http://music.yahoo.com/read/news/43610153 Suing college students for large sums of money for downloading songs ... Besides the argument that the RIAA is just protecting their intellectual property and revenue, let's look at some factors here: 1. You can make a college student pay a $3000 settlement for downloading songs, but the fact remains that it won't stop illegal file sharing one single iota. The RIAA has been doing this since the existence of MP3's (or other formats) and high speed internet, and online file sharing has only increased. For one, most people don't think they'll get caught, and two, most people consider it like exceeding the speed limit by 5 mph, and three, you can't sue people outside the country. 2. The RIAA is biting the biggest hand that feeds it - teenagers and 20-somethings with lot's of spare time and disposable income. In suing college students, they only come off as @ssholes and bullies, and thus cause people to not want to buy their stuff. And they're bullying by far their largest market. Stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid. 3. There is absolutely no evidence that file sharing hurts sales of CDs or individual mp3 songs. The RIAA will scream that it does, and point out their sales slumps. But they won't admit that their ridiculously high prices, or their hostile attitude towards their customers, or putting out to much crap, or having terrible marketing, or ignoring the potential of the internet, has anything to do with it. In fact, most evidence points to online file sharing only helping sales of CDs. People download songs that they weren't going to buy anyway, and decide they like that artist or song, and in many cases, end up buying a CD by that artist (which they weren't going to buy in the first place). 4. Online file sharing is the best free marketing that the recording industry could ever hope for. Nothing beats "word of mouth", or people saying "hey, this artist/song is pretty cool, check it out". So in all their brilliance, the RIAA decides to choke off this tremendous free marketing opportunity. So, because of their stupidity, and refusal to adopt their business model to changing technology and changing times, the traditional recording industry is doomed. It's not a matter of "if" it's "when". Unless, of course, they change their ways (which it looks like has a snowball's chance in hell). And I say, it's about focking time. The record companies have been ripping off both consumers (with ridiculous mark ups) and artists (with horrible recording contracts that give a minimal percentage to the artists) for years. With modern technology, the traditional record companies are now absolutely useless. It's just that now they are using the flawed legal system to hang on to life support. People (including me) like to go to record stores, or Barnes and Noble, or Borders, and browse, and actually buy CDs. But that market is rapidly diminishing, due largely to the recording industry's stupidity and rigidity. Tower Records (one of the great icons of record stores) is now officially dust, finito, history. There will be many more to follow, and the record companies will sink with them. Ultimately, that's a great thing. The lumbering dinosaurs will be replaced by more agile, smart, technologically savvy, and consumer friendly suppliers of content. And both consumers will bet better value, and artists will earn more money for their creations. The death of the traditional record companies, and their mafia style bullies the RIAA, will be like removing a cancerous tumor. It can't happen soon enough.
Honestly, I pretty much never buy CDs anymore. When I was in college, it seemed I bought one per week, at least. Part of it is the crappy business practices. Another is that it's so hard to find good music.
Downloading copyrighted songs is stealing. Hate the record companies all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that it's stealing. http://www.theage.com.au/news/Techn...music-downloads/2007/03/22/1174153230018.html
I agree that downloading easily obtainable, in-print music is stealing. (I feel differently about out-of-print music, especially when it's clear that the music will remain out of print.) However, I truly have a hard time feeling much sympathy for the RIAA and the recording industry in general, who have a long and storied history of ripping off the very artists they're now claiming they want to protect. Furthermore, when the RIAA levies fines against downloaders, it apparently does not distinguish between music released on labels that the RIAA represents and music on labels that it does not represent. Non-RIAA labels that wish to collect their share of the money have to register with the RIAA, and this also costs money. Thus, if you're caught downloading music released on both major labels and independent labels, the RIAA insists that you pay for all of it. If the indie labels want to collect their share of the money, the RIAA insists that they pay a fee for it. "Mafia-like tactics" is right.
I disagree, but purely on the technicality that someone downloading copyrighted songs have not deprived the artist/RIAA/label/store of something tangible that they otherwise would have been able to sell. Inventory counts haven't changed. In other words, the cost of digital duplication is so low as to be nil; as such, making a copy does not cause real losses. It is copyright infringement, which is criminal, and if someone downloads something they would have otherwise bought, that lost sale could be considered fiduciary harm to the seller(s). I pretty much don't download music anymore that isn't legitimately freely available. When I was an undergrad, I used Napster like crazy (before the RIAA fracked it all up) - and my CD purchasing was never higher. I can honestly say that I never would have bought stuff I downloaded and eventually never bought, but there were lots of things I did buy that I never would have without Napster. In other words, I used Napster like a music sampler. I'd download a bunch of stuff, and if I didn't really like it, it'd sit there unplayed. If I did, I'd go out and buy tons of stuff by that artist. And I gained exposure to a lot of artists I'd never heard of before. Pandora "radio" has had a similar effect. It's "suggestion" system has exposed me to artists I've never heard of before, and often like. If I hadn't soured to the whole experience of buying CDs, I'd probably go get some of them. Instead, I just listen on Pandora, and hope those artists/songs come up often in the random (read: uncontrollable) stream. And now the RIAA is trying to kill internet radio, too. The entire DRM movement pisses me off to no end. If I buy a DVD or CD, I should be able to rip that onto my computer so I can more easily utilize the media. I almost exclusively listen to music on my computer or MythTV system; CDs only come off the shelf to be used in the car, or ripped into the computer (I have a lot of unripped music yet). I don't want to have to get a disc out every time I watch a movie - I'd just like to pull up my MythTV on the tele, select the movie from my collection, and start watching. In the end, these kinds of DRM efforts and strongarm tactics end up hurting legitimate customers, but do little to combat copyright infringement.
