The RIAA is at it again-sueing college and 3rd graders

[gsilbers]

link for the article

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18644781...15829?GT1=9951


Im sorry to say this but even though its wrong to download music or software without paying I still think its the Record Industry own damn fault for being bad at the business they do and slow on turning into new technology. they had a lot of chance to change and create new way to make money out of music. but they didnt want to change and still dont want to change thier old habits and now they are recurring to sueing stupid kids. its such a bad image, i just can imagine one of those web cartoon running a few years back where lars ulrich is screeming to little kids while being all strung out in his mansion.

so what u think, is it a good idea to sue college kids and even 3rd grades for downloading music in P2P ?

there is a guy in this forum giving and doing some great stuff. like linking the .zip file to a paypal account (as i understood it, sorry if im wrong) and even getting sponsors so the download is "free".
thats some cool and inovating thinking. the record industry still wants us to buy pieaces of plastic that has being obsolete about 10 years ago. still at 44.1khz 16bit STEREO. 12-14 songs for 15bucks!!! its like, "wake up" RIAA, movies companies are sellig $300 million budget movies at $18 bucks a DVD and gives surrounds hi def video and audio, plus feuturetes and artwork. Give us more and better music or find a weay of making money another way and help artist make money with thier music in any other way.

i guess this was ment for the mone zone

but, am i wrong to think and get mad this way at the music industry?

watcha guys think?

[Kiwiburger]

People only sue when there is sufficient money involved. I expect the 'kids' they are picking on are mongrel scum who are making lots of money from stealing their music.

It's fairly simple really. If you don't want to pay for something, don't buy it. That doesn't mean you should steal it. Just walk away - there is no reason why everybody should expect to get everthing they want.

If you don't like their product or business model - vote with your feet and don't buy. If enough people do that, they will disappear. It still doesn't mean you should steal from them.

Although I admit pop music has a long history of being 'free to air' and people have been recording it with tape machines for decades. Downloading is the exact same moral situation - it was illegal then, it's illegal now. And everyone did it. Doesn't make it right - but the fat cats persecuting todays teenagers should probably ask themselves if they ever recorded a song on their Walkman ...

Whinging is futile.

Just make some good damn music and sell it to us. If we like it, maybe we'll buy it.

If you wanna get rich - do something else.

[Mike Caffrey]

The movie comparison is wrong. They recoup from the public and home performance, CDs are from the home perfomance only. They recoup from product placement fees. At the moment there's no equivalent for labels. Movies have a global market. Music can be global, but movies have the adviantage of subtitles to overcome language barriers.

If you could make $300 million off of an album selling it at a DVD price or any price, don't you think there'd be a lot more than three major labels?


The main reason that it's absurd to sue for illegal downloads is that record labels arent' and haven't been in the business of selling music. They problem is either they don't realize it, or it's simply that their deals don't reflect the actual model of the music business, both current and past.

[GearBit]

Originally Posted by gsilbers

l
Im sorry to say this but even though its wrong to download music or software without paying I still think its the Record Industry own damn fault for being bad at the business they do and slow on turning into new technology.

This statement is about equal to "you shouldn't park your car on the street if you don't want it stolen"
It may be true but it doesn't make it right.

the record industry still wants us to buy pieaces of plastic that has being obsolete about 10 years ago. still at 44.1khz 16bit STEREO. 12-14 songs for 15bucks!!! its like, "wake up" RIAA,

So now iTunes is not an easy enough way to purchase music?

but, am i wrong to think and get mad this way at the music industry?

Well yes. It may feel right to lay blame on the big guy but at the end of the day it's the people P2Ping music that is causing at least 80% of the decline in sales. Been there, seen it and felt it in my pocket so I know it's true.

Ahh they charge too much so I was gonna steal em, but I got my 3rd grade kid to do it instead.

Is it ok to steal if it's done by a child?

[gsilbers]

Originally Posted by Kiwiburger

People only sue when there is sufficient money involved. I expect the 'kids' they are picking on are mongrel scum who are making lots of money from stealing their music.

