Stop or We Sue, RIAA Says

[jabarnutcase]

Yea, I know it's the same old story. But they appear to be relentless.
The statement was endorsed by dozens of popular recording artists, including Sheryl Crow, The Dixie Chicks, Peter Gabriel, and Missy Elliot.
May their Limousines all drive into a lake. I wouldn't download their crap music anyway, so they have nothing to worry about.


"We'd much rather spend time making music then (sic) dealing with legal issues in courtrooms. But we cannot stand by while piracy takes a devastating toll on artists, musicians, songwriters, retailers, and everyone in the music industry."
The RIAA just doesn't have a clue. Maybe some of them should try WORKING for a living instead of getting fat off of "musicians" (If that's what you want to call some of them). :mad:

Sorry, just ranting. Some of you may disagree with me....That's fine too. But the way they're going about this just really *#@*%* <-(EDITED BY ME FOR BAD LANGUAGE)

http://www.techtv.com/news/news/story/0,24195,3463091,00.html

(OK...I'm done now. Have a nice day. :) )

[BigBlue66]

These people have no right to complain about their precious music getting ripped off.

What about the consumer who goes to buy a recording artist's brand new CD, only to find songs on it from previous albums? That really ticks me off.

[YODA74]

Copyright gives the owner exclusive rights to reproduce, adapt, publicly distribute, perform and display their work. Nonetheless, the law allows "fair use" of copyrighted material. Fair use permits, in certain circumstances, the use or copying of all or a portion of a copyrighted work without the permission of the owner. Copyrighted works may be used for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. To decide whether a use is "fair use" or not, courts consider, in part:
(1) the purpose and character of the use (including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes);
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work (giving creative works more protection than factual works);
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole (including size and quality- i.e. Does the portion represent the "heart" of the work); and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
Courts balance these factors, placing an emphasis on the fourth, however rulings have been unpredictable. Parody may be protected by fair use where the user is actually making a comment on or criticism of the copyrighted material, even if a profit is made from the use.

[Fruss Tray Ted]

Let's face the facts.

Downloading music by selection in a format of superior quality than "recording random (or requests) from the fm radio" is not the same thing. Pure and simple. File 'sharing' is not catching a few tunes from a sceduled broadcast of any sort be it through airwaves or internet, satellite etc.

I feel for the musicians, after all I am one. (Don't worry, I won't quit my day job.. :eek: ) But I have no respect, AAMOF, I loathe the rest of the music industry. They are too greedy going in BOTH directions, they slave the artists and stick it too the general public and make it seem it's the bands etal that are part of the evil scheme of things. The hardest worker there is the musicians themselves. Don't be a fool to think it's all gravy, comes naturally and doesn't involve tons of dedication and hard work. Whether or not you like their material, they deserve some respect for their efforts (Boy! that's a hard pill for even me to swallow! Esp. when it comes to (c)rap.)

mjc seems to have a happy medium in that in order to download any material, there should be a fair market value for the desired pieces. Downsize (take a bomb to) the corporate part of the industry and lower the prices of cd's, stop wasting everybodies time in court, also stop interfering with peoples pc's and such as this seems to be willfull destruction of another's property IMO.

In other words, I'm standing firmly 'on the fence'. I am for the control of the distribution yet do not like it in it's current state. http://www.beenzeria.com/nuovismiles/classiche6/soap.gif Stepping off now...

[superdrumr]

As has been pointed out before, by myself and others. There is a problem with piracy, but if the RIAA would simply pull their heads out of their a**es they would find that there are plenty of solutions that would make everybody happy. However when it comes down to it, they just want those few extra cents too bad.

[hawk7771us]

if they made it 5 cent a song or maybe 10 cent i would buy it. like i tunes at 90 cents for an mp3 or what ever they call it no. it the same as a cd.twenty songs $18.00 no way.

[Ghost_Hacker]

First lets put to rest this "superior quality " line. Most folks haven't a clue what is a superior recording nor do they have the "boxes" to hear it with. If they did Japan would have stop selling those little earphones with their media devices long ago.


Second, times change and so do industries. The record industry will have to adapt to the changes brought on by the internet or it will die a slow death. Am I concerned?? NO, after all new technologies put folks out of work all the time. Get over it. Sharing of music files will not kill music but it might just kill your fav group . Oh, how my heart bleeds...


Third, tough law enforcement does not always work to solve a crime problem. The RIAA will scare of the casual file sharer just as drug laws scare off casual drug users. But last time I looked their was still a drug problem in this country.

Sharing of music files will not go away no matter how much some folks wish it would or how much enforcement of law some folks put behind it.

EDIT Thanks Yoda!! I just hope it doesn't take too long to loadup the nav menu. :)

[YODA74]

GH Love your new site very creative;)

[superdrumr]

Agreed, it has a very nice, and spooky, new interface

[Baron of Sigma]

Im not to afraid over all this hoopla. It is going to take years and year for the RIAA and other companies to put a halt on file swaping. A friend of mine made a good point,



Hephaestus of CalmNerves.org;


I find it amusing that people always try to argue about what should be allowed on the internet or not. They always seem to forget that it's the world wide web, not pertaining to any specific country's laws. It's its complete own realm where policing is impossible and time wasting. The only thing that could happen because of the internet is if someone was running a server in a country where data it contains is illegal, like a child porn server in America.

Eventually America realized it's impossible and quit trying to police websites like KKK and terrorist organiziations. They'll eventually realize policing P2P is impossible and time wasting as well, and that even if they close some programs (like Napster) new and improved versions will just arrise, and this time people will be pissed off.

[Budfred]

What they are actually doing is resorting to guerilla warfare.... They are planting programs in P2P sites that will shut down your ability to make copies, they are including programs like Cdilla even in legit programs to prevent you from making copies, there are even some rumors of them distributing destructive viruses in P2P sites to destroy the systems of people who they see as stealing their stuff.... This is equally protected by the international and anonymous nature of the web.

It would be nice if we could all learn to play nice, but that doesn't seem to likely anytime soon...

Oh, and Welcome to http://www.pcguide.com/ubb/pcgubb.gif

[Baron of Sigma]

Thank you, Im glad to be a member. Weee 998 posts till I get my own avatar!!

:does a little dance:

[Budfred]

Getting an Avatar and progressing in order of geekdom is determined by the same numbering system used in computers. In other words, you get to choose a title at 512 and you get to choose an avatar at 1024....

