Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: LePaul on July 22, 2003, 11:27:21 AM
-
Wow...lifted from http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,92351,00.html
AP News
WASHINGTON — The music industry has won at least 871 federal subpoenas against computer users suspected of illegally sharing music files (search) on the Internet, with roughly 75 new subpoenas being approved each day, U.S. court officials said Friday.
The effort represents early steps in the music industry's contentious plan to file civil lawsuits aimed at crippling online piracy.
Subpoenas reviewed by The Associated Press show the industry compelling some of the largest Internet providers, such as Verizon Communications Inc. and Comcast Cable Communications Inc., and some universities to identify names and mailing addresses for users on their networks known online by nicknames such as "fox3j," "soccerdog33," "clover77" or "indepunk74."
The Recording Industry Association of America (search) has said it expects to file at least several hundred lawsuits seeking financial damages within the next eight weeks. U.S. copyright laws (search) allow for damages of $750 to $150,000 for each song offered illegally on a person's computer, but the RIAA has said it would be open to settlement proposals from defendants.
The campaign comes just weeks after U.S. appeals court rulings requiring Internet providers to readily identify subscribers suspected of illegally sharing music and movie files. The 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act permits music companies to force Internet providers to turn over the names of suspected music pirates upon subpoena from any U.S. District Court clerk's office, without a judge's signature required.
In some cases, subpoenas cite as few as five songs as "representative recordings" of music files available for downloading from these users. The trade group for the largest music labels, the Washington-based RIAA, previously indicated its lawyers would target Internet users who offer substantial collections of MP3 song files but declined to say how many songs might qualify for a lawsuit.
"We would have to look at historic trends, but that is a very high number," said Alan Davidson of the Center for Democracy and Technology, a civil liberties group that has argued against the subpoenas. "It doesn't sound like they're just going after a few big fish."
Music fans are fighting back with technology, using new software designed specifically to stymie monitoring of their online activities by the major record labels.
A new version of "Kazaa Lite," free software that provides access to the service operated by Sharman Networks Ltd., can prevent anyone from listing all music files on an individual's machine and purports to block scans from Internet addresses believed to be associated with the RIAA.
Many of the subpoenas reviewed by the AP identified songs from the same few artists, including Avril Lavigne, Snoop Dogg and Michael Jackson. It was impossible to determine whether industry lawyers were searching the Internet specifically for songs by these artists or whether they were commonly popular among the roughly 60 million users of file-sharing services.
The RIAA's subpoenas are so prolific that the U.S. District Court in Washington, already suffering staff shortages, has been forced to reassign employees from elsewhere in the clerk's office to help process paperwork, said Angela Caesar-Mobley, the clerk's operations manager.
The RIAA declined to comment on the numbers of subpoenas it issued.
"We are identifying substantial infringers and we're going to whatever entity is providing (Internet) service for that potential infringer," said Matt Oppenheim, the group's senior vice president of business and legal affairs. "From there we'll be in a position to begin bringing lawsuits."
A spokeswoman for the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts said the clerk's office here was "functioning more like a clearing house, issuing subpoenas for all over the country." Any civil lawsuits would likely be transferred to a different jurisdiction, spokeswoman Karen Redmond said.
Verizon, which has fought the RIAA over the subpoenas with continued legal appeals, said it received at least 150 subpoenas during the last two weeks. There were no subpoenas on file sent to AOL Time Warner Inc., the nation's largest Internet provider and also parent company of Warner Music Group. Earthlink Inc., another of the largest Internet providers, said it has received only three new subpoenas.
Depaul University in Chicago was among the few colleges that received such subpoenas; the RIAA asked Depaul on July 2 to track down a user known as "anon39023" who was allegedly offering at least eight songs.
There was some evidence the threat of an expensive lawsuit was discouraging online music sharing. Nielsen NetRatings, which monitors Internet usage, earlier this week reported a decline for traffic on the Kazaa network of one million users, with similarly large drops across other services.
-
So how long before the RIAA comes after me for downloading "Jungle Love" in 2001?
Seriously, if they see enough cash from prosecuting these current cases, whats to stop them from coming after people who downloaded songs months or years ago?
-
bah.....
Hackers will take care of this *****hit.....
do not dispair....there's change in the air.
there is a backdoor somewhere....:D
-
That's 871 less customers, with roughly 75 new customers lost every day in the US.
Quick thinking, RIAAman!
-
Oh they can go screw.
I would not buy another CD if Jesus Christ recorded is himself...
"Now appearing...JC and the Apostles!"
-
Muck,
I'm surprised 40Dogs hasnt posted on this...does he still own a big franchise of music stores?
I'd be curious what his thoughts are on the Mp3 downloaders and such....how its effecting record sales, etc. I mean, I dont buy music CDs for $17.99 that have 2 songs I like on them. Sorry, I'm just speaking with my wallet and saying "too much"
-
When I was young I used to record songs from the radio. Now we have cable channels with no commercials you can record from too. Did recording songs from the radio have an effect on sales then? I mean, did they stop songs from being played on the radio? If someone really wants a song, they can get it anywhere, not just the internet. I think the music industry is shooting itself in the foot.
-
For those of you that think it's your God-given right to steal copyrighted music, how do you feel about people stealing (downloading) software?
-
Originally posted by Mickey1992
For those of you that think it's your God-given right to steal copyrighted music, how do you feel about people stealing (downloading) software?
hell yeah...
im NOT paying $600 for adobe to play around and make gunsights for AH.
not to mention i want to make a pdf of something for easier transport.
what about Windoze... well i dont have a home office, dont have $600, and dont use any of the MS office products for anything other than personal use.
HTF am i supposed to open a funny powerpoint presentaion joke somone sent me? or a spreadsheet that my boss emails me to look @?
i use versions of these softwares and others for personal use. it's f***** BS that if you want to do any decent photo editing for yourself you gotta have a 6 figure salary.
i do have a different opinion of busines use though. if i was a commercial graph artist or something and made a profit from using the software you dmn right i'd pay for it.
oh well my 2¢ (this topic touches a nerve with me lol sry)
-
Lol like they will see dime one of profit through this ... like anon3964whatever has $$.... if he gets sued... umm .. Canada? Stupid record companys .. gonna go broke doing this stupid crap
-
If the music companies that the RIAA represents are so upset about this, why can't they convince their parent companies to stop manufacturing all of those MP3 players, etc, that people are using to listen to those songs with?
The only songs I have ever downloaded were songs that that the record companies have never made available here (The US) or were upcoming songs leaked onto the internet from CD's which I buy as soon as they are released anyway.
