Is there any way we can destroy the RIAA?

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Stefan

Originally posted by: Amused
The most absurd this here is that anyone would think they need to destroy them. As if you're entitled to music or something.

The issue here has nothing to do with entitlement (well, I'm sure some feel they are entitled to it, but that's another discussion).

People won't accept being gouged to pay for music anymore. The piracy is just a byproduct of this (IMHO).

I think the record companies need to accept that they made a killing in a market that simply does not exist in the same form anymore. They need new methods of generating revenue and they need to accept that they simply will not make the kind of money they used to.

How are they gouging you? When you figure in inflation, prices now are probably lower than they used to be. I don't think I could find a CD for less than $16 when I was a kid, now you can get them for $10-13. You can also buy individual tracks for $1. What more do you people want from them?

 

[Kelemvor]

Maybe you could find someone from the UAW that is downloading stuff. Then the RIAA can sue the UAW and they can just sue each other right out of existance. THe world would be a far better place.

 

[ColdFusion718]

Originally posted by: alien42
1. download pirated music
2. record companies are destroyed
3. bands make money from touring, merchandise and some cds
4. actual artists survive and profit
5. the end of manufactured music and payola

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
Is it considered 'theft' to hum, or sing, a song which you have not purchased rights for?

It's not ****** theft dammit. It's copyright violation. Nobody's stealing money out of the pockets of musicians or the RIAA or anyone else. Theft is defined as the removal of. Nobody's removing anything.

Most who download music wouldn't buy the CD anyway if the ability to violate copyright laws didn't exist.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Stefan

Originally posted by: Amused
The most absurd this here is that anyone would think they need to destroy them. As if you're entitled to music or something.

The issue here has nothing to do with entitlement (well, I'm sure some feel they are entitled to it, but that's another discussion).

People won't accept being gouged to pay for music anymore. The piracy is just a byproduct of this (IMHO).

I think the record companies need to accept that they made a killing in a market that simply does not exist in the same form anymore. They need new methods of generating revenue and they need to accept that they simply will not make the kind of money they used to.

How are they gouging? Music is not a necessity. It is their product and they can charge what ever the fsck they want for it. Who are you to say what their price should be? If you don't like their prices, your option is a simple one, and only one: Don't buy their product.

But that's not the issue, is it? People don't like the RIAA because the RIAA is actively pursuing people who STEAL their product. This really isn't an issue of price. It's an issue of morality and theft. People cloak it in all sorts of inane arguments, but in the end, that's all it boils down to.

 

[MmmSkyscraper]

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats
sharks with fricken' laser beams on their head

Nice :thumbsup:

I was thinking of calling the A-Team.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: aidanjm
Is it considered 'theft' to hum, or sing, a song which you have not purchased rights for?

It's not ****** theft dammit. It's copyright violation. Nobody's stealing money out of the pockets of musicians or the RIAA or anyone else. Theft is defined as the removal of. Nobody's removing anything.

Most who download music wouldn't buy the CD anyway if the ability to violate copyright laws didn't exist.

Theft of intellectual property is just as much theft, morally, as stealing the services of another. That the law doesn't classify it as "theft" is irrelevant.

 

Don't buy their content.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: aidanjm
Is it considered 'theft' to hum, or sing, a song which you have not purchased rights for?

It's not ****** theft dammit. It's copyright violation. Nobody's stealing money out of the pockets of musicians or the RIAA or anyone else. Theft is defined as the removal of. Nobody's removing anything.

Most who download music wouldn't buy the CD anyway if the ability to violate copyright laws didn't exist.

Theft of intellectual property is just as much theft, morally, as stealing the services of another. That the law doesn't classify it as "theft" is irrelevant.

Well considering that the RIAA is restricted to the law of the courts instead of the law of yer heart or whatever, they can still kiss my ass for the bullshit they're pulling. I don't agree with a lot of things on both sides of the line, but the RIAA isn't any better than those they're accusing of acting illegally. They're greedy slimeballs. Do the artists get any of the money they win by going to court? Of course not. NOW who's stealing?

 

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: Amused
The most absurd this here is that anyone would think they need to destroy them. As if you're entitled to music or something.

I am not entitled to music, but they are not entitled to profits either. Anytime a business needs to take away my freedom in order for it to make money, I need to destroy it.

