PDA

View Full Version : Music Downloads: RIAA lawsuit strategy illegal


rock
12-19-2003, 06:54 PM
RIAA lawsuit strategy illegal

A federal appeals court Friday handed a serious setback to the record industry's legal strategy of tracking down and suing alleged file swappers.

Overturning a series of decisions in favor of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), the Washington, D.C., court said copyright law did not allow the organization to issue subpoenas for the identity of file swappers on Internet service providers' networks. The ruling came in favor of ISP Verizon Communications, the first ISP to challenge the recording industry's actions.

http://news.com.com/2100-1027_3-5129687.html?tag=nefd_lede

t-toe
12-19-2003, 07:10 PM
it's about time the goverment realized the malice of the recording industry.

Spankspeople
12-19-2003, 07:26 PM
So what happens to all of the people who they've already subpoena'd?

projectcoil
12-19-2003, 11:26 PM
Ya, and they tracked down a 12 year old little girl, which was against Internet Child Protection Act. Go Verizon! Sue them back for billions.

MaDSheeP
12-20-2003, 06:38 AM
haha [/Nelson]

Valkyrien
12-20-2003, 09:47 AM
w00t

*returns to kazaa*

rock
12-20-2003, 07:55 PM
Can someone notify that fearful 12 year-old girl and her mother to resume the downloads of thousands of songs until further notice? Common sense should dictate the internet, not greed nor power.

froggyplat
12-20-2003, 10:56 PM
here i come, tom jones anthology!

Hookflash
12-20-2003, 11:03 PM
This is great. The RIAA is quite possibly the most evil, greedy, opportunistic group capitalism has ever spawned.

stakk4
12-21-2003, 09:29 AM
I personally also loved the way Sony spent millions and millions of dollars to come up with CD's that were unrippable.

What the geniuses they paid came up with was making the first track on all the CD's a track of bad data, then doing all the songs on the consecutive tracks after.

Worked for a short time. From what I understand those CD's hard locked Macs when they were put in.

So people started coloring over the first track with a marker. After that they worked beautifully. hee hee hee

Shinova
12-21-2003, 10:43 AM
I'm sure there's saying somewhere that goes something like this:



"Do not screw with the consumer." :cool:

Jackdeth
12-21-2003, 07:57 PM
Funny, it would seem to me that it is the "consumers" that are the greediest, most evil opportunisitic group ever spawned.

They are the ones who want all of the benifit without paying for it.

The Consumers don't seem to mind enjoying that music that the "evil record compaines" spend all of thier time and money on making....

Maybe one day when any of you actually have a skill or talent that can be used to create something worth copyrighting, maybe then will you reliaze how stupid all of your arguments sound.

When you work really hard, take great risks, and spend millions of dollars to create something to be sold, its really unfair to steal it and then call them the crooks!

Why should they work so hard to stop theft? Why can't all of you just show them some respect and buy the music if you want it.

Hookflash
12-21-2003, 08:14 PM
Jackdeth: Your tantrum isn't even worth a detailed rebuttal, since most moderately intelligent people will immediately recognize your irrational bias.

Windex
12-21-2003, 08:41 PM
wait a min, he might have something there.

but you see. people are pissed because the companies are ripping off BOTH the artist AND the consumer at the same time.
it's true that they spend millions on advertising, and promote the artists and such. but you see, they make their money back, and i mean 1000 fold. no more.....waaaay more. lol
i dunno y the artists aren't just opening a company and selling their own records, i guess P. Diddy is? (who my friend Michael hates, because of the Godzilla song he sampled/tooK from Led Zepplin. saying, he is lazy ...lol, i like the song... )

anyways, obviously it IS wrong to get something for free that you legaly should pay for, and there IS a chance (1 percent IMO) to hear songs and THEN buy them cuz you heard them online, but most websites have the 30 sec demo track or something.

but hey, try telling that to the millions of people who think software should be free, Microsoft is evil etc.

i really don't have an answer. but i'm SOO against piracy,
imagine you make your dream game but aren't selling that much, cuz people are just copying your game. that would sooo suxor.

one solution, kill the internet

PixelVampire
12-21-2003, 08:52 PM
Record companies ripping off artists is just an excuse. Thieves will still steal the songs even if 100% of the money from the sale of the song was going to the artist.
Law should be clear if you are caught with illegal stuff you get heavy fines. No excuse.
It's funny if I hear a song that I like...I go and buy it as a mark of appreciation for the artist who gave me pleasure through his music.

Jackdeth- I am 100% with you. It's sad that doing the right thing is considered abnormal these days.

barto9
12-21-2003, 09:02 PM
thanks verizon.

Jackdeth
12-21-2003, 09:12 PM
Hookflash, atleast have the balls to call it what it is....theft.

Hey, when I was a dumb kid in juinor high, one time I stole some hockey cards. It was worng, but I never got caught. But I also never lied to myself about what I was doing. I never tried to justify it by blaming the company that made the cards by claming that I deseved the cards because they were ripping me off with thier high prices.

Now I've learned my lesson, and I wont ever do it again. Almost every thing made in this world that makes one person money, has hurt or ripped off someone else. So your "justification" of the evil record labels hurting the musicans is BS if you only hold it against them. One persons sucess is another failure.

This excuse is only used to make you feel better about yourself when you look in the mirror. Don't even pretend that you are doing it for the "artists."

Have some balls....

innervision961
12-21-2003, 09:19 PM
Yeah I mean come on... Go pay $20 bucks of your hard earned money on a 30 cent piece of plastic that has one good song. And oh yeah do it for the artist because you know the artists are usually in debt with the record company meaning they pay them most of the time. Their 20% cut not withstanding i mean they don't do it for profit do they? I thought they loved to make music. Truth is none of these guys are starving, 10 to 1 they are doing a hell of a lot better than i am, lets see... minimum wage, to (insert huge amount of money here)... They eat better than i do, so screw it, the least they can do is entertain me for free every now and then, for crying out loud i had to work near 3 hours to buy that piece of plastic.

Jackdeth
12-21-2003, 09:30 PM
How close minded are you? What about your shoes? your shirt? Do you really think any shoe cost $75 bucks to make when they sell it for $80? No.... its more like 5 bucks, but I don't see you stealing shoes.....

Again, that argument can be made about EVERY product ever made. Not only music CDs. Open your eyes.

And why can't someone who takes a risk, and makes something that lots of people want, enjoy making money off of that? Or is it because you are all bitter un-creative people that think everybody owes you something?

You should be happy we live in a time where creativity is rewarded, and where hard work can produce hard cash. Don't punish them for trying and susceeding.

If you want, then just buy it. You don't DESERVE music. Like you don't deserve big houses, fancy cars, $120 Nike shoes, HDTV's, or crazy home stereos. You have to earn the money and then buy it. Its a very simple concept.

If you dont like that, move into a cave and live off of the land.



EDIT** And another thing. What is with all of the BS about only one good song on a disc, or that all music today sucks so why pay for it? If that was true, why is almsot 80% of all of the stolen music on the web new songs. If they are all so bad, then why do miliions and millions of people keep downloading then? hmmmmmmm smells like more BS....

Maybe you like more songs than you will admit too. Another face saving tatic...

t-man152
12-21-2003, 09:58 PM
Originally posted by projectcoil
Ya, and they tracked down a 12 year old little girl, which was against Internet Child Protection Act. Go Verizon! Sue them back for billions.

thats what the news said. actually they sued her mother who was the person who's name was on the internet bill. the only reason they said it was a 12 year old girl was because she was downloading. the news always has to make things sound so grand.

innervision961
12-22-2003, 12:30 AM
Originally posted by Jackdeth
How close minded are you? What about your shoes? your shirt? Do you really think any shoe cost $75 bucks to make when they sell it for $80? No.... its more like 5 bucks, but I don't see you stealing shoes.....

Again, that argument can be made about EVERY product ever made. Not only music CDs. Open your eyes.

And why can't someone who takes a risk, and makes something that lots of people want, enjoy making money off of that? Or is it because you are all bitter un-creative people that think everybody owes you something?

You should be happy we live in a time where creativity is rewarded, and where hard work can produce hard cash. Don't punish them for trying and susceeding.

If you want, then just buy it. You don't DESERVE music. Like you don't deserve big houses, fancy cars, $120 Nike shoes, HDTV's, or crazy home stereos. You have to earn the money and then buy it. Its a very simple concept.

If you dont like that, move into a cave and live off of the land.



EDIT** And another thing. What is with all of the BS about only one good song on a disc, or that all music today sucks so why pay for it? If that was true, why is almsot 80% of all of the stolen music on the web new songs. If they are all so bad, then why do miliions and millions of people keep downloading then? hmmmmmmm smells like more BS....

Maybe you like more songs than you will admit too. Another face saving tatic...

LOL I knew that was the response i would get from you thats why i said it, but then again sarcasm is hard to guage over the internet huh? First off, I buy all my music, I have no illegal music on my computer, second I play in a band and would love to be successful, but i don't have fake lips/tits/and ass so its not going to happen. Third, I don't own 120$ dollar shoes, the shoes i own i got at wal mart thank you and they have holes in them i have no hdtv, big house, or fancy cars blah blah blah you get the point. What I have I paid for or recieved as a gift and i'm thankfull for it, and no i don't like more songs than i'll admit to because the majority of music today is crap (opinion of course)
:applause: but good job man, why the hell are you so defensive about this anyway? You work for the riaa? In fact the last paycheck I purchased to cds trapt, and chevelle both are really good cds worth the money :wavey:

DePingus
12-22-2003, 12:54 AM
How cool would it be if you could just download the latest pair of Nikes as easily as you can the latest songs! Sign me up!

mirror
12-22-2003, 01:12 AM
needless to say that all the pro-posters enjoy working 9-5 for free

Jackdeth
12-22-2003, 01:16 AM
Lets see....why am i so defensive....

Well first, I own a compay that "used" to work on music videos until the market collapsed on them (I'm glad the movie and commerical side is rocking). Second I'm a director of music videos, and I see first hand how the record lables have gone through massive lay offs (I'm NOT defending their brains, and I'm NOT call them "good" compaines either. Big busniess can be very ulgy at times), and thirdly, I've had to layoff people that worked for us because of the damage that has rippled throughout this far reaching world of music. Its sad seeing peoples lives being messed up because some people think they "deserve" free music.

And lastly, I'm in the process of getting some ideas that me and the Bro have come up with for a movie pitch, and I'm afraid of what might happend to the movie industry if films are being stolen in large amounts over the web.

People are playing with fire here, and they shrug it off because they think they are only hruting a bunch of rich ass-holes. I think that attitude sucks.

RobertoOrtiz
12-22-2003, 02:44 AM
It seems that this topics comes up every couple of months.

Ok here comes my standard response.

As developers of content on an international level we should respect and enforce copyrights.

One of the first VFX geniuses was a visionary Frenchman
called Georges Méliès. The man was a genius and he invented a lot of the Visual Fx techniques that we still use today 100 years later.

He made the first VFX extravaganza called "Journey to the Moon" in 1902. The movie was very successful in Europe, but when he tried to distribute the movie in America he found out that it was already playing.