This is merely the dinosaur in it's death throes tyring to prevent the world from changing by using laywers to plug the dyke (Not a bad idea! ;) -) Adapt or die.
-
There are several peer network applications that keep your IP anonymous available or in the pipeline.
Once again the RIAA will be stumped by technology. Oh dear I guess some rap stars will just have to cut back on their mercedes, mansions, hookers, and coke this year and focus on actually writing some real music instead of regurgitating hits from 20 years ago and putting mindless drivel for lyrics over the top of it.
-
Funny, when I was spending all those years buying CD's at the high price CD's used to be...I don't remember the Record companys having too much of an interest in my concience or what I did with it.
Nor do I remember any cashed up record company stepping in the replace of all those CD's some salamander swiped in the great CD heist of 2000.
So forgive me if it doesn't bother me at all , especially seein how as already pointed out, they still have enough money to flood the legal dept.'s looking for kaaza users.
Tronsky
-
Once a song is played at a concert, on the radio, etc it belongs to everyone who heard it & walks away humming the tune.
That song should then belong to the public domain.
You can not sell that tune & make a profit off it without paying royalties.
When copyright laws were written there was no way to copy a song exactly like we can now, much less share it with more than a handfull of people.
The relevent point however is that copyright only protects you if someone else is selling your product without your permision/royalties being paid.
However no one on peer to peer sharing is selling anything.
Its time for a new standard for music.
Take the big corporations back out of the mix. Put the music back in the hands of the people.
-
Originally posted by Ghosth
Once a song is played at a concert, on the radio, etc it belongs to everyone who heard it & walks away humming the tune.
Sorry, but copyright ownership does not transfer to the listener even if the listener did pay for the cd, concert ticket, etc.
That song should then belong to the public domain.
It'll be interesting how much music will be available if no profits motives were involved. Might be a boring, quiet kind of place.
When copyright laws were written there was no way to copy a song exactly like we can now, much less share it with more than a handfull of people.
Copyright laws were introduced to protect the musicians, artists, authors, etc from others stealing their works.
The relevent point however is that copyright only protects you if someone else is selling your product without your permision/royalties being paid.
So if someone takes your music and posts it on the internet for free downloads, how do you really think your sales are going to go?
LOL, not many people are going to pay for something that they can get for free. Why would they?
However no one on peer to peer sharing is selling anything.
Its time for a new standard for music.
But they are causing real losses. If the record companies were getting increased sales based on free downloads they'd be promoting file sharing. They see the writing on the wall. Do nothing about this type of copyright infringement and there will be no music indusrty as we know it (LOL, to some that's a good thing ;) ). With the increased user base of broadband subscribers, I'd bet sales will continue to dwindle. Most downloaders believe that there is nothing wrong with file sharing and believe it to be legal. The music industry is fighting for their survival (they aren't hurting....yet), but they know that to not do anything will result in practically most one with a broadband connect would be downloading their music and stop buying it.
Take the big corporations back out of the mix. Put the music back in the hands of the people. [/QUOTE]
LOL, sounds like some socialist rhetoric. Let someone else do the hard work so you can have something for free?
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
LOL, sounds like some socialist rhetoric. Let someone else do the hard work so you can have something for free? [/B]
Better than the facist rhetoric the RIAA is pushing.
SaburoS you're pissing into the wind, shoveling sh*t uphill with a rake, everyones SICK AND TIRED of the monopolistic money grubbers in the RIAA and the crack heads they represent. No one cares whether its legal or not we don't give a flying **** anymore, kinda like the prohibition period.
The whole argument is just whining money grubbing BS. No ones produced any figures on the supposedly massive loses in sales (in fact I believe in many segments of the market CD sales have gone up). And the studios only push about 6% of performers.
The studios and RIAA refused to get with the market, and the markets been saying give us access to music the way want to buy it or we'll pirate it. And by that the market means buying tracks online, being able to play them on your mp3 player, pc, cd player, in your car etc.
The studio's and RIAA have put their hands over their ears and started the "la la la I can't hear you thing". Now they're trying to push to use the DMCA in the recipe. Current moves are pushing towards LIMITING what you can play your music on, ie buy a CD and find you can't rip the tracks to play on your MP3 player because its encrypted. Meanwhile Joe Everybody's said screw this and just gone for it.
No one cares about the legal jargon. No one cares about the law suits because we're one step ahead of those money grubbing tards.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Better than the facist rhetoric the RIAA is pushing.
Vulcan,
Don't get me wrong but two wrongs don't make a right. In the end who will pay if they get caught? Average Joe downloader is who. The one with 1000-3000 music files stored on disks at home. The one that doesn't realise what a MAC addy is. IP addy. The one that is using their personal home computer that happens to have personal data on it.
I don't know what the music industry has planned in the works, but you can bet there'll probably be some hidden code buried within the music file itself. I wonder how intrusive it'll actually be for those downloaders. You can forever state how unfair and corrupt the corporations are (BTW they are and have been for as long as I can remember - remember the MCA scandal in Calif in the 60's IIRC?), but using that as a reason to pirate the music is kind of shallow.
LOL, How many downloaders "upset with the system" actually reward the musicians directly with a check for the songs they like and keep? I'd bet that number is very low.
SaburoS you're pissing into the wind, shoveling sh*t uphill with a rake, everyones SICK AND TIRED of the monopolistic money grubbers in the RIAA and the crack heads they represent. No one cares whether its legal or not we don't give a flying **** anymore, kinda like the prohibition period.
So it looks like by your argument that the pirating is rampant then if: "No one cares whether its legal or not we don't give a flying **** anymore, kinda like the prohibition period."
The whole argument is just whining money grubbing BS. No ones produced any figures on the supposedly massive loses in sales (in fact I believe in many segments of the market CD sales have gone up). And the studios only push about 6% of performers.
So far it seems you want to justify your downloading free music files. So in my eyes, we have on one side the "money grubbing" music industry and on the other, the "music files for free" grubbing downloader. Hard to sympathize with either in this case.
You really believe that all this free downloading results in bigger sales for the music industry? LOL, you want to sell me a bridge too?
BTW, I don't know many big corporations that are not "money grubbers."
Are you this compassionate against all large "money grubbing" corporations, or just the music industry so you can rationalize your free music?
The studios and RIAA refused to get with the market, and the markets been saying give us access to music the way want to buy it or we'll pirate it. And by that the market means buying tracks online, being able to play them on your mp3 player, pc, cd player, in your car etc.
So you seem to be saying that a lot of pirating has been going on by your very statement. Seems you and the music industry are in agreement there.