[superdrumr]

keep in mind that the RIAA will never be able to legal put viruses in P2P programs because it would violate federal anti-hacking laws. Even if they got those changed it would be a violation of the 5th ammendment (due process) and therefore unconstitutional

[linc]

At first I thought the riaa was right in defending copyright, then i came across this
www.janisjoplin.com

and reversed my opinion.

let's take a little look at the future, thousands of people are jailed because they can't afford the fines, more jails will have to be built,so there wil be more employment for construction workers, then prison staff, by the time half of your country is in jail, the riaa will be moaning that no one is buying cd's boo-hoo, should have thought of that before starting this stupid crackdown, why didn't they come up with other methods, at least explore them.

I remember watching one of the three degrees on tv talking, she said the first time they came over to uk, they stayed at 1st class hotels had a limo to take them anywhere, they thought it was great until they got back to the usa and found they had been billed for everything.

so the next time they came over they bought a car they kept for when they came over, i think they said they also bought a house, [not sure] but they sure cut down on expenses.

I agree with Fruss Tray Ted, the musicians are the hardest workers in the industry, the rest are just parasites and deserve what they are going to reap.

linc

[Budfred]

superdrumr,

I think you missed part of the Baron's point.... The web is international. That means that the RIAA can use another entry point in another country to circumvent USA laws, just as the people who pirate their products do... In this way, they can distribute viruses or other nasty ways to protect their "product". As long as they cover their tracks, who will stop them???

[Baron of Sigma]

This is all going to far in my opinion. Its not like people are making copies of the music and selling it to make profit. I think these people should focus more on the illegal software that is being pirated then the music. Its so easy to get a $700 prog off a p2p server in a matter of minutes. File swapping as far as music is concerned really cant be stopped because if you think about it, if some one really wanted to get their hands on a song they could have some one email it to them, or upload it onto a server, or something to that degree. Its more of a gimmick then an actual enforcement. Since we are mainly dealing with the music industry, you have all of these stars that speak out against it, but if it was all about programs and accessories who would listen to John Carmack, or Bill Gates. I think the RIAA in compliance with some other companies are doing this as a type of scare tactic. It would be impossible for the RIAA or any other institution to completely monitor every thing that every one does. Even if the FBI released a new version of carnivore or magic lantern that was able to monitor every thing you did, it would literally take years to prosecute, and convict every person who participated in file swapping.

You know I in a way feel for the music industry, but in other ways I don’t care. Because people still buy burnable CD's, people still go to concerts, people still buy posters and shirts, and the teenagers spend all of their money on their idle just because of how popular they are. Look at m&m, he has been a star for about 4 years now and in his first year he became a billionaire. Now I’m not talking about fairness... but not every single person can afford to throw away $13.95 on a CD. What apple did with the "buy a song for 99 cent deal" I think was a good thing. Most people feel like, "As long as I have access to free stuff I’m not going to pay for it."

That’s how we as humans are. If we didn’t have to work most of us wouldn’t. If we didn’t have to pay bills, most of us wouldn’t. If we didn’t have to do a bunch of stuff that we didn’t have to, most of us wouldn’t. So its not only about what the music industry wants, but its also what us as consumers want. I think this is a revolution in the consumer goods market. The RIAA, FBI, CIA and other government agencies have come to see that if we as humans can do something without being punished for it, we will. And now it looks as though they are stepping up and trying to enforce the law.

[Budfred]

In your first paragraph it sounds like you are saying that it is okay to steal music, but it is wrong to steal software. I don't think you can have it both ways. I don't like the RIAA and some of its tactics, but I also don't think it is right to steal from music companies, publishers, software makers or consumers. If you justify stealing from others because it is easy to do, does that mean it is ok for me to take your car because you made it easy for me to do so because you left the keys in it???

I agree that something needs to be changed about how media is sold since the current system is breaking down and attacking people's computers is not the solution. I also don't believe prosecuting college kids involved in file sharing, no matter how massive, is the solution. Every time technology has leaped forward, the media companies have whined and complained and ended up making more money than before. This time is different, but they need to be creative rather than prosecutorial if they want to come out of this with anything....

[Baron of Sigma]

No I’m not saying its alright to steal music but not programs. I am saying it seems like a tactic because if everything was about file swapping, and not music swapping, people would also focus on movies, games and programs. But since the music industry is soo huge and music is very popular with teens, its a way of focusing their maneuvers on one party rather then pitch a battle against the whole picture. Sure people get in trouble for downloading illegal movies and stuff like that, but ever since napster its all surrounded music, and its effects on the music industry rather then the game industry, computer industry and movie industry. I just think there is something behind that.

[Budfred]

Two things about that. One is that media companies are waging battles on all fronts, but the music thing gets the most press. Two is that stealing music is happening in far greater numbers and by a wider segment of the population than stealing any other media at this point. As broadband access expands, this may change somewhat, but the truth is that more music is produced than other media except maybe books. Books will probably never be as popular since they require the effort of reading....

[Baron of Sigma]

H. from CN said

Until they start getting warrants for everyone who uses Kazaa, which will be never, it's just a scare tactic, like I said. No one's going to buy a song when they can download it; it's the same as when cassettes came out and everyone was recording songs off the radio. Or with video cassettes and TV/movie duplicating. The record industry still makes billions, and will always make billions, and eventually they'll realize they're wasting their precious money they need so much as to hike up CD sales 500% on something that will never happen. Even if they somehow magically get Kazaa under control...what do you think will happen? People won't use Kazaa. They'll use Morpheus, Soulseek, WinMX, iMesh, AudioGalaxy, LimeWire, BearShare, etc. And more and more will pop up. P2P is a new beast that can't be killed.

[Budfred]

Kazaa is so laden with vermin that it will kill itself. It comes packed with spyware and opens the gate for viruses, trojans, more spyware and who knows what else. Unless the people who use "file sharing" decide on a safer means of trading pilfered media, they will end up shutting themselves down with the crap they invite into their systems.

[Paul Komski]

Anyone know how this PoliceWare (http://www.stoppoliceware.org/) will work.

Presumbaly a piece of harware that will constantly monitor CD and network traffic??

[pave_spectre]

As far as file sharing goes, local LAN meets may start to play a bigger role if file sharing apps start becoming unusable.
At the local one near me I have heard it estimated from a reliable individual that approximately 800+ gig was transferred between users in one session(not the gaming section), and this goes on every two weeks. And they dont really have to worry about prosecution since the whole meet is organised and run by a cop.
And thats only a small LAN of maybe 20-30 people at most(again not counting gamers). I would hate to find out how much gets swapped at a larger LAN.

[superdrumr]

one must keep in mind though that pirated software is not quite as big a problem on P2P networks because a high speed connection is required, whereas music can be downloaded on dial up (albeit slowly)

[Budfred]

I remember in the days of 1200baud modems seeing pirate software bulletin boards. Admittedly, people are not likely to download a 50 Mb file with dialup, but a lot of smaller programs are still stolen by dialup...

