MrDingleDangle
Lifer
- Jul 12, 2001
- 10,142
- 2
- 0
how did they come up with $2 a song...even if u were to by their overpriced CD's the price doesnt come out to $2 a song....
Originally posted by: MrDingleDangle
how did they come up with $2 a song...even if u were to by their overpriced CD's the price doesnt come out to $2 a song....Originally posted by: prontospyder Looks like she has settled with the RIAA Link
Originally posted by: fanerman91
Hey OulOat (too lazy to quote everything.)
Note that I agree that piracy is wrong. WRONG! Don't treat me like some evil pirate who downloads 50 songs per minute with a "The RIAA is evil because they're gonna take away my free music" t-shirt on. I don't have 50 songs downloaded. When I download it's because I want to see if I will like a particular album (which I would then purchase).
I'm not defending people's pirating. I just posted in reply to someone who painted a picture of the RIAA as "doing the right thing" and people that pirate are cold-immoral-evil-followers-of-the-devil-who-have-no-sense-of-right-and-wrong. While their reasons for pirating do not make it right, they do bring up valid points. Not all people are evil. Not all of them think they're some badass who thinks the RIAA is evil for not letting them download music for free. I'd also like to add... many people (like the girl) don't know that downloading music via kazaa is wrong.
My main point is: While piracy is WRONG and the RIAA has a right to pursue legal action, their course of action is NOT RIGHT. That's what I was trying to express. The RIAA may be legally right, but they're not doing what's best for themselves and everyone. It's my belief that the majority of people are willing to BUY (consistently) decent music if it's at a decent price. I think that most people believe (and I agree with them) that if the RIAA embraced the technology instead of sticking to the old ways, they would fare much better in today's world, and everybody would be happier.
Originally posted by: MaDDaWg1018
I also agree that piracy is wrong. However, think about it...in a world where children are pretty much being raised to think that it's okay to download music online, this is bound to happen on more than one occassion. I think proper public education is also vital in order to help alleviate this problem. Kids just seem to automatically assume that downloading music online is okay. It's not like they're stealing from liquor stores or trying drugs or anything in that area; they're innocently (at least most) seeking music without realizing the consequences. I think a better-suited RIAA action would be to first issue some type of warning before indulging in heavier measures such as the one taken on this 12 year old girl.
But seriously, I think the RIAA's course of action is ridiculous, somewhat unjust, and plain stupid.
Originally posted by: ness1469
Originally posted by: MaDDaWg1018
I also agree that piracy is wrong. However, think about it...in a world where children are pretty much being raised to think that it's okay to download music online, this is bound to happen on more than one occassion. I think proper public education is also vital in order to help alleviate this problem. Kids just seem to automatically assume that downloading music online is okay. It's not like they're stealing from liquor stores or trying drugs or anything in that area; they're innocently (at least most) seeking music without realizing the consequences. I think a better-suited RIAA action would be to first issue some type of warning before indulging in heavier measures such as the one taken on this 12 year old girl.
But seriously, I think the RIAA's course of action is ridiculous, somewhat unjust, and plain stupid.
So 3 years of news about this, the constant lawsuits against people and filesharing programs, and vastly inscreased legislation on the subject of this isn't a warning enough? How about that 3 week period where the RIAA released a warning saying they are going to track down and sue people caught sharing files on computer? Did they have to rent every billboard across the country to tell people or something?
People have a responsibility to ensure that everything they are doing is legal. There is no excuse of "not knowing" that could hold up in any court, because it should be common sense that you test the water and make sure the lifeguard is on duty before you dive in, if you get what I'm saying.
If people are doing enough filesharing to be targeted by the RIAA, then they should have at least some knowledge about MP3s and P2P programs, even if it's the disclaimer that pops up when you first open any p2p software that says by clicking okay you agree you won't infringe copyrights.. most works are protected by copyrights, etc.
Originally posted by: fanerman91
I'd also like to add... many people (like the girl) don't know that downloading music via kazaa is wrong.
Pirating would still be rampant even if they go the digital music route (like Apple Music). A simple calculation will show this. Lets say the average user has a gig of music (college student have a lot more, but I'll go the low route). That is 256 songs if each song is 4 megs each. That's also 256 dollars if it's a dollar per song. No one is going to shell out $250 bucks if their friends got it and they can obtain it for free without any consequence. If the RIAA tries to enable any copy-protection scheme, people would be complaining about it and it would get broken anyways in less than a week, if not sooner.The RIAA may be legally right, but they're not doing what's best for themselves and everyone. It's my belief that the majority of people are willing to BUY (consistently) decent music if it's at a decent price. I think that most people believe (and I agree with them) that if the RIAA embraced the technology instead of sticking to the old ways, they would fare much better in today's world, and everybody would be happier.
What kind of message would they be sending out if they were just targetting the worse offenders? What kind of society would we have if the cops only arrested killers while child molesters go free? Hm?The comment about the 12 year old was just an explanation to the other fellow as to why everyone was angry. No I don't want them to make it go away just because she's 12. But targeting her when there are worse offenders isn't the best thing to do, particularly with regard to public relations.
I don't understand why people think all songs are worth the same. Let me explain it again. If that CD is 90% crap, then the other 10% of the CD would worth the $16. The 90% is free. You can either pay $16 for that one song, or you can not pay if you don't think that song is good enough to cost $16. Plus, your views are your views. Just because you think a song is crap doesn't mean one else will like it.Do I really have to define "better music"? Okay. How about albums with not just one good song on it. Albums that are 90% good and 10% crap instead of the other way around. Is that good enough for you?