association, If I did that the IRS, FTC, and FBI would be on me like the plauge, there would be investigations of Price Fixing, Fraud, ect.... This did happen to the Record companies and they have not paid the money they owe, so why should I buy music from them???? They have been found Guilty of Price Fixing, but you will not hear the RIAA talk about the Full page adds they had to run in Premire Mag, Time, News Week and others about how you as a customer had the right to file for money back. What You will not here the RIAA talk about is the number of Payoffs they have given in order to get the Laws Redefined in 1978 so that a Copyright last the lifetime of the owner plus 75 years, Corprations out last people for the most part therefor the company in any form can own anything they buy and it never enters the public domain. what you wont here the RIAA talk about is before 1978 Copyrights lasted 30 years no longer and then were public domain. What you won't here the RIAA talk about is how Thomas Jefferson was very conserned about how Copyrights could potentoly destroy Open and free market by creating Monopolies thus not allowing a fair chance for new to arize in the place of the old. What you will not here the RIAA talk about is its objections and lawsuits over CD Technologies in the 80's. What you will not here the RIAA talk about is the number of times it has sued the very people it is formed to protect. What you will not here the RIAA talk about is how CEOs in the Technology industry (another Industry that uses Copyrights) have called it Gross Misuse of Copyright laws. What you will not here the RIAA talk about is the thing they are protecting is ICE AMERICA, in the Past if you were an Artist you had no other way to be heard but to sign with them, now, the artist can sell MP3s and CDs direct with out the Productions companies, as many small techno artists do and make a nice liveing on their websites(some of which I have designed). In the End the RIAA is defending a business model not artists, not music just an out of date and out of touch business model that is out of touch with its customers. they should look at Wal-Mart's Founders rules of success. In perticular Rule 8.

Sam Walton's 10 Rules for Success
Rule 1: Commit to your business. Believe in it more than anybody else. I think I overcame every single one of my personal shortcomings by the sheer passion I brought to my work. I don't know if you're born with this kind of passion, or if you can learn it. But I do know you need it. If you love your work, you'll be out there every day trying to do it the best you possibly can, and pretty soon everybody around will catch the passion from you — like a fever.
Rule 2: Share your profits with all your associates, and treat them as partners. In turn, they will treat you as a partner, and together you will all perform beyond your wildest expectations. Remain a corporation and retain control if you like, but behave as a servant leader in your partnership. Encourage your associates to hold a stake in the company. Offer discounted stock, and grant them stock for their retirement. It's the single best thing we ever did.

Rule 3: Motivate your partners. Money and ownership alone aren't enough. Constantly, day by day, think of new and more interesting ways to motivate and challenge your partners. Set high goals, encourage competition, and then keep score. Make bets with outrageous payoffs. If things get stale, cross-pollinate; have managers switch jobs with one another to stay challenged. Keep everybody guessing as to what your next trick is going to be. Don't become too predictable.

Rule 4: Communicate everything you possibly can to your partners. The more they know, the more they'll understand. The more they understand, the more they'll care. Once they care, there's no stopping them. If you don't trust your associates to know what's going on, they'll know you really don't consider them partners. Information is power, and the gain you get from empowering your associates more than offsets the risk of informing your competitors.

Rule 5: Appreciate everything your associates do for the business. A paycheck and a stock option will buy one kind of loyalty. But all of us like to be told how much somebody appreciates what we do for them. We like to hear it often, and especially when we have done something we're really proud of. Nothing else can quite substitute for a few well-chosen, well-timed, sincere words of praise. They're absolutely free — and worth a fortune.

Rule 6: Celebrate your success. Find some humor in your failures. Don't take yourself so seriously. Loosen up, and everybody around you will loosen up. Have fun. Show enthusiasm — always. When all else fails, put on a costume and sing a silly song. Then make everybody else sing with you. Don't do a hula on Wall Street. It's been done. Think up your own stunt. All of this is more important, and more fun, than you think, and it really fools competition. "Why should we take those cornballs at Wal-Mart seriously?"

