RIAA disgraceful

[Memo_182]

Maybe I wouldn't be so mad at the RIAA if they would be more reasonable. If I'm going to get sued for more than $3000 I'll happily tell them to stick their thumbs up their @$$es. There is no way I have dowloaded more than even $1000 in songs and I'm calculating almost at $1 per song.

Not only that but has anyone seen how big wireless LAN is getting. Suppose some malicious hacker were to go searching for a signal no matter how faint it is and file share on an IP that isn't theirs? Whose to blame in that case. On my WAN I've been able to get the faintest signals from my neighbors, my two nextdoor neighbors. I'm not connecting to their WAN but I'd hate to think that one of them is going to get me in trouble for filesharing on mine.

My boycott begins today. no2RIAA

[marvel2020]

holistic

It's just a thought, nothing more, nothing less.

If it offends you, then thats your problem.

But as you can see i've remove it, i hope your ******* happy now.

[dave81973]

thayne wrote . . .

They should be prosecuted under RICO just like Directtv is...

I agree RIAA has been screwing us for years. $15 to $20 for a music cd is absurd, especially when u can get a lot of dvd movies in that price range. I think a national or even a worldwide boycott would do some good. It would open some eyes in the record industry. It would probably open the musicians eyes first when their royalty checks start shrinkin, cause I don't see a music executive taking a pay cut LOL.

[minchjp]

I own manny manny DVDs. Is downloading the soundtrack of the movie legal??? I do it all the time

Check out the kazaa lite forum. They are having a boycot week, 21 - 27 sep, poor basterds will loose $865,384,615.00!!!!!!! Almost feal sorry for them, almost!

http://www.klboard.ath.cx/index.php?showtopic=56114&st=90

[flaninacupboard]

Don't the public libraries in America have a CD section? in the UK our libraries have week long CD rentals for 80p, that's about $1.20 or so. a week is plenty of time to evaluate whether you like the cd or not.

[j1d10t]

My library does. Granted, they don't have the greatest selection, but they do offer some CDs, as well as cassette tapes. If anyone knows the answer to this question, please let me know: why is it OK to go to the library and "barrow" a CD, and yet it's not OK to download the same album/song? Isn't the RIAA losing money from people that go to the library and check out the CD? Because the library doesn't charge to check out the CD (at least not in my area). And if they did charge, are they then turning around and paying a percentage to the music company? Granted, if you check out the CD from the library you don't get to keep it, but if you download it it's yours. Maybe I just answered my own question, but I don't know. Can anyone think of any other reasons?

And why should artists get paid soooooo much $? Is that the only reason they go into it, to make $? That seems like a pretty shallow reason to go into the entertainment business - I would have though they would go into the entertainment business to entertain. And how many local groups are out there that sound just as good, if not better, and yet they aren't making large amounts of $, and they play almost any place that will take them.

My opinion: RIAA sucks.

[flaninacupboard]

For pop music, people go into the industry because they want to be famous. Along comes a producer, decides that person A person D person X and person Y would make a great group, signs them up for a three record deal for peanuts, then goes about telling the public that they really must buy this new groups record. Three records later and the producers dump them, it's be expensive to do another record deal, and find someone new.
The "artists" probably never wrote any of the songs they "performed" and they certainly have no talent.

In all other forms of music, group struggle in pubs and clubs playing their music to whoever will listen. they try and sell some promo CD's at gigs, and try and get played on the radio. if they're truly good, word of mouh will make them popular enough locally to afford to put together a whole album, which if it's good (which it should be, they spend most nights playing these songs to a live audience!) word gets around and they become succesful. if they suck, they never appear on the national radar.

In both instances the RIAA gets lots of money, for no real reason.

[gmatov]

j,

That's like saying a bagger at the grocery does it because he likes bagging, or a septic tank cleaner does that because he likes it. They're doing it for the money, as that's all they can do. Well, maybe a little more, but no one is paying them for that.