Here is the story from IMDB:

"After finishing work on the film, George Melies intended to release it in America and thereby make lots of money. Unfortunately, Thomas A. Edison's film technicians had already secretly made copies of the film, which was showed across the USA within weeks. Melies never made any money from the film's American showings, and went broke several years later (while Edison made a fortune on the film.)"

If we want to be called professionals, we better start understanding what the copyright law actually stands for.

>>link<< (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0000417/)

-R

Ikarus
12-22-2003, 05:25 AM
I agree with Jackdeth. In the end all you are doing is stealing copyrighted material. And for those who say that the record companies are ripping of the artist, please at least do your homework on the subject and don't just go blatantly assuming things and get the facts straight.

Fact of the matter is it's not just the artist who are responsible for putting together the record. The big record companies are the ones investing in the artist and they are the ones putting the money up front. They are investing on the artist. And before you go saying screw the RIAA and the big record companies I'll just keep on downloading them for free, remember who else your screwing in the end: The production team who help put the record together, the sound engineers, the marketing people who market the records, the artist's management team, the art department responsible for doing the package design, and just about every other department that the record companies have. People with regular jobs who just as anybody else have to earn a living and support a family.

So in the end that CD that you'll buy will help pay the salaries of everyone involved, not just the artist and the big chiefs of the record companies.

And like Roberto said "If we want to be called professional, we better start understanding what the copyright law actually stands for." So I can't blame the RIAA for trying to stop illegal sharing of copyrighted material.

KolbyJukes
12-22-2003, 06:36 AM
I remember back when I was a kid, my buddies would record tapes onto tapes, and cds onto tapes, and share them around...and never once did I hear that ugly word: "Piracy". Not one of my friends ever said "Oh shit! The RIAA is coming after me cause I made a copy of Vanilla Ice's tape." I mean, back when we were kids, none of us had the cash to buy cds, but we always had the latest music (either by recording a friend's tape, or recording it off the radio). Then the digital format comes along and shit hits the fan.

I fully understand that piracy is theft, i'm not bullshitting myself. At the same time, I live in Canada, and every time I buy a CD-R/RW (also when you buy an mp3 player) i pay taxes and levies...sizeable taxes and levies...and they've collected an obscene amount of money. Now I hear that the CRIA (the canadian version of the RIAA) is going to start suing Canadians for uploading music. Sounds like double dipping to me.

I still think $20 CAN for a CD is ridiculous...I guess it's internet radio for me :applause:

-Kol.

Shinova
12-22-2003, 06:54 AM
20+ dollars is still way too much for just a CD. The RIAA should do the following in order of importance:


1. Lower the prices.

2. Stop suing and further alienating its customers.

3. Encourage better content in their products.


The third is really entirely up to the artist so it's not really important. But they should really put the prices down a bit.


I also hear the RIAA are trying to file for anti-trust immunity. Talk about what the hell.


EDIT: I would also like to add that while movie piracy is about as bad, theater sales are not really at any danger since actually going to the theater and watching the movie there is worth every bit of the money you pay for the ticket.

kwshipman
12-22-2003, 07:38 AM
where in the world do you guys buy these $20 CD's? I've been looking through som adds and they are all arround $10, some as much as $12.

Shinova - the RIAA has nothing to do with the prices of the CDs. Infact on of the major lables announced a 6 dollar price cut in its cds a few months back.

Kwak - just because when you used to copy tapes back in the day doesnt mean that the RIAA thought any less of it or that is wasnt piracy. There was just no way of tracking it. Now they can see you do it since your computer is broadcasting an IP address

As an aspiring game developer, I dont want people downloading my games. Developers spend millions of dollars to make a game and then people just make copies and give them out to whom ever wants one.

and I always love the pay x amount of money for a 30 cent piece of plastic. Yes the disk itself may be 30 cents, but you have the case, the booklet, the pay for the graphic designer, the printing of the disk, the distributers, retail space, etc. it just keeps going.

and as for the "Only 1 good song" arguement, the just buy that one good song, from itunes, or what ever online MP3 dealer, and only pay 99 cents.

come on people, we are all digital media professionals and we are all being impacted by piracy.

Keiyentai
12-22-2003, 08:29 AM
Well I am glad of Verizion. Though I hold a double sided coin. I think what the RIAA did was messed up. Though if a CD comes out I may download a song and see if I like it then by it. THough there is a problem with some. I am a JRock fan. FOr those who dont know Jrock is Japanese ROck. Do you know how MUCH a Imported Jrock CD is? THey range from $45-$130!! I will be damned be fore I pay that much for a CD. Espcialy when the band doesent do anything in the US. No concerts, promos or anything but does it in Asia and Europe..so ya not goign to fork over big bucks if I have to travel over 4000 miles just to see them....but if they are an American group or one that I can buy there CD's here I buy them. Like with Manson. I have alot of Lives/Rares mp3s that are almost imposible to find but I OWN every Manson CD. SO there is no crime there. Same with Rammstein I downloaded a couple MP3s liked what I heard and Got all 3 of the CD's. SO there ya go. If a Jrock band where to come to the US I would buy it but untill then I'm not Forking over $45-$120 for a CD.....let alone a single....

dvornik
12-22-2003, 08:41 AM
Have you paid attention to the fact that the decision does not mean that RIAA can't sue people? It only means that they can't request to match the names of the users to IP addresses from an ISP without an order from a judge.

They still can file the John Doe (not that porn dude) suits. And THEN request the names. It only means they have to spend some more money, not just press a "find more from the same user" button in K++ and then look up your IP address and real name and address.

So do yourself a favour and use a client that doesn't allow browsing your shared folder. For **** sake.

KolbyJukes
12-22-2003, 08:42 AM
kwshipman -

I realize it was piracy, I realize that my computer is broadcasting a IP address...thanks for the newsflash...I've been hiding in a cave for the last 6 years. I was simply making an observation that my generation never considered copying a tape as a big deal and nobody else seemed to either (honestly I never heard the word piracy and I was never discouraged to copy) where as today it's criminal and children are receiving supeonas.

Where are you buying CDs from? Everytime I've bought a CD in the last year I've ended up paying anywhere from $15-25 CAN. Are you living in the US?

5 CDs = $100.00 - seems a bit steep to me. I can deal with paying $20 for a DVD, but everytime I lay down that much for a CD...I die a little...on the inside.

Ah well...
-Kol.

PixelVampire
12-22-2003, 10:55 AM
copy and paste-

IF you're just making a general comment on how music is too expensive (a common argument for far too many piraters), here's some rough price comparisons for you guys (some from online price history resources):
12oz Coke.....$0.25 (1978).....$0.75 (2003)..... 300% increase
gasoline......$0.75/g ('78)....$1.50 (2003)..... 200% increase
movie ticket..$3.50 (1978).....$8.00 (2003)..... 229% increase
comic book....$0.35 (1978).....$3.00 (2003)..... 857% increase
album/cd......$7.00 (1978)....$13.00 (2003)..... 186% increase (but CD's hold more music!!!)

What's to complain about????

-

Let's look closer at Coke. Something NOBODY complains about.

Coke and most soda's are just sugar water...essentially. Rather than look at water (although the price for free water has gone up significantly in restaurants!), let's look at the sugar.

WHAT A FREAKIN' MESS!!!

Here's some reference for you if you want to bother: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/SC/SC01900.pdf http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/BODY_FE375

and from this site we have some data: http://www.sugar-reform.org/prices.htm
(btw, take a look at this site for some interesting accounts of how U.S. taxpayers are getting reamed; may be worth further investigation)

US sugar......$0.15/lb ('78)...$0.23 (1998)..... 153% increase.....$0.21 (2002) and stable due to gov't controls.
World sugar...$0.10/lb ('78)...$0.10 (1998)..... 000% increase.....<$0.10 (2002) and dropping?

CONCLUSION: The price of soft drinks has risen 300% while the ingrediants have basically stayed the same. The price of soft drinks has risen 300% while music has risen 186% for a BETTER product with MORE songs.

Why is no one stealing coke? #1 because they don't know any of this. #2 because you can't d/l it. #3 because if you jack a vending machine you get thrown in jail. That's why.

-

Oh, wait, we're not talking about products that are manufactured, we're talking about m_u_s_i_c...

Okay then, let's take a closer look at sports. It's not a product you "own". Here's something interesting on professional sports:

avg income for American family: $35,492.00 (1998)
avg income for a season ticket holder (MLB,NBA,NFL,NHL): $67,435 (1998)

"Season ticket holders averaged 90% higher incomes than the general population. In 1972, the same season ticket holder had an average income of on 58% higher than the average household income." http://people.uleth.ca/~rockerbie/SportsText.pdf

CONCLUSION: Sports tickets are increasing by so much it's becoming a rich spectator's sport! Funny, no one complains about this. Maybe because it's easier to d/l music off the net for free than it is to fight past security and sneak into a ballpark!

-

<snip>

-

FINALLY: Here's a nice little cost of living calculator you can play with: http://www.aier.org/cgi-bin/colcalculator.cgi

Let's see what it gives for the year's 1978/2003:

US Currency...$100.00 ('78)....$281.13 ('03).... 281% increase!

Now you know why I don't complain about the cost of CD's. In 1978, I was spending a bigger chunk of my change for less music than I can buy today! Whether I can steal it off the net for no cost is another matter. Whether the studios deserve to make money is another matter.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This was posted back in July. Links appear to still work.

PixelVampire
12-22-2003, 10:58 AM
WTF is wrong with some of you. If something is expensive and you can't afford it then it does not give you the right to steal it!!!

I blame parents for not giving any morals to there kids.

Mudvin
12-22-2003, 11:22 AM
where in the world do you guys buy these $20 CD's? I've been looking through som adds and they are all arround $10, some as much as $12.


In Russia, for example. I bought new KMFDM album for $16, and you know, this was not the most expensive disk in the shop. There are was cd's for $30, for example.

Anyway, i want to say that RIAA is just a bunch of not too smart guys that feels that they losing their profits because of internet. Like old-style telephony companies losing profits because of ip-telephony(there's definitely some difference between $2.0 and $0.03 per minute, eh?).

And imho this is right. This is how the things supposed to go. Progress is doesn't stay still on one place, it's moving toward, and all these "patents/rights/other s..t-holders" are just hampering technical progress. DVD was invented decade(or even more) ago, and only now dvd-players/recorders become available to "ordinary mortal". They've spent years and invested millions to invent and implement protection scheme that was cracked by youth. Of course, they're not able to do nothing smarter then just threat me with a court.

Is it ok? Why should i pay >$30 for dvd which is cost $3?
I'm "bying some right to view this movie"? Well, then why i should pay another $30 if i want to buy the same disk again? Does somebody even thought about this?

Internet gave people from many different countries to freely intercourse between themselves, exchange information they want to exchange. Send good book to a friend, download a movie or some music. Why they disable me to do this? Who they are, these people, who doesn't invest in internet infrastructure development even a cent, and why they deny things, they not invented? They sues Napster, Kazaa and other networks, but hay! If i can kill a man with a ordinary spoon should it mean that we should immediately shutdown manufacture of kitchen spoons, huh?!