I think Gringo is actually correct with use of the term "stealing," because the downloader is obtaining somebody else's intellectual or creative property without compensating him or her for it. The actual physical cd is more or less worthless; people want the data stored on it, not the shiny object itself. But again, I feel the rules change when the creative property can no longer be obtained by purchase. Also, my blog sometimes posts a small number of mp3s from in-print records (but never the entire thing); however, some of the artists and labels we write about have commented on the blog, and they all seem to like it. And again, I hardly sympathize with the RIAA. It sucks when a house in your neighborhood burns down; it sucks considerably less when that house belongs to Tony Soprano.
you want proof it's being run by morons. I thought this thread would be about ashley simpson having a career.
I agree that the data is the item of value, I'm just not sure it's "theft". The bittorrent tracker I run for US/MLS soccer games has a similar standing rule - don't take money out of someone's pockets. Specifically, any DVD available for purchase can NOT be uploaded to the tracker. If it is no longer available for purchase, then the provider apparently isn't interested in making money off of that title any more, and we allow it to be put on the tracker. And even less when the arsonist is someone wronged by Tony's business practices.
I figured it would be about how Black Eyed Peas went from being a really good hip hop group to....whatever they are now.
"really good hip hop group" is an oxymoron kinda like "original copy" or "military intelligence". Just kidding.
Technically, you're probably right. And we could argue for days what constitutes real stealing. For me, simply downloading something that the downloader wasn't going to buy anyway, but not redistributing the material for profit, is not really stealing. It's certainly copyright infringement and violating the law, but the downloader hasn't actually taken a material thing from the holder. But that's completely, utterly beside the point of this thread. Re-read the first post. It's about the recording industry and how it treats it's market/customers, and reacts to changing technology. Quite clearly, bully tactics are not helping them one single iota. The RIAA has upped the bully tactics, while sales continue to plummet. They can sue millions of kids, but it won't help.
Don't forget the fact that local elected officials are making it harder for used media stores to exist and the fact that some good software has been killed recently, allegedly by the MPAA. I also used to buy CDa by the truckload; all of them are still in the basement in boxes just in case some yahoo comes waving a legal finger at me for all these MP3's I have. I don't buy CD's anymore because the genre I particularly enjoy no longer puts out good music or any at all. As I get older there are other things I'd rather do. Oh and while we are on topic, might as well throw in the entities that seek out software violations on behalf of large software companies and get rather large fines levied against large to small companies that were either breaking the law or accidentally let a license of Word get untracked. There are entire departments and even divisions dedicated to asset and license management mostly to CYA from lawsuits just waiting to happen. Is Vista really worth the $120-$???.
No. I'll likely never upgrade to Vista, and a large part of why is the quasi-fascist style of DRM/copy protection/licensing. Windows is another area where the efforts to ensure stuff is valid and legal have entered into the realm of cumbersome. And I don't want to pay that much money for that much trouble. I'm mostly migrated to Linux anyway, and I'm working on getting my wife used to open source alternatives. (She's using FireFox daily, seems to be using Open Office without too much complaint, so the biggest issue left is ditching the OS - and I've set up a Gentoo laptop for her to start playing with.)
The original poster pointed out how people will download something new, then go out and buy that same CD. I still don't see the link between "I already have this song, let me go out and buy it." Why would I want to buy something I already have? If I have 10 or 11 songs I like by various artists, why not just load those straight to my iPod? I've already downloaded one song by ArtistXYZ that I like, what's to stop me from downloading the whole CD or more songs? I think what they need to do is release free "sampler" tracks of new artists where the last 20% or 30 seconds, whatever, of the song is cut off. They already do that on sites like amazon.com If you want to hear a sample, then there's a button to click. Also included is something like "Customers who bought this item also bought..." Record labels all have websites, as do the bands. Why not do a "If you like this artist on this label, here's more you may like" and include lists to their websites... or some free samples. A whole song is probably a bad idea. But I don't see what's stopping them from releasing samples of songs.
Good job. Unfortunately, my wife is still resistant to migrating to Linux - although I've got her using Firefox/Mozilla. But I use Linux (currently Kubuntu Feisty Fawn) almost exclusively. Microsoft, and their anti-consumer, DRM/WGA/product activation, bloated memory hog OS, shenanigans, is a whole other discussion thread, and very similar to the morons/dolts/scumbags running the record companies.
