RIAA dirty tricks.

[tm37]

Originally posted by: kasparov

Originally posted by: pulse8

Originally posted by: kasparov

Originally posted by: tm37

Originally posted by: kasparov

Originally posted by: Tabb
Wow, I don't see why anyone is complaining. Its online a matter of time before someone cracks their tracking system. Besides that, it's stealing. I don't care if its from Osama Bin Laden or God. Its still stealing.

the naivity of some people astounds me. taping a song off the radio is not stealing.. but downloading it from a P2P site is?

Are you asking for the record companies to take away your rights?

Radio station plays a song royalties are paid. Kazaa dioesn't pay royalties.

This is complete BS -- and an example of how much misinformation is out there. Record companies actually pay radio stations to air their songs.
They have only taxed internet radio stations because they want to put them out of busines.

If what you say is true, why are there advertisments on the radio and not just a constant stream of songs?

To further increase their profits. The practice is called payola.
Link

BY LAW when a song is played the writer gets royalties. Yes they focus on the big boys and may pay them to play certain artists as "promotion" yet you can't just start a station and start playing top 40. Even if you have a licence to broadcast on that freq, you would get shut down. Under the digital internet laws both the writer and performer are due royalties. This is not to say that people are not getting there backs scratched here and there but the RIAA does and should do everything to control distribution in whatever medium they so choose.

 

[kasparov]

Originally posted by: tm37

Originally posted by: kasparov

Originally posted by: pulse8

Originally posted by: kasparov

Originally posted by: tm37

Originally posted by: kasparov

Originally posted by: Tabb
Wow, I don't see why anyone is complaining. Its online a matter of time before someone cracks their tracking system. Besides that, it's stealing. I don't care if its from Osama Bin Laden or God. Its still stealing.

the naivity of some people astounds me. taping a song off the radio is not stealing.. but downloading it from a P2P site is?

Are you asking for the record companies to take away your rights?

Radio station plays a song royalties are paid. Kazaa dioesn't pay royalties.

This is complete BS -- and an example of how much misinformation is out there. Record companies actually pay radio stations to air their songs.
They have only taxed internet radio stations because they want to put them out of busines.

If what you say is true, why are there advertisments on the radio and not just a constant stream of songs?

To further increase their profits. The practice is called payola.
Link

BY LAW when a song is played the writer gets royalties. Yes they focus on the big boys and may pay them to play certain artists as "promotion" yet you can't just start a station and start playing top 40. Even if you have a licence to broadcast on that freq, you would get shut down. Under the digital internet laws both the writer and performer are due royalties. This is not to say that people are not getting there backs scratched here and there but the RIAA does and should do everything to control distribution in whatever medium they so choose.

Your viewpoint that the RIAA ought to control music content distribution is so stupid that I am convinced you work for the RIAA or get paid music royalties some how. Only a good amount of money can keep a person from thinking honestly and logically.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: kasparov
I can't beleive that the RIAA has bought our government and is turning it against us. Pretty soon, all fair usage rights will be killed.
We will have to pay royalities on everything. The RIAA want to strangle us all -- if they could they would charge us $1000 per song.
Those bastards.

Link

This link shows that the RIAA has lobbied the government to fight on its behalf against file-sharers. Internet privacy is now in the toilet.

Oh, sob, boohoo, wah, wah, wah, wah, wah!

Does the freaking crybaby resent creative artists getting paid for their work and not being able to steal music? :brokenheart: :frown:

Do you think your favorite artists should flip burgers all day so they can come home at night to play in their garages to entertain you?

Do you get paid for whatever work you do? Would you like it if your employer thought you should "donate" your time to enrich the company?

GROW UP! :|

 

[kasparov]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: kasparov
I can't beleive that the RIAA has bought our government and is turning it against us. Pretty soon, all fair usage rights will be killed.
We will have to pay royalities on everything. The RIAA want to strangle us all -- if they could they would charge us $1000 per song.
Those bastards.

Link

This link shows that the RIAA has lobbied the government to fight on its behalf against file-sharers. Internet privacy is now in the toilet.

Oh, sob, boohoo, wah, wah, wah, wah, wah!

Does the freaking crybaby resent creative artists getting paid for their work and not being able to steal music? :brokenheart: :frown:

Do you think your favorite artists should flip burgers all day so they can come home at night to play in their garages to entertain you?