 

[ultimatebob]

"Destroying" the RIAA is pretty damn easy... Just stop buying music from RIAA affiliated artists. A trade organization without any revenue quickly becomes a DEAD trade organization.

 

[SludgeFactory]

The approach will not be easy. You are required to maneuver straight down this trench and skim the surface to this point. The target area is only two meters wide. It's a small thermal exhaust port, right below the main port. The shaft leads directly to the reactor system. A precise hit will start a chain reaction which should destroy the station.

[a murmer of disbelief runs through the room] Only a precise hit will set up a chain reaction. The shaft is ray-shielded, so you'll have to use proton torpedoes.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Stefan

Originally posted by: Amused
The most absurd this here is that anyone would think they need to destroy them. As if you're entitled to music or something.

The issue here has nothing to do with entitlement (well, I'm sure some feel they are entitled to it, but that's another discussion).

People won't accept being gouged to pay for music anymore. The piracy is just a byproduct of this (IMHO).

I think the record companies need to accept that they made a killing in a market that simply does not exist in the same form anymore. They need new methods of generating revenue and they need to accept that they simply will not make the kind of money they used to.

How are they gouging? Music is not a necessity. It is their product and they can charge what ever the fsck they want for it. Who are you to say what their price should be? If you don't like their prices, your option is a simple one, and only one: Don't buy their product.

But that's not the issue, is it? People don't like the RIAA because the RIAA is actively pursuing people who STEAL their product. This really isn't an issue of price. It's an issue of morality and theft. People cloak it in all sorts of inane arguments, but in the end, that's all it boils down to.

While I don't think they are gouging, I do believe that they are useing government as a crutch to prop up their business model.
I also think there is a diffrence between copy right violation and theft.
Fist of all, copyright is for a limited time. We do not give copyright to someone forever.
Second, infringing someones copy right does not cost them anything. It might prevent them from makeing profit, but It does not take anything from them.
Finally I do not think that copyright is a natural property right. I do not think you own something just because you thought it up, you only own your ability to think up such things. I am not sure that we can (or even should) get rid of copyright (patent, or any other form of IP) all together, but I think we need to re-evaluate the entire concept.
When something becomes so common that most people can create it on their own, can you still consider someone to own it?

 

[Skel]

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

Originally posted by: Amused
The most absurd this here is that anyone would think they need to destroy them. As if you're entitled to music or something.

I am not entitled to music, but they are not entitled to profits either. Anytime a business needs to take away my freedom in order for it to make money, I need to destroy it.

What freedom are they taking away? The freedom to take the hard work of the artists and producers and do what you will with it?

 

[Mayfriday0529]

Hire the Proffesional, Leon...

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

While I don't think they are gouging, I do believe that they are useing government as a crutch to prop up their business model.

I really wish people would quit going on about their "business model" unless you're willing to elaborate on wtf you mean. Until then you're just parrotting what you've heard dozens of other people say. Their "business model" has changed quite a bit in the last few years - you can buy MP3s online a track at a time for a VERY reasonable price. You can use a monthly fee service like Napster - which on its face seems like a raw deal since you don't get to keep the music when you cancel, but on the other hand for the price of ONE CD per month you can keep up with ALL of the latest music. It's hard to swallow because it's an entirely different approach. So what part of their "business model" do you people have a problem with? The fact that they're actually trying to sell music for a profit?

 

[YoshiSato]

Originally posted by: southpawuni
Just curious, is there any activism or lobbying group set out to destroy the RIAA?

I should add, I'm not against what they DO technically.. I'm against their methods and want to see them taken down.. hopefully nailed with multiple class action suits for something or whatever it takes.

"We can do this in one of two ways.
There is the hard way, which involved hours of discussion,
tons of negotiation, half a dozen bribes, and no guarantee of success."

"What is the easy way?"

"Liberaly placed high explosives."

(metaphorically speaking of course)

 

[her209]

Create a ultra-cheap music player that refuses to play RIAA-related music.

 

[zainali]

dont listen to music maybe.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: her209
Create a ultra-cheap music player that refuses to play RIAA-related music.

Preferably with higher fidelity than CD. Watermark it--turn their own ideas against them. I like it.

 

[YoshiSato]

Originally posted by: zainali
dont listen to music maybe.