And PS:
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." -- Albert Einstein

PixelVampire
12-22-2003, 12:11 PM
"Is it ok? Why should i pay >$30 for dvd which is cost $3?"

Don't buy then simple as that. I can't afford a Ferrari does that mean I should go and steal it?
How come you are not stealing coke, gasoline etc? Read my earlier post!!!!

Mudvin
12-22-2003, 02:08 PM
"Is it ok? Why should i pay >$30 for dvd which is cost $3?"

Don't buy then simple as that. I can't afford a Ferrari does that mean I should go and steal it?
How come you are not stealing coke, gasoline etc? Read my earlier post!!!!


Sure not. I'm not a thief. But 5mb mp3 file is not a ferrari too. This is something that doesn't have any material representation at all, and it can be copied without any losses to owner. So - doesn't these new things needs something other judgment then "hey, they stolen my thing, sue them!". This is "new digital era", as we often see on ads and banners. Well, ok, then use "new digital laws" then.

If cd in cd-shop costs $15, this is doesn't mean that mp3 file(in wittingly lower quality then cd-record, btw) costs $15/10(songs on cd) = $1.5. This is not.
And all these bills on thousands of dollars sent to little girls/boys/granmas....do you imagine, how they injured RIAA on $3000, for example??? How?

PS: People want to share, and nothing stops them. Ever.

Ikarus
12-22-2003, 03:58 PM
Originally posted by Mudvin
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." -- Albert Einstein
Yeah, and I think you just proved it with your post. I don't understand why people can be so ignorant and ignore the fact that it's just plain stealing.
PS: People want to share, and nothing stops them. Ever.
So I guess since it's ok to download copyrighted music, it's ok for me to download the latest cracked software!

Mudvin
12-22-2003, 04:11 PM
Seems like you didn't read my last post at all...

innervision961
12-22-2003, 04:40 PM
I just want to say again my "pro" post was sarcasm, I was kidding. I don't download music, thats not to say I never have, but I don't know, nor have I done it on a regular basis. You can come to my house and look if you want, you won't find anything illegal on this computer. As I said, I'm a musician, I would love to see my music sold around the world, not stole around the world. I work hard for what I own, its how it should be for everyone. A few things need to change, prices do need to come down though. Why would one cd cost me 10 to 12 dollars then another cost 16 to 20 dollars (sometimes with even less tracks) its because your buying a name. Same goes with shoes, cloths, soft drinks etc. You pay more for a name. (And if you've never seen a 20 dollar cd go to a disc jockey FYE store and look around) Theft causes prices to rise (understandably) but then the people that steal the items are still getting it for free while paying customers are made to pay more, and if this continues more and more people resort to downloading until it becomes the epidemic we have today.

kwshipman
12-22-2003, 06:14 PM
Originally posted by KWAK
kwshipman -

I realize it was piracy, I realize that my computer is broadcasting a IP address...thanks for the newsflash...I've been hiding in a cave for the last 6 years. I was simply making an observation that my generation never considered copying a tape as a big deal and nobody else seemed to either (honestly I never heard the word piracy and I was never discouraged to copy) where as today it's criminal and children are receiving supeonas.

Where are you buying CDs from? Everytime I've bought a CD in the last year I've ended up paying anywhere from $15-25 CAN. Are you living in the US?

5 CDs = $100.00 - seems a bit steep to me. I can deal with paying $20 for a DVD, but everytime I lay down that much for a CD...I die a little...on the inside.

Ah well...
-Kol.

I wasnt trying to insult you or anything, I was just saying that when we were younger, we didnt hear about this because it was next to impossable for the RIAA to findout that copying was being done. There was no way for them to know that you just made a copy of vanilla Ice for your friends. and believe me, the movie industry fought like mad to not let the VCR be made. There were magor lawsuits to stop recordable media from reaching the market place, so it was a concern for both the RIAA and the Movie industry for decades now. THe only difference is that now, there is a way for them to catch you in the act. That is why we are hearing more about that now.

And yes I live in the us, and that is where the lawsuits are taking place isnt it? If no one in canadia has been sued then whats the problem? You also have to remember the difference in american dollars to canadian. so maybe save up some money and make a trip accross the border with some friends and load up on disks, they are like half price compaired to canada apparently.

Mudvin - If you are in russia then the RIAA cant touch you, so quit complaining. I am talking about the price of a CD in america where the lawsuits are taking place. And just because something is in electronic form does not mean that it is okay to reproduce with out concent of the copyright holder. If we are all copying and downloading music, movies, games, and software then people are going to stop buying legitamate copies to get the free ones. If people stop buying then there will be no reason to companies to continue to produce them because there will be no money comeing in. I for one would hate to see my game being canceled and loose my job because some people feel its okay to make a copy for anyone who wants, therefore not having anyone buy it. That is not going to feed my family, or the families of everyone else that work for that developement company, the producers, the publishers etc. no money coming in mean no further work. If you cant see that, I dont know what else to say.

Jackdeth
12-22-2003, 07:16 PM
the other thing that you are forgetting is that years ago when you made a copy of a song on tape, you were only make between 1-5 copies. Not a big deal.

But today, one mp3 is passed around millions and millions of times. So i'm not quite sure why you even made that analogy?


Mudvin, your post lack any sort of thought or logic that it hurts my head just thinking about it. You are bascially saying that everything should be free because of progress????

Thats the most backward thing I've ever heard. With that attitude, people will stop creating new music and movies if they know that everyone will just totally disrespect them and steal it. Why should they bother? Why should they work so hard if no one will pay for it?

Just watch what happens over the next few years in the music biz. Already, record lables that used to sign 40 new bands a year are only singing 8. Thats a fact. It's the one big record that pays for all of the other bands that might not make it. And if everybody keeps stealing from them, then there will be less music in the future becase they can't afford the risks of trying out new and exciting bands. It will all be generic, safe pop music becuase that is the only thing that will sell.

Windex
12-22-2003, 09:34 PM
i sooo agree with PixelVampire. BUT!!! ...i....anyways...dis is SOOO close, ...
i think this should be made into a law:

this: If downloading music/software, keeps people from going out any purchasing it. then there is NO EXCUSE, people MUST pay (for the crime, a little pun thingy going on...)

but what about the people who weren't gonna buy the cd ANYWAYS. my "friend" downloaded alot of songs, he wasn't gonna buy the cd anyways, but just wanted to hear a certain song from some movie or something. he doesn't burn cd's, doesn't download a WHOLE album, just a couple of songs he heard on the radio or something.
HE could EASILY just record the songs when they're playing on the radio, which i don't think is illegal. is taping a certain show/sitcom/movie illegal? no.

it doesn't matter if the artist is a millionare and dl his/her song won't make him/her go bankrupt. it's still wrong, DEPENDING on HOW and for WHAT purpose you use it for. that is the KEY IMO.

if there is a certain band i like, i'm NOT gonna go and dl their songs, because i'm hurting them. i'm gonna buy their album so they'll be able to put out MORE great songs in the future.
that is another reason lol artists are coming out with DVD's instead of cd's lol. which i think is good, and i think ANYONE who "shared/copy/reproduced" that dvd SHOULD be THROWN in jail.

i think it IS true that there are people who dl songs, and it MAKES them go out and buy the guy's album cuz they become a fan.

another solution would be renting, this might sound VERY ODD, but we all rent movies, y not just RENT songs???

EVERYONE has had the power to rent movies, copy them, and have the movie for him or herself for many many years now. but movie sales (DVD/VHS) have gone UP year after year, WHY aren't people stealing then???
:shrug:


millions and millions of people go out and BUY movies, and it's the same with music. i dunno why people don't ....forget it.

i'm right on the boarder on this one, one sec. i'm here, the next i'm there.
btw jackbeth, go rent antiTRUST. NOT Everything should be free, except KNOWLEGE. imo. i'm not disagreeing w/u don't get me wrong.

unclebob
12-22-2003, 09:39 PM
I am glad for the defeat because of the precident that it could set if left unchecked. I don't like strong armed heavy handed tactics. After RIAA, then what .. right to lifers checking who goes to abortion rights sites ? bible thumpers checking who goes to pro-satan sites ? etc..etc.. etc.. This kind of legal precident could not be limited just the the USA either. So I am glad for the legal set back.

as to the other matter ... yes downloading music IS WRONG no matter the spin you put on it. The price of CD's has remaind pretty much stable from the time that they were introduced .. around $15.00 US (I was in the USAF and bought them at the exchange)

I have cut way back on buying CD's because a lot of the music is just crap or that there are only one or two tracks that are good. It seems like anyone that can ... pop, crack, snap, screetch, hoot or scream is making "music". There is a lot of good stuff out there today and a whole lot that is just plain crap.
If the recording company would have a 30 second or better clip of every track on a disk so you can sample the CD then that would help. I am talking with my dollars and not buying CD's like I used to (10+ a month). Now I would buy a lot more if I could download the songs I want off of the labels web site at say $1.00 - 2.00 a song. This would of course create more problems too.

bob

Jackdeth
12-22-2003, 10:47 PM
Unclebob, that goes both ways.

What about consumer (are they still called that when they no longer buy stuff, but steal it?) using "strong handed tatcis" to steal hundreds of miilions of dollars of songs from the artists and record lables?

Since when are you allowed to steal if you don't like the price. Last time I checked you were supposed to just NOT buy it if you thought it was too expensive. If you think 500 bucks is too much for a Hugo Boss shirt, you just walk out the of the store and forget about it.

There are lots of things people want that they can't afford. But, you DON'T have a constitutional RIGHT to have it. I want a G5 jet, but untill I can scrap up 40 million I better just keep flying on Delta..... Thats life. You won't always get what you want.

TheWraith
12-22-2003, 11:31 PM
Originally posted by Jackdeth
I want a G5 jet, but untill I can scrap up 40 million I better just keep flying on Delta..... Thats life. You won't always get what you want.

But if you saw a jet sitting at an airport and could click a couple buttons and make a copy of it for youself while still leaving the original sitting where it was.... jets and mp3's are two different things.

But other than that I do agree with Jackdeth. Stealing is stealing is stealing.

People are all anti RIAA which is fine, but just because you hate them doesn't mean you can rip them off. I don't like my old middle school teachers but I haven't shot them yet like I often dreamed of doing. What if we take the whole argument and put it against LOTR? How much money did that movie take to make? All the actors, extras, choreographers, writers, art directors, costume designers, stage hands, set designers, camera equipment, material, helicopters, caterers, grips, foley artists, VISUAL EFFECTS ARTISTS etc... people got paid their salaries because a big evil companey like New Line took a chance and gambled on LOTR being a success. And what did they get out of it? They got their investment back with major profit. And also money that makes up for their awful gambles that lost them money. The record industry is not so different. They take risks and hope that Britany Spears next album will make enough money to make up for the money lost on a gamble they took that didn't turn out so well. And they have to pay salaries to all the people that worked on the album. Hell, because of people like Britaney and Christina and Beyonce, there might be a new building added to a recording studios office which requires a new janitor to clean which allows the janitor to make enough money to feed their kids. The RIAA is bloated as is, but look at all the extra jobs because of it.

