RIAA Grabs Student's Life's Savings

[Topher]

I am a professional musician, and I don't appreciate what the RIAA is doing, and they certainly will NEVER represent me. They are behind the times and unwilling to find a way to make the internet and mp3s (ogg, etc.) work to their advantage. I can tell you that thanks to mp3s and the internet, I have had many an opportunity to preview music, which, in turn, has led me to purchase numerous cds that I wouldn't have otherwise even given any thought to. It has also allowed me the opportunity to not waste my money on a cd that is clearly not worth the paper used to print the liner.

On the other hand, I don't appreciate people stealing my work. I cannot continue to do what I do, without the support of the buying public. Fortunately, there are enough of them that I can (barely) make a living doing what I love.

 

[StormRider]

Originally posted by: isaacmacdonald

Originally posted by: dparker

Originally posted by: syberscott
The irony is that the RIAA would not be resorting to such tactics if people would just stop stealing music.

The irony is people would stop stealing if something decent was put out and the price was lowered to a reasonable level.

exactly. I'll be buying hail to the thief (though I did download the prerease months ago), but that's about the only thing I've heard recently that is worth plunking down 14 bucks. These guys need to get with the program.

That's a ridiculous argument. So many people spend so much time downloading music from the internet to build up their collection. What happens if they suffer a HD crash and lose their "precious" collection? They become distraught. If all that music were really crappy, why spend so much time and love building up that collection?

Nobody spends all that time and energy if the music were really crappy.

That's like saying, "If the food didn't taste so horrible, I wouldn't have stolen it and become fat while eating it".

 

[StormRider]

BTW, I think CD prices are too high. If they were lower I would probably be buying more music -- but that still doesn't give me an excuse to take what I want without paying.

By contrast, I think DVD prices are very fair. I've been buying tons of DVDs and I've also been going to the theaters more. However, if copying DVDs were just as easy, quick, and cheap as copying CDs, I guarantee you people will just start copying them instead of buying them.

Let's stop fooling ourselves with this argument/excuse that CDs are too expensive -- therefore I have the right to steal it. You're stealing it because it's so easy to do and you can.

 

[StormRider]

Originally posted by: Topher
I am a professional musician, and I don't appreciate what the RIAA is doing, and they certainly will NEVER represent me. They are behind the times and unwilling to find a way to make the internet and mp3s (ogg, etc.) work to their advantage. I can tell you that thanks to mp3s and the internet, I have had many an opportunity to preview music, which, in turn, has led me to purchase numerous cds that I wouldn't have otherwise even given any thought to. It has also allowed me the opportunity to not waste my money on a cd that is clearly not worth the paper used to print the liner.

On the other hand, I don't appreciate people stealing my work. I cannot continue to do what I do, without the support of the buying public. Fortunately, there are enough of them that I can (barely) make a living doing what I love.

Well, it sounds like you are just "trying out" the music. This is different from people who have saved gigabytes of music in their permanent collection -- and provide everybody in the world easy access to it.

 

[StormRider]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: syberscott
Merriam-Webster Dictionary
steal
to take and carry away without right or permission

Just because you are taking something electronically doesn't mean it's not stealing.

If I go to record-shop and shoplift a CD, I'm stealing (I'm "carrying away without permission"). If I download a song from the net, I'm NOT stealing, I'm committing a copyright infringment. Those two are two entirely different things. In one case I physically take a product, denying the seller a sale. In the latter case I'm not denying a sale since I'm not removing the product from the seller. The seller still has the product to sell.

Would I be stealing your car if I could make an identical copy of it by snapping my fingers and then taking that copy for myself? No I would not. you would still have your car. Hell, you propably wouldn't even notice if I made a copy of your car.

The effect of making an identical copy of a car and giving it away hurts the maker of the car just as much as stealing it. If Joe Blow gave away free copies of a car, why would anyone buy the original car? What happens to the maker of the car? He put in a lot of hard work and he can't sell any cars and make money to feed his family and pay his mortgage.

 

[CrazyDe1]

The ways of record promotion and record labels of the past are gone. No longer will new music be developed and lables signing artists. The new way of selling music and releasing music won't be through a huge lable paying a clear channel station to play music. It will be through the internet and shows. Bands will make 5 bucks on each CD with none going to the label to try to develop new music. Music will readily be available for d/l and CDs will be sold through individual band portal sites at 6-7 bucks a CD with a free use music liscense. Something like 70% of all CD profits go directly into developing new artists. There won't be any record labels in the future, only free music liscenses and internet promotion. It will be kind of how emo bands get their songs out now....only on a much larger scale

Local music scenes will be huge...I'm calling it now...