Well I don't buy music publish by anyone the RIAA is trying to protect. I mostly listen to anime sound tracks and that can't be purchased in the US. I have to get imports. RIAA has nothing to say about Japanese imports and the Japanese version of the RIAA(if there is such a thing) wouldn't have any power in the USA

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Stefan

Originally posted by: Amused
The most absurd this here is that anyone would think they need to destroy them. As if you're entitled to music or something.

The issue here has nothing to do with entitlement (well, I'm sure some feel they are entitled to it, but that's another discussion).

People won't accept being gouged to pay for music anymore. The piracy is just a byproduct of this (IMHO).

I think the record companies need to accept that they made a killing in a market that simply does not exist in the same form anymore. They need new methods of generating revenue and they need to accept that they simply will not make the kind of money they used to.

How are they gouging? Music is not a necessity. It is their product and they can charge what ever the fsck they want for it. Who are you to say what their price should be? If you don't like their prices, your option is a simple one, and only one: Don't buy their product.

But that's not the issue, is it? People don't like the RIAA because the RIAA is actively pursuing people who STEAL their product. This really isn't an issue of price. It's an issue of morality and theft. People cloak it in all sorts of inane arguments, but in the end, that's all it boils down to.

While I don't think they are gouging, I do believe that they are useing government as a crutch to prop up their business model.
I also think there is a diffrence between copy right violation and theft.
Fist of all, copyright is for a limited time. We do not give copyright to someone forever.
Second, infringing someones copy right does not cost them anything. It might prevent them from makeing profit, but It does not take anything from them.
Finally I do not think that copyright is a natural property right. I do not think you own something just because you thought it up, you only own your ability to think up such things. I am not sure that we can (or even should) get rid of copyright (patent, or any other form of IP) all together, but I think we need to re-evaluate the entire concept.
When something becomes so common that most people can create it on their own, can you still consider someone to own it?

No matter how much you dislike their "business model" (parrot much?) that does not entitle you to gain their intellectual property for free. Again, your only option is to not buy their product.

And your view on intellectual property is extremely myopic. The outcome of your ideology is the death of creativity and invention. Why create and invent of you cannot profit from it? Regardless of the anti-capitalistic, altruistic nonsense they teach in school these days, man works and creates for purely selfish reasons.

The concept works just fine. The problem is spoiled people with a twisted sense of entitlement have found an extremely easy way to gain media for free, and now are making up lame excuses for their unethical actions. And people like you parrot it to justify your theft.

 

[Pabster]

Yes, go to DownhillBattle and start your work.

And quit buying RIAA-sanctioned CDs.

EDIT: Quit stealing music, too. There's no excuse for it given the plethora of legal download options out there.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Skel

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

Originally posted by: Amused
The most absurd this here is that anyone would think they need to destroy them. As if you're entitled to music or something.

I am not entitled to music, but they are not entitled to profits either. Anytime a business needs to take away my freedom in order for it to make money, I need to destroy it.

What freedom are they taking away? The freedom to take the hard work of the artists and producers and do what you will with it?

Exactly. The claim that the RIAA has somehow taken away your freedom is absurd. Just because illegally downloading and distributing the intellectual property of others without compensation is extremely easy and free does not mean it is, or ever was a "freedom."

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

While I don't think they are gouging, I do believe that they are useing government as a crutch to prop up their business model.

I really wish people would quit going on about their "business model" unless you're willing to elaborate on wtf you mean. Until then you're just parrotting what you've heard dozens of other people say. Their "business model" has changed quite a bit in the last few years - you can buy MP3s online a track at a time for a VERY reasonable price. You can use a monthly fee service like Napster - which on its face seems like a raw deal since you don't get to keep the music when you cancel, but on the other hand for the price of ONE CD per month you can keep up with ALL of the latest music. It's hard to swallow because it's an entirely different approach. So what part of their "business model" do you people have a problem with? The fact that they're actually trying to sell music for a profit?

My issue is that the penalties associated with the violation of their intellectual property seem (to me) to be very much out of line with previous legal standards, and community expectations in general. I'd expect the downloading of music to attract a penalty that is similar in severity to say the shoplifting of the same music. But that isn't the case, "theft" in the digital realm is attracting penalties that appear (to me) to be absurdly harsh.