[superdrumr]

however it is not the small companies that are fighting this huge battle, It is the giants like Microsoft whose downloads are several hundred megabytes on average

[Budfred]

So you are saying the little guys who can least afford it are the ones who are getting ripped off??? Seems like that would make the whole thing harder to rationalize....

[superdrumr]

First, I am not condoning the theft of software, especially from small companies that cannot afford it.
I am just saying that the offensive steps are not being taken by companies that are being hurt the most

[Baron of Sigma]

It turns out SBC is actually fighting back against the RIAA because they are violating our personal rights. Finally some one with a LOT of lawyers. :)

[superdrumr]

verizon fought back too and they also have a ton of lawyers, fortunately SBC is taking another approach and challenging the constitutionality of the DMCA

[jabarnutcase]

I know it's a rather old thread now, but the latest news is always interesting!!!

Check out the latestTechTV article (http://www.techtv.com/screensavers/supergeek/story/0,24330,3497734,00.html) and the many interesting links within....Some pretty amazing stuff! ;)

Hehe....Got to love the RIAA "HIT LIST" (http://www.techtv.com/news/culture/story/0,24195,3484600,00.html) including the "RIAA's MOST WANTED"....Reminds me of some sort of new wave sick western....Only thing missing is a posse of RIAA dudes with their Six-Shooters and Cowboy hats! :p

And as a special added bonus! Your very own Searchable Database of RIAA Subpoenas! (http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/riaasubpoenas/)

Did YOU get an invitation yet? :D

(Edit) Oh, and did someone say:Until they start getting warrants for everyone who uses Kazaa, which will be never, it's just a scare tactic, like I said... Hehe...Check em' out! :D

[Steve]

As long as all they're demanding is everything in my bank account, I'll be all set. :rolleyes:

[tweeky]

What they should be doing is concentrating on the people who copy and sell their music, not the people who download it. If they were getting warrants to take your PC away to check that you hadn't been copying their music onto CD's, which you later sold then I could understand it but the way they are doing it at the moment just sounds like they are being greedy and want every penny they can get.

The company will also find it much harder to do this on an international scale mainly because certain laws they are using in their cases only apply to the US and are not classed as international laws. If they summon thousands of people they may also find out that friends and family members may stop buying their products which could end up ruining them.

The only law that I know that applies internationally is the copyright protection law. The one that states you cannot copy their songs and sell them on. I have not heard of them making it illegal for people to download music on an international scale YET!

This is one reason why we should have strict laws on an international scale set by the UN as to what you are allowed and not allowed to do on the internet.

[superdrumr]

The other problem with the RIAA's actions is that they were too public. now file shareres know how the are being targeted and taking steps to block that (such as the new integrated IP blocker in the new version of Kazaa lite)

[killercow]

If you are one of those still downloading even with the current supeonas and lawsuits and everything some software that will "keep you safe"
Kazaa Lite (www.kazaalite.nl)
Kazaa K++ (www.k-lite.tk)
The above two are cracks of kazaa which have introduced features to block known or suspected RIAA snoop clients from accessing file-sharing networks. And newly added safe-guards bar a connected user from viewing a complete list of your shared files. Theoreticly keeping you off the RIAA's most wanted list.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Some new file-sharing clients are also entering the picture making anonymity-protection a key feature.
Blubster (www.blubster.com)
earthstation5 (www.earthstation5.com)
tweeky
What they should be doing is concentrating on the people who copy and sell their music, not the people who download it.
I agree there tweeky but then there will still be the files being shared from the people who downloaded in the first place.
Again I don't think they'll ever stop it unless they make it illegal to make P2P software/freeware and networks

[tweeky]

There is a way they could stop it. They could make it illegal to download files with extensions like .wav and .mp3 if you are using P2P software. This would make it a lot harder for people to get these files and it would definitively make people think twice.

Also who here thinks that there should be an internatinal set of laws on what can and can't be used and what you can and can't do on the internet?

I think that a group of the most senior and respected computer experts from varying fields of the IT industry should be brought together to decide the laws. These laws should then be backed by the UN.

[setoguro]

I think that the internet should be a place of freedom and to let any one or government start making laws regulating its use is a big mistake esp getting the UN involved. There are already laws that cover a lot of internet activity that one has to go by like violating copyrights and the list goes on and that should be enough. But really those laws aren't internet specific. They are laws that you have to abide by even if you don't have a computer. The thing is I don't want someone out there forcing their morals or ideas of right and wrong on me. I think of the internet as one of the last bastions of freedom and I would like it to stay that way as long as possible.

[lizsartre]

Well, we can also put it this way; would even bother going to the store to buy that cd with that one song you like on it? Would you even pay 90 cents for that song? Would you care about that song if it wasn't free? I'm pretty sure a lot of people would answer no...and I know that I would. On the other hand, if someone puts out a great album, and you're a fan, wouldn't you just buy it anyway?

I think the RIAA has a much bigger problem with people who are making these beutifully rendered exact replicas of cd's and selling them for $5 instead of $20 on street corners, small stores and just about any other place you can think of. I frequent computer shows because I'm constantly rebuilding my machines and I've seen these mass high speed burners - boxes with about 6 burners in them. Truthfully, I have no idea of the specs because I never asked - but I do know that they sell for a good bit of money. I've also seen people buying them which means that they're going home to make spools of pirated material and selling them to reap all the profit. But these are street criminals who are much harder to catch than poor little Johnny, bored in his dorm room on a Saturday night because he's too young to go down to the corner bar and have a beer.

And while the RIAA is at it, they should really issue a subpoena to ClearChannel. Radio is monotonous and I find it odd that nobody has really named them as a cause of the drop in record sales. When you play the same garbage over and over - and it IS garbage - a la Britney Spears and Eminem - radio ceases to act as a marketing tool directed at people who are over the age of sixteen and/or have some musical taste. It prompts people to have to look elsewhere to find something a bit more innovative and eclectic. Computer generated playlists are common in the radio industry now - and free form radio is essentially a thing of the past. So, all anyone hears is canned sets played by some guy with a clear voice - isn't that what Tom Petty's "The Last DJ" is about?

[FrankSG]

So the question is: Is the music industry wrong and a bunch of greedy people since they don't want us to download their music without paying for it??? Or, are they within their rights since this does seem to violate copyright laws?? I know--it's sooooo easy to get, isn't it? Just a few mouse clicks and you can download the music that you like. But, I think we should try to look at it more realistically and ask ourselves how we would feel if we were the musicians--and be honest with ourselves. Would we see it in a little different light? Please don't misunderstand me--I am not a musician--far from it. I just try to look at things from everybody's point of view. And to me, it does seem like the music industry has a legitimate complaint. By the way, I'm not a lawyer either--so I could be wrong. But that's the way I see it.