Rule 7: Listen to everyone in your company and figure out ways to get them talking. The folks on the front lines — the ones who actually talk to the customer — are the only ones who really know what's going on out there. You'd better find out what they know. This really is what total quality is all about. To push responsibility down in your organization, and to force good ideas to bubble up within it, you must listen to what your associates are trying to tell you.

Rule 8: Exceed your customer's expectations. If you do, they'll come back over and over. Give them what they want — and a little more. Let them know you appreciate them. Make good on all your mistakes, and don't make excuses — apologize. Stand behind everything you do. The two most important words I ever wrote were on that first Wal-Mart sign: "Satisfaction Guaranteed." They're still up there, and they have made all the difference.

Rule 9: Control your expenses better than your competition. This is where you can always find the competitive advantage. For twenty-five years running — long before Wal-Mart was known as the nation's largest retailer — we've ranked No. 1 in our industry for the lowest ratio of expenses to sales. You can make a lot of different mistakes and still recover if you run an efficient operation. Or you can be brilliant and still go out of business if you're too inefficient.

Rule 10: Swim upstream. Go the other way. Ignore the conventional wisdom. If everybody else is doing it one way, there's a good chance you can find your niche by going in exactly the opposite direction. But be prepared for a lot of folks to wave you down and tell you you're headed the wrong way. I guess in all my years, what I heard more often than anything was: a town of less than 50,000 population cannot support a discount store for very long.
ase500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th June 2003, 07:19   #92
sa1964
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Kissimmee, Florida
Posts: 60
Send a message via Yahoo to sa1964
Re: And you noticed now..

Quote:
Originally posted by ryan05dp
I don't know why the freakin RIAA cares so much. Those crappy cd's should be 50 cents. Those dang artists make so much money and they cry when we steal some.

Screw Them.
It's NOT the artists. It's the skinflints behind them that want the money.

It's back to the same garbage all over again. Oy!

Power to those who love Internet Radio!
sa1964 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th June 2003, 15:34   #93
papadoc
Comfortably Numb
(Forum King)
 
papadoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 4,612
Great posts sq3ak & ase500.

Even after the full page ad in the NYTimes,
(which you'll only see here I think)
after the internet was saturated with articles about it yesterday,
and after the RIAA let it be known it's coming after pirates,
Kazzaa reported that 890 million files were being traded Thursday afternoon
by 4.3 million users.
Guess they didn't get the memo.

USA Today

And a comment on the ad to the RIAA.
You still don't get it...
People aren't downloading mp3's because all the music is bad.
They're downloading mp3's because the music costs to much,
and people don't think they're getting their moneys worth.
Times have changed.
The buying public is allot smarter these days,
more particular and savvy in their habits.
They want what they can afford, not what you force them into buying.
How does it cost to much, you say?
Because you've inflated the price of a CD so high,
that allot of people can't afford them anymore.
As noted earlier, you've already been caught red handed doing this.
Sure you can twist numbers around to say different,
but that's just spin, and we all know it.
For example: If you took just the amount of money you spend
on cocaine and call girls for the record company execs,
and subtracted that from the amount it takes to make a CD,
maybe we'd get somewhat lower prices.
And don't deny you add in a ton of expenses that never get to the
"songwriters and recording artists to warehouse workers
and record store clerks".
It's been proven over and over again you do.
And just how do you plan on paying for all this anyway?
It's going to cost you a bunch of money to ride in this rodeo.
I know...you're going to pass those expenses on to us,
in the form of higher CD prices.
And then you're going to tell us it's our fault again,
after this grand scheme you've come up with, falls flat on your face.
Yep...I can see it coming.

Last edited by papadoc; 27th June 2003 at 16:24.
papadoc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th June 2003, 17:05   #94
Gravity540
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 2
more stuff