Good question. What typically happens is the downloader gets a few songs by an artist, and decides they like the artist. But instead of downloading all the songs from an an entire album/CD, they'd rather just buy the CD. Why? Well, most people want something tangible. They want the jewel box, with artwork, with lyrics, etc. The same thing happens with free download-able books. A case in point is Bruce Eckel's "Thinking in Java" and "Thinking in C++". Both titles are fully download-able for free, completely legally. But people end up buying the printed book from B&N or Amazon or Borders or something anyway. And Bruce Eckel himself said he experienced increased sales after presenting the books for free download. It turns out people want the printed book, so they are stuck on the computer to read it, and also have something tangible. On surface level, it doesn't make sense - why pay for something that you can get for free? But when you look at how people really behave or feel, the obtaining something tangible makes sense.
i'm one of those people. I'd download songs by bands (illegaly back in the day before it was illegal, you know?) that I'd never heard. if I liked 'em, I'd buy the entire CD. if I liked the band, I wanted them to have the money. but now with iTunes and other sites (and my cable modem) making it much easier to stream the clips of the songs, I don't do it anymore. but I wanna see the bands get paid so that they'll keep making the music that I like.
what kind of car do you drive? let's say a Toyota Camry. I am not going to buy one, and I don't want to redistribute or sell it. Is it OK if I steal your car? of course, you say you've taking 'nothing material' from the holder. but you worked hard to buy your car. a band worked just as hard to make their music. how is it not material? just because you store it on your computer? maybe it's semantics, but a piece of music is just as tangible to me as a car or anything else. people complain that there's no good music out there (and they're wrong ... there's good music out there if you look for it instead of relying on the big lables to do it for you) ... and then they download music illegally. if you paid for the music you like, the bands will be able to make more of it. I agree that fining the kids is harsh ... but they're not in business to give away their product. just my take. feel free to disagree.
question for ya... would a band make more money... A - if you downloaded their, shit, lets just say entire discography, liked it, and saw them at a show, bought some merch, whatever, and then you tell your friends. B - bought a CD or two of theirs from a record store. and of course there is C - you never bought anything because you never found out about them, because you never downloaded any of their songs. i think the internet, honestly, has been a big boost to music, especially in terms of getting the word out. bands see so little from cd sales anyway that many would rather have MORE people knowing and listening to their songs, perhaps at the expense of some cd sales, than have more cd sales but fewer overall fans.
B) because millions by cds and a fraction go to see them in concert and a fraction of those people buy merchandise. i mean with choice A you're assuming lots of things: 1. that you like a band enough to spend $40 on a ticket (or whatever, depending on how big they are) vs. $10 on a CD 2. the band is from the country you live in 3. the band is touring 4. the band is tourning near you 5. you want to spend $30 on a tshirt 6. you have time to go see every band you'd buy a cd for (I bought four CDs the other day ... can pretty much guarantee i won't be seeing any of them live. don't have the time and the $10 was what I was willing to spend) and the last part of choice a) is 'and then you tell your friends.' odd how you left that off choice B. now maybe your friends are different, but with my friends if I recommend a band to them (or vice versa) I'm phenomonally more likely to take a chance on a $10 CD than an entire ordeal of tracking down their live show and spending 8 to 10 times that amount on going to a concert. and that's not even counting the money you'll probably spend at a bar before/after the show. and honestly ... A) download their entire discography or buy a ticket and some merch? depending on which band you're talking about the band could make boatloads more if you pay for the discography. my favorite band is the Wildhearts ... I have 12 albums of theirs (including side bands, etc.). I've seen 'em once (their only tour of America) for $20 and bought one $35 tshirt. now, two of those albums are double albums so they cost more. question for ya ... where'd they make the most money?
eh, shit, i shouldve probably mentioned that my post applied to smaller, less well known acts. stuff that isnt likely to get any/much airplay on the radio, ect. another thing about that, too, is that if a band is big enough to ask $40 for tickets, are they really gonna feel a pinch? doubt it.
Your car analogy is off the mark when we are talking about downloaded electronic copies. If my car is stolen, I no longer have the car. And the cost of replacing it is very high. If a copy of my song is downloaded, I still have my song. And, so long as the downloader has not re-distributed, for profit, the electronic copy of my song, the download has not negatively affected my ability to sell copies (electronic or CD form) of my song. Also, the cost of reproducing electronic copies of my song is zero. The download, illegal or otherwise, has not harmed me. In fact, just the opposite is true. The download has caused more people to sample my song, and might lead to more CD sales, electronic copy sales, concert ticket sales, and so on. But if someone steals my car, I have indeed been hurt/damaged - I no longer have my car. See, it's a whole new ballgame when it comes to electronic copies of intellectual property. Which is why it's stupid, harsh, and even immoral, for the RIAA to sue college students for $3000 just because they downloaded some music.