[superdrumr]

Originally posted by tweeky
There is a way they could stop it. They could make it illegal to download files with extensions like .wav and .mp3 if you are using P2P software.

Wow. That is possibly the dumbest idea i have ever heard. Also, what about emerging artists who use P2P services to get people to know about them.

[BonedAgain]

John Dvorak had an interesting column on "PC Myths" today, one of which is

"Myth: Legislation will stop file sharing, and the P2P boomlet died when they shut down Napster.
Fact: Just the opposite appears to be true, and one of the more interesting graphs in the CAIDA presentation shows that music swapping has increased dramatically in the wake of Napster. This began the minute Napster was shut down. Very interesting.

The data clearly show that the newly distributed post-Napster products are more popular than Napster ever was and what becomes more and more apparent is that shutting down Napster was a mistake."

I simply don't see any way they can stop it. Even if they do, you can still get cd's at the local library & rip them, which is where I got about half my collection of free music (hundreds of full cd recordings). Sure, they can come up with anti-copying schemes, but if one human being can put it in place, another can crack it.

My local paper had an article on file sharing in their weekly PC section recently, they mentioned that one option for the industry is what Apple is apparently doing (I have no personal experience of this), selling dl's for $0.99/song. Sounds great, you end up paying about what you would for a cd (15 songs, 15 bucks) and the industry has NO material costs, no packaging, no inventory to maintain & finance (other than a couple servers full of files) no shipping costs, NONE of the expenses of regular retailing, and the best they can do is $0.99/song? Such a deal – for the INDUSTRY. The problem is the MF'ers are GREEDY, and it will be their downfall.

As far as the danger in Kazaa, knowledgeable users run the spyware free KazaaLite version. I have used it (and similar services) to dl literally thousands of files of every type they have to offer and have *not one single time* had a problem greater than mislabeled files. I can count on one hand the number of files which have contained a virus of any kind, and Norton has always caught them mid-dl. I really think this is way over blown. Like all internet usage, you need to take the reasonable, well known & easily implemented precautions. For those who still fear p2p, an even safer alternative is file sharing via newsgroups.

BA

[superdrumr]

Boned,
Im the same way (including library cds) but you have to remember that the majority of users are not as savvy as you.

[Steve]

Is the music industry wrong and a bunch of greedy people

I think so. I'd go as far as to call it extreme greed. I know that I'm in the minority but I don't believe something is wrong just because it is illegal. And I don't think that something is right just because it is legal.

The days of the big recording companies controlling all the music are over. To bad for them. I hope the whole idea that someone should make millions of dollars off a song dies with them.

I don't like greedy people. Musicians included. Nothing fries my butt more than seeing multi-millionaires like Eric Clapton and Van Morrison traveling around charging people $75-$100 per seat to hear them sing. It makes me sick.

So, copying music is illegal but is it wrong? I don't think so. So, the music industry had enough money to buy a law against coping music. Does that make them right? I don't think so. I'll go on copying music. Internet, radio, LP's, tapes and CD's. I'll keep making copies of all those John Wayne and Clint Eastwood movies that are on the TV on Sunday afternoons too.

[BonedAgain]

Originally posted by superdrumr
Boned,
Im the same way (including library cds) but you have to remember that the majority of users are not as savvy as you.

Now you're gonna make me BLUSH :D

I REALLY like the library, such an overlooked resource. Not much to brag about in this town IMHO, but we have a 1st class library system, considered in the top 10 for cities this size (about 1 million pop). Just go online, request the cd's you want, they send you an email when it's time to pick them up. You get the whole cd, in "cd quality", worst part of it is having to buff out some scratches now & then (must be literally hundreds of local library users who have benefited from my use of Brasso & Pledge, it's just my little way of "giving something back" ;)

BA

[BonedAgain]

Originally posted by Steve

Nothing fries my butt more than seeing multi-millionaires like Eric Clapton and Van Morrison traveling around charging people $75-$100 per seat to hear them sing. It makes me sick.


Yeah, I also hate paying through he nose at some local venue your tax $$$ built (despite being named something like the "Pontiac Pavilion") then not even having a decent selection of seats because the scalpers scarfed 'em all up, or they went to "corporate" bulk purchases, sky boxes etc. Fortunately for me, my musical tastes tend to the less popular so this isn't as much of a problem. This past weekend we saw Aimee Mann play at the local zoo, beautiful outdoor event, tickets were about $30 each. Next week we're driving to see Patty Larkin & Suzanne Vega in Harrisburg PA (quite a schlep from central Ohio but worth it to see both of them), 3rd row center orchestra seats, again, about $29/each. Patty Larkin is one of my favorites, she recently was scheduled to do a FREE outdoor concert in the park for one of the local arts groups, we were all set with our picnic on the grass about 12 feet from the stage, but got RAINED OUT. Would have been like seeing her in my backyard :(

BA

[superdrumr]

In fairness the reason tax dollars are used to build venues is because they are investments. Think about how many people are employed directly by the Staples Center, and how many people are employed indirectly, such as by companies that sell the food to the concession stands. Those venues create a huge number of jobs.

[BonedAgain]

I know that's the logic one always hears, but to my mind they're subsidies to big business, in the main sports franchises. The financial gain for everyone but the team owners are usually far less than claimed, most of the jobs generated tend to be minimum wage or slightly above, I've seen a couple studies that reflect as much, though I can't put my hands on them at the moment. I seem to recall a book on the subject, have to see if I can locate the title. Suppose I wanted to make ball bearings, should I go to the local government and say "build my factory & I'll hire x number of people"? I know other businesses get similar breaks in terms of tax abatements, often playing one locality off against another for the sweetest deal, but I also think this is wrong. My understanding is that such tactics are not allowed in Canada (playing one province against another). It's all corporate welfare in my book.

BA

[YODA74]

You have a right to fair use as long as it is not for profit...

What will they do next?? lets say in your home town you have a bar or a school and they have a school dance or a bar band.. well most of the time they are playing someone else's songs not there own and there is a cover charge to listen to the band play those songs at the bar or at the school dance there making a profit off copyrighted MATERIAL and doing it without the permission of the artist.. Granted it is not the original artist playing the song but is it fair use or is it copyright infringement.. There making a profit on something that doesn't belong to them...
It's kind of like this Starwars kid crap people have gone out of there way to make it as funny as possable and using sounds and extra clips that are copyrighted. I don't see anyone making a fuss about that.
This is just the book burning nonsense that Nazi lovers like,, Screw the RIAA

[superdrumr]

I never said the business didnt profit and i didnt say i approved. Im just saying that it does benefit the community

[jabarnutcase]

Yea, YODA'S last three words pretty much sum up the whole reason I started this thread.