It's fairly simple really. If you don't want to pay for something, don't buy it. That doesn't mean you should steal it. Just walk away - there is no reason why everybody should expect to get everthing they want.

If you don't like their product or business model - vote with your feet and don't buy. If enough people do that, they will disappear. It still doesn't mean you should steal from them.

Although I admit pop music has a long history of being 'free to air' and people have been recording it with tape machines for decades. Downloading is the exact same moral situation - it was illegal then, it's illegal now. And everyone did it. Doesn't make it right - but the fat cats persecuting todays teenagers should probably ask themselves if they ever recorded a song on their Walkman ...

Whinging is futile.

Just make some good damn music and sell it to us. If we like it, maybe we'll buy it.

If you wanna get rich - do something else.

true!

i uased to copy cassestes, but i think even at basuc level its the same, there is a big shift in technology which attends more consideration when making iligal copies.

music is what i do, but it would fairer if the fats cats ontop would do a better work and the blond bitches would lay low or at equal level as any musicians. oh wel, demands a bitch.

[GearGeek]

College kids should know better. They recieve all that higher education but they still steal. Maybe they should include a P2P chapter in their ethics books.

You have all this money for clothes, cars, pot, whatever but you can't spend 99 cents to download your favorite song? You should be sued.

People like this make it hard for us to feed our families.

[gsilbers]

Originally Posted by GearBit

This statement is about equal to "you shouldn't park your car on the street if you don't want it stolen"
It may be true but it doesn't make it right.

So now iTunes is not an easy enough way to purchase music?

Well yes. It may feel right to lay blame on the big guy but at the end of the day it's the people P2Ping music that is causing at least 80% of the decline in sales. Been there, seen it and felt it in my pocket so I know it's true.

i love itunes (to an extent) but that was nothing to do with RIAA or the record business. it was later on thet they catch up to what apple was doing in a "lets see if they dont screwup 1st and then will try" mind set instead of "hey, there must be somthing going on with computer we better do something about it... in 1992!



no dude, the reason record labels are doing badly is because a variety of reasons not only ilegal sales.. the 80% decline in sales is lie cooked up by the RIAA. they tell u that cause you are a musician working for them. its like when crsylers lets of thousands of workers and say its because of external reasons... well, in part the other part is that they where cocky and iddnt know how to compete or do things right.



as for the 1st coment, im with you. people just should not download ilegay, but whats the other option? well, itunes.. its a start.
i think this type of laws are diferent and more complex than leaving your car in the street and being stolen.

[gsilbers]

Originally Posted by Mike Caffrey

The movie comparison is wrong. They recoup from the public and home performance, CDs are from the home perfomance only. They recoup from product placement fees. At the moment there's no equivalent for labels. Movies have a global market. Music can be global, but movies have the adviantage of subtitles to overcome language barriers.

If you could make $300 million off of an album selling it at a DVD price or any price, don't you think there'd be a lot more than three major labels?


The main reason that it's absurd to sue for illegal downloads is that record labels arent' and haven't been in the business of selling music. They problem is either they don't realize it, or it's simply that their deals don't reflect the actual model of the music business, both current and past.

i was parafrasing a Frank Filipetti coment in an article in electronic musician. as you said, he also mentioned that the comparison is based after recouping by public perfomance (theatres).
its the bang for the buck ideology. you are getting movies that cost a lot of more money to make for the price a little more than a CD which cost far less to produce.



your last coment sounds interesting. kinda like Mcdonands is is the real estate business rather than in the burger business but they dont know it.
but can u explain a little more though..

[gsilbers]

Originally Posted by GearGeek

College kids should know better. They recieve all that higher education but they still steal. Maybe they should include a P2P chapter in their ethics books.

You have all this money for clothes, cars, pot, whatever but you can't spend 99 cents to download your favorite song? You should be sued.

People like this make it hard for us to feed our families.