 

[UglyCasanova]

Originally posted by: CrazyDe1
The ways of record promotion and record labels of the past are gone. No longer will new music be developed and lables signing artists. The new way of selling music and releasing music won't be through a huge lable paying a clear channel station to play music. It will be through the internet and shows. Bands will make 5 bucks on each CD with none going to the label to try to develop new music. Music will readily be available for d/l and CDs will be sold through individual band portal sites at 6-7 bucks a CD with a free use music liscense. Something like 70% of all CD profits go directly into developing new artists. There won't be any record labels in the future, only free music liscenses and internet promotion. It will be kind of how emo bands get their songs out now....only on a much larger scale

Local music scenes will be huge...I'm calling it now...

I would love to see the local scene grow. I believe word of mouth on the internet will be a huge factor in the post-RIAA music scene.

 

[BCskunk]

damn RIAA

 

[Topher]

Originally posted by: StormRider

Originally posted by: Topher
I am a professional musician, and I don't appreciate what the RIAA is doing, and they certainly will NEVER represent me. They are behind the times and unwilling to find a way to make the internet and mp3s (ogg, etc.) work to their advantage. I can tell you that thanks to mp3s and the internet, I have had many an opportunity to preview music, which, in turn, has led me to purchase numerous cds that I wouldn't have otherwise even given any thought to. It has also allowed me the opportunity to not waste my money on a cd that is clearly not worth the paper used to print the liner.

On the other hand, I don't appreciate people stealing my work. I cannot continue to do what I do, without the support of the buying public. Fortunately, there are enough of them that I can (barely) make a living doing what I love.

Well, it sounds like you are just "trying out" the music. This is different from people who have saved gigabytes of music in their permanent collection -- and provide everybody in the world easy access to it.

That's what I expect people to do with my music. Try it, if you like it, buy it, if not, thanks for listening anyway. Besides, it's not like I'm going to be rich and famous for my music. I just want enough to give my kids a decent living. However, I make more in my day job and weekly private lessons than I do as a performer. Time to dust off all my old unfinished arrangements and start publishing now.

 

[necro702]

Originally posted by: shady06

Originally posted by: SammySon
Gives me more reason to pirate now.

lol, same here

ditto mah nitto

 

[necro702]

Originally posted by: CorporateRecreation
He got caught, should we feel sorry for him? Maybe. Was he wrong? Yes.

Na he wasn't. Wrong is finding no WMD's.

 

[0roo0roo]

when everyone steals and the big brother giant corps die, artists flourish! look at china! look at asia! look at mexico!!

oh wait


mexico has lost 18%+ sales a year for the last couple years. then again there you can buy pirated cd's straight off the street. their copyright laws really suck. u have to actually complain about a individual street vendor before the police will even bother. even then nothing happens. in a salon.com article on it the street vendors that sell the stuff use about the same reasoning as the pirates in this thread. the music industry in mexico is crumbling, they hang on to the stars since those are sure bets and don't invest in risky new talent since theres no money. thats good for everyone

dunno, some people have this wonderous view of the world where everything becomes better if its free. you know, in a perfect world etc etc.


kinda like communism, it doesn't work in reality.

 

[necro702]

Originally posted by: MistaTastyCakes
This is his website.

Link

The RIAA sure is making a big point here by ruining poor college kids' lives. I bet they're mighty proud of themselves too. Anyone working there who felt any sort of pride or happiness in this story is deviod of soul and morals.

What you have to understand is they don't care and never will. Whatever is better for the RIAA is the only important thing. If lives are ruined in the process they could care less.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: StormRider

Originally posted by: Topher
I am a professional musician, and I don't appreciate what the RIAA is doing, and they certainly will NEVER represent me. They are behind the times and unwilling to find a way to make the internet and mp3s (ogg, etc.) work to their advantage. I can tell you that thanks to mp3s and the internet, I have had many an opportunity to preview music, which, in turn, has led me to purchase numerous cds that I wouldn't have otherwise even given any thought to. It has also allowed me the opportunity to not waste my money on a cd that is clearly not worth the paper used to print the liner.

On the other hand, I don't appreciate people stealing my work. I cannot continue to do what I do, without the support of the buying public. Fortunately, there are enough of them that I can (barely) make a living doing what I love.

Well, it sounds like you are just "trying out" the music. This is different from people who have saved gigabytes of music in their permanent collection -- and provide everybody in the world easy access to it.

yup, people that atleast try to support artists they listen to aren't really the problem. its the ever growing boatloads of freeloaders that convince themselves they are fighting the good fight by stealing others work and never paying and that the world would be better if everyone were like them.

 

[fluxquantum]

Originally posted by: Lyfer
The RIAA can go fvck themselves.

right on

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: fluxquantum

Originally posted by: Lyfer
The RIAA can go fvck themselves.

right on

looks like a battle between two different kinds of fvckers

 

[elkinm]

I am not sure what this case is focused on, but it sounds rediculous. If copyighted and illegal material was found on his system is fine and is wrong. Proof of sharing is entierly a different matter, but in no way is creating the search engine illegal even if it is intended to search for ilegal material. If it is, then I can see only one possible course of action. The RIAA found him and his program as well as others so they clearly have so mearch engine for doing so. So clearly there should be a suit filed directly against the RIAA based directly on this case. And the result or setelment can be no less the entire RIAA budget in comparison to the $12000 life savings. He is not above the law and neither is the RIAA, and if the case had any bearing on his search engine the case aginst the RIAA should not last very long for similar reasons.