Are these people (RIAA) complete idiots? I think so. The RIAA'S "Most Wanted" list totally blows my mind.
Are they going to serve MILLIONS of subpoenas???

And if they do, will file sharing cease to exist? Honestly, I would have thought that these morons could have come up with something better than trying to sue the entire country.....Makes me ILL. And MAD!!! :mad:

There, I feel better again, carry on. :p

[FrankSG]

I don't believe something is wrong just because it is illegal. And I don't think that something is right just because it is legal. Steve, when I first read that statement, I disagreed with it--just a knee-jerk reaction I guess. But then I thought about it for awhile. I then thought of a lot of things that are illegal and came up with a few of them that I thought were not wrong. I also thought of some things that were legal, but in my mind I could think of a few that were wrong--very wrong.
Having said that, does it make me change the way I feel about what I said above? To be perfectly honest, I don't know--I'm not sure--but probably not. At my age, I've learned not to be too cock sure about anything. Over the years I've changed my thinking on a lot of things.
I think it's always a good idea to hear the opinions of others and listen to them with an open mind.
~Frank~

[superdrumr]

That is quite a true point. There has been more than one time where what was the law was not what was right.

[Steve]

I'm glad that I got you thinking about it. :) We have been having this discussion for quite a while. It's good to hear from all sides.

[superdrumr]

agreed.

[Budfred]

I fall squarely on both sides of the argument. I think people who share music without the permission of the artists are stealing. I also think the music industry has been gougning customers and artists for years and we need a new form of music distribution that is more equitable. I also believe that buying physical copies of music in a store is a dying practice and that some form of computer distribution will end up being the final word.

I would like to see a model that has been proposed by a number of different people in which music is offered on sanctioned web site for a small amount of money. A low quality MP3 might be offered for $.10 for instance. A high quality copy might then be sold for $.50 if you decide you really like the song and want the best version of it. The cost of distribution would be minimal, so the only real costs are the production and paying the artist. The music companies will still get their share, but it might be a smaller one. Since any artist who has the resources to record can probably find a venue for selling his/her music, the power of the record companies to rob artists and the public would be greatly diminished.

superdrumr,

The research that has been done on the "benefit" to the community has shown that the community experiences a net loss when building sports stadiums for the big sport franchises. In my area they have built 3 new stadiums in the last 20 years and they are agitating to build 2 more, or they are going to take their balls and go elsewhere. Personally I would like to show them the door, but I bet the government makes me and the rest of the state pay the blackmail to keep them here....

Steve,

I absolutely agree that making something a law doesn't make it right. However, we are talking about stealing the products of someone's labor here and I think most people most of the time agree that it is not right to do that. We can argue about the definition of stealing until we turn blue, but the point is that someone worked hard (at least some of the time) to create something meaningful and file sharers are taking that without any payment to the artist. If you worked on a project for a month (hypothetically) and someone came along and said, "I like that, I am taking it"; how would you react. If your product is a song, selling it once for $1 and then everyone who likes it taking it for free would leave you too poor to even consider recording another.

And one more point: bands who cover songs without paying the fee to the organization that collects for artists are stealing as well. Anyone who uses a copy of someone else's material for their own profit is supposed to pay for that privilege, although I can remember the name of the people they pay... I think it is something like ASCAP...

[FrankSG]

What Bud had to say, makes sense to me and it might make more "cents":) for the music industry. I think both sides have to bend a little. We have to understand that the people who record the music have a right to sell it and make money from it. They(the people in the music industry)have to realize that things change--they are vastly different than they were a few years ago. Computers changed the way we do things--the way we buy, the way we sell, etc., etc. If they want to keep up with the change, they have got to understand that a lot of people are not going to go to a retail dealer and plunk down a big chunk of money for a CD.
Wouldn't it be nice if we all could insulate ourselves from our emotions and try to look at things more objectively and realistically? I know it's pretty hard to do sometimes. I've been married for 49 years so I know. And, no, I don't always practice what I preach. What makes it difficult for me are those people who think they know everything. It makes it very frustrating for people like myself who *DO* know everything.:) :) :) :D :D Yeah, right.

[tweeky]

I agree with what budfred said.

Originally posted by superdrumr

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by tweeky
There is a way they could stop it. They could make it illegal to download files with extensions like .wav and .mp3 if you are using P2P software.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wow. That is possibly the dumbest idea I have ever heard. Also, what about emerging artists who use P2P services to get people to know about them.

I'm afraid Microsoft doesn't share your opinion. I have been looking at Microsofts website in the press releases/journalist section at the past news on piracy, music and game copywrites. They had an article that stated that one of the ways they are trying to stop piracy is to stop file types from being copied on to disk or to be downloaded. According to the article they are only trying to stop games from being copied and downloaded, they are not yet trying to stop music from being copied and downloaded but it's probably only a matter of time.

Also from the date of the press release I would say that it has either been scraped for a better project, it is due for a release soon maybe in a new windows package or the project is having technical difficulties.

Also when people say something is a dumb idea they are not always right all you have to do is look at Leonardo Devinci's designs for the helicopter or diving gear and read what peoples reactions were back then, I hope you get my point.

Also if they did stop files like mp3 emerging artists could go back to the old ways. There is also a lot more options open to people these days that people couldn't do in the past.

[superdrumr]

keep in mind that a new format can always be created

[tweeky]

Yeah I know and I also know there track record with software so any bets on how long before they fix all the bugs, my best bet is 5271AD.

[pave_spectre]

I would think that preventing specific files from being downloaded and/or copied would be a part of the whole Digital Rights Management push, maybe allowing the 'owner' of a particular piece of digital media to add some sort of tag into the file that tell programs what they can and cant do with the file.
In practice I think something like that will prove extremely complex to implement but I have no doubt that something along those lines will eventually make its way into the real world, also I have no doubt that someone will find ways to circumvent any such protection.

[tweeky]

They always find a way around these types of software it's just a matter of how good the person is, how much spare time they have and how well the software was written in the first place.

[Steve]

If you worked on a project for a month (hypothetically) and someone came along and said, "I like that, I am taking it"; how would you react

I guess the problem I'm having is seeing it as stealing. To me stealing means I take something from you. Now I have it and you don't. If you invested your time and talents building a nice oak table and I stole it, I'd have the table and you wouldn't. That's stealing.

But that's not what is happening. Clapton still has his song. The record company still has their recording. And I guess that is why the RIAA is pressing civil cases for copyright infringment rather than criminal cases for stealing.

But either way, no matter how we look at it, it's presently illegal to copy music. Most folks realize that trying to make files copy proof is not going to work and catering to greedy businessmen is just wrong (IMHO). We need to change the law.

And I hope I haven't been coming across like I think I know everything. Or that folks should do what I do. I'm just expressing one mans opinion and the reasoning behind it.