Dude , we are still thinking that its the kids downloading music...

its getting

why then its not hurting cristina aguileras pockets, or shakira, fernie,, there is the money just channeled incorrectly and the labels hanging to the notion that sueing college kids will revert time to when they could charge 25 bucks a CD.

look at it this way...

here is you
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
here is the labels
.
.
.here is the kids downloading music
.
.
.
.
.
here is the computer and hardware copmanies that own the labels, sell blank CDs, and every other meduim to make iligal downloads. making more money by stabing thier sister companies in the back by getting more money by selling computers hardware, blank Cds, recordable cd players., mp3 player with no copyprotection etc.





oh and here is RIAA doing a little dance and pony show to blame everything on thier own people .

[GearGeek]

Originally Posted by gsilbers

Dude , we are still thinking that its the kids downloading music...

its getting

why then its not hurting cristina aguileras pockets, or shakira, fernie,, .

It IS hurting Christina and all the other pop artists! When was the last time you heard someone going diamond? Just because they still make money doesn't mean it doesn't affect them. They should be making a lot more money and they deserve it!

So I guess it's ok to break into a rich guy's house and steal his TV. What does he care, he can buy another one. If you're looking for someone to blame, don't blame the record industry or blank media industry. Blame the person commiting the crime! I guess if someone gets killed with a gun, you'll blame the gun manufacturer and not the killer. This is what America has become.

[PoorGlory]

What's funny is that all this money is being spent on lawyers to sue college kids, and on computer programmers to come up with new (and useless) copy-protection schemes, when they should be using their resources to attempt to fix their business model. Their current method of operation is so bloated and ridiculous that they actually feel the need to sue children to make up for their own business inadequacies.

Is piracy wrong? Well, yes. Of course. But lawsuits like this are not the answer, and make for extremely bad PR. Every time I buy a CD in one of the big retailers nowadays, I cringe because I know the band is getting hosed, and all the ******bag suits are taking most of my cash. Meanwhile the studio that it was recorded in is barely able to keep their doors open.

Fix your ****ing industry, and maybe people will respect your product a little more and start paying for it again. It's clear that suing 20 year olds didn't get the job done 5 years ago, and it's not going to do it now.

[dlmorley]

My love of music started 30 years ago when I used to trade cassettes with friends. I probably had 10 times as many albums as I bought. The ones I bought were probably my pocket money for 2 weeks.... Was I really expected to listen to 5 albums a year?

When I got my first job, I started buying music. I have probably bought 1000 cd's in my time and think I repaid the "industry" VERY WELL for my earlier sins.
My honest opinion is that there are thieves who can afford to buy, but don't. Then there are people who have a great interest in music but can't afford to spend $100 a month on it (like at 14! Anyone remember what $100 was like???????)
Also, what about second hand CD's? The artist had their money once, so selling it on is ok. Buying it once and passing it on isn't... Of course, it IS wrong, but you see my point.

I don't know how kids can afford to nurture a healthy interest in a large variety of music at €20 a throw per CD

and it has always been the same. Just the delivery format has changed.

Also, with TV and radio dominated by big business and plugged tunes non stop, it's even harder to hear interesting alternative music easily.
The number of artists allowing their live gigs and out-takes to be circulated by P2P shows that they appreciate their fans and they want new fans to get into their music.

[DeathMonkey]

1. While record companies bitch that "CD sales are down", actual music sales profits are soaring. Add legal downloads and ringtones to the $$ equation and you can see just how full of sh*t these whinging millionaires are.

2. They target kids because they know kids will pay the settlement. Kids don't have access to good legal counsel, or the funds to get good representation. Holy crap... "OK, so all you have is that my name was logged into a school network during the time these songs were downloaded? Go ahead and prove that it was ME at the computer at the time. Gosh, I just checked my email and forgot to log out. It was a one armed man. Prove that it wasn't." It's all strong arm and intimidation.

3. Where do these $3000 settlements go? To the RIAA? To the lawyers? To the artists? Not f*cking likely, that one.

The fact is that with radio crammed with the ten songs Clear Channel has been paid to play, and that's about it, "illegal downloads" are the best thing most bands can hope for - because they lead directly to other revenue streams - merchandise, concert tickets, the aforementioned ringtones etc - and this short-sighted harassment of small scared fish is far more detrimental to the RIAA and the labels than downloading ever will be.

