Is the RIAA suing you?

[mankie]

Originally posted by RatBastard:
  OK maybe I am in the minority here but I am on the side if the RIAA and the artists.  Bottom line is that stealing ain't right.  If I have to explain it any further than that then there is no point in me wasting my breath.  Its my stand, it may not be popular, but I am standing by it.
 
 RB

I'm in total agreement with you.

[ggw]

Originally posted by mankie:
   

Originally posted by RatBastard:
  OK maybe I am in the minority here but I am on the side if the RIAA and the artists.  Bottom line is that stealing ain't right.  If I have to explain it any further than that then there is no point in me wasting my breath.  Its my stand, it may not be popular, but I am standing by it.
 
 RB

I'm in total agreement with you. [/b]

I'm in agreeance as well.

[paige]

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
 I'm in agreeance as well.

i was going to say that!  :p  
 
 i really am on both sides of this issue... stealing is stealing.. whether its from the internet or from a store. however, i have never downloaded entire albums and burned them onto cds. when i download music, i stop sharing it, and put it on a playlist to listen to when i'm working on the computer. so i don't feel as "bad" (for lack of a better word) as someone who downloads and burns entire albums daily.. music shouldn't be free, but i am getting sick and tired of paying 18 bucks for a cd! yes, there are some independent stores and cds with cheaper prices, but overall, the cost of cds is way too expensive (unless it's a used cd, which is more reasonable)
 
 basically, what i am saying is that i believe there are certain degrees of severity when it comes to downloading, and if the music industry weren't increasing the price of cds, downloading music may begin to slow down when people can finally afford to buy their favorite albums.
 
 
 one question - even though i don't share songs, can i still get into trouble with the riaa (granted that they actually do hunt down everyone.. pssh yeah right)?

[myuman]

It's not stealing for the same reason taping Seinfeld on my VHS is legal or allowing my father to "borrow" my Celine Dion collection.  And remember, the media was purchased.  I'm not hacking into anyone else computer unknowingly.  The common technology supports this.  And remember, it does cost an awful amount of money to fileshare: computer, internet provider, blank discs, and most importantly... time.  We don't ride horses to work anymore because the common technology allows us not to.  This is a recording industry dilemma.  Not a "is it stealing or not" personal dilemma.  I don't think any of this would be a problem in the slightest if CD's were $6.  The people making money in music in the year 2003 would dwarf the people making money in 1973 at those prices.... $15 dollars plus is corporate greed and consumers are realizing there is an easier way.  I've said it many times before, $10 is my "fence price".  I like the album artwork, case, track listing (except Sigur Ros), and high quality recording.  But above this price, I can sacrifice these by filesharing.

[paige]

Originally posted by myuman:
    I've said it many times before, $10 is my "fence price".  I like the album artwork, case, track listing (except Sigur Ros), and high quality recording.  But above this price, I can sacrifice these by filesharing.

i think 10$ is a perfect price for a cd... remember when olssons stopped carrying that new linkin park cd because it was like $20 but only had 30 minutes worth of music on it? where is the reasoning that you get what you pay for there? i would own a lot more albums if they were cheaper (obviously)... but i still think it's wrong to copy an entire cd and burn it onto a cd.

[kosmo vinyl]

ggw is probably a bit more verse in if this would be covered by "fair use" or not... eff and other organizations are stepping on a lobbying for the p2p users like yourself.  is downloading a song or two really any different than getting a mix cd or tape from a friend?  making a mix cd is something which apple touts as one of the top uses of thier machines.
 
 all of this shows how instead of fighting new technology which the record always does... cassettes, cdrs etc  they should be adapting to them.  it clear by the popularity of p2p systems that people want and have embraced a new method of distribution.  yet the record industry wants to stick to the traditional method of physical product.  
 