Okay, enough of a rant, I download music myself occassionaly, used to all the time. Now I have a job and you know what? $15 for a CD or $17 for me and my g/f to go out to a movie just isn't all that much. When you start making money and have things in your life you couldnt stand being seperated 1-5 years from, it just makes more sense to spend a few extra hundred dollars over a year. And I'll bet anybody who has gotten busted for piracy would tell you the same. Who would want to waste 5 years of their life, or spend the rest of their life in debt because they were too self-righteous to buy a $15 cd?

eirenicon
12-22-2003, 11:32 PM
As a Canadian it's perfectly legal for me to download music, so this isn't an issue for me anymore. I can't upload it, but I don't anyways. So while blank CDs and MP3 players may be a bit more expensive, I can have all the free music I want!

Jackdeth
12-22-2003, 11:43 PM
It comes down to benifit. Imagine I stole a first class ticket on a plane. I got to ride to London is style, but when I get off of it, what phyical product do I have left? Nothing but enjoyment. That is is the same as listening to mp3s. Its not that it is physical or eletronic, its that you got to enjoy it for free. And that is what makes it stealing.

Hookflash
12-23-2003, 12:01 AM
On a semi-related note, what do you guys think of the new "copy protection" schemes being used by record companies now? Personally, I was rather peeved when I couldn't listen to my new Radiohead CD (Hail to the Thief) on my computer because EMI had decided to purposely violate the Compact Disc standard. Oh well...

Windex
12-23-2003, 12:55 AM
It's true stealing is stealing, (and more to beat the other guy) is stealing, is stealing.

but Mr. TheWraith, i don't think "THEY" will "E V E R" "LOSE" money becasue this isn't just a couple of cd's theyr'e selling. they got merchandise, and merchandise they got...(do i make sense at all??? guess not)
you know HOW MUCH STUFF they sell ALL OVER the world,
i PROMISE you they will NOT (NEVER) lose money on an artist. EVER. even if he (KOBE) MESSES UP, they find anOther angle to sell/market him.

above: i was talking about music only.

not that it makes Stealing right. but Comon man, try telling that to millions of people who think "since they are evil, we shall take revenge by NOT paying for songs" which off course is not really the right way to fix something. (something being them ripping both teh artist and us off )

anyways, i'll leave you w/these last words:

Don't try to change the world, just don't let it change you.

Jackdeth
12-23-2003, 01:08 AM
Nope, you are very wrong. Most merchandising, DVDs, and concert money bypass the record labels. This is where the artists make most of thier own money. But without record sales, the overall marketing push behind them wouldn't exist. CD sales is the main/only source of pure income that record labels get.

Making a record costs millions of dollars to produce, millions of dollars to promote, and costs millions of dollars to pay all of the people in other companies that have something to do with that record. And also, it cost millions of dollars to pay for all of the other failed bands that never made it....

Windex
12-23-2003, 02:33 AM
ohhhhhhhh

i didn't know
thanks

so i guess they aren't evil after all...

but the softdrink issue is VERY ammusing. not only they're selling NOTHING, it even effects your body in a BAD way. i think softdrinks are responsible for 20% of the obesity in the US, imo.
not to mention being addictive...(and then they got to the cigarette issue)

Tychoides
12-23-2003, 04:49 AM
..
..
There's a lot being said in this thread and i think i'll add my grain of salt to it.
Bear with me as it can be rather long and english is only my third language.
Anyway i used to be a kazaa user, now i m VERY happy with itunes, great app, great service, and the range of selection is growing. aah seduced by apple ! :)
Another one bites the dust i guess.

first a few numbers about the price of peer2peer (taken mostly from issues of wired, newsweek and other boring sources) :

.an estimate of 57 billion files were downloaded this year via p2p networks.

. 2.4 billion dollars loss for the recording industry, that's about half the cost of piracy (4.7 billion dollars) predicted for the year 2008 (source : informa media)

3.5 billon dollars loss for the movie industry due to illegal copies. That's 12 times the budget of the last two Matrix episodes, 7 (and then some) Lord of the Rings Trilogies or the production costs of roughly 35 000 short movies.

3 billion tracks are exchanged via p2p networks each MONTH, that s about 4 tracks per user .But 45 percent of tracks make up albums (55 being remixes, live covers, singles or different versions and so on) .24 percent of users burn them to CDs. In effect, half of the p2p users get a free album every month.

2 million americans deleted mp3 files from their HDD after the RIAA lawsuit crusade. That s about 5 percent of the 40 million american users just not giving a shite. Consequence : the RIAA sues 382 users (more to this day I gather) and promises a reward of 10 000 dollars for whoever "tells" on his neighbour (source : NPD group) .

A few misconceptons need to be cleared about p2p piracy.

The user does not copy exclusively because of the price of CDs

...as opposed to what is being said in this thread from either side of the debate.

Jed McCaleb, the creator of the eDonkey network said it himself :
The success of filesharing networks is mostly due to its ease of use rather than its no-cost quality.
The Succes of iTunes proves this, it feels exactly like a p2p program but you pay with just one click.
Now, P2P is not the one Ring of Power and 70 million households did not just turn into thieves and scrooges here, they will pay if they feel satisfied. Wether 'tis 99c per track or "pay at the entrance and go crazy inside".

On a side note I feel that the vast majority of consumers who actually work for their wages (not teenagers or adults living from the blood of their parents) feel naturally about paying for what they get , in the same way that it is natural for them to expect getting paid for their work.

The fact is, if you are with thousand of others in a supermarket and there is no manager, no tellers/cashiers and no guards, you would just take whatever you can crank in your pockets, and the guy yelling "Thieves ! put it right back" would be the fun spoiler (the kind of kid that got beaten up in school :P) . It's exactly the same thing with p2p and lecturing won't do much... if nothing at all.
If you push the analogy, what the RIAA is doing is trying to put more guards (lawsuits to punish the thieves) . The problem is , in this supermarket, there is still no cashier,no tellers, no business model. And that s what this new outlet needs : a new business model.

Users don't want to go to a Best Buy anymore and look for a CD (that may or may not be there) and pay 10 bucks for 4 songs on it. Why would he do that when he can just do search and get those 4 songs from the cosiness of his home ?

The fact that the recording companies had no idea what internet was about and totally missed grabbing this opportunity to actually sell more, and thus letting independant programmers go Free For All with napster/edonkey/kazaa/AudioGalaxy, is NOT the User's fault.

You can't blame a user for behaving like a consumer one day, and suing him the NEXT day for behaving exactly the same way (he still acts like a rationnal consumer : he is favoring an easier to use, better selection and cheaper service than clanky CDs, thank you very much) just because someone missed a revolution.

Proof that p2p is not the death of the music industry is that live concerts are still booked (artists such as Radiohead declared that now , with p2p , the "one-hit success artist" days were over and that an artist needed to be closer to his audience to keep it : quality albums and Live performance. in a way, musicians are going back to the roots : performance.)
Ray Kurzwell pointed out : its a paradox that profits of the recording industry are falling to the ground when music has never been more distributed.
It would be stupid to try to REDUCE the distribution of music, but that's exactly what the RIAA is trying to do by attacking p2p networks.

But then the business model is changing : in Billboard Magazine, you can read that 7.7 million tracks have been sold since June 2003, as opposed to 4 million singles in stores. Estimates go as high as 2 billion for the year 2007.
There is a financial future in p2p. Consumers just changed behavior, now suppliers just need to adapt. Nothing new here. Hillary Rosen, ex-head of the RIAA who knows all too well that the lawsuit solution bears little results (Napster, and audioGalaxy lawsuits, remember :) ) illustrated it perfectly :
"majors and pros from the recording industry will need to quickly adapt to these new consumer models or they will disappear faster than they think"

in short, adapt, don' t sue the consumers who did. YOUR consumers, btw. :wavey:



edit : aaah spelling.

Valkyrien
12-23-2003, 07:09 AM
ahh, good. Somebody's done his homework:)

KolbyJukes
12-23-2003, 07:41 AM
TimothyD ... check this out:

As of January, the CRIA begins sueing (http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=4743e674-8b8a-40a3-9f73-a856c5abebe5)

gurkenkopf
12-23-2003, 10:15 AM
I think stealing games/software is a bad thing. And every little child whose parents can afford a computer can ask them to get some money for a game.
Coding a 3D game is a ****in hard work, and imagin how hard it is to code a programm like Maya...

But I don't see what's wrong with downloading music of musicians like p.diddy, jay-z, britney spears, slipknot, eminem and other "chart-stuff" (except you are rich)

If you knew how much money they earn with their shit.... so why should i spend f.e. jay-z my hard earned 20$? This guy has nearly 500.000.00$!

I think it's a stupid argument to say that the Music-Industry needs the money - lol

In any case it's quite unfair to sale some tracks for about 20$.
In fact the RIAA-suckers wont be able to stop the "crime"

And if you think that making music is a hard job, too - there are a lot of harder jobs on the world wich arent as good paid.

PixelVampire
12-23-2003, 12:00 PM
"gurkenkopf" WTF-
If pdiddy has 1bn how exactly does it give you the right to steal from him???? Don't spend your hard earned 20$...no one put a gun to your head.

So basically if I was rich then it would be alright for you to break into my house and help yourself just because I can afford to replace the stuff!!!???

If i generalize there are 2 types of people in this world-

1- Creative and original. They understand the effort that goes into there work and hence respect other peoples intellectual property.

2- Talentless hacks who are like parasites and need to be exterminated :applause:

Mudvin
12-23-2003, 12:51 PM
Mudvin, your post lack any sort of thought or logic that it hurts my head just thinking about it. You are bascially saying that everything should be free because of progress????

Please note: i didn't say that "everything should be free". What i said is that old laws can't be applied to these acts of "theft", even the word "theft" can't be used, it is incorrect.


Already, record lables that used to sign 40 new bands a year are only singing 8

Please don't tell me about these "40 new bands". 40 was signed, while 4000 was kicked out. People who truly believe that only music exists in the world is music from RIAA members are simply blind. It's not that easy to become popular in this industry, and RIAA have some relation to this fact too.


Thats a fact

Yes, this is the fact. The fact, that something changed in this world, and those big awkward corporations are only ones who doesn't noted this. They can't disable me to do something with that music. It's my right - to do anything with thing i bought. I get it, i want to share it with my friends. And this is their problem, not mine. If they can't solve it, they only have to submit with this fact. Instead of make some reasonable solution, they sues me. Very smart, eh?
DVD consortium was failed with DVD protection, and this is their problem. Not mine. Invent another cryptographics system, there's bunch of cryptoalgorithms novaday. But they don't able to do this, and this is still - not my problem. And this is not a problem of authors. This is problems of consortium and ones, who want this protection at all. They can't provide good protection system for modern digital media, although they was thinked about it 10 years, and decided to limit me in my rights then. This is what i call "fact".


And if everybody keeps stealing from them, then there will be less music in the future becase they can't afford the risks of trying out new and exciting bands. It will all be generic, safe pop music becuase that is the only thing that will sell.