[Beermaster]

Its the same old story, you always get the two types of people who try to defend using pirated software and stealing muisc bleating the same old rubbish: There's the ill informed who simply don't understand what they are doing nor how the industry works and theres the spoilt kid attitude that wants to have it all his own way regardless of effects it causes and all too eager to try and spin reality to his way.

Forget for a moment the RIAA, think of every other small labels trying to make a buck whilst the brain dead carry on their ilegal distribution of their tracks.

As for prosecuting the school kids I am reminded of the Aesop's Fable: " The Boy And His Mother" - in which I kid steals a book from school and shows his mum, she doesn't punish him but gives him the ok - the kid grows up stealing more and more untill eventualy he's cought and sentanced to Hang for his theiving - the morning of his execution his mother goes to see him for the last time and he goes to speak into her ear but instead bites it off right infront of the everyone to see - he croud are horrified and see what an evil man he is but the guy says Its is my mother who is at fault for if she had not whipped me for stealing the book as a boy i'd not be here standing at the gallows for pilfering.

A bit harsh I agree but the moral is still there. If you give an OK to kids to do things that are wrong then they're just going to carry on and get worse.

But how else would the thives who feel it their right to download unlicensed media think the industry should respond ?

[dlmorley]

Originally Posted by Beermaster

Its the same old story, you always get the two types of people who try to defend using pirated software and stealing muisc bleating the same old rubbish: There's the ill informed who simply don't understand what they are doing nor how the industry works and theres the spoilt kid attitude that wants to have it all his own way regardless of effects it causes and all too eager to try and spin reality to his way.

Forget for a moment the RIAA, think of every other small labels trying to make a buck whilst the brain dead carry on their ilegal distribution of their tracks.

As for prosecuting the school kids I am reminded of the Aesop's Fable: " The Boy And His Mother" - in which I kid steals a book from school and shows his mum, she doesn't punish him but gives him the ok - the kid grows up stealing more and more untill eventualy he's cought and sentanced to Hang for his theiving - the morning of his execution his mother goes to see him for the last time and he goes to speak into her ear but instead bites it off right infront of the everyone to see - he croud are horrified and see what an evil man he is but the guy says Its is my mother who is at fault for if she had not whipped me for stealing the book as a boy i'd not be here standing at the gallows for pilfering.

A bit harsh I agree but the moral is still there. If you give an OK to kids to do things that are wrong then they're just going to carry on and get worse.

But how else would the thives who feel it their right to download unlicensed media think the industry should respond ?

You are entitled to your own "informed" opinon.

I told you my truths. How I grew up and got into music. That's all. Rubbish? Grow up.
You also read a lot into things.
There are LEGAL ways to get stuff. Labels want to close down the P2P servers because of the possibility that people share ILLEGAL stuff and to keep a stranglehold on their business.
The fact that bands use it as self promotion or that many like having live gigs freely available (in fact anyone who understands how to make a living from music these days )
So, far from saying people should download illegally, I am saying labels and the RIAA should maybe solve the issue a different way.
you are saying, the way they go about it is fine.
Good luck with it
You can't solve these issues with a hammer or by repeating how wrong it is eternally.
Those small labels (the ones who are in the right century anyway) have learnt to embrace the new possibilities and make money with it whilst keeping fans and bands happy.

David

[Fredrik]

If RIAA wants to sue they should go after AOL and similar for not taking their responsibility. They make lots of money from the fact that people download copyrighted material.

[dlmorley]

Originally Posted by Fredrik

If RIAA wants to sue they should go after AOL and similar for not taking their responsibility. They make lots of money from the fact that people download copyrighted material.

Oh no, that would be too hard. They want to scare people into supporting the overpriced and highly dubious affairs of the major labels (the labels that finance the mariah carrie's of this world, whilst being a highly lucrative bank to other bands they sign and invariably screw)
No one is condoning the illegal downloads of music here (although some people seem to feel they are) but the actions of majors and agencies is absurd.

If people are "distributing" downloaded material they don't own the rights to, then it is an offence and there are laws for it already.

But labels are shooting themselves in the foot and trying to hang on to an outdated business plan that just doesn't work these days.