Do you get paid for whatever work you do? Would you like it if your employer thought you should "donate" your time to enrich the company?

GROW UP! :|

Umm.. lets not get personal and lets stay on topic.
Its been shown that filesharers buy more CDs than the general populace. I.E. It hasn't been shown that filesharing is contributing to the global downturn in CD sales -- this downturn could be due to the fact that popular music right now sucks.. and the public isn't interested.

Also, do you honestly think that Eminem or Blink 182 is going to have to flip burgers just because I downloaded a couple of their songs?
I frankly get paid for what I do, and I am sure that artists expect the same. So why is it that the RIAA pays them just a couple pennies per song per CD?
Could it be that there are just 5 major music labels and they control the market?

What irks me is that the issue seems so black and white. Everyday consumers are getting screwed by the RIAA. Yet people like you stand up for the RIAA. I wonder why you rush to the defense of an organization that is bent on harming you.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Spencer278
Justice also said that the law did not violate due-process protections because nothing in the Constitution specifically barred the investigative process set up by the DMCA, which requires record labels to get approval from a court clerk before asking Verizon or other Internet providers to surrender customer names.

Good thing that justice knows how to read the Constitution.

The Constitution does not provide a list of what the government cannot do, it provides a short list of what government can do. This type of action is not on that list.

edit: Harvey, as I know you work in the industry, let me just say that if you are representative of your industry, that I hope for a swift end to it. You are the "lilies of the field" - pretty but worthless. Now your industry is acting like it is the most important thing out there, capable of violating the privacy and security of every citizen for the sake of your precious royalties, willing to convict all your fans as thieves. Enjoy hell. :|

Oh yeah, as for growing up... do you still support legislating the tobacco industry out of business because of your selfish interests? Or did you know that my industry has the fees that it can charge tightly regulated by law because of crybabies? Time for a crackdown on the business practices of the RIAA/MPAA, says I.

 

[GermyBoy]

That's what happens when the government is stupid, and the average joe who uses the internet doesn't have billions of dollars to donate to senators.

 

[Lithium381]

riaa sux!

 

[gopunk]

don't worry guys, i'll buy it back when i get rich

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: kasparov
Umm.. lets not get personal and lets stay on topic.
Its been shown that filesharers buy more CDs than the general populace. I.E. It hasn't been shown that filesharing is contributing to the global downturn in CD sales -- this downturn could be due to the fact that popular music right now sucks.. and the public isn't interested.

And who are you to judge exactly which music ripoff is, or is not "contributing to the global downturn in CD sales? You might have a different perspective if it was yourhit record that was being pirated.

Also, do you honestly think that Eminem or Blink 182 is going to have to flip burgers just because I downloaded a couple of their songs?
I frankly get paid for what I do, and I am sure that artists expect the same. So why is it that the RIAA pays them just a couple pennies per song per CD?

As a matter of personal taste, I hope Eminem rots in hell for the crap he puts out. I'm more concerned about all the extremely talented musicians I've known who are still trying for their first hit. Rich and famous only happens to a small percentage of them, and usualy, only as an result of years of effort and experience gained at far less than subsistance level compensation.

Could it be that there are just 5 major music labels and they control the market?

I'm not happy with the state of the music business, and I haven't been for decades. That means the business needs a lot of fixing. It does NOT mean it is OK to rip off the musicians, or the record companies, or the publishers, or anyone else who earns a legitimate living in the business through file sharing. That's like saying you don't like the interest rate on your mortgage is too high so it's OK to rob the bank.

Originally posted by: Vic
Harvey, as I know you work in the industry, let me just say that if you are representative of your industry...

Umm... NOPE! I am an electronic design engineer, and most of my work is in pro audio. I also used to play and sing professionally, and, at one time, I was an aspiring singer-songwriter. I know plenty of others still trying to make it, and I know for a fact that for every "star" you hear about, there are thousands more trying to support their lives playing, singing and writing. The same is true for actors, writers, painters, and every other creative art field. Even if the present state of every entertainment and art medium is totally corrupt, there is simply no justification for ripping them off even more by file sharing.

 

[Evadman]

File sharing is nto at issue here Harvey, and everyone else saying filesharing is good/evil. Filesharing is ILLEGAL, and I am sure everyone knows it. Just because silesharers buy more CD's than other people does not make it right. You don't own it, don't download it. You own it, don't share it. You buy it, make a backup copy. don't "lend" "give" "share" that backup copy. it is a BACKUP.