Excuse me. I always thought that music that most popular in cd stores is "safe pop music". It is abbreviation from "popular" as i know. Correct me if i wrong.
And if all these RIAA members will just disappear from the world tomorrow, for example, world will not too suffer from lack of music, i think. Will you miss Britney Spears?
---

doesn't download a WHOLE album, just a couple of songs he heard on the radio or something.
HE could EASILY just record the songs when they're playing on the radio, which i don't think is illegal. is taping a certain show/sitcom/movie illegal? no.

Did you hear something about "Apple music store"? It is how music can be distributed but price is too high anyway - 0.99 for a song. As for me, i think 0.25 will be ok, even in my area with it rudimentary payment system.
---

It comes down to benifit. Imagine I stole a first class ticket on a plane.

You stolen something material, isn't it? And got something material too - good drinks, big comfortable seat, and such, and such. This is incorrect comparison.
Sure, if i'm dl'ing music i'm "stoling intellectual property". At least this is one of definitions. The other one is that "author should be rewarded somehow".
But this reward shouldn't be teared from me with court and jail.

dvornik
12-23-2003, 12:54 PM
Originally posted by Tychoides
Anyway i used to be a kazaa user, now i m VERY happy with itunes, great app, great service, and the range of selection is growing. aah seduced by apple ! :)


It makes the rest of your (otherwise rather sensible) sermon irrelevant. How can you think that DRM is in any way justified, especially when ALL of the money goes to the RIAA... it just doesn't make any sense.

100% of the itunes profits go to the RIAA. Itunes music costs MORE than CDs (that don't even have DRM and can be played wherever you want and be copied). Apple only makes money on ipods that can play DRM-contaminated music. And so on... What kind of business model is that?

There's a reason for QTFairUse....

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/34291.html

Mudvin
12-23-2003, 01:53 PM
I don't think that Apple music store doesn't have any profit, because it's doesn't make any sense to open company division "just for nothing".

PS: Dvornik? Gde podmetaew6? ;)

gurkenkopf
12-23-2003, 02:17 PM
If pdiddy has 1bn how exactly does it give you the right to steal from him???? Don't spend your hard earned 20$...no one put a gun to your head.

Well I think "stealing" is the wrong word here.
Stealing means taking something away, and the mp3s I downloaded are still existing, arent't they?

Of course I "may" not "steal" his music beacuse he is so rich, but I think that I don't need to buy his cd's beacuse he is so rich.
(can't better expess me with my poor school-english :cry: )

So basically if I was rich then it would be alright for you to break into my house and help yourself just because I can afford to replace the stuff!!!???
Don't make an elephant from a mouse :bounce: ;)

If i generalize there are 2 types of people in this world-

1- Creative and original. They understand the effort that goes into there work and hence respect other peoples intellectual property.

2- Talentless hacks who are like parasites and need to be exterminated
:blush:
loool

dvornik
12-23-2003, 02:21 PM
Apple music store doesn't make any money. According to Steve Jobs. It's well-known. All the money goes to the RIAA.

Gde? V New Yorke. Tolko shto s raboty vygnaly...

Mudvin
12-23-2003, 03:30 PM
Uhmm...should i believe Steve Jobs? :wip:

PS: Napiwi na forspam13@yandex.ru, poboltaem

nobrain
12-23-2003, 04:45 PM
Originally posted by Hookflash
This is great. The RIAA is quite possibly the most evil, greedy, opportunistic group capitalism has ever spawned.

i second that...

evil capitalists

kwshipman
12-23-2003, 05:37 PM
Originally posted by gurkenkopf
I think stealing games/software is a bad thing. And every little child whose parents can afford a computer can ask them to get some money for a game.
Coding a 3D game is a ****in hard work, and imagin how hard it is to code a programm like Maya...

But I don't see what's wrong with downloading music of musicians like p.diddy, jay-z, britney spears, slipknot, eminem and other "chart-stuff" (except you are rich)

If you knew how much money they earn with their shit.... so why should i spend f.e. jay-z my hard earned 20$? This guy has nearly 500.000.00$!

I think it's a stupid argument to say that the Music-Industry needs the money - lol

In any case it's quite unfair to sale some tracks for about 20$.
In fact the RIAA-suckers wont be able to stop the "crime"

And if you think that making music is a hard job, too - there are a lot of harder jobs on the world wich arent as good paid.

how in the world can you say that it is okay to copy and distribute music but not games or software? They are both intelectual property in electronic format.

you say because jay-z is rich and the RIAA doesnt need the money, well look at MS and Bill gates. They are rich and dont need the money. what is the difference! you say "Coding a 3D game is a ****in hard work, and imagin how hard it is to code a programm like Maya..."

Well imagine how hard it is to remaster the music. do you think the person gets up there and sings into a mic and that is it? No someone has to go through each and every note and make sure it sounds perfect. THey have to remove any pops or hisses with out removing the vocals or beats. What about the graphic artists that put together the case, or the vfx people that do the music videos. what about the money that is being taken from their pocket. Yes jay-z wont notice a x% cut in his pay, but its the littel guys that will feel it. its the little guys that will have their job cut first.

The exact same with games. Bill gates doesnt care if he only makes 50million this year when last year he made 100million, but if the games dont sell, bill keeps his job, but cuts one of the game companies.

You see its not the RIAA or the artist that is going to be hurt the most, it the poor guy, putting in 80hours a week for minimal pay that will suffer.

Spankspeople
12-23-2003, 05:54 PM
*raises hand*

Up here in Canadia we're paying a levy on any blank recordable media. Now, say I buy a spindle of CD's to back up my hard drive and don't put any MP3's(or any other form of audio, at least not created by me) on there, isn't the Canadian recording industry stealing from me?

They're assuming that everyone is a criminal, so they are allowed to treat even the law abiding as criminals, but they're still allowed to go after the people who download music on top of the fact that they're already paying for it.

I'm not saying that it's right to steal music... it's not right to steal anything... but technically since they've already assumed that we're going to anyways and are preemptively charging us for the songs that we may or may not be stealing... does that make the music theives, or the recording industry the bad guys?

PhilOsirus
12-23-2003, 06:26 PM
Don't worry, it just means that you now HAVE to download music that's all. You can't tax criminals for their offenses, so it's bargain they are making. It was the only way they could justify taxing CDs and such. Download away! :rolleyes:

Tychoides
12-23-2003, 07:33 PM
Originally posted by dvornik
[B]It makes the rest of your (otherwise rather sensible) sermon irrelevant. How can you think that DRM is in any way justified, especially when ALL of the money goes to the RIAA... it just doesn't make any sense.


i think the use of the word sermon is a bit of a simplificiation of my post, it is a consumer opinion and in no way am I pretending to stand from a higher moral position.
anyway.
As a consumer I notice other means of distribution available to me. iTunes, the new Napster.. I found that iTunes suits my needs : how does that make my post irrelevant ? As a consumer, my only concern is getting the service for which I paid for. Whether Steve Jobs is making money or the major Labels from itunes is just interesting chit chat, that doesn't make the itunes service any worse or any better.

The trap here is to see all in binary fashion. as if someone had to either be against the RIAA or with them. Somehow downloading mp3 became in the mist of this whole mess a militant act against the corporate greed of ultra liberalism, where you NEED to have a moral position and all description of the subject has to be sermons. So now the good guys are the downloaders, the artists and the p2p democracy and on the other side are Apple, the major labels and whatever institution will next crystallize an individual's illusion of depreciating consumer freedom.
To the point where now if one uses iTunes it makes whatever he says irrelevant, as if the use of a service "branded" him morally and intellectually.

I said that p2p distribution is being structured into a viable business model. I don't see how me using itunes makes it irrelevant. Maybe if i went back to kazaa I would know what I was talking about. :rolleyes:


If you want i can edit my post and remove this line as it was only here to jest about how apple finally "got me". maybe that would make my post relevant then.
:hmm:

edit : aarrgh english :D

nobrain
12-23-2003, 07:51 PM
let me tell you something about the recording industry, they have been rippin people off for years, particularly their own artists who slave to make good selling records,

people downloading and not paying for it, I say theyre getting what they deserve.

Jackdeth
12-23-2003, 08:04 PM
Again, how can you think that the record labels are the only evil companies ripping people off? How blind are all of you?

99% of all products made in this world are FOR PROFIT!!!! How is that ripping people off? How about Nike spending 5 bucks to make a shoe and then charging 120!!!! You could look at every product from the computer you are surfing on, to your clothes, to your car and make the same argument.

Again, grow up and have some balls admitting that your a thief, and that you don't have any respect for these people's hard work. I would rather you be an honest asshole, then a naive liar.

This is my last post here because, as these threads always split into 2 opposed camps, its obvious some people will never change. It's also the same people who will NEVER do anyhting creative that is worth copyrighting, so there is no logic in proceeding any more. YOu've made up your minds, and you don't care how many thousands of lives are very negativly effected by this.

dvornik
12-23-2003, 08:16 PM
Tychoides, I'm pointing out the fact that Apple's business model strenghens the RIAA' hold over consumers and further diminishes consumer rights. It's important that consumers are aware of it.

Sorry for the "sermon" remark. I mostly agree with what you are saying but I don't see RIAA-controlled DRM schemes (not only itunes) as a viable alternative to P2P.

Tychoides
12-23-2003, 08:26 PM
Dvornik,

Apologies also as I overreacted, since my iTunes uses is restricted to a very particular behavior ( that catchy tune the kid HAS to listen to lol) i didn t look in depth at the itunes plumbing, thanks for pointing out the not-so-shiny side of it. I see how it could seriously incapacitate a more serious user.
I think it s starting and as consumers get more and more aware of the solutions in front of them, services will improve. Right now it s kind of like "grab the market Now" and that 's open game to any type of doubtful behaviors.

btw, good discussion, feels like we're in a good bar :)

Windex
12-23-2003, 09:05 PM
if i get something (DRUGS, PIRATED MOVIES, ETC.) should I be the one who pays a harsher penalty for it or the GUY who is distributing it to many more people, not just to me.

i should be punished also, but the guy should have a tougher punishment.

so why not go after the sites that distribute illegal softwares etc.

and why are peoplel bringing up kazza, napster.

on mirc millions of people are trading ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING. why not go after that???

and yes a 5 dollar shoe that sells for 120 bux is RIPPOFXORS lol.

i can't come up with a solution where both parties would be happy. this is kinda related to spam, and spamers.

Maybe the general public is waking up and noticing that they're getting riped off. and if they stopped buying teh 120 bux shoes, and only paid 10 bux for it, then the shoes WOULD BE just 10 bux.
but this will never happen, it reminds me of the time where i was inline to get my PS2 and that @#^(*$%&$&*(% store owner kept raising the price every 10 min. and by the time i got inside the store and behind teh register it was ALOT more expensive (don't ask me how much) but i DID pay and don't regret it....

i hope my post didn't leave the impression that stealing is right, cuz it's not. and you should NOT "SHARE/STEAL" anything, but i still believe that if "I WASN"T gonna bye the song/album anyways, why should i not be allowed to listen to it a couple of times then Shift+Delete it.
what about recording songs from the radio as it's playing???

i know that it's wrong, but i guess it's a loophole. if the guy distributing it isn't making money then ... hmmm i dunno , i just don't know.

eirenicon
12-23-2003, 09:31 PM
Originally posted by KWAK
TimothyD ... check this out:

As of January, the CRIA begins sueing (http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=4743e674-8b8a-40a3-9f73-a856c5abebe5)

Yup... I know. They're sueing people who upload, not download. Music downloading has been declared legal (http://www.econtentmag.com/Articles/ArticleReader.aspx?ArticleID=5886) in Canada. The courts will probably make a definitive judgement in the future, but for now, I can download all I want without fear. It's only people who actually share their files that have to worry.