[tweeky]

If it's illegal to copy music, why does windows media player allow you to copy music from a CD and then write them onto another disk or other external device?

If it's true it sounds a bit like the law where you aren't allowed to record tv programmes onto videos or songs from the radio onto a tape.

[Steve]

If it's true it sounds a bit like the law where you aren't allowed to record tv programmes onto videos or songs from the radio onto a tape.

tweeky, it is the same law...;)

[mjc]

There is a way they could stop it. They could make it illegal to download files with extensions like .wav and .mp3 if you are using P2P software.

Yes, outlawing certain file types is a very bad idea, because once started down that slope there is no stopping. Why not add .txt, .doc and other text file formats to that list?

Anyone who thinks an artist gets rich from selling CDs or being paid by ASCAP for the covers done by bar bands....is sadly mistaken, their (artists) primary income is from concerts. And yes the way the contracts are set up the artists usually end up paying taxes on the full income from the CD market but many times they often don't get enough from it to pay those taxes.

Very few artists have enough clout to have decent contracts thaa actaully pay more than a pitance (and don't eat most of that up with fees, etc). Also the ones that are making money off of CD sales most often do not have total control over their entire catalog...their early material is still controlled by the record companies, and if they have done something it make these gods of music angry then it gets buried in a vault somewhere never to see the light of day again........

Also, the "Industry" has been fighting to restrict the ability for the consumer to enjoy the full use of their purchased product for years. They have pushed for and gotten passed various "taxes" on digital recording media, with the first ones being almost twenty years ago on blank CDs, DATs, and video tapes.

An intereseting aside, someone has calulated the length of time it would take the RIAA to serve all the subpeonas......and that time is several hundred to several thousand years, depending exactly on how many the RIAA actually wants to serve. I find it very interesting that an organisation that is supposedly so dedicated to providing for the welfare of the artists is going about a procedure that will result in next to nothing for the artiists for a very long time....if ever. And in the mean time that will require huge amounts of money in lawyers fees.

Who do you think is going to foot the bill for those fees?

Almost every recording contract I have seen has included clauses about fees for lawyers to "protect" the artists.....

[tweeky]

Also with all these cases appearing in court other cases will end up being pushed aside. Cases like child abuse, mental health assessments, welfare cases etc... will all be pushed aside just to make room for these thousands of cases. In that time people could die, mentally insane people who would of been locked up would still be loose and could be killed or kill, kids who haven't been removed from their homes because they are waiting for a court hearing could get battered to death or seriously injured. This is one point a lot of people seem to have over looked. This is also one of the worst things that could happen.

[superdrumr]

It is not illegal to copy the files for your own personal use, you just cant give it to anyone else

[tweeky]

Well that still means that radio stations are giving you the music.
They transmit the music over the airwaves people then record it on to tape or CD and keep it and listen to it people who record it sometimes give it to a friend to listen to. They are basically giving you the music and they don't own it. The same can be said about TV stations as well they are giving programs to people which sometimes they own and sometimes they don't. They are doing basically what P2P sites are doing. P2P sites transmit their data over the internet to people who then copy them onto their computer or onto an external device.

TV companies that have tried to block the copying of their programs have found out that their ratings drop drastically after a short amount of time.

In some countrys like England it is illegal to record radio and TV broadcasts, but everybody knows that if they tried to implement the law they would be thought of as stupid, noone would take them seriously for one thing who would send them to prison, it's unlikly there would be a judge who hasn't copied at least one song or program in their lives.

[superdrumr]

Technically it is illegal to record radio broadcasts. When the stations play the music they pay royalties so the RIAA still makes money.

[mjc]

Technically recording anything, on any media that you yourself have not made is illegal.

This is going so far as to include certain locations/buildings etc (yes some stupid rectal openning of a lawyer somewhere got the bright idea that you could copyright a building...no, not plans, but the actual facade...and the idjuts in the US copyright office bought the idea.....so those pics of your family in front of the Empirse State Building are illegal, you took while on vacation are illegal).

One of the writers covering tech news and these DRM issues once had an interesting article, where he brought up the question of what happens when DRM technology is embedded in to all digital devices.....like you are on vacation and go to snap a picture of your family in front of the Empire State Building and get nothing but a blue background and words saying You do not have rights to photograph this object. Or you walk past a radio while talking on the cell phone and it discannects you because you don't have the rights to that song.

No, those scenarios are not very far fetched, especially when coupled with RFID tags....and yes the RFID are being used now and at least one company (Gillette) is facing some hot water for the way they are being used.... http://www.boycottgillette.com/

But over the years various court cases have decided that taping radio/tv broadcasts falls under the fair use policy and is ok as long as it is for private use (and never for sale).

The way the RIAA is pushing private ownership of music will be a thing of the past. Already if you buy music from Apple's music service with a US credit card and then take your Ipod with you on a trip out of the US the songs disappear.....(probably have to make a connection to the internet with it). And Buy.com's music service is such a mangled collection of license deals it is amazing that anyone would ever use it. The technology already exists to enable them(RIAA) to do everything I said....they just don't have the autority to implement it.

It is not about fairness/legality it is about control....control of the artists, control of the product and control of the consumer.

Most artists do not hold the copyrights to the songs......the lables do. And if you wanted to get down to the nitty-gritty, once the label has the rights then the artist is like yesterdays newspaper.

The fines/amount the RIAA is seeking in the suits has nothing to do with reality, either, because they would like to see $250 per song "shared"..no radio station pays that much to ASCAP (another aside, most radio stations receive in promo materials from the record labels as much or more than they pay in license fees, per year), no CD is $2500 per disk.

While the downloading of copyrighted material is illegal, and therefore wrong, many of the actions of the RIAA (while most are legal...there are some that may not be, but that is a different rant) are also wrong, making more laws to force additional items into illegality is not the answer. Nor do 2 wrongs make a right.....but Rights are being impinged (and not copyrights either) in this little "war".

[Fruss Tray Ted]

Eric Clapton still has his song... :rolleyes: He labors writing, arranging, multiple takes and editing, his band works at making it into something and you think it is worth NOTHING? It's worth something as well as anything else.

If a chiropractor makes a spinal adjustment to you, you feel better but there is no physical evidence so you don't pay him?

And all a lawyer does is argue for you in court, gets you out of trouble,,, and it's worth nothing?

Say I just invented the wheel, copyrighted it, someone saw it, copied it and massed produced it. Now everyone has them but I have not reaped one cent from my invention. Is that STILL NOT STEALING???

Budfred has the best ideas in this to date. I couldn't agree more.

Now I'd like to conclude my post with a couple quotes that wishfully should but won't happen... ;) :
Screw the RIAA
or they are going to take their balls and go elsewhere.