[Fredrik]

Originally Posted by dlmorley

Oh no, that would be too hard. They want to scare people into supporting the overpriced and highly dubious affairs of the major labels (the labels that finance the mariah carrie's of this world, whilst being a highly lucrative bank to other bands they sign and invariably screw)
No one is condoning the illegal downloads of music here (although some people seem to feel they are) but the actions of majors and agencies is absurd.

If people are "distributing" downloaded material they don't own the rights to, then it is an offence and there are laws for it already.

But labels are shooting themselves in the foot and trying to hang on to an outdated business plan that just doesn't work these days.

I think it would be a satifying solution if the broadband suppliers could somehow bill their customers (a small fee) for what they have downloaded. Of course how this could be solved practically is a different question all together.

[pianodano]

What ? How dare them sue. Are they saying everyones not entitled to free lunch ??

[GearBit]

Originally Posted by PoorGlory

Every time I buy a CD in one of the big retailers nowadays, I cringe because I know the band is getting hosed, and all the ******bag suits are taking most of my cash. Meanwhile the studio that it was recorded in is barely able to keep their doors open.
.

Try this. It might help you understand what you are talking about
Get a major label deal.
Hold onto your publishing!<---important!
Watch in amazement as the big bad label spends well over a million dollars advancing you money to buy gear recording, promoting, mastering etc... your album.
Then laugh all the way to the bank when approximately HALF of the profit from every record sold goes directly to YOU.
But then it's not really that funny when you find out that most people downloaded it.
Not to worry though. You aready got the advance and money from the copies that did sell.
The major label still wants to see the other 990,000.00

[ricfoxx]

When it comes down to it, it is you and your computer, you have the choice to buy it and download it legally or downloaded it illegally! What are you going to do? What kind of character do YOU have when nobody is looking? It has nothing to do with the state of the industry or the fat cats and corruptive powers to be because when you download it illegally you are no better than they are. You want it to change, well then do something positve about it besides whining and making excuses for your lack of character!

Do unto others as you want done unto you
Karma
Whatever...................

[dlmorley]

Originally Posted by GearBit

But then it's not really that funny when you find out that most people downloaded it.

Oh but it is funny as I make more from an album download than from a CD sale

[Beermaster]

Originally Posted by dlmorley

You are entitled to your own "informed" opinon.

I told you my truths. How I grew up and got into music. That's all. Rubbish? Grow up.


David

David, I wasn't actually aiming my comments at anyone in particular but as you seem sensetive about this subject I must ask you to explain what you mean. Are you trying to parallel you sharing a few albums with your mates on cassettes to distributing a digital copy to millions of people on a P2P ? or having a couple of dubbed casettes to a terabyte drive with thousands unlicenesed albums on it ? cos that argument falls flat on its face and not just because of the quantities and distribution either.

I just don't believe that your average P2P user does so because he only wants find new unsigned bands > do you ? I'm sure labels could release tracks as tasters on P2P but there many more ways of doing this

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p>As for kids only having $20 to spend a month on albums being an excuse to P2P well thats a load of old bollocks ! - you can get individual tracks that you really like for 75c - and of course theres the good old fashioned radio with a billion choices to Legally listen.</o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>

[Protools Guy]

I don't mind giving away my music for free if everyone else in the world is going to give me their products and services for free.

[dlmorley]

Originally Posted by Beermaster

David, I wasn't actually aiming my comments at anyone in particular but as you seem sensetive about this subject I must ask you to explain what you mean. Are you trying to parallel you sharing a few albums with your mates on cassettes to distributing a digital copy to millions of people on a P2P ? or having a couple of dubbed casettes to a terabyte drive with thousands unlicenesed albums on it ? cos that argument falls flat on its face and not just because of the quantities and distribution either.

I just don't believe that your average P2P user does so because he only wants find new unsigned bands > do you ? I'm sure labels could release tracks as tasters on P2P but there many more ways of doing this

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p>As for kids only having $20 to spend a month on albums being an excuse to P2P well thats a load of old bollocks ! - you can get individual tracks that you really like for 75c - and of course theres the good old fashioned radio with a billion choices to Legally listen.</o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>

Hi Lester

Sorry I bit you, but I did feel attacked. And maybe I have a bee in my bonnet about this. Sorry.