I mean, obviously to download music somebody is sharing it. It's a strange scenario but I'm happy with it right now, I have no worries about being sued for anything.

Originally posted by Spankspeople
I'm not saying that it's right to steal music... it's not right to steal anything... but technically since they've already assumed that we're going to anyways and are preemptively charging us for the songs that we may or may not be stealing... does that make the music theives, or the recording industry the bad guys?

Well, like I've pointed out, downloading music is currently legal in Canada. I believe part of this decision has to do with the levy on blank media. We are paying for music even if we don't listen to it, so we should (and right now we do) have every right to download it if we want.

PhilOsirus
12-23-2003, 10:07 PM
How about Nike spending 5 bucks to make a shoe and then charging 120!!!! You could look at every product from the computer you are surfing on, to your clothes, to your car and make the same argument.

Again, grow up and have some balls admitting that your a thief, and that you don't have any respect for these people's hard work.

Well how can it be hard work if it cost them 5$ and they sell it 120$? I just don't get that part.

Ikarus
12-23-2003, 10:59 PM
Simple question to anybody. Do you consider downloading copyrighted music of the net without paying STEALING(Illegal)? YES or NO!

If you answered NO, then I guess it's ok for you to download copyrighted games, the latested cracked software, all the newest movies, etc. And please don't say that music, games, software and movies are all different. They are all copyrighted material that is being distributed freely on the net in mass numbers, resulting in loss revenue for their respective owners. Ever heard of the term piracy! And don't try to justify the fact that the RIAA is this big evil empire that rips everyone off from the artist to the consumers and use it as your reason to say it's ok for you to download music for free.

Bottom line is alot of people know it's STEALING but yet refuse to accept the fact of the matter, and use the "Evil RIAA" as their escape goat to justify their actions as being legal and ok. Which is a bunch of BS!!! People need to wake up and realise that these same copyright laws that the RIAA is trying to enforce is what protects intellectual property whether your and artist, designer, musician, engineer, writer, director, etc. I'm sure nobody wants their copyrighted work to be misused and pirated in a massive way, like music is being pirated.

dvornik
12-23-2003, 11:04 PM
It's only "stealing" because of the fact that the law and the business practices are outdated. P2P is one of the biggest tecnological advances since the internet itself. You can't go around calling us thieves just because legislature and business can't catch up with technology.

Ikarus
12-23-2003, 11:16 PM
Originally posted by dvornik
It's only "stealing" because of the fact that the law and the business practices are outdated. P2P is one of the biggest tecnological advances since the internet itself. You can't go around calling us thieves just because legislature and business can't catch up with technology.

So what your saying is that you'll just keep on downloading until they pass a law that says otherwise? If that's so they I guess you have no respect for anybody involved in the process of making the music you are downloading, or the movies your downloading, or the cracked software you are downloading!

New laws aren't just passed and aproved overnight, the RIAA and the record industry have been trying to stop mass pirating of copyrighted material for years nows. The same goes for the software industry. Until there is a law that prevents people from just simply mass pirating copyrighted music all over the net the RIAA has to try other alternatives. And the same goes for software companies.

PixelVampire
12-23-2003, 11:42 PM
SO SAD!!! If the guys who come to this board have no respect for intellectual property right I wonder what the common joe public does.

"dvornik" Man you need help!! That's all I can say.

dvornik
12-23-2003, 11:50 PM
No. What I meant is the laws (including the copyright laws) will have to be changed. And obviously the buisness models will have to be changed. There's NOTHING wrong with P2P.

Look, people are prepared to pay a dollar per song with severely restricted rights - don't you think it's a goldmine? Now, if there was no RIAA it could be 10 cents per song, unrestricted rights and the artist would actually get some money from the sale (as opposed to NOTHING that they are getting now). There's a lot of money to be made - just not the way it's done now. And new business models will coexist with (and take advantage of) P2P.

I won't discuss software piracy here - I'm not opposed to it in case you are wondering.

nvvm
12-23-2003, 11:51 PM
Originally posted by Keiyentai
Well I am glad of Verizion. Though I hold a double sided coin. I think what the RIAA did was messed up. Though if a CD comes out I may download a song and see if I like it then by it. THough there is a problem with some. I am a JRock fan. FOr those who dont know Jrock is Japanese ROck. Do you know how MUCH a Imported Jrock CD is? THey range from $45-$130!! I will be damned be fore I pay that much for a CD. Espcialy when the band doesent do anything in the US. No concerts, promos or anything but does it in Asia and Europe..so ya not goign to fork over big bucks if I have to travel over 4000 miles just to see them....but if they are an American group or one that I can buy there CD's here I buy them. Like with Manson. I have alot of Lives/Rares mp3s that are almost imposible to find but I OWN every Manson CD. SO there is no crime there. Same with Rammstein I downloaded a couple MP3s liked what I heard and Got all 3 of the CD's. SO there ya go. If a Jrock band where to come to the US I would buy it but untill then I'm not Forking over $45-$120 for a CD.....let alone a single.... This is pretty much my take on the subject. I really like downloading the remixes to songs I like and have and will buy.

dvornik
12-24-2003, 12:03 AM
Originally posted by PixelVampire
"dvornik" Man you need help!! That's all I can say. I do. Make checks payable to datahazard consulting.

Windex
12-24-2003, 02:05 AM
my last comment on this issue:

picture a new umbrella store/stand opening up in a park or somewhere.
now it's raining and people are passing by, but the thing is that there are no locks or doors to keep the place close. and people are just taking umbrellas to not get wet.

you can say: hey well don't get out in the rain, but somepeople would still be out in the rain if that store/stand didn't exist. so that owner must do something about it, am i not right?
he should close the doors not go to every person's house and pour a bucket of water on them.
and taking umbrellas won't make the rain stop.

ok, plz ignore what i just wrote, i dunno what is wrong w/me today, no it's everyday.

they can't stop the technology, they must find a solution to use it to their adv, instead of stopping it.

PixelVampire
12-24-2003, 03:02 PM
:bounce:

Mudvin
12-24-2003, 04:15 PM
Again, how can you think that the record labels are the only evil companies ripping people off? How blind are all of you?

You are the only sighted? ;) Why you listening yourself only?


99% of all products made in this world are FOR PROFIT!!!

Yes, but who says, that this world is perfect? As for me, i don't like this "world of profit" at all. Actually i think people born to create something, not "trying-all-my-life-to-not-die-from-starvation-in-this-f...-country". And, please note, that most people in this world are not on their proper places at all. Men, who invented DVD protection not on their places. Men, who want to shutdown p2p networks also not on their places. Too many of them. They did nothing except putting sticks in wheels of progress. If things were, how they was supposed to do, humanity will be on mars 200-300 years ago, you know...


Again, grow up and have some balls admitting that your a thief, and that you don't have any respect for these people's hard work. I would rather you be an honest asshole, then a naive liar.

You are illogical. As i said before, i should reward authors somehow. But RIAA in not the authors at all, and they invented not the best method for doing this. And you on their side. You don't want to make this world better.


This is my last post here because, as these threads always split into 2 opposed camps, its obvious some people will never change.

Sure.


It's also the same people who will NEVER do anyhting creative that is worth copyrighting, so there is no logic in proceeding any more. YOu've made up your minds, and you don't care how many thousands of lives are very negativly effected by this.:cry:

This statement is wrong and stupid. And you know it.
And you know, there is too many things that negatively affected billions souls in the world, doesn't you think about this?

PS: Also, i think Leonardo da Vinci and Columb doesn't make their deeds "for profit".

PPS: Takoe owuwenie, chto oni gluhie. Ili tupie.

PixelVampire
12-24-2003, 06:19 PM
Mudvin how old are you? Your arguments are childish. Even if Leonardo worked for free..who the hell are you to decide for current artist if they want to work for free or not????

I am 90% sure that you are a talentless hack. I could be wrong but I doubt it.

Taken from-

http://www.leonardo-da-vinci.net/

"In search of new challenges and the big bucks, he entered the service of the Duke of Milan in 1482"

"Over the next 16 years, Leonardo worked and traveled throughout Italy for a number of employers"

Check your history. People like you will go to any lengths to justify there actions. Just don't cross my path or I will make sure that I report you to piracy hotline :thumbsup:

Mudvin
12-24-2003, 07:11 PM
Mudvin how old are you?

27. And you?


Your arguments are childish.

Any argumentation on this statement? You doesn't agree with me? You doesn't agree with statement, that "if people will do things right", then there will be no wars, will be less diseases, and progress will be far more advanced then now"? Why, may i ask you?


Even if Leonardo worked for free..who the hell are you to decide for current artist if they want to work for free or not????

Ahh, i understand. It's not my arguments are childish, it's you don't able to read text. I never said, that Leonardo "worked for free", as you stated.
And, i repeat third time, as i mentioned above, i think that artists should be rewarded for their work, but court - is not best method to do this. Do you able to make any difference between "not paying at all", and "invent new payment schemes"? People always want to earn something for their work - money or something else. But at all times thing that involve people was curiosity, thirst of new knowledge, thirst of creation, and not money. At least not money at the first place, as with this greedy RIAA.
It's pure achievement of 20th century - make something only to earn money. Not because it interesting, but to make money.

Btw, people who invented internet doesn't want to make money from this, they did it because of "nuclear menace"(it was DARPAnet, military project). It's irony of fate, but military organizations doing very much for technical progress.


I am 90% sure that you are a talentless hack. I could be wrong but I doubt it.

Sure. It's only 9000 lines of Maya MEL code, few RAT templates, SL shaders, Perl tools, and Windows/IRIX/Unix administration skills. We will not take into our attention knowledge of dozens of software packages, of course.


Taken from- http://www.leonardo-da-vinci.net/

Wow, digging history! Ok, let's see...:
Alas, Leonardo's interests were so broad, and he was so often compelled by new subjects, that he usually failed to finish what he started. This lack of "stick-to-it-ness" resulted in his completing only about six works in these 17 years, including "The Last Supper" and "The Virgin on the Rocks," and he left dozens of paintings and projects unfinished or unrealized (see "Big Horse" in sidebar). He spent most of his time studying science, either by going out into nature and observing things or by locking himself away in his workshop cutting up bodies or pondering universal truths.
Sure, Leonardo did only six works and left many works unfinished in this 17 years only because he was too avid for money.

Hopeless.... :(

Ikarus
12-24-2003, 09:21 PM
Mudvin, sure P2P networks and DVD technology are great and an advancement in technology. But without DVD encrypted protection you are just opening the door up for major piracy of perfect digital copies to spawn all over the world. Same goes for P2P networks, so how can you blame the RIAA, the movie industry and the software industry for trying different methods to stop mass pirating of their copyrighted material all over the world. And if you think piracy is not such a big issue, Microsoft estimated that 50% of all Microsoft office copies installed in the world were illigal copies!!!

