Music Industry Cracks Down

I think this all comes down to personal morals mixed with practicalities.

I don't think anyone can stop P2P since it will evolve, both technically and legally, faster than it can be shut down, so asuming it's going to be here forever <sigh> like spam </sigh> it then becomes personal choice.

If you like a band/group/artist and their music then you must decide if you want to support them by paying for their music. If enough people do then they will continue to produce more. Otherwise, no more band.

However many people object to the enormous $ the music industry is making, and I think an opportunity has been missed. The artists could offer their music from their own website for a nominal fee (say $1 per CD). This would cut the money grabbing record companies out of equation, make the counterfeit CD market a non starter and increase the percentage of legitimate muisc in people's collections. And the artists would probably make as much cash as they do right now. Although music stores may become a thing of the past.

I own most of the music I listen to. The rest comes from broadcast media.

However, everyone should examine their own morals carefully. We had a poster asking for ways to make his shareware codes un-crackable. Is all their music legal? How many of the posters here have software on their personal machines which isn't licensed. How many refuse to condone practices in a commercial environment that they accept in a personal one.

I'm not trying to take any high moral ground here, because I'm as bad as most people for variable morals.

Just my 2c

Steve

Petitition signed and the (screw riaa ) board bookmarked, registered there too.

What the hey, might as well get into this with my thoughts.

The RIAA is about nothing more then money. Music is not about money. They are exploiting peoples’ emotions ( which is what music touches ) to make a profit. Most musicians chose the field because they enjoy it, the really good ones make good money, the average ones make dirt, but money is not why they are musicians. The “ recording artists” are not necessarily good, but they are exploitable, and they are definitely not required to be musicians!

The “ recording artists” are like sports figures; way, way, way overpaid because some no talent sleazeballs can make more money off the common man ( and/or woman ) then they are paying the “ recording artist” they are exploiting.

The RIAA is like the average lawyer ( who they apparently employ a lot of ) which make their profit by preying on other peoples’ emotions ( and/or misery ).

Now don’t get me wrong, I legally purchased all my Barry Manilow CDs ( which replaced the second set of tapes that wore out. Can you believe they deleted some of the words in “ A very Strange Medley” from the “Live” album when they converted it to CD???? )

Anyway, what I am trying to say is a person should be reimbursed for their work, NO one has the right to steal it ( does B.G. come to mind ? ) and NO ONE, under ANY circumstances is worth a million plus a year ( Oh, like ENRON executives ? )

It will all play out in the end, but it will take time, and average people will get hurt in the interim.
( The Boston Tea party comes to mind here. )

Someday no one will need money ( or credit, or a credit card, or a chip to identify who is purchasing what. ) Greed will be gone, hunger will be gone, and people will learn not to covet what others have. Until then we have the things like the RIAA.

*sigh*

Yea, so most of us have pretty much the same idea here about the RIAA, but what to do? I mean are these sites really going to make a huge difference in what they think? I think they are a great place for people that share the same idea to gather and talk about what's going on, but in reality, the type of people that are promoting this already have a HUGE media monopoly, god the only station that I can really say doesn't have some leftist running things would be FOX news. Hmmm, what to do...

Me thinks of running for president after my successful computer security carreer in the NSA... heh heh.

--Peace :cool:

As starter of the thread, I would like to give my 2 cents on the RIAA as well. First of all, by the flavor of most of the posts...that everyone hates the RIAA. I have to laugh sometimes because right after I submitted this thread...I saw a new user "<hater>RIAA". It was quite disturbing actually when he created a new thread to shut down the RIAA or something. (My guess is he/she is aliasing.)

I'm not trying to shut these people down. They're trying to make a living just like the rest of society. Maybe their ways of doing this are 'wrong' but who is to say that they are wrong (ya, your friend napster told you 3 years ago huh?) . Anyways, I'd be interested to continue to hear peoples view and opinions on the subpoenas and P2P busts.

Down with the liberals.

Scat

I agree with the consensus that the RIAA is not doing this from a muscian's perspective but from their own greedy minds. Yes, they are just out to make a few bucks and scare people into not using p2p. However, if their scheme works what stops them from increasing the 900 person target besides protest? It'll be interesting to see who they actually sue, whether they really will go after 13yr teens to make a statement.

I think the issue gets blurred sometimes.

First- I think artists have every right to be paid for their creativity and their contribution to whatever culture appeals to you musically. If 1 million or 10 million people get enjoyment from listening to a work they have created then by all means they deserve to receive $1 million or $10 million or however much money they can get for their creativity.

Second- the RIAA is a corporation. Of course they are out to make as much money as possible but that doesn't make them "greedy" per se- it makes them an American corporation. We live in a capitalist society and they must answer to their shareholders. The companies and the shareholders are not trying to operate any non-profit organization in support of the musical arts. They are trying to capitalize on the population's love of music to make as much money as possible.

Third- P2P networks and file sharing are not inherently illegal or bad. Guns don't kill people- people kill people. You could argue that in the absence of illegal software, illegal movies and illegal songs that P2P would wither and die- but in and of itself there is nothing wrong with a community of users deciding to share their files amongst each other as long as they are legal.

I have downloaded songs from P2P to make informed decisions about whether I want to invest my money in the actual CD. I am not trying to rip off the RIAA or the artist. In the end, if the songs are good enough I will buy the CD and if they aren't I will delete them. Given the RIAA's history of one-hit wonders and crap CD's I think its "fair" for me to make this determination before spending $15 or more on a CD.

My biggest gripe isn't that the RIAA is "greedy" or that they wish to protect their copyright ownership- they have the right to both. My biggest gripe is that they have my elected officials wasting time introducing and debating draconian legislation that doesn't actually serve any greater good for the country- just the RIAA. Even that can be debated because I don't think any of the proposed laws will actually benefit the RIAA in the long run.