 

[shootsfor3]

That court case finally settled, the one where the record labels were accused of keeping record prices at a certain level, they finally figured out that the people will get around $12 or so if u applied for it, who knows when we'll actually get the $$.

 

That's a ridiculous argument. So many people spend so much time downloading music from the internet to build up their collection. What happens if they suffer a HD crash and lose their "precious" collection? They become distraught. If all that music were really crappy, why spend so much time and love building up that collection?

Nobody spends all that time and energy if the music were really crappy.

That's like saying, "If the food didn't taste so horrible, I wouldn't have stolen it and become fat while eating it".

I think the intention of their arguement is to say that the ratio of worth vs price of music today is far offset.

I won't make any bs excuses, I like to download music with the intent of getting it for free.
The internet has made music stores all but obsolete. Their standard method of market delivery is slow and clunky.
I can log on to anyone of numerous sites, browse through a continually updated and maintained listing of new and old music.
The quality is top notch, and what I want is always there. Can't say the same about a storefront or any pay music service online.
Teenagers for years have been able to setup and maintain information transfer services and distrobution platforms that rival most corporations. They can't even deliver music to the market before it's prereleased in the scene. Why would someone want to pay to use a vastly inferior system? To feel good about themselves? Does buying something make you feel good? If so you need help.

I myself am a musician, it does not support my life, but it has provided much extra income. Whenever I have the chance to give my music away, I do. Be it arms length transfer, or fxp'ed 12,000 miles away. I'm happy to see someone listening to my music, that makes me feel good. Making money off of it does not. Having someone genuinely love your music is worth more than any dollar amount.

Music has become about the money and not the art. Intellectual property is mostly a farce spearheaded by greedy lawyers, corporations and american binge consumer ideals.
If I want to give an artist my money, I'll pay for a ticket into a concert, walk up to the stage, ball up my wad of money and throw it at them. I would yell at the same time "hey, thanks for the rockin tunes man! I wanted to pay you directly dooder, keep on rockin! Tell your agent I said [nelson] ha ha [/nelson]"

 

[StageLeft]

When I was in unversity my life savings were about -$50 in credit card debt.

 

[BadNewsBears]

Originally posted by: syberscott
The irony is that the RIAA would not be resorting to such tactics if people would just stop stealing music.

I am sybescott and I am fvktard. Its not stealing when you put it into a public folder. YOUR GIVING IT TO SOMEONE. Itd be different if somoene payed .01 for a song, or they hacked you for a song. But they wern't. STFU assclown

 

[Chadder007]

Originally posted by: shady06

Originally posted by: SammySon
Gives me more reason to pirate now.

lol, same here

Yep. Time to screw up their website again?

 

[shootsfor3]

Originally posted by: Chadder007

Originally posted by: shady06

Originally posted by: SammySon
Gives me more reason to pirate now.

lol, same here

Yep. Time to screw up their website again?

Hell Yeah, I was thinking the same thing

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: Munchies

Originally posted by: syberscott
The irony is that the RIAA would not be resorting to such tactics if people would just stop stealing music.

I am sybescott and I am fvktard. Its not stealing when you put it into a public folder. YOUR GIVING IT TO SOMEONE. Itd be different if somoene payed .01 for a song, or they hacked you for a song. But they wern't. STFU assclown

Let me subtitle that for you. Excuse the crude analogies, I'm tired.

Originally posted by: Munchies
I am Munchies and I am retarded.
Its not stealing when you put it into a public folder. (No, it's the equivalent to bootlegging a few thousand copies and giving them away outside a record store.)
YOUR GIVING IT TO SOMEONE who doesn't own the music and can't legally download it. Fair use doesn't extend this far.
Itd be different if somoene payed .01 for a song because then you'd be selling stolen property as opposed to just giving it away, or they hacked you for a song if I were ever to hack you, I'd blow your computer up so you couldn't poison the Internet any further.
But they wern't. You're just granting access to hundreds or thousands of songs that they've got no right to own. It's like SlimJimming a parking lot full of cars then pointing a gang of car thieves towards them.
STFU assclown because you're making me prove just how stupid I am.

0wn3d.

- M4H

 

[BadNewsBears]

Fair use can suck the wang. If I were putting say a sublime song on Kazaa for example, I dont see it as pirating, or being able to be labeled as an accomplice to stealing.

As far as some l33t pictue goes. That cucks.
E-thug man. http://www.attrition.org/gallery/computing/forum/tn/domesticEthug.jpg.html