Besides like I said in an earlier post it seem like your using the "Big Bad Evil RIAA" as your only reason for your argument. So if there was no "Big Bad Evil RIAA" is downloading copyrighted music of the internet STEALING?????

Sure not everybody makes things for profit, but that's how the world runs. I have a job, because the company I work for is making profit, music artist have a record deal because the record company is making a profit. So realize that we all have jobs because in one way or another our jobs are generating profits, if not chances are we'd be looking for a new job and the company we work for would be downsizing or closing up!

PixelVampire
12-24-2003, 09:36 PM
Mudvin - whatever :wip:
I rather do something constructive than beat my head against a wall.
Do whatever makes you happy. If you can live with whatever you consider right than do...I personally don't feel right ripping anyone off.
I guess people are different. I am out of this thread. Peace

Mudvin
12-24-2003, 10:29 PM
Heh, there was no war, sorry if my post was too harsh, but it's difficult a bit to express my thoughts in foreign language. :beer:

As i said before, one of many possible solutions is to just make reasonable prices. For example, now i will buy DVD for $30 only if i want 100% genuine picture quality, native sound track and "making of" materials. As it was with Shrek, K-19 or KMFDM cd for example. But this is only 5%-10% from all the DVD's i want to see. Films "for one look-see" i can buy for $3 or such.

But. If there will be DVD for $10. Well, for $15, i'd better buy this genuine DVD, then pirated. Especially that pirates often makes bad translation or recoding video with worse quality. But $30 - is too expensive.
And $.99 for a song at the Apple music store also very expensive. I think $.25 will be ok.

googlo
12-25-2003, 01:03 AM
If you dont like that, move into a cave and live off of the land.

I think that would be illegal too.

dvornik
12-25-2003, 01:09 AM
Originally posted by googlo
I think that would be illegal too.
Oooo... Before you know it the'd be black helicopters all over the place... :)

six feet under
02-22-2005, 10:44 PM
99% of all products made in this world are FOR PROFIT! How is that ripping people off? How about Nike spending 5 bucks to make a shoe and then charging 120! You could look at every product from the computer you are surfing on, to your clothes, to your car and make the same argument.


creative that is worth copyrighting, so there is no logic in proceeding any more. YOu've made up your minds, and you don't care how many thousands of lives are very negativly effected by this.

Hmm this is bad example using Nike. They use child labors in South America and Asia to make shoes so their CEO and shareholders make big $ $ $ . How is that anymore moral what these companies are doing than music downloaders? If you want to focus on music downloaders, you better start crack down on corporate greed.

The only ones who are getting really rich are the CEOs, not thousands of other people who make enough to get by working for those CEOs.

alexyork
02-22-2005, 11:57 PM
holy baloney. that's one heck of a thread resurrection. :eek:

t-toe
02-23-2005, 12:22 AM
yeah, so since suing people for downloading music online is illegal, does the same go for downloading movies and such? if so, what the heck does "you can click, but you can't hide" mean?

mosquito710
02-23-2005, 01:12 AM
It's not that downloading is legal, it's that forcing ISP's to give the RIAA the names of downloaders is illegal.

I think.

firestar3d
02-23-2005, 07:13 AM
That's pretty much it.

The declaration that the RIAA suit is illegal is simply a matter of exercising privacy laws. This essentially means that the RIAA has to know the identity of the people involved before they're allowed to sue them. Simply trying to conduct some form of "intelligence gathering" to find out who these people are is in itself illegal, since doing so is considered an invasion of privacy.

The RIAA pursuing people who have illegally downloaded tunes is their right. Regardless of the ethical arguments about companies making big bucks etcetc, it is still illegal to make unauthorised copies of this stuff, and with that in mind, the RIAA has the right to take you to court for it, assuming they have your information on file. What this judgement has said is that they cannot take you to court if you're "anonymous" to them (ie all they have is your IP address), and they cannot simply order the ISP's to disclose your information either.

veljko-lemonade
02-23-2005, 09:26 AM
Hi,
I know its been a long thread but after reading it all i want to say something aswell-

I am a game developer and sell my games over the net, so i am well aweare of the value of intelectual property, and play in a band that has released their album for the major lable in my country. We asked for the album to cost 9 bucks- they said screw you and made it 20 bucks..I personaly have piratised the album and gave it to all my friends...

Pearl Jam has been sued by the "ticket master" becouse they did not want to charge that much for their concerts and ripp of their fans. In the end Pearl Jam lost the suit and had to pay up for trying to protect their fans..
When the music industry had the chance they milked us for the last penny they could and this made me, and alot of other people rather pissed of, but since it was a monopoly game-pay up or shut up we had to cough up the money. I am glad that the shue is on the other foot!

now, when britney Spears_i live in a castle and eat my s**t with a golden spoon- does the same thing for her fans i will say RESPECT



so, we will see what will happen now...

super_mouse
02-23-2005, 10:05 AM
It would be cool to know if this is an generation thing!?? If you really want to support bands you like go and see them at a gig, thats where the band makes most of their moolah, from ticket sales and merchandise!!


Fact is if people could get stuff like trainers for free instead of paying £60 then they would. As a huge metal,rock,punk music fan (avenged sevenfold rule !!) cd's are currently priced way too high, £8-10 is cool but £16-18 for an album is a rip off. If the greedy music industry sorts itself out then the vast majority of music fans will stop downloading music..simple

rawshark
02-23-2005, 10:54 AM
Not sure if there's much more to say on this resurrected thread, but for the sake of thoroughness:

"...CD sales dropped in recent years, they said, because the economy slumped, leaving music to compete with video games, DVDs and other forms of entertainment for consumer dollars. They noted, too, the dearth of fresh talent as the teen pop fad began to wane around 2000.

Mayfield said a similar situation arose in the early 1980s after the red-hot Disco craze fizzled without any new genre emerging. Then, as now, there was much hand-wringing over consumers getting music for free -- via blank cassettes, not computers.


Today, sales are growing because the economy and the job market are strong, CD prices have dropped, and the industry has once again re-connected with consumers. Hot sellers include country, Latin and classical music.

But analysts said there's another, seemingly paradoxical, explanation for the recent sales increase: digital downloads, the music industry's sworn enemy.

"The greatest effect of the appeal of Apple Computer's iTunes story and, to a lesser extent, other digital music services, has been to spur increased CD sales," said Aram Sinnreich, an independent music industry analyst. "They have managed to get consumers interested in music in a way they haven't been for years."... "

taken from:
http://money.cnn.com/2004/07/06/technology/cd_sales/index.htm

I think it's clear that the moral high-ground currently occupied by Jakdeth et al, while slightly naiive, is not without its truths. HOWEVER, to my mind that position becomes moot if it emerges that actual SALES are not really suffering.
I for one don't place much faith in 'potential industry losses' statistics...which would seem to be much more susceptible to manipulation than 'straight' sales figures.

Let's not forget that this advanced capitalist society survives through CREATING NEED, and for better or worse those of us working in creative industries would be in trouble without this system of 'enforced consumerism'.
Music videos started life as PROMOS - i.e. promotional material, from which no direct revenue was expected, only an increased public awareness of the artist.

That has now changed somewhat, but I can't help thinking that Filesharing's net effect (no pun intended!) can only be one of increasing NEED and DESIRE for new product, while at the same time increasing public awareness of vast numbers of the more 'obscure' artists.
If this proves to be the case, then it would seem that groups such as the RIAA are in danger of being caught up in their own knee-jerk reaction of short-term greed; a situation which will only anger the public... which IMHO has MUCH more potential to damage 'the industry' AND the artists.

Recursive
02-23-2005, 11:49 AM
This thread is very hard to read. i think you are all confusing two different subjects, morals and the law.

Morals differ from person to person. Deciding how one feals about copying files without the approval of the original creators of that file is a moral decision, it is not possible to come to a definite conclussion among everyone.

The law is the other thing, the law regarding this is different in different countries. Some countries allow pretty much everything in this arena. Some countries allow you to download anything, others only allow you to download music that you dont have a license to use. Others only allow you to download things that you have a license to use. The law is possible to come to some sort of conclussion to if you do it on a country by country basis.

Please dont confuse these.

rawshark
02-23-2005, 01:27 PM
green86: I think what you perceive as a 'confusion' between morality and law is in fact a justified attempt to reconcile the two.
After all, what is law but an attempt to make a generally applicable system from a moral code? Morals will allways influence law and vice-versa, and the closer the two correlate, the more successful the system should be.

I think that this issue is precisely about an interesting discrepancy between personal morals and the law, since millions of people are engaged in an activity which is deemed illegal by the law, and furthermore, that this activity also runs contrary to many people's personal moral code.

While it is all very well to point out the academic difference between the definitions of law and morality, to me at least, it is important to remember that the reality of living in a REAL society lies in the grey area in-between... :)

jeffthomann
02-23-2005, 01:50 PM
I gotta agree with Jackdeth. Capitalism and profits rule the Western World. If you want everything for free and don't want the right to have copyrights on anything, you may want to think about migrating over to China or North Korea to live for a while. Over there the system runs a lot differently, and those differences are close to what some of the posters in this thread from Western Countries seem to want.

Recursive
02-23-2005, 01:54 PM
green86: I think what you perceive as a 'confusion' between morality and law is in fact a justified attempt to reconcile the two.
After all, what is law but an attempt to make a generally applicable system from a moral code? Morals will allways influence law and vice-versa, and the closer the two correlate, the more successful the system should be.

I think that this issue is precisely about an interesting discrepancy between personal morals and the law, since millions of people are engaged in an activity which is deemed illegal by the law, and furthermore, that this activity also runs contrary to many people's personal moral code.

While it is all very well to point out the academic difference between the definitions of law and morality, to me at least, it is important to remember that the reality of living in a REAL society lies in the grey area in-between... :)

Different countries have different laws and different general morals. So I object to you saying that it is illegal. The disscussion needs to be more specific.

I do agree that laws are made by the general morals in a society for the most part. Though in some countries coprporations are legal persons and the morals that those companies have can outweigh the morals of the actuall living people due to the money the companies have. So its starting to become a bit of a non-clear situation.

Recursive
02-23-2005, 02:05 PM
I gotta agree with Jackdeth. Capitalism and profits rule the Western World. If you want everything for free and don't want the right to have copyrights on anything, you may want to think about migrating over to China or North Korea to live for a while. Over there the system runs a lot differently, and those differences are close to what some of the posters in this thread from Western Countries seem to want.

If you go by the book then capitalism would be against patents and copyrights since these give the holder of the item a monopoly on the sale of them. Capitalism is about the free flow of products. So I dont think you can bring capitalism into this since capitalism is way older then both patents and copyright.

The communist way of doing this in china for example have been to(but is not any longer) not to grant monopolies of this sort to musicians, but to pay every musician equally from the state(collected taxes). So i dont think the(former) communistic model applies either.

Patents and copyright is a necessity that you shouldnt labeled like that.

rawshark
02-23-2005, 02:19 PM
Different countries have different laws and different general morals. So I object to you saying that it is illegal. The disscussion needs to be more specific.

Fair point...could make things (even more) complicated though!