 it's ironic that the record industry chooses to fight a system which has already been developed, thus saving to having fund a new distro system.  and there is no need to deploy new infrastructure and pay of bandwidth, it's already be payed for via isp fees, again saving money.  yet it's make more business sense to pay people to track down file sharers and flood the p2p with fake mp3s.  
 
 i'm all for paying for the digital rights to an artists music, but i will be damned if i'm going to pay almost as much for them as i would for a physical cd or record. especially if i also choose to buy the cd after auditioning the digital version. which is why i find itunes and buymusic.com laughable.
 
 record companies need to establish record pools using a p2p system.  let us serious music buyers pay for and get access to music especially for those artists who we want to check out based on a review or for a record that may only be released in uk for instance.
 
 rant off

[mankie]

Originally posted by paige:
 

  i have never downloaded entire albums and burned them onto cds. when i download music, i stop sharing it,
 
 [/b]

Thanks for the tip..I'll go into a jewellers tonight and steal myself my favorite Omega watch, not everything in the store. I won't let anyone else borrow the watch so if I get caught I can tell them paige said it was okay.

[paige]

Originally posted by mankie:
  Thanks for the tip..I'll go into a jewellers tonight and steal myself my favorite Omega watch, not everything in the store. I won't let anyone else borrow the watch so if I get caught I can tell them paige said it was okay.

good analogy.   :roll:  
 
 kosmo really hit the nail on the head of what i think... remember when betamax was popular? then the whole switchover to vhs happened? then dvd? the technology and the industry are changing... and although this seems like a much more drastic progression, the riaa is wasting their money and energy trying to fight something that could prove to be their most valuable ally. the record industry is already failing as it is.. they should be doing whatever they can to be altruistic to the listeners rather than punish them for every little song they've downloaded.

[ggw]

Originally posted by myuman:
  It's not stealing for the same reason taping Seinfeld on my VHS is legal or allowing my father to "borrow" my Celine Dion collection.

Wrong.  Fair-use covers you for transferring music from your CD to a tape or to an mp3 but doesn't cover distribution to 12,000,000 kazaa users.
 
 http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
 
 

Originally posted by myuman:
 And remember, the media was purchased.

What media?  You only own the shiny plastic disc, not the music on it.  That belongs to the copyright holder.
 
 

Originally posted by myuman:
 I'm not hacking into anyone else computer unknowingly.  The common technology supports this.  And remember, it does cost an awful amount of money to fileshare: computer, internet provider, blank discs, and most importantly... time.  We don't ride horses to work anymore because the common technology allows us not to.

So anything that is technologically possible cannot be illegal?
 
 You may not be hacking into someone else's computer, but the theft is from the copyright holder, not from piMpKraCKer69@kazaa.com who is giving you the file.
 
 

Originally posted by myuman:
 This is a recording industry dilemma.  Not a "is it stealing or not" personal dilemma.  I don't think any of this would be a problem in the slightest if CD's were $6.  The people making money in music in the year 2003 would dwarf the people making money in 1973 at those prices.... $15 dollars plus is corporate greed and consumers are realizing there is an easier way.  I've said it many times before, $10 is my "fence price".  I like the album artwork, case, track listing (except Sigur Ros), and high quality recording.  But above this price, I can sacrifice these by filesharing.

My "fence" price for a Maserati is $12,500.  If they won't sell it to me at that price then I am justified in stealing it. I'm a revolutionary against the greedy corporate automotive behemoths -- I'm like Che Guevara and Robin Hood all wrapped up in one. Or maybe I'm just a common thief who thinks he can get away with it.

[mankie]

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
 

  -- I'm like Che Guevara and Robin Hood all wrapped up in one.
 
 
 [/b]

A beret and green tights...hmmmmm, I wouldn't let Rhett see you in that little number, he might not be able to control his actions, because you know how he just oozes testosterone being the macho-man that he is and all.