this is what i'm planning to do with the current situation, i think it's a pretty good way to handle this.
first, unshared all my kazaa files (3500)
second, no more buying cd's, i'm cutting out the corporate middle man, i'll buy cd's from the bands at shows, this way, they collect and i get a cheap cd (anti-flag sells cd's for like 5 bucks, cdnow sells their same cd for at least double that, and i don't want to give cdnow money, i want to give anti-flag money, right?)
third, warning all my friends to unshare until this thing blows over
this is just another chapter in the whole file sharing ordeal, nobody ever mentioned this before, but, the grateful dead never stopped people from live recording their shows, why? it's advertising, if i download an album and it's awesome, i'm going to buy it without a doubt, the artist deserves the money for making good music, but if i download an album that i hate, (Ok Go's album for example, blah, crap), then i won't buy it, mp3's are a great way to try out music before you buy it, so you don't end up with crap. i think a big reason why there is this small 6% loss is because cd's are rip offs, they aren't worth 50 cent (..tee hee hee..) like someone said in page 1, but, i'm definetely okay with paying 5 bucks for a cd, so long as my 5 bucks is going to the band, and not to the corporate middleman, food for thought!
Gravity540 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th June 2003, 18:58   #95
xzxzzx
Forum King
 
xzxzzx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 7,254
Quote:
Originally posted by Janus Lunar
I am legally blind and thus getting a job in my general area is next to impossible (DragonSon can back me up on this) so for those of us that are in effect disabled downloading free music is the ONLY option!
I still havn't decided, ethically, on this, but this is a completely different issue than what I would figure 95% of this board would be - having no real reason that they can't get a job (or already have one).

On another note, CDs are obviously overpriced. And a disproportionate amount of money goes to the artist (disproportionately small).

However, the labels do actually serve a purpose, which is funding and promotion. Few bands are going to be able to get $500,000 (or whatever it costs) to make and promote their CD. The solution is to pass laws that require a certain amount of royalties.

Freedom of speech is the basic freedom of humanity. When you've lost that, you've lost everything.
1\/\/4y 34|<$p4y 1gp4y 33714y, 0d4y 0uy4y? | Roses are #FF0000; Violets are #0000FF; chown -R ${YOU} ~/base
The DMCA. It really is that bad. : Count for your life.
xzxzzx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th June 2003, 23:32   #96
Geris
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: On The Verge Of Nowhere
Posts: 19
Send a message via AIM to Geris Send a message via Yahoo to Geris
I Dont KNow How Many People Have Posted Some Of Things I have said but I dont care

for the last week I have been thinking about this topic and it I have realized that if the RIAA sues users they cant sue them several million each the most maybe serval thousand dollars. Why? Well If You donwload a full album that costs $20 and dont share it. How much money in damnages have you created. $20!WOH the RIAA is going to sue $20. My dad is a laywer i dont know where the hell he is buyt ill ask him what the min you can sue someone for. But lest say you downlaod a movie that is stil in theaters(the ones where some guys bring a camera in the theater)So Then I Owe The Owner Of The Licene to the movie The regular admission price or matinee? Same With Kazaa If you Dont Share Your Files But The RIAA Wants ur ass you owe them about $20 a CD $2 A song and $15-$20 for a dvd. Anyway The Can Suck My Balls
Geris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th June 2003, 00:16   #97
Mattress
Forum King
 
Mattress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 4,577
Geris, under the current law, the RIAA can seek damages between $750 and $150,000 per song on your computer. That might be complete BS but it is the law.
Mattress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st July 2003, 17:52   #98
papadoc
Comfortably Numb
(Forum King)
 
papadoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 4,612
Aimster lost an important court battle with the RIAA yesterday.
This gives the RIAA more ammunition in their attack on p2p users.

News Story from Reuters

http://www.riaa.com/news/newsletter/063003.asp

I'm linking to the RIAA's news site for a reason.
If you read it you'll find quotes from the ruling.
One in particular about teenagers and young adults caught my attention.
But they stop short of posting the entire quote on their website.
I have no doubt why:

"Teenagers and young adults who have access to the
Internet like to swap computer files containing popular
music. If the music is copyrighted, such swapping, which
involves making and transmitting a digital copy of the
music, infringes copyright. The swappers, who are
ignorant or more commonly disdainful of copyright and
in any event discount the likelihood of being sued or
prosecuted for copyright infringement, are the direct
infringers."

Yes, the RIAA thinks teenagers and young adults are ignorant!
And you are the direct infringers in their crosshairs.
The very people they hope to win over, and keep at the record stores,
are the same people they're pointing their shotguns at.
I swear...this just boggles the mind.
papadoc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd July 2003, 04:17   #99
Silent Sniper
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 27
Well, my wordie, what a vibrant thread.