Curiosity, if they are so corrupt and "money grubbing" and you feel this strongly about it, why don't you boycott buying the music AND to really show your convictions, stop downloading your free music? Oh but that would be too much of a sacrifice for you eh?
I guess those "crackhead, money grubbing" music corporations do just good enough for you to download some music.
Or is it you really don't like the music but just want to download it to show them?
The studio's and RIAA have put their hands over their ears and started the "la la la I can't hear you thing". Now they're trying to push to use the DMCA in the recipe. Current moves are pushing towards LIMITING what you can play your music on, ie buy a CD and find you can't rip the tracks to play on your MP3 player because its encrypted. Meanwhile Joe Everybody's said screw this and just gone for it.
Well "Joe Everybody" if caught is the one that's going to pay. Unless they change the laws (which I doubt).
No one cares about the legal jargon. No one cares about the law suits because we're one step ahead of those money grubbing tards.
Actually you do care about the legal jargon, you just don't like it. That's why you are presently one of two steps ahead of them.
BTW:
And yes I do still buy some CDs (like Tadpole) where I know theres some decent content.
So do you or do you not buy some cds? By your very own arguments it seems you'd be buying into those "money grubbing, crackhead tards" schemes.
For the record:
Do I think the recording industry is a fair one for the musicians?
Not at all. I actually agree with most (not all) of your sentiments.
I just find the recording industry corruption way down on my list of things to worry about.
It just looks like you're trying to reason getting your music for free.
I'm just afraid that a lot of people not savvy enough will get hurt from these prosecutions/convictions to come.
-
The saddest thing here is that the Court System is gonna GET SWAMPED by tons of new lawsuits over something the recording industry brought on itself...
Gotta love America's legal system.... :rolleyes:
-
Only five more million to go....
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Sorry, but copyright ownership does not transfer to the listener even if the listener did pay for the cd, concert ticket, etc.
Copyright ownership no, didn't say that it did or should. Copywrite protects that 1 unique arangement of words & sounds so no one can steal it.
Copyright should not be used to keep someone from "sharing" music.
Would you want the copyright police busting into your place because you were playing a cd for a freind? After all HE didn't pay for to listen to it.
That song should then belong to the public domain.
It'll be interesting how much music will be available if no profits motives were involved. Might be a boring, quiet kind of place.
There is a difference between a profit motive for artists, and the RIAA.
I don't mind seeing artists rewarded fro what they do. I mind seeing RIAA & corporations profit from it.
When copyright laws were written there was no way to copy a song exactly like we can now, much less share it with more than a handfull of people.
Copyright laws were introduced to protect the musicians, artists, authors, etc from others stealing their works.
The relevent point however is that copyright only protects you if someone else is selling your product without your permision/royalties being paid.
So if someone takes your music and posts it on the internet for free downloads, how do you really think your sales are going to go?
LOL, not many people are going to pay for something that they can get for free. Why would they?
You'd be surprised. Why do songs play on the radio for free? Its called exposure.
However no one on peer to peer sharing is selling anything.
Its time for a new standard for music.
But they are causing real losses. If the record companies were getting increased sales based on free downloads they'd be promoting file sharing. They see the writing on the wall. Do nothing about this type of copyright infringement and there will be no music indusrty as we know it (LOL, to some that's a good thing ;) ). With the increased user base of broadband subscribers, I'd bet sales will continue to dwindle. Most downloaders believe that there is nothing wrong with file sharing and believe it to be legal. The music industry is fighting for their survival (they aren't hurting....yet), but they know that to not do anything will result in practically most one with a broadband connect would be downloading their music and stop buying it.
Look at mellalica, they were one of the first ones screaming about sharing.
why, because they were not selling in the first place?
Now NO ONE will buy their CD's.
Thats a loss, but its not caused by sharing.
Take the big corporations back out of the mix. Put the music back in the hands of the people.
LOL, sounds like some socialist rhetoric. Let someone else do the hard work so you can have something for free? [/B][/QUOTE]
No but it is a clear cut msg to the big corportations. Quit ripping us off, get with the times, give us what we what how we want or will will find it ourselves.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
1.)It'll be interesting how much music will be available if no profits motives were involved. Might be a boring, quiet kind of place.
2.)But they are causing real losses. If the record companies were getting increased sales based on free downloads they'd be promoting file sharing. They see the writing on the wall. Do nothing about this type of copyright infringement and there will be no music indusrty as we know it (LOL, to some that's a good thing ;) ). With the increased user base of broadband subscribers, I'd bet sales will continue to dwindle. Most downloaders believe that there is nothing wrong with file sharing and believe it to be legal. The music industry is fighting for their survival (they aren't hurting....yet), but they know that to not do anything will result in practically most one with a broadband connect would be downloading their music and stop buying it.
1.)Long b4 there was any kind of money, people were playing music for each other, was it boring then? No, and, as a matter of fact, alot of people still do. There are ALOT of musicians out there who play for people just to share their music.We had a band in jax, fl. We would invite everyone over and have a big house party. There would be other musicians there too, we would play all day into the evening, it was a good time.(lol, although I would get sick of all the southern rock after awhile)
2.) Causing real losses:confused: I would like to see a stat for that(and don't forget to factor in the economy) When I was young I would record songs from the radio because I couldn't afford to buy the record, and so did alot of other people. Did this cause great losses? Did they run to shut down the radio stations? You can record a song from alot of sources, not just the internet.
People buy CD's for alot more than the music(lyrics, pictures, info, etc.). I had every song of BOSTON recorded from the radio when I was young, but I ended up buying the album cause I wanted the album itself.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
1.)Long b4 there was any kind of money, people were playing music for each other, was it boring then? No, and, as a matter of fact, alot of people still do. There are ALOT of musicians out there who play for people just to share their music.We had a band in jax, fl. We would invite everyone over and have a big house party. There would be other musicians there too, we would play all day into the evening, it was a good time.(lol, although I would get sick of all the southern rock after awhile)
That's what we will end up with. As soon as file sharing destroys the traditional music business and musicians can no longer get financial backing to record albums, we will all end up sharing mp3s of Sixpence and his house band. No thanks.
It's the same with software. If companies can no longer make a profit selling their product, they will stop developing it. I never understand the "I can't afford $600 for Adobe so it is OK for me to steal it" mentality.
-
I never understand the "I can't afford $600 for Adobe so it is OK for me to steal it" mentality.
Well i understand it perfectly... Either you pay $600 for Adobe or you click "download here" and get it for free...
I would take the free version anyday... Theres enough sheep and Companys that pays allredy...