Whst is at issue is the lenghs that the RIAA is going to to go into my system and see what I have on it. The RIAA is trying to prove that the constitution can be changed and minipulated with enough money. Artists should get paid more then the pittance they get now. The reason file sharing came about is becuse CD's are inherently overpriced. the CD costs 10 cents, and is sold for $15. Of that $15, $2 is cost of manufacture, shipping, sales, advertizing, and suppot. $2 is the retail stores profit. So where does the other $11 go? not to artisits. it goes to the RIAA. These #'s were made up baised on the fact I am too lazy to look up the real ones, but I am sure they are close baised on my 7 years of retail purchasing for many different companies.

Basicly, the RIAA is trying to stomp on our liberties to secure their income stream. if they actually looked it it, they would see they are causing all their own problems.

 

[amnesiac]

When music companies wise up and let me log on to a site (WITHOUT membership fees), preview an album, and let me download the whole thing on unrestricted, "non-proprietary" MP3 for $5.00 I will be buying a whole lot more albums.

I don't believe in paying $13.99 for a CD when DVDs are still $15.99.

 

Originally posted by: amnesiac
When music companies wise up and let me log on to a site (WITHOUT membership fees), preview an album, and let me download the whole thing on unrestricted, "non-proprietary" MP3 for $5.00 I will be buying a whole lot more albums.

I don't believe in paying $13.99 for a CD when DVDs are still $15.99.

Some DVD's go for less than that too...

 

[0roo0roo]

if u really believed in supporting the artists you'd send them a personal check hehe

 

[Triumph]

Ii saw a display in a store one day (can't remember which); Spiderman dvd and Spiderman soundtrack on the same rack. The cd cost as much as the dvd.

I like having CD's, that's why I buy them, but I never pay more than 12 bucks. And even that is too much. I long for the day when bands will start distributing their own music via the internet, at say $0.50 a song or something. All proceeds go directly to artist = no use for RIAA. And no use for large record labels. And as an added benefit, no large record labels = no teeny pop flavor-of-the-week passing fad glossed over garbage music. No more Britney Spears, N'Sync, Backstreet Boys, etc etc.

 

[kleinesarschloch]

Originally posted by: amnesiac
When music companies wise up and let me log on to a site (WITHOUT membership fees), preview an album, and let me download the whole thing on unrestricted, "non-proprietary" MP3 for $5.00 I will be buying a whole lot more albums.

I don't believe in paying $13.99 for a CD when DVDs are still $15.99.

previewing is a big thing for me. i don't even know how many cd's i bought that had one good song. you can't rely on other people or reviews, they probably have a different taste in music. p2p apps give me a way to make sure i'm not wasting my money.

 

[kasparov]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: kasparov
Umm.. lets not get personal and lets stay on topic.
Its been shown that filesharers buy more CDs than the general populace. I.E. It hasn't been shown that filesharing is contributing to the global downturn in CD sales -- this downturn could be due to the fact that popular music right now sucks.. and the public isn't interested.

And who are you to judge exactly which music ripoff is, or is not "contributing to the global downturn in CD sales? You might have a different perspective if it was yourhit record that was being pirated.

Also, do you honestly think that Eminem or Blink 182 is going to have to flip burgers just because I downloaded a couple of their songs?
I frankly get paid for what I do, and I am sure that artists expect the same. So why is it that the RIAA pays them just a couple pennies per song per CD?

As a matter of personal, I hope Eminem rots in hell for the crap he puts out. I'm more concerned about all the extremely talented musicians I've known who are still trying for their first hit. Rich and famous only happens to a small percentage of them, and usualy, only as an result of years of effort and experience gained at far less than subsistance level compensation.

Could it be that there are just 5 major music labels and they control the market?

I'm not happy with the state of the music business, and I haven't been for decades. That means the business needs a lot of fixing. It does NOT mean it is OK to rip off the musicians, or the record companies, or the publishers, or anyone else who earns a legitimate living in the business through file sharing. That's like saying you don't like the interest rate on your mortgage is too high so it's OK to rob the bank.

Originally posted by: Vic
Harvey, as I know you work in the industry, let me just say that if you are representative of your industry...