My elected officials need to fix the economy, worry about the unemployment rate, work on the environment and any other number of things that are more important. The FBI, the state and federal attornies general and the Justice Department have real criminals to hunt down and catch and don't have resources to devote to finding copyright violators on Kazaa, preparing and prosecuting cases against them and finding spaces for them in federal prisons.

I personally feel that P2P is a great marketing tool for the RIAA if they would stop long enough to take a look at it and figure out how to capitalize on it rather than litigating against it. But, if the RIAA wants to fight tooth and nail to stop users from sharing illegal files on P2P- let them. Just don't waste my government's time or try to alter the freakin' Constitution to do it. Let them file civil suits and waste their own time and money like any other company.

Some people here are a little misinformed about how the RIAA is going about these lawsuits. They are suing people for illegally making copyrighted materials available for download to others without the express consent of the copyright holder. What that means is that in many cases they are not going at people who are downloading the music, but rather the people who are sharing the music. In many of the cases the evidence is gathered like this. An RIAA bot searches a P2P network looking for what it thinks is copyrighted music. Once it successfully finds something it thinks is copyrighted it will try to download it and any other songs that the "sharer" is offering. It will then also gather any information it can about the complete file list the person is sharing as well as the IP address of the "sharer." Once all of this data is gathered it is flagged for a human to listen to the music to make the determination if the music is the proper copyrighted material. If it is, you are marked to have a summons sent to you...

All of this is perfectly legal and you cannot blaim a copyright holder for protecting their assets. There are many forms of piracy that the RIAA cannot do anything about. These types of piracy would be things like hand to hand distribution(you giving a cd-r to your friend, this includes IRC and IM file transfers.) However, they have every ability to control P2P piracy as it stands today because all of the evidence that they need is readily available for them to capture.

Ultimately downloading copyrighted music without paying for it is stealing. No matter how you want to look at it. It is also incorrect that the RIAA cannot go after people outside of the united states. The US and many other developed countries have international laws governing copyrights and the rights of the copyright holder. If you are selling US copyrighted materials in say Great Britain, you can be charged under GB law for that copyright violation. The US itself cannot go after you, but if your country acknowledges the rights of the copyholder, they can. It is only a matter of time until the RIAA starts working with the authorities in other countries to stop the growing trend of P2P music piracy.

It is also untrue to say that these lawsuits will cost the taxpayers money. Usually if you are sued for breaking the law part of your sentence is to pay the court costs and fees associated with bringing you to justice.

It is also rather silly to continue to bitch about albums sucking and only wanting one or two songs when you can legally go buy individual songs now for prices ranging from .59$ to 1.09$ a song. Most people that download a lot of songs are just cheap and have no desire to pay for the music that they like. Who are you to say that artists and record labels make to much money? If you were making that kind of money wouldn't you get pissed and want to sue the people who were stealing from you and keeping you from earning your hard earned cash? It just amazes me that people think because it is easy to download music that it is ok and not illegal to do so. I would argue that it is also very easy to walk into a store with a gun and ask them for all the money they have. Would you be so quick to say that is not illegal as well?

Also- the RIAA is a non profit organization. They do not themselves hold or make any money off of copyrighted materials. Instead they represent a large majority of the music industry copyright holders. So saying the the RIAA is greedy and just wants to make more money is a grossly inaccurate statement as they do not make any profit as dictated by SEC standards on what is a non-profit organization.

Wooo, you went off the deep end there buddy. I think that if it is available, 'most' people are gunna do it.

It sounds to me like you might be a musician? Perhaps the great Micheal Jackson himself. I dont know. But, yes it is illegal, but is it logical to say that the RIAA is going to get 'everyone'. Absolutely not, and for that matter the chances are thoughs of winning a lottery.

My final though (lol) would be to have someone on this site locate this RIAA bot and destroy it. Im sure its possible...lol. Just messing around. Really, IM JUST MESSING AROUND ;).

Down with this liberal!

Scat

I never said the RIAA will get everybody. I think I specifically said, " There are many forms of piracy that the RIAA cannot do anything about. " I had also said they can do something about P2P as it is today. People may make a new form of P2P that does not allow the RIAA to determine who the fileshares are, and then the new laws will start to come about.

Another argument that I see being raised is about how record labels(people were incorrectly saying the RIAA) rip off artists. And to that I say it is the business world. How many people here would sign a legal contract for professional computer services without having it looked at first by an attorney? I know i wouldn't. If you sign a contract in the business world and that contract is not in your favor, that is your fault. The business world is very very cutthroat. It is not just the music industry, it is all industries. People get screwed in the business world everyday, and it usually could have been avoided by being careful and realizing how the business world works up front.

Unfortunately for most musicians they like the think that their music is not business. Which is a great attitude to have. However, if you are going to deal with music labels, radio stations, promoters, distributors, etc... You are now in the business world and should watch out for #1 first.

There are a lot of good honest labels that are members of the RIAA. Nettwerk is one that comes to mind as having very good relationships with their artists and paying their artists what is deserved. In most cases musicians that sell **** load of records do not make a lot of money off of record sales because of the large costs associated with bringing a cd to market. Advertising, videos, distribution, upfront tour costs, things of that nature. The record label makes their money by paying for all of these fees upfront and then sharing in the profits on the backside. It is no different than the venture capitialists that funding this site. Had JP not been able to make AO a success he would still be responsible for paying back the money that he borrowed to do the things that he wanted to do.

I also have not seen anybody mention that these companies, record labels, are publicly held companies. So when they start to lose money you could be ripping of elderly americans that have invested in these companies either directly or indirectly through things like mutuals funds, etc... I for one am against stealing from anybody.