-
Originally posted by Mickey1992
That's what we will end up with. As soon as file sharing destroys the traditional music business and musicians can no longer get financial backing to record albums, we will all end up sharing mp3s of Sixpence and his house band. No thanks.
Did recording songs from the radio destroy the traditional music business? Did it prevent musicians from recording albums? File sharing destroying the music business, that's rich.
-
Originally posted by Mickey1992
That's what we will end up with. As soon as file sharing destroys the traditional music business and musicians can no longer get financial backing to record albums, we will all end up sharing mp3s of Sixpence and his house band. No thanks.
It's the same with software. If companies can no longer make a profit selling their product, they will stop developing it. I never understand the "I can't afford $600 for Adobe so it is OK for me to steal it" mentality.
1- your already listening to cheap 1 song hit bands now....so if sixpence has a semblence of a good band...what would be the difference...
2- what you seem too forget is LINUX.....its FREE....oh my!!!!.....it shouldn't be.....its for them to try to make it more secure.....its for us to show em it's not so secure:D
if ya don't want them too come....don't build it dweeb
-
Originally posted by SLO
1- your already listening to cheap 1 song hit bands now....so if sixpence has a semblence of a good band...what would be the difference...
Um...er.....ah....thanks?
I will take revenge on your subliminal cheap shot:D
-
Michael Jackson 'speechless' on P2P jail bill
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/31872.html
Vulcan,
Don't waste your precious time with SaburoS.
Hes either rich, working for the RIAA likes or fails to see things for some other reason.
Ignoring comes handy :D
-
He's making complete sense.
-
Just remember who introduced this bill when the time to vote comes 'round.
Last week Congressmen Howard Berman and John Conyer (both Democrats) teamed up introduce the Authors, Consumer and Computer Owners Protection and Security Act of 2003 (ACCOPS Act).
This legislation would, as El Reg's Thomas Greene wrote, "simply assume that any P2P activity with a copyrighted file involves more than ten copies and represents a retail value of $2,500, automatically making it a felony and bringing in the possibility of incarceration. That's ten copies and a minimum of $2,500 assumed per individual file, we believe."
So they just assumed you committed a felony, and lock your butt up...nice.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Michael Jackson 'speechless' on P2P jail bill
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/31872.html
Vulcan,
Don't waste your precious time with SaburoS.
Hes either rich, working for the RIAA likes or fails to see things for some other reason.
Ignoring comes handy :D
LOL, I'm not rich, I don't actually like the RIAA types. But you're right. I don't like see a form of theft and excuse it for something else.
My cd collection numbers in the 300-400 range bought over 20 some odd years. Most of my cds I bought because of only 2-4 songs that I liked. It's seemingly always been like that even with the vinyl record albums. I rarely agree that a "Best of" is the best song compilation of a particular artist.
You want a good deal? The join the various music clubs. Get 12cds for the price of 3 (sometimes as low as 12 for one).
My free music collection? Zero. Never downloaded a copyrighted product without the copyright owner's permission. I never had Napster on my comp, nor do I haveKazaa, Kazaa lite, or any file sharing software on my comp.
I don't believe in a "because everyone's doing it means it is okay for me to do it" mentality, especially dealing with copyrighted materials.
What I find amusing is that the music pirates are now whining about the newer intrusive laws being passed that were designed to fight the piracy going on.
If you want to blame someone, blame yourselves. You know how the recording industry is yet you continue to download free music files (what is it up to now? 1600-3000 songs? More possibly?) without going out and actually buying the product. You should know they'd go after any potential major threat they see against their business.
If you know the answer to the following question, you'd know why the free downloading is wrong.
Why were copyright laws introduced in the first place?
-
Originally posted by Ghosth
LOL, sounds like some socialist rhetoric. Let someone else do the hard work so you can have something for free?
No but it is a clear cut msg to the big corportations. Quit ripping us off, get with the times, give us what we what how we want or will will find it ourselves. [/QUOTE]
LOL, sounds like you just want to justify the theft of some "free" music.
Supply and demand does work wonders on the free market place.
Theft does not.
Bottom line is this:
If one gets caught from their downloading free music files, it will cost big bucks in legal fees just to get represented in court. If convicted imagine the huge Fine and possible jail sentence.
You still feel downloading free music files is worth that risk?
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
LOL, I'm not rich, I don't actually like the RIAA types. But you're right. I don't like see a form of theft and excuse it for something else.
My cd collection numbers in the 300-400 range bought over 20 some odd years. Most of my cds I bought because of only 2-4 songs that I liked. It's seemingly always been like that even with the vinyl record albums. I rarely agree that a "Best of" is the best song compilation of a particular artist.
You want a good deal? The join the various music clubs. Get 12cds for the price of 3 (sometimes as low as 12 for one).
My free music collection? Zero. Never downloaded a copyrighted product without the copyright owner's permission. I never had Napster on my comp, nor do I haveKazaa, Kazaa lite, or any file sharing software on my comp.
I don't believe in a "because everyone's doing it means it is okay for me to do it" mentality, especially dealing with copyrighted materials.
What I find amusing is that the music pirates are now whining about the newer intrusive laws being passed that were designed to fight the piracy going on.
If you want to blame someone, blame yourselves. You know how the recording industry is yet you continue to download free music files (what is it up to now? 1600-3000 songs? More possibly?) without going out and actually buying the product. You should know they'd go after any potential major threat they see against their business.
If you know the answer to the following question, you'd know why the free downloading is wrong.
Why were copyright laws introduced in the first place?
Sounds like Mark Chmura to me
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Did recording songs from the radio destroy the traditional music business? Did it prevent musicians from recording albums? File sharing destroying the music business, that's rich.
Actually most people didn't have the actual playlists the radio stations had. No way of knowing the exact time any particular song would be played making the recording of a particular song very time consuming. The quality of the recording was questionable as well.
Today we have a technology that allows a high quality, fast recording of practically any song you'd like. Only problem is that there is this pesky copyright law......
-
Originally posted by Mickey1992
For those of you that think it's your God-given right to steal copyrighted music, how do you feel about people stealing (downloading) software?
The worlds best software is freely available as open source anyway.
Soon this will be the same with music...
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Actually most people didn't have the actual playlists the radio stations had. No way of knowing the exact time any particular song would be played making the recording of a particular song very time consuming. The quality of the recording was questionable as well.
Today we have a technology that allows a high quality, fast recording of practically any song you'd like. Only problem is that there is this pesky copyright law......
But the question was, did it ruin the music industry?
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Sounds like Mark Chmura to me
Sixpence,
Why were copyright laws introduced in the first place?
-
you didnt answer the question
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
But the question was, did it ruin the music industry?