Right, let me add my bit. First off, let me make some points very clear:

I don't give a stuff who makes or loses money via the popularity of P2P.

I have no knowledge of legal issues worth sharing with anyone.

I am strictly interested in human behaviour.

Right, that said, I'll let my pleonasm roll...

Over the past year I have downloaded several audio files. From that, I have purchased CD albums because I've found a new band (Assemblage 23, After Forever, to name but two.) and determined I like their material.

The question to me is not is it right to do that but rather why did I do that or feel the need to do that.

The Internet makes alot of my life very convenient. I can shop for my groceries via the web. I can contact friends and family via the web, etc. etc. Most other people I know are, either willingly or by the sheer force of technology, having more and more elements of their lives ported to the digital equivalent.

Enter the music industry. Despite the statistical facts staring them in the face, they seem hell-bent on sticking to a Dickensian business model that simply cannot survive the Digital Age and that cannot cater for those who it is designed to attract -- you and I, the music buying public, armed with PCs, laptops, PDAs, etc.

P2P is here to stay -- that is fact. So what do you do if you are the music industry?

a.) Give a kneejerk reaction and threaten to sue everyone who rides this evil demon's back called P2P. (Etching very prominent scars in many teens and adults whose eagerness for music you rely on.)

b.) Lower the price of CDs to try and attract more users back to them.

c.) Embrace the P2P technology and start learning how you can best utilise it. Open dialogue with P2P biggies and see how you can get your foot in this very very big door.

Feel free to choose the one that you think will make the biggest difference in the long term.

Now onto the matter of lawsuits. They (the RIAA) are wielding a very double-edged sword at the moment. Sure, they want to heavily publicise the lawsuits and etch them in the minds of the downloaders. The downside of this, of course, is that those who are constant users of the 'net' and are most likely to read the publicity are also those who you depend upon for your very existence.

I'm not convinced that dishing out lawsuits to your biggest marketplace is a wholesome business practise, no matter how bad things are. Whoever thought differently really has a lot to learn about people. Teens can make or break a product overnight - fact. If anyone wants to convince me that the music industry could survive without their purchases, please feel free. But hey, we're only going to sue those who download music illegally. Ah, that will be the same person who has many groups of friends who doesn't download music illegally but really doesn't like seeing his friend dragged through courts and is more likely to despise you than to think worse of his friend who is doing the same as most of his/her other friends.

So, backing up a bit. I download because it gives me a chance to test drive a new band (Not just listen to a 30 second snippet at low quality.) to see if I like them. I cannot decide that from one track, any more than I could decide if I like a movie producer from one film.

Sometimes, I may just be sat at my PC, read something, and think hell, that reminds me of that track I listened to when I was 14 or whatever. I jump on P2P and damn, there it is. I don't have to go through a convoluted process, I just click "download". Done.

So, if the music industry cares to stop pissing about with scare tactics which will, inevitably, only serve to bite them back, I would be happy if they could work with technology to provide me purchasable music, fast, conveniently, and a very wide choice. (Yes, in fact, I demand a choice as wide as my P2P application.) They can provide it, so can you. Why would I want to step backwards and limit my choice now?

Finally, let's not forget than many teens do not own a credit card to make purchases over the web.

As for the P2P tracking, all that will do is shift the priority of the P2P authors to try to stealth the IP numbers/identity of its users. Talk about really shooting yourselves in the foot with your decision to fanfare announce your intention to dish out lawsuits.

Short-term greed will never be a substitute for long term profit -- no matter how many you sue.

I'm done...
Silent Sniper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd July 2003, 06:02   #100
ShyShy
Amazon Bush Woman
Forum Queen
 
ShyShy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Sticks, Queensland
Posts: 8,067
Silent, that has to be one of the most mature postings on this subject i've read...
ShyShy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd July 2003, 11:43   #101
Cylob
Forum Music King
(Forum King)
 
Cylob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: The Future
Posts: 7,175
I second Little Miss Wicked. I could've written that myself Silent Sniper (actually I'm sure I did)!! Time will sort it all out.