[mjc]

Frstly you should patent the wheel....that way you won't be stuck with an unsaleable idea, because copyrighting only protects the idea.

And no, the are quite a few of Eric Clapton's earliest songs that he does not own and has no say over how they are used. Yes, his newer stuff he does have that control. Most new artists cannot and do not have that leeway....


And the backcharges for "promo" items, limos and what not that are often included in vaguely worded "umbrella" incedentals clauses in recording contracts isn't stealing?

THAT is where most of the money from the artists share (small as it is to begin with) from CD sales goes....

Also, nothing mitigates the fact that the "industry" policies are to fatten the purses of the labels and not the artists. Eric Clapton could, quite probably, put his music up for download at 50 cents a song and make a small fortune from it, not all artists can...mainly because they have no control over THEIR own music! The sad fact is that over 80% (probably closer to 95%++) of the artists don't have control over the music they themselves wrote!!!

What grinds my gears about all "Industry" proposed download schemes is that the artist are still getting the short end of the stick. Either the cost is too high, or the restrictions placed on the somgs are too great.....3-5 burns to CD(and then only in certain formats that are not playable on all players...on scheme was to use only WMA format, when was the last time you saw a Walkman or car player use Windows Media Player?) or 3 transfers to other devices or being tied explicitly to one and only one hardware configuration.......

No, both sides are in the wrong and justifying one wrong with the other is NOT an answer.....the answer is to let the artists control their own destiny, do what they wish with their own product and shut down these antiquated behemoth organisations like the RIAA, who have become worse than pirates themselves. In the mean time the RIAA pushing to subvert the legal system to bolster its own desire to maintain an unworkable business model needs to be stopped.

[superdrumr]

Although artists are still losing some money (emphasis on some, the real dent is the record companies) it is not the same as a cd. If i download a song that i was not going to buy under any circumstances, as long as i do not provide it to anyone else, the company has lost no money.
If i actually take the cd they lost the cost of the cd, so there is a difference

[Budfred]

Rationalizations about single cases do not justify the massive number of cases that are occurring. Occasionally people download songs that they would not buy. Sometimes that does actually lead to buying a CD. The truth is though, that the great majority of music, software, video and other pirated work is stuff that people might have bought ten years ago when that was the only way to get it. They would have paid inflated prices, but they would have bought it anyway.

As mjc said, both sides are wrong. I will not steal, but I also try to avoid supporting the RIAA pirates by paying inflated prices. This means I go without the music (or other media), I buy at a discount or I take my chances for catching it on the radio or TV.

Also, to reinforce what FTT said, just because the product isn't tangible doesn't mean it is not a product. The fact that it can be reproduced at a fractional cost does not make it free for all. Personally, I like having new movies to see and fresh artists to hear. If we remove all profit incentive, we will hear very little and the only ones left to get rich will be the pro athletes....

[Fruss Tray Ted]

If i download a song that i was not going to buy under any circumstances, But you just HAD to have... the "company" is a little general in term. I feel mostly err, wholely for the musician's 1/2 percent or whatever he is deprived of. The cliche 'Every penny counts' can make or break ANY band if piracy is run rampant. Granted, sales only make up a small percentage of their income but this is BECAUSE of the middleman's (RIAA's) greed to soak up every available penny they can. From BOTH directions!

Where would Steely Dan have gotten to if they were caught up in these times? They were a band amongst a couple others that NEVER performed onstage. Just record albums. Wasn't Pink Floyd to some degree the same at first? There's others...

What about Apple Records? Did this look like the Beatles were becoming greedy in their wealth or an underlying discontent of the industry waaay back then? As wet behind the ears as I was then (yeah, still), I only considered it to be a business venture for them. A branching out. Though even then, I was aware of the 'almighty' RIAA! I must bow my head when I recite that word or be damned forever.... http://www.jesseshuntingpage.com/forums/html/emoticons/smiley-bowdown-purple.gif

If i actually take the cd they lost the cost of the cd I get blank cd'r's at 9¢ apiece. The label may cost a quarter all printed and applied. The data/music files burnt may have used a little electricity and some wear and tear to the machinery. How much does it cost the industry as compared to what me the lil' ole' consumer has to pay per cd? It's not the physical thing is my point. A concept or brilliant design is similar to some real good works. AND worth it's rewards. Bach, Mozart. Name your poison... As great as they were, I feel sad for those whom died no richer for his wares.

mjc, I'm not quite sure as to whom you infer as a culprit in limo backcharges. 'Mood' peripherals perhaps? I can visualize a soundman showing up in a limo and a band member in a 'chartreuse microbus' as the scales have their wages tipped right now, but Maestro's always get the fame anyway, I'mm jealous! (I know this paragraph is off the wall, it's supposed to be)

suprdrumr,
"the real dent is to the record companies." http://www.pcguide.com/ubb/icons/icon14.gif Gotta Whole Lotta Love it!

One more quote:
carry on. (http://csny.dreamhost.com/features/rotation/FRANCO_CRW_6150_THIN.jpg)

[mjc]

I'll have to dig up the details, but it goes something like this....

Hot young band, goes on first major tour. The limo, the suites, the first class all around. Band returns from tour....album goes gold...gets first check, it is on the smallish side. Requests an itemized accounting from record label and discovers that all the amenities were back charged to their accounts.

This hasn't happened to one band, but many. In a way it is locking the band into the contract...

[Budfred]

It is the old company store thing.... The coal mine owners provided the lodging and owned the only store to buy supplies. They charged for everything and in some cases wouldn't let you know what the charges were until you were so much in debt that you couldn't leave. It is the system that led to the first unions forming to break free from what became a form of slavery....

[superdrumr]

I was not justifying downloading songs, just playing devil's advocate

[Steve]

It's not the physical thing is my point. A concept or brilliant design is similar to some real good works. AND worth it's rewards.

I agree. For me it's a matter of degree. Years ago Clapton said he wrote Layla in a day and recorded it in a day. How many millions of dolars do you think he should get for his labor? Van Morrison has made enough money from Brown Eyed Girl that he could live his whole life from the proceeds. No one is worth a million dollars per day let alone 10 million!

Anyone remember that great country hit Ackey Breaky Heart? :rolleyes: About 10 years ago it was reported on TNN that ole Billy Ray had "earned" $28 million from that song! Give me a break.

And if the artists made this kind of money, how much do you think the record companies made? As far as I'm concerned it's nothing but blatant greed. And that's wrong.

IMHO of course...

OK rant over. As you were...:p

[Budfred]

I agree that any one song isn't worth millions and that Microsoft isn't worth making one man worth more that the GNP of many small countries and that sports figures aren't worth millions of dollars for scoring points or wearing a particular brand of shoes and that actors are not worth tens of millions for saying "I'll be back" and that any number of other overpaid people deserve the millions that they make. On the other hand, these millions are an incentive that gets people to take the risk to do something different, even if it is as inane as "Achey Breaky".