No, because recording a song off the radio costs more (in terms of man-hours) than buying the CD.
If I have to sit around listening to the radio for 4 hours waiting to make an analog to digital copy of a single song, I would be better off buying the CD in terms of time spent.
This all changed with digital file sharing, where I can get a reproduction of the entire CD off the internet in a matter of minutes. Comparing this to recording a single song off the radio is not a valid arguement in my opinion.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
1.)Long b4 there was any kind of money, people were playing music for each other, was it boring then? No, and, as a matter of fact, alot of people still do. There are ALOT of musicians out there who play for people just to share their music.We had a band in jax, fl. We would invite everyone over and have a big house party. There would be other musicians there too, we would play all day into the evening, it was a good time.(lol, although I would get sick of all the southern rock after awhile)
THANK you Sixpence... check this out.. try and read the whole thing before posting:
_Piracy Is Your Friend_
Since January, major labels have been meeting to develop a system of distributing music on the Internet to combat what they see as piracy.
Jaron Lanier, a virtual-reality pioneer and a musician,sees things differently. He is developing what he considers to be a more sensible plan for the emerging digital economy, and here is an excerpt from his manifesto, "Piracy Is Your Friend.":
Piracy is a phony issue that record labels are hyping to rip off artists. Piracy has always existed. That's why there's a mountain of blank cassettes in any big electronic store.
When someone decides to buy your music instead of copying it, they're doing it for a lot of reasons. Maybe they're ethical. Maybe they like the convenience of not having to hassle with the uncertainty of copying something -- Will it come out right? Is it done yet? Maybe it's their way of expressing good will to you.
But face it, if your music wasn't available for free in some form, no one would have a chance to hear it to decide to buy it in the first place. The old form of "free" music was radio (which is often taped by pirates) and MTV, but eventually the Internet is going to take over everything. There will still be TV and radio, but they'll be implemented digitally. Give it 10 years. When that happens, the idea of not giving away music for free will be exactly the same thing as never promoting music at all.
The real question should not be, "How can I keep my fans from hearing my music for free?" It should be, "How can I best make money from my fans?" Those are two different questions. Sure, you "lose" money to pirates. But you also lose money to a label that isn't doing anything for you.
It used to be that a label was needed to finance,manufacture, store, ship and market your music. That's how they earned their cut. The arrangement made sense. If the music business wasn't shrinking before our eyes, it would still make sense.
But in the digital era, it costs nothing to ship your music over the Internet to a fan. So the biggest reason for labels just went away.
As for financing, well, if advances were stacked up against finance deals in other industries, they'd look a lot like usury -- except that they aren't even loans: once they'repaid back, the label still owns the master. There is simply no worse conceivable form of financing. We can do better if we take charge of our own careers.
But what about marketing? Can labels still do that? Of course they can, for a few big acts. But once you are established, your own Web site connects with your fan base better than the label can.
Even if you are a huge artist, think whether in the course of your whole career, not just the next couple of years, you lose more money to pirates or to labels who will be taking most of your money for no reason at all?
When somebody in a dorm room buys thousands of dollars' worth of gear and stays up all night hacking MP3's just to get "free" music, that's what you call an opportunity, not a problem. You have found yourself a new generation of fanatics. The only problem is that computer companies are making the money right now instead of musicians.
Labels can't prevent piracy. No one can. I know computers as well as anyone on the planet, and I promise you, kids will break whatever copy protection scheme the labels come up with. And the industry knows it.
In fact, the easier it is to copy music, the less of a threat piracy will become. When piracy gets easier, professional pirates have less to offer. The only pirates left will be fans.
And there are lots of ways to make money from fans.
The reason the Recording Industry Association ofAmerica and the labels are pushing anti-piracy laws and technologies has nothing to do with preventing piracy. They're doing it so that they can control the new digital music channels.
To keep anyone else, like you, from sharing the power.
They're doing it to rip you off. Period.
You can make more money in the new era of "free" digital music. But only if you break free of label mind control.
- Jaron Lanier
[/size]
-
Originally posted by ccvi
The worlds best software is freely available as open source anyway.
Soon this will be the same with music...
Who is going to pay the $200,000 it costs to record/produce the average gold-selling CD when it is "open source" and the artist isn't making any money off of it?
-
Long b4 there was any kind of money, people were playing music for each other, was it boring then? No, and, as a matter of fact, alot of people still do. There are ALOT of musicians out there who play for people just to share their music.We had a band in jax, fl. We would invite everyone over and have a big house party. There would be other musicians there too, we would play all day into the evening, it was a good time.(
we still do that.
every tuesday night at a local home-grown studio.
In fact, it's been a regular thing for 15+ years and
some great players show up from time to time..
BIG time players without attitudes.. it's awesome
and I'm glad to see this kind of thing still exists.
-
Originally posted by Mickey1992
No, because recording a song off the radio costs more (in terms of man-hours) than buying the CD.
If I have to sit around listening to the radio for 4 hours waiting to make an analog to digital copy of a single song, I would be better off buying the CD in terms of time spent.
This all changed with digital file sharing, where I can get a reproduction of the entire CD off the internet in a matter of minutes. Comparing this to recording a single song off the radio is not a valid arguement in my opinion.
I used to leave my recorder on, then flip the tape and do the same thing. I would listen to it later and tape the songs I wanted to keep. I didn't have to sit around anywhere. Oh yeah, I slaved to do that.
Cost more in terms of man hours,lol, that's rich. The answer was no, ty.
-
Originally posted by Octavius
And there are lots of ways to make money from fans.
You can make more money in the new era of "free" digital music. But only if you break free of label mind control.
He makes a good argument for why record labels may become extinct, but he doesn't explain how a musician that can't sell his/her music is going to keep from becoming a part-time musician.
-
SaburoS,
You do have a short memory..
"(what is it up to now? 1600-3000 songs? More possibly?)
Quite far.
I don't have a single pay songs and I don't even have that many songs of other kind in total, not even a hundred. :p
"I don't believe in a "because everyone's doing it means it is okay for me to do it" mentality"
Neither do I, I'm not the steretype kind of a fella, hardly ever been.
You don't need an excuse for yourself to do it, it's matter of money and life, thats the way how it is.. it is the fact.
If your life is good, so be it, but not everyone is as fortunate as you sound to be.
You just refuse to see the reality behind some people and stick on the excuses etc.
"I never had Napster on my comp, nor do I haveKazaa, Kazaa lite, or any file sharing software on my comp."
You don't exactly need a file sharing software....
Theres things like FTP, WWW, IRC.... and so on.
Besides, there are other uses for file sharing softwares.
