Is there any way we can destroy the RIAA?

[mugs]

Originally posted by: EKKC

that is so true. they cant embrace new technologies. DVD-audio for one like you said. and they wont do what apple is doing. sell your songs for 50 cents a piece and if your artists actually have any talent, you'll make a decent profit.

CDs been out for 20 years. Time to move on you greedy bitches.

I think the reason an optical media replacement for CDs hasn't taken hold is because of competing standards and lack of in-car players, not greed.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 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.

The problem with your point is, they are not going after people who merely download, but those who distribute/allow unlimited number of others to download the same material. In other words, file sharers.

If I leave my CD collection out on the porch, allowing passers by to pick it up, listen to it, record it, as they see fit - is that illegal?

If you allow an unlimited number of people to have copies of the IP, you are distributing it.

I don't agree. In my view, I am not 'distributing' my music by storing it on the porch. Actually, I'm not doing anything at all other than storing my music in a particular location that *I* have chosen. Do you believe that when I purchase intellectual property, then I am legally bound to store that IP in a location where no one other than myself may access it?

Originally posted by: Amused
Just because you distribute it for free doesn't make it any better.

You haven't convincingly established that I am 'distributing' anything. I'd like some more argument from you on this point.

Originally posted by: Amused
Free, or not, you are robbing the IP owners of their right to make a profit on thier IP.

Actually, their right to make a profit on the IP remains intact. I think what you meant to say was their chances of making a living on their IP are reduced.

Your argument that making your music freely available on the internet is not distributing it is inane at best, lame at worst. Do you honestly believe what you are saying?

I think you mean lame at best, inane at worst. A lame argment is certainly preferable to an inane agument.

As a matter of fact, I do believe I am morally entitled to store my entire music collection wherever the fvck I see fit. Including on-line. If others happen to stumble across my cache of music, then that's not my problem. I am not paid by the RIAA to enforce copy right law, and I certainly didn't sign papers guaranteeing I would store the music I have purchased in a location or manner approved by others.

Originally posted by: Amused
And yes, you are robbing the IP owner of their profits by freely mass distributing their music.

You haven't established that I am 'distributing' music by storing it in a location open to the public, and by the way it isn't my job to preserve the revenue streams of musical artists.

This issue here is intent.

What is an issue to me, is your (or the riaa's) insistence that I store my music in a location that is pleasing to you. Your anti-democratic, pro-fascist position on this matter is most alarming.

Originally posted by: Amused
You know damn well that by storing your music in the shared folder of a file sharing program, it will be open to the entire world to download for free

Of course I know that. That is the point of storing my music in a location where other's may access it. I want others to be able to access it.

Originally posted by: Amused
and violate copyright law. Doing so shows an intent to distribute.

Lol, music is not drugs, there is no crime of distributing music.

You need to explain why you think the riaa has a moral right to dictate the location or manner in which I store the music I have purchased.

Originally posted by: Amused
Inane, lame, call it what you want but your argument sucks.

I'd be interested to see you paraphrase 'my argument'. It seems to me you don't comprehend much of what I am saying.

I understand just fine. Your argument is "if I intentionally leave it where others are free to illegally download it, it's not my fault if they do." It's an invalid legal argument because your intent is clearly to freely distribute another's IP.

And yes, distribution of another's IP without their consent IS a illegal and actionable. Your argument that you just left it there and it's not your fault that others download is is bull. A P2P network is peer driven. Your intent was to clearly distribute the music in your shared folder.

Better yet, try your argument in any court and see how it flies. Oh, wait... it's been tried, and failed for obvious reasons.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
legislation to give musicians more rights over their ownership of their music. not gonna happen though


bastards killed sacd/dvda with their overzealous copy protection. now we are left with the choices of inferior digital downloads of technically obsolete cds to buy. gee thanks riaa.

No one forces musicians to sign contracts with RIAA affiliated companies. No legislation is needed.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: Amused
Last I looked, no one was forcing artists to sign contracts... Unless Tony Soprano started working for the record companies...

No, they're not forced... they only have to sign with a major label if they want to get air play, have their CDs sold in major retail outlets, and play in big venues. And then they get a whopping ten cents per $10-20 CD, but still have to foot the cost of recording the album, touring, and making videos.

There are literally thousands of people involved in creating, marketing and promoting a CD. All need to be paid. And the record company then needs to turn a profit. So do the distributers, and retailers. By the time it gets to you, the overhead takes up the vast majority of that $10-15.

Don't you think if it could be done cheaper, artists would have banded together and created their own labels? Oh, wait... they have. And guess what? The same ratios apply, only with those owner-artists getting the label profit themselves. But their overhead was the same. Non owner/artists got roughly the same deals they would at any other label.

 

[apoppin]

If you feel strongly about the RIAA - boycott them . . . STOP BUYING CDs [period]

support your favourite artists by going to concerts.

 

[remagavon]

Originally posted by: 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.

They are redistributing the IP, which in turn perpetuates the law violation. By downloading and sharing it, you are enabling 5, 10, 50, etc people to violate those same laws. I'm still not aware of any case where there has actually been a fine for downloading (not sharing) music (from a website, etc)--although there has been for movies IIRC.