Secret Snacker & Accomplished Pen Thief At:
Cylob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd July 2003, 16:17   #102
papadoc
Comfortably Numb
(Forum King)
 
papadoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 4,612
How can this be?
There's a price war emerging between ITunes and Listen.com?
Listen.com dropped prices 20 cents and increased CD burning 100%.
Now ITunes will probably have to do something to keep up.
Good old fashioned competition.
Something the RIAA has no idea about anymore,
since they're to busy playing Monopoly.

How do you explain this RIAA?
I thought you said people only steal music off the internet.

http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,59464,00.html
papadoc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd July 2003, 17:30   #103
Mattress
Forum King
 
Mattress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 4,577
Listen.com sucks, all they let you do is stream; no downloading. Emusic is better.
Mattress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd July 2003, 18:05   #104
DracoVulpine
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: That place...y'know...over there
Posts: 31
Quote:
Originally posted by Mattress
Listen.com sucks, all they let you do is stream; no downloading. Emusic is better.
Lovely 'out of context' comment. We're not here to advertise or proclaim one music source as better than the others, we're here to discuss the idiocy of the RIAA.

Great arguements all around on both fronts, though some have gotten a bit overzealous and heavy handed with unproven facts or insulting.

In the end, I feel the laws need to change. The amount you can be sued for far exceeds the amount of damage that anyone might suffer for sharing a song or movie. One full CD...say 15-17 songs on average...you share the entire CD...max fines of $175K per song. So...if someone nailed you max fines for a full 17 song CD, you're looking at someone paying over $2.9 MILLION. This is more than most people make in their entire lifetime! Seems a bit exaggerated compared to the rest of the laws out there.

Is it illegal? Yes. There are laws against it, thereby, it's illegal. Right or wrong doesn't have a single thing to do with whether something is illegal or not. Law does.

Is it wrong? I'd rather see the artists get paid for their work. But if I'll I'm doing is putting money in corporate pockets and funding the RIAA to do witch hunts and scare tactics, I'll take my music for free and pay the artist later, once the record labels and the like come to grips with the fact that THIS TACTIC WON'T WORK.

Oh...they'll get a few people, just like they have since P2P started. They might get a lot of people. But...all they're really doing is making P2P security that much better. Making P2P innovate itself so that no one can find out who you are when you share a file. Or encrypting so no one can tell what's being transferred. Soon, they may have P2PTP where people can make their own virtual secure sections of P2P that people can get into through invite only...the possibilities are endless.

So thank you, RIAA, for making P2P innovate again and again
DracoVulpine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd July 2003, 19:59   #105
papadoc
Comfortably Numb
(Forum King)
 
papadoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 4,612
Quote:
Originally posted by Mattress
Listen.com sucks, all they let you do is stream; no downloading.
Sorry, but that's not true.
Listen.com does allow downloading to burn to CD's.
As more labels are signing on, they're list is growing.
But enough of that little sidetrack.

Here's an example of how artists are getting tired of
the record companies, and how they treat new bands.
The Drive By Truckers signed with Lost Highway Records/Universal Records
to widen their fan base.
After a period of time they realized Universal wasn't going
to promote them or their album.
Their record wasn't selling and they were'nt going anywhere,
like so many other new bands that make the mistake of signing
with big record companies.
They knew that Universal's way of doing things wasn't for them.
So the Drive By Truckers made a decision.
They bought back the rights to the album
(so goes anyones argument that the artist owns the rights
to an album after they sign with a major label)
and signed with indie New West Records.
Since then, their album has hit the Billboard Charts
at #27 on the Independent List and #29 on the Heatseekers Chart.
And they're offering people who but it, a reason to buy it.
They'll be giving them future access to live cuts, demo's, and
exclusive video's...on their website.

These guys know what they're doing.
They didn't blame the p2p networks for slow sales.
They put blame where it belongs...at the feet of the Record Company,
and did something to fix it.
And they plan on using the internet as a way to promote their music.
Good for them!