Like I do have an FTP server program to be used between my computers and share files to friends in case the IRC or WWW isn't suitable.
Oh... and there are alot of files to share that are not illegal!
But I haven't used any actual P2P software and I've kept distance to napster and kazaa.
Tell you what, you sound like more of a casual computer user..
It is only too bad there isn't RIAA kind of organization to fight against theft of private property with an equal enthusiasm and resources, like there is RIAA to fight for the copyrights of music producers (erhm.. excuse me, publishers!)
That would really cut down some ACTUAL crimes which causes heavy losses and which are usually irreplaceable in value for the owner, even if the insurance company would pay for most of the lost property. (like how is insurance companys money going to help you, if your weeks or months of work is stolen, which you need in your job?)
Forgive me, I already forgot the music piracy requires far more resources due to being more important than the irreplaceable material which is gone for good once someone "downloads it" aka takes it away.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
I used to leave my recorder on, then flip the tape and do the same thing. I would listen to it later and tape the songs I wanted to keep. I didn't have to sit around anywhere. Oh yeah, I slaved to do that.
Cost more in terms of man hours,lol, that's rich. The answer was no, ty.
Tape recorders didn't destroy the music industry because as you have shown, piracy involved at least some work and a little but of effort. Piracy today takes a mouse click and a couple of seconds. It's easy.
Originally posted by Fishu
it's matter of money and life, thats the way how it is.. it is the fact. If your life is good, so be it, but not everyone is as fortunate as you sound to be.
So Fishu, if you did not have the money to afford a car, it would justify stealing one?
-
Originally posted by Mickey1992
Tape recorders didn't destroy the music industry because as you have shown, piracy involved at least some work and a little but of effort. Piracy today takes a mouse click and a couple of seconds. It's easy.
What does it matter how hard it was?(BTW, it was pretty easy) You are not making any sense.
-
Originally posted by Mickey1992
So Fishu, if you did not have the money to afford a car, it would justify stealing one?
No, what would the cars owner drive then?
Let's say I download an MP3 song off the net, which is part of a pay album: does it make the publisher unable to use the particular song?
-
Originally posted by Fishu
No, what would the cars owner drive then?
Pretend you stole it from a car manufacturer.
-
Originally posted by Mickey1992
Pretend you stole it from a car manufacturer.
Could they re-create the parts from thin air without additional cost to cover the loss?
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Could they re-create the parts from thin air without additional cost to cover the loss?
No, but even if they could, how would the car manufacturer pay for the original cost of developing and manufacturing the car?
-
It is not our, nor our governments job to protect anyone's revenue stream. Our economy is rapidly changing in a way that has never happened before, the sooner everyone learns to embrace the changes, be flexable and adaptable, the sooner we can actually make progress. Only very recently has ANYONE actually tried to make a serious effort with a new business model reflecting our new economy. http://www.apple.com/music/store/ They sold 100,000 songs in the first 24 hours. Hmmm, maybe people are willing to pay a reasonable amount of money for a reasonable service. Normal CD sales give maybe $1 to the actual artist, where do you think the rest of that money goes? I, for one, don't see the need to line the RIAA/MPAA pockets with my money. I'll download the music and if I like it enough, I'll support them by going to a show, buying merchandise, etc...
I do hope everyone realizes that this "piracy hurts the artists" crap, is just that. Piracy hurts the RIAA/MPAA. Good, they deserve a slow, agonizing, painfull death.
-
I'll stop!
When they pry my cd-burner from my cold dead fingers!
-
"Tape recorders didn't destroy the music industry because as you have shown, piracy involved at least some work and a little but of effort. Piracy today takes a mouse click and a couple of seconds. It's easy."
uhm... 'scuse me but I remember my 5 year old bellybutton being quite capable of tuning my favourite radio station and pressing "record" on the silver colored SONY machine when they played a song i liked.
Didnt take more effort than pushing one button. Waiting for the song? No big difference, today I have to open kazaa, press SEARCH, type the name of whatever song i want to download, check the download speed of the user sharing it, check the file size to avoid downloading a partial song or low quality mp3, check the file TYPE im downloading (umm..yeah .doc is 'Rage against the Machine' uh huh), and then FINALLY double click it..
and wait until 500k is downloaded to click preview and check if its the song i wanted not some crap with a different filename.
Easy huh?
-
Mickey,
Do you count on anyone, who has taken the car from a manufacturer, to been also have the will and money to pay for the car?
-
Originally posted by g00b
Only very recently has ANYONE actually tried to make a serious effort with a new business model reflecting our new economy. http://www.apple.com/music/store/ They sold 100,000 songs in the first 24 hours.
AND the Apple store only sells to Apple owners AND the Apple store only sells to US customers AND the Apple store doesn't have all the artists (but its the best effort so far). Yet it still sold far more than the studios expected.
Every attempt at a decent online service has been crippled by the music studios.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
I never had Napster on my comp, nor do I haveKazaa, Kazaa lite, or any file sharing software on my comp.
Neither do I.
I have a decent CD collection too. But recently I've been getting sick and tired of the music industries attempts to kill the online music BUSINESS. They could have been selling tracks cheaply over the net 3 years ago. But they always cripple the sites with stupid restrictions. IMHO its nothing short of monopolistic. Then theres the follow up with the DMCA and all these other stupid laws they're trying to pass.
SubaruS, how do feel about them trying to limit what you can play your music on? How do you feel about them trying introduce technology where you no longer own the music but have to "pay to play" everytime you listen to a song? Its not fantasy, they are trying to push legislation to force this rubbish on us.
So, I'm voting with my wallet. But I'm no matyr, I'll keep listening to what I want, like it or not.
And as MT said: "I'll stop! When they pry my cd-burner from my cold dead fingers!"
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Do you count on anyone, who has taken the car from a manufacturer, to been also have the will and money to pay for the car?
I understand your point. The person stealing the car probably doesn't have the money to pay for it. You don't seem to have a problem with this.
My point is that it doesn't justify it.
Originally posted by OIO
Easy huh?
OK, how about easier then? How difficult would it be to tape record an entire album off of the radio catching one song at a time? Doing so over the internet is easier.
I am not a supporter of the record companies. Like Real Estate agents and Travel Agents, I think they are unnecessary middlemen. But I do not think that stealing copyrighted material is justifiable just because it is doable.
-
What I don't understand is why the music industry has not created their own site to download from. A place where you could download any song in any format for pennies on the dollar.
They could offer specialty CD's from old artists. There are endless possibilities. I think the music industry is going about this the wrong way. Opportunity is knocking and they are locking the door and calling their lawyers to sue it.