I would say I am a big P2P user but for "legal" items. Live gigs or obscure out takes that I find interesting but probably have no "commercial" value.
As for radio, have you listened lately
Seriously, I listen a lot to internet radio and it's great and I have found many new artists who's music I have then bought. Same on P2P to be honest.
I agree with you entirely that someone spreading albums illegally is big crime and needs dealing with properly. That IS costing money to artists, but I hate the labels attitudes towards making the whole "sharing" thing into some evil network where everyone is a criminal and we are robbing these poor artists of their food. That is pure bullshit.
I would say many unknown bands have been able to start making livings not because of labels, but because of file sharing.

I have been screwed over by labels, by counterfeiters (an EP and an LP have been re-printed, both in russia) but have only had good feedback from people who have "heard" of my stuff online (whatever that means)
I try and hope that people are honest and if they like an artist at some point and can afford to, they want to help them by buying their products. I can't call those people criminals in the same way as people distributing CD's illegally or labels SCREWING artists over (which happens non stop)


and by the way
Welcome!

Originally Posted by dlmorley

Hi Lester

Sorry I bit you, but I did feel attacked. And maybe I have a bee in my bonnet about this. Sorry.

I would say I am a big P2P user but for "legal" items. Live gigs or obscure out takes that I find interesting but probably have no "commercial" value.
As for radio, have you listened lately
Seriously, I listen a lot to internet radio and it's great and I have found many new artists who's music I have then bought. Same on P2P to be honest.
I agree with you entirely that someone spreading albums illegally is big crime and needs dealing with properly. That IS costing money to artists, but I hate the labels attitudes towards making the whole "sharing" thing into some evil network where everyone is a criminal and we are robbing these poor artists of their food. That is pure bullshit.
I would say many unknown bands have been able to start making livings not because of labels, but because of file sharing.

I have been screwed over by labels, by counterfeiters (an EP and an LP have been re-printed, both in russia) but have only had good feedback from people who have "heard" of my stuff online (whatever that means)
I try and hope that people are honest and if they like an artist at some point and can afford to, they want to help them by buying their products. I can't call those people criminals in the same way as people distributing CD's illegally or labels SCREWING artists over (which happens non stop)


and by the way
Welcome!

The obvious point is that with sales in the tanker, the people you speak of are not honest enough to go and buy the albums.

[Mondo]

know what i do? buy records. i don't listen to bands affiliated with the shithead riaa. get a spine.

[Beermaster]

Hey David Good to see you too and thank for the welcome.

Good to have a debate on these issues - no probs mate !

Interesting to hear about your experiences. I can understand how annoying it must be to have found pirate pressing of your records made

( I have a couple of Polyfusion accessories that may be of use to you if you want to give me a buz )

Lester

[jindrich]

The RIAA has a business (distributing content) based on a model that is completely obsolete and no longer works anymore. It all started the day music was converted into ones and zeroes, and therefore perfect clones of the final product could be, for the first time, distributed by electrons by anyone to anyone who knew how to. It was not easy 20 years ago, but nowadays any kid or even a trained monkey is capable of it.

The RIAA (and any similar corporation in the world) doesn't have a purpose anymore, because the business model doesn't exist anymore. Period.

Exactly the same happened with the ICE industry when the fridge was invented. Learn from the past.



Who says it is a crime to hear or copy a song someone created? Musicians have the chance (as it's been for centuries) to PERFORM their works to make money. In the XX century a technology appeared that allowed music to be recorded and put into some physical media, so it could be sold in the millions to anyone with ears. In the XXI, a new technology emerged that destroyed media, so the business dissapeared. Let's move on.


What to me is unbelieavable is that an organization thinks it's NOT a crime to sell a product for €20 or more, of which the creator, the artist without whom there would be NOTHING to sell, will get €1 if he's lucky, or maybe even nothing.



I hope Myspace and *artist-sells-direct-from-the-net* free music and artists for good.