The reason they make that kind of money is millions of foolish people, note I didn't say kids, who are willing to pay 25 to 500 bucks to go to one of their "concerts", and that goes for some pretty old people willing to pay bucks to see some of the oldest has-beens perform a 50th reunion concert.

They'll pay to see some 60 year olds sing Beach Boy songs, only now, 40 years later, they do it in a whiskey tenor.

And they'll buy every disk put out, as well as buy anything they go on TV to push, soap powder, diapers, beer, whatever.

Go figure, same reason Air Jordans were 150 bucks for shoes that cost 3 bucks to make.

Cheers,

George

[j1d10t]

gmatov, that's not exactly what I meant But hey, who doesn't like money? Who wouldn't want lots of money? Nobody. But you have to draw the line somewhere. They "could" do something else. They have the choice, chance, and sometimes talent, to entertain. But no one is forcing them to record music. It's kind of like a person that becomes a doctor to help other people - no one made them become a doctor. The money helps, but they started out wanting to help sick people. And OK, how often do you actually find a doctor that wants to really help you But that aside... And maybe it isn't the artists fault, but they need to get a spine and stop the record companies from ripping off millions of people. $15-$25 a CD is asinine. If they are getting screwed themselves, and they see the RIAA sueing 12 year olds, they should do more than release commercials about how downloading music is wrong. That, in my opinion, makes them look like super greedy a$$hole$, only caring about how many millions they make, not the fact that they are famous, can entertain, and make more than enough money to live on. Just my opinion

[gll99]

I'm no lawyer and I'm not defending the downloading or of copyright material but based on what I've heard, all that RIAA has succeeded in doing is creating more publicity and interest in downloading music in addition to a huge backlash against the industry. There are many newer methods that have been developed that are impossible for them to track. Many of the popular P2P networks operate on multi contributor principle. How are they going to prove a point of origin file was downloaded to particular destination when in fact only a few bytes may have randomly been downloaded from each contributor over a period of time. Are they going to have to dissect packets in court to prove that these bytes were part of a copyrighted song. What if each packet only contains random notes or do not form a recognisable pattern by themselves then what? Files names mean nothing for example I shared a folder with my brother called "Summer Holiday" over the intenet using a private share. They certainly can't claim that it belongs to Cliff Richards since it holds my vacation pix. I'm not in the US so don't know the laws there but what if those charged show up in court and prove that they own the songs either on records, tapes or discs. I think of that poor child, if her mother had money she could have had all the childrens songs for free. We have 40 to 50 digital music channels included free and some of those play all the popular childrens classic songs by various artists 24 hours a day. How will a judge react to hearing that this same music is available for anyone else with a few coins of the realm to copy it and enjoy it for personal use while this child is made out to be a criminal.
Another argument is that they have gone after those who had music on their hd for the purpose of sharing. What if every song in someone's share is his backup. Willful intent now must be proved otherwise we are all in trouble because anything on your hd which you own but is copyrighted material could potentially be available to others if you are on a private but shared network or if somehow, someone, even RIAA were to hack onto your computer and then claim that you have those files and therefore by indirect implication and their interpretation must be automatically guilty so can cause any damage that they want.

It should be interesting once these cases get to court.

The pocket book is still the best place to send the message.
The way to get music artists attention aside from cd sales is to stop buying the generally overpriced concert tickets. Imagine the impact of seing major bands play to half empty houses or cancelling tour dates on the pretext of illness because of low ticket sales.
:P :P :P

[freestyler]

I think technology is to blame.

Everythings gotten so cheap and accessible nowadays - huge hard drives, cheap fast cd writers, cheaper dvd recorders. People have to find something to do with such technology.

Sure you can stream audio, but contrary to the business model of the music industry, folks don't like invasive copy protection and "secure" files that can only be read on one computer or expire, etc. That's one reason MP3s have exploded in popularity. Also, the legal response to downloading has been slow.