Last edited by papadoc; 2nd July 2003 at 21:55.
papadoc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd July 2003, 20:46   #106
Mattress
Forum King
 
Mattress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 4,577
Quote:
Originally posted by DracoVulpine
Lovely 'out of context' comment.
Sorry I didn't know that off topic comments were such an offense here. I suppose I should read the rules.
Mattress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd July 2003, 21:11   #107
mmontgomery
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 17
We have two extremes here. You have Zap saying that he should be free to read, watch, or listen to anything that anyone creates with their hard work, talent, and money, without paying a dime. So millions of people freely steal the hard work of the artists. (This might be OK if the artist can reciprocate by living in your house and eating your food. After all, shouldn't sharing go both ways?)

On the other extreme, you have record companies colluding to engage in monopoly pricing of CDs, and colluding to infringe on your ability to exercise the fair use rights granted to you by US law. Both practices are immoral and illegal.

What is the correct solution? In my opinion, it primarily involves separating out "the right to use" from the media. Many software publishers do this, especially for volue sales. So instead of buying retail packages, a school or company can buy 30 "right-to-use" (usually at about 30% of retail), and one copy of the media/manual, or perhaps even forgoing the media in favor of electronic download.

Applying this to music, you should be able to buy the "right-to-use" a song (which should mostly if not entirely go to the artist), and then buy various media separately if desired or receive electronic download.

You should get credit for "right-to-use" for any music already purchased, regardless of the media (CD, cassette, LP, 8-track, or whatever). This might require turning in the old media, in exchange for receiving "right-to-use" and new media (or download) that requires "right-to-use" to play.

"Right-to-use" should be priced very low, perhaps around $.50 per song or $5 per album. Then you can buy media for perhaps another $2-$3 if desired, or just download the song. You can freely record media yourself in any format you want, so your fair use rights are preserved. You can freely move songs around or share them, since one has to have the "right-to-use" to play them. Every song could potentially be a demo if the song is encoded so that some portion of the song (say the first 30 - 60 seconds) could be played without checking rights. If someone then downloaded a song they liked from a friend, the format could even encode the web site to access to pay for the rights to use the song, making purchasing a song that you liked very simple and inexpensive.

Usage rights could be stored in a convenient way, preferably a highly secure smart card or SD module, and would be backed up on a secure server in case the card is lost or left at home. So with an internet connect, rights could be verified from the secure server so that you could play without the card, or so that you could create a new card on the spot.

Of course, everyone is going to gripe about this. Those who think everything should be free are going to gripe over "right-to-use" being checked for this new media/electronic format. Record companies are going to balk about giving credit for "right-to-use" for older formats, since many of their CD sales were LP or tape replacements. They are also going to balk about not being able to sell CDs at outrageously inflated prices anymore, since someone can simply buy the "right-to-use" from the artist, download the music, and even legally make their own CD if the record company insist on continuing to overcharge for the media.

Anyway, this is my middle ground. Even if you don't like some ideas, it sure beats the heavyhanded RIAA approach.
mmontgomery is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd July 2003, 21:25   #108
Silent Sniper
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 27
Purchase a right to use? Excuse me?

I remember a time, not so long ago, when companies met clients needs/wants/demands.

Now, suddenly, you seem to want to make the customer the humble one? Look guys, I have just purchased myself a right to use this music. I thought I had this right in days of old but apparently, I didn't.

It was really easy to purchase this right. All I had to do was hassly my Dad for a month to get him to use his credit card for me, so that I could purchase it over the Internet.

Perhaps I could start a business that sells nice shiny tins, perhaps with psychadelic designs, for the youth culture to store these "rights" in? (Patent No. 432743847 pending: "The X-Tin")

I really do hate to be personal in a public forum but for goodness sake, quit being so bloody humble to an industry that seems hell-bent on dictating to you the right and wrong way to purchase/listen to/store/move/etc. your music.

Late Edit: Just had an amazing bolt of business ingenuity hit me, based upon the amazing concept of you lucky lucky customers soon being the proud owners of a "right to use".

What's say Nullsoft Inc. sell "rights" to use the forums? Oh yes, I know, you're seeing the benefits already aren't you? No more of this tiresome "I'll read a post as many times as I like" nonsense. Now you can have it all dictated for you.