-
Because as long as the government keeps propping their monopoly up with facist laws they don't need to.
-
Originally posted by Mickey1992
OK, how about easier then? How difficult would it be to tape record an entire album off of the radio catching one song at a time? Doing so over the internet is easier.
I am not a supporter of the record companies. Like Real Estate agents and Travel Agents, I think they are unnecessary middlemen. But I do not think that stealing copyrighted material is justifiable just because it is doable.
The "ease" of piracy only affects the range of users who wish to record/download/burn music... not whether someone should be billed or expected to pay for it. From what I gather, you're saying the record companies want to cash in on the effort?
Have you ever recorded something from the radio?
-
I don't understand that either.
I would pay .99 to download Jerry Reed's "Eastbound and Down" simply because some schmuck squaddie was singing it last night over vox and I have the damn thing stuck in my head for 2 days now! When was the last time Jerry Reed sold an album???
Meanwhile, here's what RIAA has done to the average moron...me.
I uninstalled Kazaa. Why? Simple. Don't want to get sued for the 140 songs I have, and don't know enough to know what's a safe method for file sharing.
Second, the RIAA has placed themselved squarely in the same group as scumbag lawyers and bull**** politicians. (Not all lawyers are scumbags, but you know the one's I mean..)
So I swear, I will never buy another single F*cking CD for as long as I live. I will listen to the radio. I will use my satellite TV audio channels. I will buy songs if they ever come out with a method for me to do so, over the internet.
I will not pay $17.99 for a CD with 2 good songs, and 14 pieces of fluff.
You see here's the problem. If the RIAA had not been screwing us for years, they may have gotten a little more sympathy. But instead of making 1 album, with 15 good songs on it, they will release 7 albums over 4 years, with 2 good songs each, and have us pony up $17.99 5 times, vs $17.99 once.
So they've been screwing us for years, and now we're screwing them...Sorry but Boo-F*ckin'-hoo.
-
Originally posted by Octavius
The "ease" of piracy only affects the range of users who wish to record/download/burn music...
I agree. My point is that the ease/quality/convinience of digital piracy has caused this range of users to grow to include users who never would have used tape for piracy.
From what I gather, you're saying the record companies want to cash in on the effort?
You mean I think they want to cash in on file sharing? I would hope so, it's where the future is headed.
Have you ever recorded something from the radio?
I did when I was younger, quite a bit actually. But my tape piracy was never a replacement for buying music. There is a growing segment of the population that have replaced music buying with digital piracy. That's my point.
-
Originally posted by Wlfgng
we still do that.
every tuesday night at a local home-grown studio.
In fact, it's been a regular thing for 15+ years and
some great players show up from time to time..
BIG time players without attitudes.. it's awesome
and I'm glad to see this kind of thing still exists.
How about sharing it with others? Webspace is cheap :)
-
Originally posted by Mickey1992
Originally posted by Octavius
The "ease" of piracy only affects the range of users who wish to record/download/burn music...
I agree. My point is that the ease/quality/convinience of digital piracy has caused this range of users to grow to include users who never would have used tape for piracy.
There is a growing segment of the population that have replaced music buying with digital piracy. That's my point. [/B]
And what do you base this on?
BTW, is it easier to afford a small boom box with a tape recorder, or a $1500 computer and $35 a month for service?
-
But mickey, there's no need to buy CDs any more. Record labels were created to help the artist get their music out there. They're obsolete with the internet.
Artists can get their music out there by themselves -- albeit without the huge reach of the money hungry record companies --but it *is* possible. Take the record companies away and artists may actually have to -gasp- compose actual music to draw some fans!!! The horror! Record labels no longer "selling cool" to teenagers. My GOD we might actually see some originality among today's youth with the hiphop and manufactured pop stars out of the way. Of course, that might have a negative affect... they (youth of america) might not have a crowd to follow!
And maybe we'd actually see some good albums withmore than 2 songs and the rest being fluff.
Of course, this is my utopia :)
-
Mickey,
In my opinion it is not as great deal as RIAA and the publishers makes it sound like.
It's actually quite amusing that pirating of songs is far higher hyped against than theft of private property.
If anything, resources and money should be rather used to investigate actual crimes, which causes FAR more losses than a kiddie or poor arse student copying MP3 off the net.
The current actions by RIAA and the publishers probably makes more bad than good (well, good for the publishers, but overall.. not), since overall, if they get even more serious like they seem to be, it alienates the potential customer base even further.
In theory, with a great PR and marketing, they could probably make more profit with less spendings, than this top wanted song pirate campaign does
However, I suspect alot of those who runs the publishers, share owners and RIAA, are fairly old people, whos for the internet and computer isn't quite as familiar.
You know.. unknown things can cause fear and fear is easily manipulated?
I'm afraid the greed ones are manipulating the fearing part of people to support them, which often are the most powerful ones of a nation. (for older people, internet and computers aren't so familiar as to younger people and I'm sure you'll know which part of the population is running the goverment, laws, industry etc.)
For the greed ones, this gives them welcome respect and money, more so than thinking of the best for the whole industry.
Those ain't any santa claus guys up on the top of these things and theres only a few people who actually runs the show.
The others are just supporters, who preaches the same thing.
Got to love the capitalism, eh?
If it wouldn't be the greed driving the matter, then there could be far more noise over the actual criminal acts.
but is there alot of cash offered to you if you drive an organization with ever growing plans to prevent crime? no.
What comes to fear, there are many kinds of fears, but theres always one common thing with fear - whatever fear it is, it can be used to manipulate the person and if there are more than one person with same kind of fears, you can manipulate the people.
This has been applied in the politics for as long as the history has been written and beyond.
In the business, different kind of fear is manipulated, than with the wars.
-
Originally posted by Mickey1992
Who is going to pay the $200,000 it costs to record/produce the average gold-selling CD when it is "open source" and the artist isn't making any money off of it?
What was the development cost of the current windows version? Where do all those free OSs come from that aren't far from it or even beat it in some areas?
-
Originally posted by ccvi
How about sharing it with others? Webspace is cheap :)
Alot of small bands do. It would have been cool to put our songs to mp3 and put them on a site to download. As long as you didn't use our songs to make a profit by selling them.
-
OMG!
Our world will have no music! If the industry dies all music will die! No one will ever write another song! Oh the horror!!
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Octavius
But mickey, there's no need to buy CDs any more. Record labels were created to help the artist get their music out there. They're obsolete with the internet.