Also, as many have put it - "why pay for it when you can get it for free?" Some folks see nothing wrong with downloading.

On the topic of that "little girl" - her mother should watch what she's doing.

Sharing 1000 files? She needs to get bitchslapped, living in the projects or not. Too many folks feel "safe" on the net, its about time the RIAA gets rough.

Artists deserve to be paid for their works, and many are under the false assumption that music and movies should be free.

[gmatov]

This might strike you guys as conspiritorial, but can anyone tell my just WHY anyone would wany 100, 2000, 10000 MP3s on their machine.

I mean, who in hell can listen to that many songs? And what percentage of those songs can have any appeal to any one person?

Most people I know like half a dozen artists, my own kids constantly change the car radio stations after a song they like, looking for another they can stand.

So an artist has 6 good songs, you like 10 artists, 60 songs max. You're never gonna listen to all those thousands of DL'd MP3s.

Conspiracy hits here: Let's encourage 'em to steal all this stuff then when we identify X million, we start suing and settling for a couple grand apiece. We'll make X more billions, and won't have to share it with those dirtbags we got under contract.

[freestyler]

Let's encourage 'em to steal all this stuff then when we identify X million, we start suing and settling for a couple grand apiece. We'll make X more billions, and won't have to share it with those dirtbags we got under contract.

Pure genius Gmatov

[gmatov]

J,

You can't compare them to normal human beings. They've been pampered as long as they've had sales. They're told they are God's gift to the human race, even tho' the only part they're a gift to is the moguls who make even more than they do.

And the money is only a way to keep track of who is the greatest. Same like a 25 million a year baseball player.

How about a Madonna putting out a kids book. A slut writing (ghost writer?) a kid's book? her last was a picture book shoving a crucifix up her twat, but, with half a billion or so, she's one of our role models.

And a Snoop Dog, etc.

And a Garth Brooks, in a Playboy interview quoted as saying "you" should be legally not allowed to resell his CDs because he didn't get anything out of that sale.

Christ, these ******** put Chainsaw Al Dunlap to shame. All he did was rip off a few companies, fire half the workers and sell the companies for a couple hundred million personal profit.

These "entertainers" are ripping off about 40% of the US and the rest of the world's population.

And contrary to your statement that they could be doing something else, what would you hire them for, armed robbery, half of them? Or call girls?
Well, call girls got some class, most of these would have to work in cribs.

[gmatov]

Freestyler,

That was tongue in cheek, but if I pop off anytime soon, send Scully and Mulder out to look for me.

I ain't paranoid, I know the bastards are out to get me.

[j1d10t]

J,

You can't compare them to normal human beings. They've been pampered as long as they've had sales. They're told they are God's gift to the human race, even tho' the only part they're a gift to is the moguls who make even more than they do.

And the money is only a way to keep track of who is the greatest. Same like a 25 million a year baseball player.

How about a Madonna putting out a kids book. A slut writing (ghost writer?) a kid's book? her last was a picture book shoving a crucifix up her twat, but, with half a billion or so, she's one of our role models.

And a Snoop Dog, etc.

And a Garth Brooks, in a Playboy interview quoted as saying "you" should be legally not allowed to resell his CDs because he didn't get anything out of that sale.

These "entertainers" are ripping off about 40% of the US and the rest of the world's population.

And contrary to your statement that they could be doing something else, what would you hire them for, armed robbery, half of them? Or call girls?
Well, call girls got some class, most of these would have to work in cribs.

Well, that is true, most, if not all, are anything but normal - I wouldn't want them to clean my bathroom But before they got in to the business, they could have done something else - maybe a fry cook at McDonald's, or driving a trash truck But you're right about them being pamper babies. I hadn't heard that one about Garth Brooks - that's so stupid, it's funny. What an idiot. And I'm not a sports fan, but at least I can kind of understand sports stars - at lest they get out there and do some work, and risk their health/personal safety. Granted they choose to do it, but it's kind of like watching America's Funniest Home Video's, especially when something happens and they end up being carried off the field, and never being able to play again - it's funny when injury happens to someone you don't know - like the guy riding his bike into the back of a car So I'd have to say I agree with you there.
Maybe I'm wrong (I've been known to be wrong once in a while ), but they could go about it a whole lot differently. The RIAA, the "artists"...

[tandynor]

I used to download songs all the time. But I have stopped last year. and the reason I stopped is because downloading songs isnt as easy as it was since napster got sued. Nowadays downloading songs is a pain. you will download a song and it will be incomplete, low quality, 30 second loops, poping sounds, etc... only once in awhile I will get a perfect sounding song. Im sure most people dont care about the quality of MP3's, but I do. even when I make my own I make them at high bit rates.

But anyways, I find it easier just to buy the cd, make a copy of it (if the cd ends up sucking) and trade or sell the cd and get most of my money back. I wonder what would happen if I make 2000 dummy MP3's and name them with popular songs and share them? could I conter sue after the judges or whoever finds out that they are not real songs?

audio cd's shoud be no more than $10.00 dollars. the difference between 10 bucks and 13 bucks is not that big, but it make a big difference.

Also some people commented on how madonna and metallica whine like babies because they are rich. well they are rich now, when they started out they were not. I think the reason they really bitch is because if nobody buys your cds, then you are looked at as a bad(low money maker) artist by the record companies, and im sure their cd doesnt get pushed as much as if they were selling millions. If I ever became a famous recording artist, I would want people to buy my cd so I can keep my job. of course If I did ever get offered a record deal, I dont know if I would take it, because I would only get like 1 or 2 bucks off of every cd while the corporate bastards take the rest.

[gmatov]

J,

No shit. J Lo an Afleck decide not to get married, or he does, or whatever. Hey, they're boffin'each other anyhow, what's a license, a trophy to hang on the wall, a Zsa-Zsa thing, how many times can I get married? Or Liz Taylor?

And, as far as ball players, sports stars in general, owners gave them X bucks, none of them held a gun to the owners head and said 10 million, or I blow your head off.

And too, if the ball players all went to union scale, 10 bucks an hour, whatever, you think your ticket would go to 3 bucks? Hell no. More in "my" pocket.

Same with recordings, most of the performers don't get into the big bucks, but the disks cost the same.

Ah, well,

Cheers, George

[Cornucopia]

Ok, somebody set me straight if I've got this wrong...

The RIAA sued this girl. Sued.

That means it wasn't "criminal" court, it was "civil" court.
I'm sure they did that because, while a criminal proceding requires that the plaintiff prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, with civil court they just have to have enough "preponderence ofevidence" to convince some judge of their side.

#1-they don't even have the balls to take it to criminal court
#2-they don't even have enough evidence to make it in criminal court
#3-they're offhandedly admitting that it isn't such a "crime"?
#4-suits such as these are what? Breach of contract? Did you or I enter into a contract with any of these people.

The only contract that most downloaders have would be the contract with the downloading software/site and with their own ISP. These seem to me to be the only people who could bring a suit. They don't have "basis".

Here's a totally hypothecal analogy:
The local pizza company (but still a national chain) files suit that I'm "stealing" their pizzas, to the tune of "millions of $$$" (at least that's their estimate) because they find all these pizza boxes in my trash (since they've gotten some court order to be able to look through people's trash). It happens that I get leftover pizza's at the end of a night's work at a bar.
Hmmm, I got something for next to nothing, and not through the usual channels--I must be a criminal!!!

What gets me is that while they don't seem to have any basis, nor much evidence, by sheer weight of their corporate/political status, they get to bully just about anybody they feel like.

Scott

[gmatov]

Cornucopia,

By gum, I think you got it.

Money and politics usually gets the job done.

So, come election time, should we vote ALL the bums out? But of course.

If they don't have time to learn to steal, they can't steal effectively.