Though in some countries coprporations are legal persons and the morals that those companies have can outweigh the morals of the actuall living people due to the money the companies have. So its starting to become a bit of a non-clear situation.

That's interesting...don't you think that may be what's happening here with the RIAA?

I agree that it certainly is a minefield...and one which is probably beyond the scope of this thread.
...personal greed vs. corporate greed, consumer rights vs. artist rights, morals vs. law...the list could go on and it's difficult to know where to begin!

Recursive
02-23-2005, 02:22 PM
...personal greed vs. corporate greed, consumer rights vs. artist rights, morals vs. law...the list could go on and it's difficult to know where to begin!

Indeed it is! :)

jwmoebius
02-23-2005, 03:04 PM
Sorry if this has been said before ... I didn't read every post ...

First of all the one thing that irritates me, record, movie and software industry argue with the "millions of dollars" they loose ... This is nothing but pure theory, no one could even pay for all the value flying around on the internet. Most people downloading stuff are either
- curious and will eventually buy if they like it. The industry should (and probaby does to a certain degree) accept that this is the best way to spread knowledge about software/movie/music and is actually helping them. I strongly believe MS Office, Adobe Photoshop etc. wouldn't be so popular (and sold so much) if they weren't so easy to come by for a newcomer.
- trophy collectors that brag about stuff but will never pay. The industry doesn't loose any money, they wouldn't get it in the first place and since you copy stuff no one will miss it.
- shady people that sell it or offer it on their server for a fee. Now that is truly illegal and should be stopped

The other thing that bothers me is that the RIAA and the major labels are blaming their customers for the fact that they missed about 8 years of development. They are trying to force everyone into a business concept that is going obsolete, not since yesterday! this development started years ago and it took them so long to realize that they need another marketing scheme. The tactics they apply are like sending a detective after each and every customer in a supermarket, with this little trust and respect for the customer you actually encourage piracy.

But the good thing is, this is a huge chance for a liberation of the market. May the dinosaurs of the business clamp onto their business model and sue 92 year old ladys. I personally don't need any more then 5 minutes of MTV to know that I won't spend any money on the music on there anyway. For everyone else it makes buying stuff from all over the world easier. Since it still is a new concept compared to going into a shop and buying stuff it will need some time to find it's rules but I'm convinced that it will for the good of everyone (except the dinosaurs).

daraand
02-23-2005, 03:56 PM
Now thats an interesting response jwmoebius. I too haven't read most of the thread but the stark lines can be seen: People who think the industry is an evil money grobbing elite and people who don't and defend the copyright...

I'd like to see one day a study conducted of people who Downloaded a song or a movie and then actually paid or went to go see it? It actually sounds interesting - trying it before using it? If the music industry went out and actually let out some songs for free so that people could listen and see if they like the song, then buy it. Would that work? I don't know, and I do know of a few artists here and there who have done so but I do not know if it works too well. The obvious reason: why pay for something if it's free?

Personally, I think apple was genius. i know napster is cheaper, but iTunes music store is one of the best ideas I've seen: 1 dollar, and you got yourself a song, so for all you "enviromentalists" out there who don't want to waste plastic or buy the whole cd, there you go.

Movies would be a lot harder to come by. If anything the sheer size of at minimum a 1 hour 30 minute film at DVD quality (720x480?) would run quite high, even with some excellent compression meathods out there.

Either way. The arguments are flawed in that both sides are greedy and calling the other the greedier, while denying any sort of greed for themselves. Look, big business is evil, but so is robbing a copyright. If you download a song or movie, a t least pay a ticket price and see it. Or buy the song off iTunes. 1 bloody dollar...

:D Needless to say I don't think I've bought a cd since iTunes came out for pc o_o

jwmoebius
02-23-2005, 04:07 PM
I'd like to see one day a study conducted of people who Downloaded a song or a movie and then actually paid or went to go see it?
I haven't done a scientifically proven study or anything but most of the "good" movies (meaning the ones i liked) that i've only seen a shady copy of I usually rent later or see at a theater. Same with music, you stumple upon a band name, download a couple of songs and get the album. Problem with the current situation is that you might see a shady bootlegged copy somewhere and would have to wait 4 month for it to be shown in you country, complete with a rubbish german voice over dubbing. Or you stumple upon a band name, listen and like it and would need to pay €40 for import cd at a mailorder shop. More than anything, the internet makes you aware of what you're missing and it's up to the industry to fulfill these new demands in a modern way.

colintheys
02-23-2005, 04:27 PM
I love how ppl say that stealing music is ok cause the record companies rip off the artists. Ok. So maybe the artists don't get enough money from the sale in your opinion? Well clearly then the answer MUST be to steal the music and ensure that the artist gets absolutely nothing. Awesome logic.

rendermania
02-23-2005, 05:08 PM
read this article

http://slate.msn.com/?id=2069732#ContinueArticle
2001 may not be the year the music died, but the pop biz did develop a nagging headache, and it's not going away. The recorded-music industry's first slump in more than two decades continues this year; the number of discs sold is slipping and so is the appeal of last year's stars. Britney Spears' latest album has moved 4 million copies—a big number, but less than half what its predecessor did.

The Recording Industry Association of America, which represents the five major labels that dominate CD retailing, would like to blame much of the slide on Internet music-file swapping. Yet there are many other causes, including the fact that the big five are all units of troubled multinationals—AOL Time Warner, Vivendi Universal, BMG, EMI, and Sony—that are focused on short-term gain and have no particular interest in the music biz. There's also been a recession, of course, and resistance to CD prices that have grown much faster than the inflation rate. Perhaps the most important factor, however, is the major labels' very success in dominating the market, which has squelched musical innovation.


In 2001, U.S. CD sales declined 6.4 percent. Sales have continued downward this year, and a Forrester Research study released last week projects a 6 percent decline in 2003 as well. Yet the report disputes the RIAA's assertion that the now-bankrupt Napster and its successors are responsible for the downturn. More than two-thirds of CDs bought in the United States sell to consumers who rarely or never download music files from the Web, Forrester concludes. Another market research company, Ipsos-Reid, reported in June that 81 percent of music downloaders buy as many or more CDs than they did before they started getting tunes from the Internet.

The RIAA, of course, has studies that say otherwise. But anyone who rewinds to the last major music-biz slump will find some interesting parallels. In 1978, record sales began to fall, and the major labels blamed a larcenous new technology: cassette tapes. The international industry even had an outraged official slogan: "Home taping is killing music." The idea was that music fans—ingrates that they are—would rather pirate songs than pay for them, and that sharing favorite songs was a crime against hard-working musicians (rather than great word-of-mouth advertising). Cassettes were so anathema to the biz that Sex Pistols Svengali Malcolm McLaren could think of no more provocative way to launch his new band, Bow Wow Wow, than with a ode to home taping, "C30, C60, C90, Go!'

firestar3d
02-23-2005, 05:24 PM
So far we've had people for or against giving their opinions on this matter on this thread. I have to say I find it amusing that there's such a high percentage of people either for the RIAA, and saying it's illegal to copy music and distribute it, or against the RIAA and saying that they copy and distribute (or even just download) music because the artists aren't getting enough.

Here's a middle-ground perspective.

I don't copy music. I don't download music off of the internet. My music collection is at least 5-10 years old (some of it is much older, and occasionally I've grabbed some music from iTunes in recent years). My music collection is in fact very small compared to most people (I have copied all of my CD's to my PC and they take up less than a gig of space). I don't use P2P applications or BitTorrent.

I don't support what the RIAA is doing.

People use the "Evil corporation greed" argument to justify download activities that are illegal, and in the end, immoral. It has been argued by some (including one well known author) that music sales are not harmed by this practice. Maybe they aren't. Maybe they are. I have no proof either way what this is the case, but neither do a lot of people who argue one way or the other.

The RIAA use the "Pirates downloading hurts artists" argument to justify wholesale lawsuits against people (some of which are teenagers and have yet to learn from their (admittedly irresponsible) parents that downloading is illegal and you will get caught - I say irresponsible because they should have taught them as early as possible) as well as legally questionable activities to gather information against people.

In both cases this is clearly unacceptable.

If you wish to support your favourite artists, buy their music. Or, if you feel so strongly about this, try to contact them somehow and get them to sell directly to you. Write letters of support if you have to, but don't do so by downloading their music from P2P sites. I don't say this because I agree with the RIAA or because I think you should go spend your hard earned on a CD... I say this because otherwise you'll just give the RIAA ammunition, and they have the means to use it. You'll also be sending a message to everyone else that "well if he/she is doing it, I can do it too", and that kind of an attitude will hurt the artists where it matters most (the labels won't make money from them any more and will drop them like a hot potato).

I disagree with P2P sharing of copyrighted music (although it's true that people that intend to buy the music will do so anyway and people who won't will still not, but it's also true that there are people who download some music tracks and listen to them, they'll say "Well I have it on my PC now, what's the point?"), but I also disagree with RIAA strategy. There have to be better ways to secure their business than assuming everyone's a criminal without proof.

Edit: Just to clarify, when it comes to buying your own music, I believe (as do many others) that it's perfectly acceptable to grab such tracks off of the CD and put them on your HD for playback later (it's also a legal inclusion of Fair Use). It's what almost all of us do.

Emrys
02-23-2005, 05:26 PM
I'm sure that article was wonderfully valid when it was written 2 and a half years ago! . Here, why don't you try reading a more up to date article? One that wasn't written in the depths of a recession either :

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20041022-4341.html

M

Brian3D
02-23-2005, 05:27 PM
The point these companies miss it that people by nature are lazy. Let me give an example;
Would you rather use a remote controll for your tv or would you rather get up and manually press the chanel buttons? Ok, now take it a step forther, would you rather use a remote for your TV, one for your DVD and one for your Stereo, or would you rather use a universal remote?

When I say lazy, I don't mean it in a negative sense. I mean that humans like conveince over inconvience. That means that if there is an easer way of doing some thing, we find a way!

Now apply that to a persons buying habbits. What would you rather do? Go to the store, find your CD of choice, a CD that may have songs of no interest to you, stand in line to pay for it, and then fight traffic to get home and play your new CD? Or would you rather fire up your broadband, log into your online music store of choice, down load only the music you like, listen to in on your computer and burn a copy for the car?

Given all that, it is no surprise that "CD" sales is in a slump. Instead of doing a witch hunt, the music industry needs some brains at the helm who understands human nature. Then instead of sinking all this money into stopping online downloading of music, use it to creat a new vehicle for music sales!

Oh wait, that was what napster tried!

Now we have Apples online music store were people can down load their music of chioce for a reasonable fee! We also have several other companies coping Apple's online music down load model!

Now just think, how much time and anger could have been saved if the music industry had simply imbraced the new technology? They likely would not be in the slump they are in now. On top of that they would not have given the ball to more innovative companies!

Long live innovation and the search for better conveince!

iocomposer
02-23-2005, 06:13 PM
This is great. The RIAA is quite possibly the most evil, greedy, opportunistic group capitalism has ever spawned.

lol! Actually, I think the neo-repbulicans claimed that title long ago. :p

CGTalk Moderation
02-23-2006, 07:00 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.