[kosmo vinyl]

Originally posted by paige:
 
 
 kosmo really hit the nail on the head of what i think... remember when betamax was popular? then the whole switchover to vhs happened? then dvd?

this is an example of where the movie industry was first against the vcr technology, but later embraced when they realized they could make even more money buy selling the movie to the consumer.  also give them props for devolping the dvd a harder to copy format than tape and cd.  and pricing them so the consumer will buy them when they get released on dvd.

[sonickteam2]

I will put my 3 cents in:
 
   First off, most of what i download is on emusic.com or insound.com which is legal. otherwise I download the new "radio" songs, from college radio playlists and such.  But I usually just DL the singles or more from bands that have shows coming up. This downloading is never in place of a CD and i share only to people who contact me on filesharing networks.
   I believe everyone is entitled to preview the music before they drop $12-$17 on a CD, and if i love what I hear I will buy the CD (case in point Mars Volta, yesterday).  I dont see whats wrong with that really, I mean I suppose i could go to the record store and spend hours making the clerk open up 20 new CDs so i can listen to them, but that shit gets on my nerves when people do that.
   And who really wants to listen to the radio ALL DAY long just to hear a couple new songs they are interested in?  not me.
   The point is, I buy 5-10 CDs a month and i drop $50 a month on shows, not to mention bar tabs that keep these venues making good money.
   Do i feel like i am ripping the RIAA off....no, not a chance. But i may be in the minority.

[mankie]

Originally posted by sonickteam2:
  I will put my 3 cents in:
 
   First off, most of what i download is on emusic.com or insound.com which is legal. otherwise I download the new "radio" songs, from college radio playlists and such.  But I usually just DL the singles or more from bands that have shows coming up. This downloading is never in place of a CD and i share only to people who contact me on filesharing networks.
   I believe everyone is entitled to preview the music before they drop $12-$17 on a CD, and if i love what I hear I will buy the CD (case in point Mars Volta, yesterday).  I dont see whats wrong with that really, I mean I suppose i could go to the record store and spend hours making the clerk open up 20 new CDs so i can listen to them, but that shit gets on my nerves when people do that.
   And who really wants to listen to the radio ALL DAY long just to hear a couple new songs they are interested in?  not me.
   The point is, I buy 5-10 CDs a month and i drop $50 a month on shows, not to mention bar tabs that keep these venues making good money.
   Do i feel like i am ripping the RIAA off....no, not a chance. But i may be in the minority.

If you go to Barns and Noble you can scan ANY cd in the store and hear a short peice of every song on the album...you're still a thief, sorry I meant sharer...  :roll:

[mjnova]

Originally posted by kosmo vinyl:
   

Originally posted by paige:
 
 
 kosmo really hit the nail on the head of what i think... remember when betamax was popular? then the whole switchover to vhs happened? then dvd?

this is an example of where the movie industry was first against the vcr technology, but later embraced when they realized they could make even more money buy selling the movie to the consumer.  also give them props for devolping the dvd a harder to copy format than tape and cd.  and pricing them so the consumer will buy them when they get released on dvd. [/b]

When Napster came along, the RIAA had a choice.  Do wanna compete, bring out a better product and make a lot of money, and then sue them to get them out of business.  Or should you just sue them and hope everyone pretends like this little theft thing didn't happen.  
 
 I don't condone stealing, but they blew their chance, and now people have become accustomed to getting music for free.
 
 There aren't any good free resourses to hear music before you buy it, and hence I used to download a few tracks from artists before buying their albums.
 
 If iTunes for example, let the artists pick say 2 or 3 tracks on the album, as the "singles" regardless of length and comercialness and let folks download those free of charge, I think that would offer a good free channel for hearing music, and then if you liked it, you could download the album.

[chaz]

Originally posted by RatBastard:
  OK maybe I am in the minority here but I am on the side if the RIAA and the artists.  Bottom line is that stealing ain't right.  If I have to explain it any further than that then there is no point in me wasting my breath.  Its my stand, it may not be popular, but I am standing by it.
 
 RB

But it's not stealing...It's sharing!