Umm... NOPE! I am an electronic design engineer, and most of my work is in pro audio. I also used to play and sing professionally, and, at one time, I was an aspiring singer-songwriter. I know plenty of others still trying to make it, and I know for a fact that for every "star" you hear about, there are thousands more trying to support their lives playing, singing and writing. The same is true for actors, writers, painters, and every other creative art field. Even if the present state of every entertainment and art medium is totally corrupt, there is simply no justification for ripping them off even more by file sharing.

Not to be too off topic but two points:

1) The fact that you don't like Eminem probably means you are a liberal.
2) How much money have you lost due to file sharing?

My guess is that you haven't lost 5 cents due to file sharing because nobody downloads your stuff. No body even wants to sample it.
If someone did want to download your music via P2P, you'd probably be better off financially.

I am not attacking you. I am just making the point that small, honest artists aren't the ones losing anything from P2P technologies. Hell, I don't think that even rich sucessful artists are losing anything. The people who might be losing money are the rich execuatives who have cornered the distribution of the music in this country.

 

[Spyro]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
if u really believed in supporting the artists you'd send them a personal check hehe

 

[Imdmn04]

is the RIAA considered a cartel? isnt that illegal because of price fixing, and how do they maintain as a cartel?

because from what i have learned in microeconomics, cartels arent stable because someone will always try to cheat by lowering the price/upping the quantity while hoping everyone else abide by the rules.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: kasparov
Not to be too off topic but two points:

1) The fact that you don't like Eminem probably means you are a liberal.
2) How much money have you lost due to file sharing?

My guess is that you haven't lost 5 cents due to file sharing because nobody downloads your stuff. No body even wants to sample it.
If someone did want to download your music via P2P, you'd probably be better off financially.

I am not attacking you. I am just making the point that small, honest artists aren't the ones losing anything from P2P technologies. Hell, I don't think that even rich sucessful artists are losing anything. The people who might be losing money are the rich execuatives who have cornered the distribution of the music in this country.

Your ignorance is astounding, and your audacity to make any assumptions about me, let alone about recording artists, successful and otherwise, tells me you need to do understand the meaning behind a title that is a parody of a famous country hit, "Don't It Make Your Blue Eyes Brown?"

Do you ever open your mouth to do anything besides changing feet? :Q

 

[Mallow]

the man is keepin' me down!

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Imdmn04
is the RIAA considered a cartel? isnt that illegal because of price fixing, and how do they maintain as a cartel?

because from what i have learned in microeconomics, cartels arent stable because someone will always try to cheat by lowering the price/upping the quantity while hoping everyone else abide by the rules.

you can cheat in a cartel that sells the same product, music you can't really cheat all that much because the products aren't the same. sure, they'll try to find a similar sounding band to the hit band, but its most likely not going to detract that much from the hit's sales, and its going to be a bit later in time anyway. its more like collusion between oligopolists. and yes, the music industry has been convicted of price fixing several times.


the telecom deregulation act is an utter failure as far as broadcasting goes. and they can't just put the cat back in the bag, either. horrible piece of legislation.

 

[kasparov]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: kasparov
Not to be too off topic but two points:

1) The fact that you don't like Eminem probably means you are a liberal.
2) How much money have you lost due to file sharing?

My guess is that you haven't lost 5 cents due to file sharing because nobody downloads your stuff. No body even wants to sample it.
If someone did want to download your music via P2P, you'd probably be better off financially.

I am not attacking you. I am just making the point that small, honest artists aren't the ones losing anything from P2P technologies. Hell, I don't think that even rich sucessful artists are losing anything. The people who might be losing money are the rich execuatives who have cornered the distribution of the music in this country.

Your ignorance is astounding, and your audacity to make any assumptions about me, let alone about recording artists, successful and otherwise, tells me you need to do understand the meaning behind a title that is a parody of a famous country hit, "Don't It Make Your Blue Eyes Brown?"

Do you ever open your mouth to do anything besides changing feet? :Q

How are my assumptions wrong? How have you ever lost money due to P2P technology?

 

[tm37]

Originally posted by: kasparov

Your viewpoint that the RIAA ought to control music content distribution is so stupid that I am convinced you work for the RIAA or get paid music royalties some how. Only a good amount of money can keep a person from thinking honestly and logically.

You question MY honesty and logic. With the drivel you have been spouting it you should really try to stay away from personal attacks.

DId I say I agreed with the RIAA's tatics? However I do understand the motives that drive them. They SHOULD try and control the assets that they hold. THis is not a question of howmuch money is two much money. If people are willing to pay 20 or 30 bucks for a CD that is what they should charge. 10 years ago a CD cost about 12-17 bucks, today they are 12-17 bucks. Shock but almost everything else has gone up in price, including books.

I am a firm believer that if someone holds an asset they should attempt to make as much profit from that asset as possible. IF people beleive that is two much they shouldn't steal it they should just not buy it. You seem to talk as if you feel you are intitled to music and that they have no right to choose how that music is delivered to you. Would you consider sneaking into a a theater theft? what if the movie was good or bad. The bottom line is that the RIAA and their MEMBER COMPANIES are trying to protect there assests. They want and should retain the right to distribute how they see fit. If you decide that you don't like their method of distribution you should choose another entertainment venue. You do have choices. and in many areas thgoose choices are free. Turn on the radio or TV. both can be had for free. The music industry has said that if you want to listen to OUR MUSIC this is how you may obtain it. Again you have the coice to say NO.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: tm37

Originally posted by: kasparov

Your viewpoint that the RIAA ought to control music content distribution is so stupid that I am convinced you work for the RIAA or get paid music royalties some how. Only a good amount of money can keep a person from thinking honestly and logically.

You question MY honesty and logic. With the drivel you have been spouting it you should really try to stay away from personal attacks.

DId I say I agreed with the RIAA's tatics? However I do understand the motives that drive them. They SHOULD try and control the assets that they hold. THis is not a question of howmuch money is two much money. If people are willing to pay 20 or 30 bucks for a CD that is what they should charge. 10 years ago a CD cost about 12-17 bucks, today they are 12-17 bucks. Shock but almost everything else has gone up in price, including books.

I am a firm believer that if someone holds an asset they should attempt to make as much profit from that asset as possible. IF people beleive that is two much they shouldn't steal it they should just not buy it. You seem to talk as if you feel you are intitled to music and that they have no right to choose how that music is delivered to you. Would you consider sneaking into a a theater theft? what if the movie was good or bad. The bottom line is that the RIAA and their MEMBER COMPANIES are trying to protect there assests. They want and should retain the right to distribute how they see fit. If you decide that you don't like their method of distribution you should choose another entertainment venue. You do have choices. and in many areas thgoose choices are free. Turn on the radio or TV. both can be had for free. The music industry has said that if you want to listen to OUR MUSIC this is how you may obtain it. Again you have the coice to say NO.

Screw them, I'm in it for me and what I can get out of it. If it costs some Dope Smoking Over Sexed Musician his livelyhood then tough sh!t as I am a product of American Society and all I care about is what's in it for me!! America, what a great country!

 

[tm37]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: tm37

Originally posted by: kasparov

Your viewpoint that the RIAA ought to control music content distribution is so stupid that I am convinced you work for the RIAA or get paid music royalties some how. Only a good amount of money can keep a person from thinking honestly and logically.

You question MY honesty and logic. With the drivel you have been spouting it you should really try to stay away from personal attacks.

DId I say I agreed with the RIAA's tatics? However I do understand the motives that drive them. They SHOULD try and control the assets that they hold. THis is not a question of howmuch money is two much money. If people are willing to pay 20 or 30 bucks for a CD that is what they should charge. 10 years ago a CD cost about 12-17 bucks, today they are 12-17 bucks. Shock but almost everything else has gone up in price, including books.

I am a firm believer that if someone holds an asset they should attempt to make as much profit from that asset as possible. IF people beleive that is two much they shouldn't steal it they should just not buy it. You seem to talk as if you feel you are intitled to music and that they have no right to choose how that music is delivered to you. Would you consider sneaking into a a theater theft? what if the movie was good or bad. The bottom line is that the RIAA and their MEMBER COMPANIES are trying to protect there assests. They want and should retain the right to distribute how they see fit. If you decide that you don't like their method of distribution you should choose another entertainment venue. You do have choices. and in many areas thgoose choices are free. Turn on the radio or TV. both can be had for free. The music industry has said that if you want to listen to OUR MUSIC this is how you may obtain it. Again you have the coice to say NO.

Screw them, I'm in it for me and what I can get out of it. If it costs some Dope Smoking Over Sexed Musician his livelyhood then tough sh!t as I am a product of American Society and all I care about is what's in it for me!! America, what a great country!

Well red when you lay it out like that.....................................