I agree, I agree, I agree. My whole beef is with the "music should be free, so I am going to steal it" lot. Someday I will be able to download an album directly from the artist for $2-$3 (which is their cut now), and I welcome that (although even then there will be people who will still steal it). I just don't think that piracy is justifiable in the meantime.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
OMG!
Our world will have no music! If the industry dies all music will die! No one will ever write another song! Oh the horror!!
:rolleyes:
Exactly. 60s - 70s = goodness. After that, it went down hill with sellouts and FLUFF. A few good/great bands here and there from the 80s - present. No ORIGINALITY in "mainstream" manufactured music.
Would you turn on the radio (the future "oldies" or music of our present) 30 years from now and say "Now THAT was music!" ?? Hell no. I vomit when I turn KISS FM or any other pop radio stations that are ALL owned by a single corporation. I hope nobody remembers what MTV has become.
On a side note... Bring back Beavis and Butthead!
-
Originally posted by Mickey1992
I agree, I agree, I agree. My whole beef is with the "music should be free, so I am going to steal it" lot. Someday I will be able to download an album directly from the artist for $2-$3 (which is their cut now), and I welcome that (although even then there will be people who will still steal it). I just don't think that piracy is justifiable in the meantime.
How would you propose the destruction of big time corporate record companies? :D
-
I find it funny that someone would argue that the musicians would not exist if not for the big music companies, when in fact if it were not for the musicians, the big record companies would not exist.
-
doh, read that wrong
-
I find it funny that someone would argue that the musicians would not exist if not for the big music companies, when in fact if it were not for the musicians, the big record companies would not exist.
Exactly.And the funny thing is the Musicians are getting the shaft in this grand scale theftathon.They get a cut of album cd sales and the more that gets swapped the less gets bought.Hey.If ya only like 1 or 2 songs on a CD so what.It does in NO way give you the right to what is in effect steal it. To coin a phrase,if ya dont like the rest of the cd,boo ****ing hoo. Unfortunatly now people think they have the right to trade off music like its baseball cards.I feel no pity for the ones that get caught and fined at it.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
It's actually quite amusing that pirating of songs is far higher hyped against than theft of private property.
If anything, resources and money should be rather used to investigate actual crimes, which causes FAR more losses than a kiddie or poor arse student copying MP3 off the net.
Whats even more amusing is losses quoted against piracy include stuff that goes out the back door of the factories in Asia. Many years ago (before MP3s were big) I remember a conversation with a media company rep (media as in CDs, floppy's etc) who said that it was fairly common for 10% of the production to go out the back door as 'failing QC'.
So when the RIAA throws piracy figures out most of it is NOT the MP3 community (which I doubt is even quantifiable).
What we need is some 3rd world country who doesn't give a damn about int'l law and have easily bribed officials with a decent pipe to set up an online music selling service, legal or otherwise :D
Hmmm... I wonder how big the pipe is to Fiji?
-
DrDea,
It is funny they're punished worse than some actual criminals who might have caused injury or severe financial losses.. for something which necessarily didnt cause more than a cents loss if even that much :>
-
Its actually more the writing on the wall thing there trying to stop.Once it gets rolling its going to be difficult to halt at best.IE Napster. I think if a band wants to put there music on the web for promotional purpouses thats there decision.What would you do if you created paintings and some schmuck was out there making lazer copies and passing them around?Its all relevant.Its just got such a following of "I want it now and I want it free" that the people doing it think they actually have the right.I cant afford a Jag.Does that mean I can grab someones and take it out for a ride whenever I want?Hell no.What the record companies SHOULD do is really not the issue.There protecting an investment and they have the right to do so.Also they have the obligation to the musicians to do so.
-
So.....
Lazer copies of the Mona Lisa make the original less valuable?
hehe
-
Originally posted by DrDea
Exactly.And the funny thing is the Musicians are getting the shaft in this grand scale theftathon.They get a cut of album cd sales and the more that gets swapped the less gets bought.Hey.If ya only like 1 or 2 songs on a CD so what.It does in NO way give you the right to what is in effect steal it. To coin a phrase,if ya dont like the rest of the cd,boo ****ing hoo. Unfortunatly now people think they have the right to trade off music like its baseball cards.I feel no pity for the ones that get caught and fined at it.
Jim Croce made no $$ from his music. Why? Cause he signed his music rights over to the music companies to get his music out. Big mistake. It actually cost him money to go out on tour. If he had the internet to get his music out, he might have actually made some money. How many artists have been fleeced by the big record companies?
-
Pretty much all of em sixpence:( :(
-
You said "There (they're BTW) protecting an investment and they have the right to do so."
As I said in an earlier comment "It is not our, nor our governments job to protect anyone's revenue stream." This is what most people assume. The RIAA/MPAA are going to take a HUGE hit, they are going to be relegated to secondary postions behind the artists like they should have been all along. Why do they have a "right" to fight this? Where is there a law that says you have a right to sue people to try and maintain your outdated business model?
The RIAA/MPAA became it's own entity many years ago, existing only to maintain itself. It no longer represents artists interests and benefits no-one but itself. Such is the nature of all beaurocracy.
Does anyone here actually believe that the great artists of all time give a rats bellybutton about the $$$. Sure more $$$ is good, but is that what drove Motzart, Bethoven, DaVinci, The Beatles, Pink Floyd, Jimi Hendrix, etc? I think art will always be expressed regardless of the $$$.
-
Beatles,Floyd,Hendrix? These were truly great musicians who no doubt got screwd by the Music industry.Most of the crap being spewed out of the music industry shouldnt even be classified as music.Still its the artists work and as such they should be compensated for it.It shouldnt be given away.I could argue this all day and night but some people feel there entitled to whatever they want regardless of the consequences.Im not going to spend forever trying to convince some Kazza user he doesnt have the right to whatever he wants in life.If ya cant afford it,do without.
-
I still hold my position on this:
Until the big record companies allow me to purchase JUST the song I want, and not jack 15 crappy songs up me arse, they wont be getting my money.
But you can bet I will be getting that song I want by other means.
And right now the only means is the internet. Whats bad now is the online music services that do let you buy each song you want...want a Msquealing monthly subscription fee. Thats no different from getting jacked by the RIAA. Its like signing up with AT&T and paying a $20 bill every month for their services and making a 10 second call at $.10 cents a minute extra charge per month. Bollocks.
-
The effort represents early steps in the music industry's contentious plan to file civil lawsuits aimed at crippling online piracy.
Crippling online piracy? Sorry, cant be done...
I still say that they will loose more money on this witchhunt then they will gain...
They cant keep this running for an longer time, i bet theres computer consultans charging 100$ hour djust scanning I.P numbers (The income of selling like 7-8 records), lol!