For a nominal fee, NullSoft will sell you a right to use the forum for 30 minutes over a five day period. Naturally, they can't allow you to edit any posts or blemish them with your replies, as the author of the post has a right to have his post presented nicely, with tidy paragraphs, with no replies spoiling his artistic rights. Remember, the author spent considerable time and maybe even had to pause smoking during the compilation period. (Creativity doesn't come cheap these days you know.)

Naturally, if you are on a dynamic IP address, or on a LAN, then you may purchase an additional right to grant access to the forums from the additional PC(s).

In addition, to protect the work of the author, they cannot allow you to print or otherwise reproduce any post without a Right to Copy license.(RTCs)

For those with PDA's etc, you may also be relieved to hear that Mobile Device Licenses (MDLs) are also available and will make great gifts for your busy and 'always on the move' loved one.

I know, I know, you want the touchie-feelie pleasure of handling that favourite post in your hands, right? Despair not - you demand it, they meet your demand. For an additional fee,they will send you a printed hard copy of your favourite post. It's yours. Hang it on your wall, send it as a gift, do as you will. It's yours, you lucky lucky customer.

Sadly, these rights cannot be exchanged. So, they suggest you look into purchasing the super-value "family rights pack" (FRP) which will allow any family member the same rights as granted by the standard pack.

Stay tuned for the FAQ, packed with such inspiring questions like: "Will I be able to show my printed copy to my friend down the road?"

How stupid do you want to go today?

Last edited by Silent Sniper; 2nd July 2003 at 21:58.
Silent Sniper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd July 2003, 22:07   #109
mmontgomery
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 17
Silent Sniper, you have been always purchasing a right to use when you bought an album. Have you never bothered reading the fine print? Try taking the CD you purchased and play it in a commerical setting. You will have lawyers all over you explaining about exactly how much rights you have bought when you purchased that CD.

Worse yet, by bundling the CD with the rights, if you lost or broke your CD, too bad, you lost your right to use, too.
Of course, it galls me to have to buy a CD when I already paid for an album, because I feel I have already purchased the right to the music when I bought the album, but the music industry says no, I need to buy it again. Please don't make the current system out to be so great, when it really stinks.

All I am talking about is decoupling the right-to-use from the media. So I can buy the right from the artist who owns it, and I can forgo the media if the media companies want to price it out of the market. And I can also convert the media to any format I want for my convenience. These are all things I cannot legally do today. It is not stupid to want to do them.
mmontgomery is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd July 2003, 22:20   #110
Silent Sniper
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 27
Quote:
Originally posted by mmontgomery
Silent Sniper, you have been always purchasing a right to use when you bought an album. Have you never bothered reading the fine print?
M, you are, of course, absolutely right. But, in answer to your question, no I have never bothered to read the small print on a CD. Why? Because I have never felt the need to. A musician enjoys creating music, I enjoy listening to it. A symbiotic relationship.

Now, if we're saying that the purchasing of music has become so troublesome that I 'need' to read the small print then instantly, as a customer, my symbiotic relationship with music is diluted. I listen to music for pleasure, there are enough hassles in life, without a simple task of buying a CD and popping it into my player of choice becoming one of them.
Silent Sniper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd July 2003, 06:04   #111
DragonSon
Fears the boots
Forum King
 
DragonSon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 3,445
Damn....I'm impressed Sniper...At last we have another intelligent member who posts releveant material...keep it coming.
DragonSon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd July 2003, 16:42   #112
mmontgomery
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 17
Sniper, if you are happy buying your CD for $17+, enjoy! And I was not saying that anyone "needed" to read the fine print. You seemed to be asserting that you had more "rights" from your purchased CD, which is not the case.

There is nothing "troublesome" in purchasing "right-to-use". In fact, it is far more convenient that having to take a trip to the store, hoping they have the album/song I want in stock, and hoping that the album has more than one good song on it, since I am stuck buying the whole thing even if I only like one song.

In contrast, today I can plunk down $1 to buy a particular song that I want, with instant gratification. I can play the song within a minute of deciding I want to buy it. No trip to the store, no paying for songs I don't care for, no searching for that rare album. Very simple and easy.

