Cant sleep, RIAA will eat me

[resyeK]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/06/25/download.suits.ap/index.html


The Recording Industry Association of America, citing substantial sales declines, said it will begin Thursday to search Internet file-sharing networks to identify users who offer "substantial" collections of mp3 music files for downloading. It expects to file at least several hundred lawsuits seeking financial damages within eight to 10 weeks.

Anyone want to buy some cd's from them?

[crz]

it clearly wasnt the downturn of the US economy that caused a slump in sales, it HAD to be filesharing.

[kevinspacey]

time to do it the safe way

[carrot]

Maybe the RIAA should inspect the prices that they charge for CDs. I mean, if I could choose between buying a CD with 11 songs on it, only 7 of which I like for 20-some dollars Canadian or downloading the ones I like for free, I'm going to choose to download them.

The prices of some CDs nowadays is rediculous, considering many have no more then 13-15 songs. I can't even remember the last CD I bought with more than 15 songs on it.

They had to have seen the whole mp3 sharing and downloading thing coming. I don't feel at all sorry for them.

[snaggle]

Originally posted by bonat
Maybe the RIAA should inspect the prices that they charge for CDs. I mean, if I could choose between buying a CD with 11 songs on it, only 7 of which I like for 20-some dollars Canadian or downloading the ones I like for free, I'm going to choose to download them.

The prices of some CDs nowadays is rediculous, considering many have no more then 13-15 songs. I can't even remember the last CD I bought with more than 15 songs on it.

They had to have seen the whole mp3 sharing and downloading thing coming. I don't feel at all sorry for them.

The musician's union prevents them from putting out any new and innovative material with more than 11 songs on a disc. :rolleyes:

I only buy mix cd's these days, they have 20 or more songs on multiple discs...and the record companies who put them out have realized that it makes more sense to charge a little less for them, and sell more than it does to hold to the industry standard pricing for double disc sets...and sell few. I just bought an imported Ministry of Sound double disc cd for 8 bucks...normally an MoS import disc goes for close to 25 bucks. I hope this is a sign of things to come. :)

[Cod]

Originally posted by snaggle
The musician's union prevents them from putting out any new and innovative material with more than 11 songs on a disc. :rolleyes:
I'm not sure, but I hope you are being sarcastic with that comment. Because the new Finger Eleven CD has 12 songs and the new Michelle Branch CD has 13 songs. Last time I checked my math, 12 and 13 were more than 11...

If you were being sarcastic, I'm sorry for ranting. :)

[Zogo]

here come the idle threats again...

[snaggle]

Originally posted by Cod
I'm not sure, but I hope you are being sarcastic with that comment. Because the new Finger Eleven CD has 12 songs and the new Michelle Branch CD has 13 songs. Last time I checked my math, 12 and 13 were more than 11...

If you were being sarcastic, I'm sorry for ranting. :)

You're quite intuitive. I need to be more sneaky with my sarcasm. ;)

[Cod]

Originally posted by snaggle
You're quite intuitive. I need to be more sneaky with my sarcasm. ;)
laf :D

[brett]

If I own the CD "Nickleback - Silver Side Up" and I also have all the mp3s from that CD on my computer (not shared), is it illegal? When I buy a CD, do I buy the physical CD or the rights to listen to the songs on it?

[Cod]

Originally posted by brett
If I own the CD "Nickleback - Silver Side Up" and I also have all the mp3s from that CD on my computer (not shared), is it illegal? When I buy a CD, do I buy the physical CD or the rights to listen to the songs on it?
I could be wrong, but I believe what you are doing is legal because if I'm correct, you purchase the rights to listen to the songs on a CD if you buy the actual CD.

[resyeK]

yes that is legal, as far as i know, because its like making a backup copy of a CD. You have the right to make a backup, in case your original is broken/lost/destroyed, and if the songs aren't shared, that is a perfectly legal way of doing it.

Of course, there has to be a lawyer around here who can correct me :)

[SUICIDAL]

Of course copying the music to your hard drive is legal. Its the same with making a Copy of the CD. As long as you are not sharing the copy and holding on to the orignal, its legal. It is legal to give your CD to another person, the orignal CD, and not have any CD for your self, as in giving it as a gift.

Originally From "Record industry to sue song swappers" from CNN.com, link at end of quote.

The RIAA said its lawyers will file lawsuits initially against people with the largest collections of music files they can find online.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/06/25/download.suits.ap/index.html

That will be hard, with P2P sharing, its very annyomous. Sure you download music, and track the IP, but there are open Proxies, Spoofers, and other things that change your IP. Hotline Servers and the like say up front, they are not responible for things that people Download off thier Servers. Also they say they are for back-up purposes only, and to only take off what you own.

The Music Industry thought that Napster would be the end of it. But it was merely the beginning, the CD Makers are trying Encoding and Anti-Copy protection, and the CD Crackers are finding ways around it, right now, the Crackers are in the lead, it will be intresting to see where this goes.

[Cain]

If I own the CD "Nickleback - Silver Side Up" and I also have all the mp3s from that CD on my computer (not shared), is it illegal?

No. But if I was supreme dictator of the earth you'd promptly be shot. In the face. More than once.

[NT.]

I still buy DVDs. I buy them because downloading movies off of the internet takes fucking forever even with broadband, and the quality is shitty. I don't want to support the MPAA or RIAA in any way because of the way they are doing business. If you are like me and still buy some of these things for whatever reason, BUY THEM USED! This way the MPAA/RIAA have no tracking on your purchase and make no profits. It's as if you never bought the CD/DVD.

I think Apple is taking a good initiative in finally offering what people want: being able to buy songs one at a time from a website. Anything that I can do from my computer without having to put on my goddamned shoes and wait in traffic and a checkout line to do is a big fucking bonus.

It's a good argument to say "well, why pay 99 cents per song when I can just use Kazaa and get them for free?". You risk getting sued by the RIAA for everything you are worth when you download off of Kazaa as of last thursday. Well, I think 99 cents is just a bit much, and if you add it up you are paying nearly what you would pay for a new CD, and you don't get the packaging.

Point is, I would pay like 50 cents or less per song to download from a FAST SERVER with no waiting after being able to preview said song in its entirety. Sure it costs money, but it is cheaper than being sued.

I might add that my little hypothetical online music store would have EVERYTHING. The current Apple store has a small selection. I want rarities, goddamnit. And this store will be run by the RIAA or whatever organization takes its place. Directly, the RIAA currently offer no alternative to buying a FUCKING COMPACT DISC, a 20-year old piece of shit technology and even technology-ignorant people realize is being pushed way past its lifetime. They only hold 80 minutes of audio, scratch easily, and are the size of a pancake.

Hard drives/compact flash/broadband intarweb > gay CD technology

[snaggle]

I always hoped MD would take off here in the States. It's small, has more capacity than a CD and has the same quality, with the added bonus of being recordable. But unless the RIAA gives MD the endorsement that they gave CD tech...it'll never happen. :(

DOes this appley to dleding movieS? And are you safe if you dled through kazza? and Couldnt you say that your dog dled the shit?

[brett]

No. But if I was supreme dictator of the earth you'd promptly be shot. In the face. More than once.

I was using Nickleback as a fictitious idea so that the message would be conveyed properly, if that was why you decided to target me. I actually was trying to determine if Universal Studios was legit in sueing me for having 13 DivX movies on my computer when I owned all the DVDs.. I deleted them anyway after putting them on CD, as it's not worth the hassle, but I was curious nonetheless.

[NappyK]

All bullshit. Where in the hell will they come up with the resources to do this? There are too many "real" crimes out there that need to be taken care of.

[larcain]

Figures. They refuse to change with the times, to be competitive because they offer a product in a form that people want and at a cost that is attractive to the consumer so they wonder why folks are ripping em off? Geez, at least in days gone by if you wanted a single song, you could buy a single 45, now, for the most part if you want one song you have to buy a cd filled with crap. Good luck with any real progress tracking down pirating in this fashion.

[Cain]

Geez, at least in days gone by if you wanted a single song, you could buy a single 45, now, for the most part if you want one song you have to buy a cd filled with crap. Good luck with any real progress tracking down pirating in this fashion.

Larcain, haven't you stated in the past that there's a strong Libertarian streak running through your politics? These are profit-motivated market forces at work. But there you go rationalizing the THEFT of music companies' intellectual property.

Me? I'm an anarchist. I can do and say whatever I please, plus there's the added bonus of acting self-righteous about it. Oh, it's about time to commit another random act of terrorism.

P.S. I find it amazing how the youth in suburbia can be so unified against this form of "corporate tyranny." If you have MP3s without owning the actual CD, then you're violating their protected copyrights (as outlined in the Constitution). One can argue that those copyrights have been extended in a way that violates original intent of the Founding Fathers, but the Supreme Court has recently ruled otherwise. Owning any Metallica song created in the last ten years, in addition to being a serious character flaw worthy of unmentionable public embarassment, is that fact that it's illegal. Whatever happened to respecting the law?

Cain, recent offender of fair use and copyright (see Guardian article).

[larcain]

I need to restate I guess. I don't use programs to dl songs I don't already own in some form. It irritates me that the music industry refuses to change in any regard. My comment with enforcement has to do with the fact that they will find very little support from the community at large. Being liberaterian, I say they have the right to chose whatever they want, but I also see the practicality and business case for creating, supporting and maintaining their clientel. What they are doing at this point is just plain stupid. I heard a report that last year will be the worst sales for albums in history. Go figure. Build it badly and they will leave.

[alphatronics]

File sharing usage went up after that announcement.

Make us some martyrs, RIAA!

[WoBMatt]

11010101010001010101110101010101111010100101000101
10101010010010101001010001010110101110100100010100
10101000010101010101111010010101010100010100101000
11101010001010101010001010101000101010101010101000
00101010100011101010101000101010010100010101010100

(c) [WoB]Matt MMIII

You can't use those numbers anymore.

[Cod]

You know, technically, the RIAA is breaking the law by using http://www.riaa.org since .ORG web address are for NON-PROFIT organizations only. And with all the sueing going down, they are clearly a profit organization.

[LostCause]

I refuse to buy a cd unless the artist releases a single of every song on that cd. So many times now a days an artist writes or is given 1 good song, and the rest of the cd is garbage. They are upset that they now dont get 13-17 dollars on that one song.
(If i respect a band then i will buy their cd also)

I feel that the RIAA is taking the wrong approach to this shit. They should not sue the public just due to public relations. They are not a smart company. The RIAA would rather strike fear into the hearts of many and take their money than find a solution.
IF the RIAA was smart they would think of a marketing plan such as Apple has. Apple is taking a "bad" thing and making it good. They feature a program to download mp3s.. or their new mp4 files. You are charged 99cents a song. I really think this market could be a great idea for competitive companys. Such as record stores price cds lower than other stores to stay in business. i think that websites can do that too.

Even though u have to pay, i support what apple is doing. They have many bands signing on and making their cds available. This format also forces Artists to put out more quality songs. If you are selling singles instead of cds, you need to create better songs instead of one good song and shit.

I think its very narrow minded to think that mp3s will kill records.

Oh well.. i just felt like venting and sharing some views. Might be jumbled because i wrote as it came into my head.

[Cod]

Originally posted by MacMaverick
Yea, because copyright last for like, 80 years.
A copyright last 70 years from the band/singer's death. For example, Jimi Hendrix songs were under copyright until the year 2000; therefore, we can actually share his songs since the copyright cannot be renewed by a dead singer. Unless of course another one of the band members were part of the copyright deal, we are good to d/l and share Hendrix files.