I would much rather that everyone who did important things like taking care of and teaching children or caring for the elderly or feeding the starving or any number of other things that actually benefit the species. I do think that a lot of art benefits humanity, but not to the tune of $28 million for "Achey Breaky"....

All that said, IMHO, that still doesn't justify stealing someone's work. If that becomes the norm, there would probably not be any "Achey Breaky" songs anymore, but there would also probably not be much in the way of "Layla" or the Beatles or even Mozart... If I can't afford to live off of my art, I am unlikely to produce it and even more unlikely to distribute it in a way that it will make it into mass distribution. If we had a system of paying a small amount for a song (like $.50 for the best quality recording) and it was good enough to get played on whatever media rises to the top, there would still be an incentive, but at a less GIGA level.... If I get my $.50 once and the song is distributed for free after that, why would I bother to record the second song???

[tweeky]

Another reason why I think that they can't sue you is that because you have to either pay for the P2P software or get adware with it.

This is basicly what TV companies do, they charge you to get a channel, you can then watch and record programs. They even stick adverts in between the programs. The TV company then pays the suppliers of these programs the money we pay to watch the programs and the money they get from the ad's.

Why don't they ask for a certain amount of money over a certain period of time from the P2P company, they would end up making more money this way. P2P company's already use ad's or charge you to use them so it would make no difference to the users of their service.

[Budfred]

TV pays the companies they get content from out of that revenue. P2P companies take it as pure profit, they don't pay for the content. Taking the content without paying is stealing.... The P2P companies try to avoid the responsibility for facilitating the stealing by saying the user is the thief and they just happen to be the innocent bystander who gave the thief the means to steal...

[tweeky]

They can't be an innocent bystander if they make money from it. The only way they could be classed as innocent is if they said in their agreement that you cannot download music, games etc off them. They even have a search engine in their software to find that stuff.

[jabarnutcase]

Yes tweeky -I believe that is exactly what Budfred is saying....That they're not so "innocent".

Anyway, I had no idea this thread would become so "popular". :p

My major problem all along has not been so much whether downloading and sharing music is right or wrong, or what constitutes "stealing"- (Although I do have my opinions), but rather the incredibly stupid way the RIAA is going about trying to "solve" this issue.

If ever there was a lesson in futility...These multiple lawsuits are it.
Everyone needs to eventually use this new technology and get along. Obviously, it's here to stay. As mentioned in several posts, it's a great way for new musicians to get their music out to be heard for one thing.

But to quote something from a recent Movie about another bad storm...."It seems that the RIAA has lost their way"........"Or their minds!"

Yikes! I didn't just infringe on some copyright law by quoting a movie did I?
No, I changed it a little, never mind. Guess I'm all set. :p

[Stripgear]

I think it is interesting to note what our Constitution says about fair use and public good. Section 8, Clause 9 states; the congress shall have the power "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
Notice the word "limited". Back in the 1950's my Grandfather held a patent. It was good for 7 years, and could be renewed for 7 more, that's was it. It was considered that the public good would be served by competition and improvements by others after this 14 year period.

So my question is this - Why is it for the public good to limit patents and copyrights for industrial designs, drugs, etc but Congress grants the entertainment industry "almost" an unlimited time frame for music. Could it have something to do with the money and lobbyists of the RIAA?

[YODA74]

probobly because politicians have re-wrote the constitution to suit there own political agenda so many times (forgeting) that it is not written in pencil but with blood.. That they Think they can do what ever suits them for the time being.They could give two sheits about what you or anyone else thinks. Those that have will only continue to have those that do not well you get the drift. The Constitution and the Bill of rights means nothing to the polititions and there cronies all yhere interested in is there political gain and how much of everyday life that they can control.Kind of looks like a bunch of goddamn communists to me.

[Budfred]

Actually, P2P file sharing is one of the most communistic innovations to come down the road. Everyone gets to share the wealth without anyone getting rich in the process. One for all, all for one... Marx would have loved it....

[Stripgear]

Gee Yoda,

I like your way of thinking. It sounds like you just finished reading
Ayn Rands' "Atlas Shrugged"!:D

[YODA74]

Stripgear.. Then you would have to ask yourself.. "Is a human being a free creature, entitled to interact with his fellow creatures only in voluntary relationships based on mutually agreed values. Or is he a slave, to be owned, used and allocated by others based not on his own values but on theirs,and the corruption of communication by authoritarian movements."

[Stripgear]

Yoda,

I prefer the former, but with the "looters" in charge...:rolleyes:

[hawk7771us]

What is insane today, will be sane tomorrow,and what is sane today will be insane tomorrow. if the riaa had it's way.Now with that said. The riaa also gets a tax off of blank cd's, that are bought by you.Why do you asked? So we can put our music on it.If fair use lets us back up our music cd's.Then why does the riaa get this $2.00 tax on X amount of cd's sold? And a tax on the hardware also. Or could it had the foresight of downloading. As for i tunes and the others that sell mp3 for 99 pluss whatever. at 128kbit/s for a song. You got to be just insane to buy it. It is the same as buying a cd for $20.00.now if it was 320 kbit/s CBR, highest possible quality or a wave file then maybe 99cents Not me. But being fair it should be about 25 cent a song or $5.00 a album or for a double album $8.00 would be fair.A friend of mine bought at a store, a double album for $24.00 it had 38 songs on the two cds.Online At 99X38=$37.62 Pluss a monthly fee in some cases. who are they Kidding.I have other words for this flippant HELLO. And itune made millions on 128kbit/s not 320kbit/s and you wonder why I would not buy from them. or any other online for pay download. Riaa hello.Yes you have a right to make money.but we are not inept enough, to foolishly do as we are told by you. Now you caught some of us with this trick.So you made the millons of dollars in the beggining. but what is happenning now. It is going down. Get Real. Find a middle ground that everyone can live with. This is an example of a break down for a band. http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

[Steve]

Wow. It seems that alot of people agree that the record companies and the RIAA really suck.

I'm suprised anyone does business with them. Musician or listener...:(

[superdrumr]

(Notice I am now playing devils advocate for the artists)
If americans really like the product that much shouldn't the artist get the proceeds. You dont object to the fact that McDonalds earns billions because people like one item on their menu

[tweeky]

Hi I would like to know how long this club has been around.

Music club (http://sib1.od2.com/common/frameset/frames.asp)

I found it about an hour ago and have read what they offer. The reason I have posted it here is because what they are doing is what some people in this disscussion have suggested a company should do.

[superdrumr]

well, sounds good to me