I'm afraid that I don't quite understand your definition of "troublesome".
mmontgomery is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd July 2003, 17:07   #113
Silent Sniper
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 27
M, With respect, you seem to be basing your case on cost, and very little else. If you care to read through this thread, very little empasis has actually been placed upon cost, but rather the heavy-handed and dictatorial approach of the RIAA and how, in the long term, it may well infringe upon the rights of the music fan, the listener, call it what you will.

It isn't about whether it is more cost-effective for me to download a single track or run to the shop and buy a CD. It is about my rights to listen to my music on my Home Hi-Fi, my in-car CD Player, my personal computer, my personal CD player, maybe even take it to my friend's house and listen to it on his machine too. What's more - and call me old-fashioned if you like, but I would like to listen to it as many times as I like, without having to 'renew' anything.

Personally I like having the physical CD. It is something tangible which I can associate with the cost I paid for it. They are reliable, convenient and in AOLs case, make good mats for cups.

Anyway, even I am starting to lose the thread a little now so I think I'll go and reread from the top again.

P.S. Remember, you have the luxury of owning a credit card, ergo you are able to make online purchases. How does your system cater for those who don't? (Many of the music buying youth.)
Silent Sniper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th July 2003, 11:15   #114
Starbucks
Forum King
 
Starbucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Forums
Posts: 2,685
Did any of you notice that all the people (including myself) bitching at the RIAA are the ones downloading mp3's illegally? Did you notice? I didn't.
Starbucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th July 2003, 19:53   #115
DracoVulpine
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: That place...y'know...over there
Posts: 31
http://money.cnn.com/2003/07/02/tech...ex.htm?cnn=yes

Seems that some artists take exception to you even downloading songs when you pay for them. They want you to buy the entire album...even if there's only one or two songs worth paying for on it.

...is it me or is Metallica ALWAYS the one raising a fuss about one aspect or another throughout this entire thing? You'd think they'd be happy to see people paying for their songs when they download them instead of just downloading them off P2P. Oh well.
DracoVulpine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th July 2003, 05:00   #116
Mattress
Forum King
 
Mattress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 4,577
mmontgomery, one problem I see with your "right-to-use" idea is sometimes I'll get a CD and I'll give it to my friend to borrow for a while, how does that work with thr right-to-use system? to I sell my right to use to my friend? and then he'll sell it back to me? Is a right-to-use something you can buy from individuals (like a used CD) or only from the copyright owner?
Mattress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th July 2003, 07:16   #117
xzxzzx
Forum King
 
xzxzzx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 7,254
I wonder what the legality of giving a CD to your friend to borrow is. I don't think it's illegal, but I wouldn't think it would be under 'fair use'. Or maybe it would. Anyone know about the legality of this?

Freedom of speech is the basic freedom of humanity. When you've lost that, you've lost everything.
1\/\/4y 34|<$p4y 1gp4y 33714y, 0d4y 0uy4y? | Roses are #FF0000; Violets are #0000FF; chown -R ${YOU} ~/base
The DMCA. It really is that bad. : Count for your life.
xzxzzx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th July 2003, 12:05   #118
Mattress
Forum King
 
Mattress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 4,577
If it's illegal to give your CD to a friend to borrow then the law really needs to change.
Mattress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th July 2003, 01:34   #119
kinson
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 21
Send a message via ICQ to kinson Send a message via AIM to kinson
Quote:
Originally posted by skinme!


One thing especially pissed me off. CDwow is probably going to be shut down. it was an importer, importing legal CDs from asia where they're cheaper to the UK. The RIAA or equivalent is suing so no more CDs for ?.99, which IMHO is a more reasonable price.
I could still buy em fer ye and mail em Providing that that isn't illegal

Hehe

kinson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th July 2003, 09:58   #120
Starbucks
Forum King
 
Starbucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Forums
Posts: 2,685
Hmmmmm...If I DJ at a party, much like a radio station, will the RIAA come after me? What if I let someone borrow my CD, and I listen to my ripped CD at the same time, then will the RIAA come after me?
Starbucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Winamp & Shoutcast Forums > Community Center > Breaking News

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump