Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

a federal democratic republic.


It's amazing how heated these debates can get.

Current ratio ~ 9-1 no-yes

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

It's simple for me: If they were quiet and didn't sue the **** out of whomever they felt like, I wouldn't mind.

But since they are being ***-**** to the customers that buy their ****, they can sit on a tack. (Don't argue the point - Sony's rootkit affected more honest people than pirates. They've classified copyright infringement as theft, equal to shoplifting. Most counter-measures affect the buyers and not the freeloaders.)

(Pardon the language.)

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

Personally, I think we're on the verge of a paradigm shift. I have a feeling that intellectual property laws will drastically change over the next few decades.

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/19/0342256

You have to realize that laws and morals are up to the people that enforce them. Each generation seems to change what it feels is important. As people change their attitudes toward social issues, laws change to reflect their new ideals. That's why women can vote and we don't have slaves.

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

I see the change happening much sooner. Over the next half decade, we'll see drastic changes to laws concerning intellectual property.

Also why a Hutu minority controlling the people were able to commit genocide against almost a million Tutsi.

I share a similiar vision of the future as William Gibson, a future of revolutionaries and extreme polarities in culture. I want to believe that educated people will soon care enough to stop dangerous organizations such as the RIAA the same way Linux and GNU is fighting the Microsoft monopoly.

This poll so far has shown that the stunning majority of educated people who care about our future also care enough to want the reign of the RIAA to end.

This poll helps to confirm my vision of radical changes appearing in the near future brought by victims of the RIAA.

This also helps to support my theory that politics and free knowledge to do not match well. As we see politicians get more involved with the internet, we see the quality of the internet decrease with proposed regulations on internet traffic, content, and services.

Perhaps I'm crazy or perhaps I just want to see the internet restored to it's less threatened state 5 years ago, but I do not believe citizens' rights can be protected when there is an organization that has become so radical that has suggested students drop out of school to pay the RIAA fees, filed lawsuit against deceased grandmothers, and even tried to sue people who have never used computers without even the slightest suggestion of a crime.

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

Well you see, the internets is a series of tubes. Its not just something you dump information on, not a truck.

I just the other day got, an internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday and I just got it yesterday. Why?

Vast amounts of information, vast amounts of information.

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

I am sorry but you are a bit flawed in your presumptions. At the time of this post there were a total of 36 votes. You do not know who voted, the level of their "education" or their knowledge of the subject. In this thread there have been a lot of things said with no back up with facts. As you will learn, the "majority" is not always right.

As I have said before, I cannot find enough data on the RIAA to make an educated decision. Because of that I cannot condemn or condone their actions. Most of what I read here is that people want things for free. It doesn't matter that others are hurt in the process as long as they get everything for free. I cannot see this happening in the near or distant future.

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

It's the Internet Effect.

Nowadays anything you can ever imagine is just a few clicks away, and most of it can be obtained for free. (Even if illegally.)

As the number and extent of Internet usage continues to climb, we are shaping the future of the Internet. But at the same time, the Internet is shaping our own future. Instant knowledge and gratification are now becoming increasingly part of our daily lives. A decade ago having Internet access was a privledge. Nowadays I can take my laptop, walk down my street, and come across nearly half a dozen unprotected Wi-Fi networks. In my house I can pick up two other networks, besides my own.

This Internet Age does not necessarily mean that society is taking a turn for the worse; rather is means that we are simply redefining our values. Any many of these values, although different, may quite have positive long-term benefits to society. Information and getting it quickly to people is the way of the future. Larry Page and Sergey Brin saw this in the late 1990s, and only a few years later Google is one of the world's biggest technology companies.

Living in Connecticut, I saw first hand how quickly blogging and the Internet caused Ned Lamont (who was totally unknown) to rise to popularity and win in the Democratic primary over the three-term Senator Joe Lieberman. The more people utilized the Internet, the more they seemed to like politics, and the more passionate they were for supporting their canidates. Because of all this, there was an extremely high voter turnout (as compared to historical primary attendence) in the Connecticut primaries.

Is democracy not the government of the people, by the people, for the people? Is the Internet not increasing public awareness and passion towards politics and being involved in shaping the future of the United States, and ultimately the world?

When other people look at the Internet, they may see anarchy. But I see freedom, democracy in action. Here is finally a global virtual world of the people, by the people, for the people. Here is our future. Some say war and forceful occupation of foreign countries is the best way to spread democracy. I say just give all six billion people on this planet one-hundred percent unadulterated and unfiltered Internet access, and anti-democratic governments will crumble faster than the Berlin Wall in 1989.

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

As long as the internet exists, there will always be filesharing that is considered illegal. Burning CDs / DVDs for friends, P2P transfers, torrenting - it cannot and will not be stopped. As you can see, the RIAA has had to take some pretty extreme measures against people. Suing individuals will do nothing in the long run, it's only being used as a scare tactic that's failing horribly. They don't need the money, they're just trying to discourage people from downloading. Tristan's post on the Canadian law is probably one of the best solutions I've ever heard.

It really is sad though in this day and age that the only way that artist's music make it on the radio and TV is if they sign with a large record label. Sure, there are some bands that have made it pretty well and are independants, but they're few and far in between. And those labels usually dictate what the band can and cannot do. And those labels are usually under the RIAA, so the artists usually don't see a dime of the money the RIAA is supposedly getting from their actions.

I do not support the RIAA in any way, shape, or form. Viva La Revolution.

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

The way I see it is that many of the popular artists today are absolutely aweful performing live (and I affirm my conclusion with Nelly Furtado's and Timbaland's performance on tonight's Teen Choice Awards). Thier success and immense profit is probably due mostly to some unknown guy in front of a fancy computer at the recording studio. Many of today's popular artists have such horrible voices (when performing live) and poor performing skills that they are lucky to sell any CDs at all. They should be happy that people actually want to download their music.

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

I know that this might be a little hard to understand but there is a lot of money being lost to people who pirate music. On the surface it would seem harmless, but the effect on the industry and on you is beyond your wildest imagination. The RIAA has been around a long time and during that period they have help set standards for music reproduction that have formed the world as we hear it. Without their efforts, hifi would have meant 50 5000 Hz instead of the 20-20kHz accepted today. Many of the pirated selections that are reaping the largest profit are substandard copies of some excellent artists and their greatest works. Substandard copies do nothing to advance the art or educate the listening public as to excellence in recording art. The RIAA is trying to protect the future of the recording industry. You don't have to agree with their goals but they are trying to cover a lot of problems that will make your enjoyment of music last a lifetime. The biggest problem for any recording artist these days is the pirating of music. It has become prevalent throughout the world but particularly in technologically advanced countries like the US. You can see a representative group who has already answered here and who think copying music for their own use is not illegal. Well it is, it's stealing no matter how you cut it. Just because almost everyone you know does it, does not make it right. When you borrow a friend's CD and rip it on your computer, your are stealing. Each copy you cut for someone else continues the theft. For example, your are lead guitar in a moderate band and a record company thinks you have a future. They contract with you to cut a CD for which you will make 3 cents on everyone sold. The CD takes off and you think it's pretty cool, you are going to see some real money coming in which will allow you to invest in some new amps, maybe buy a composition or two from another artist and get started on a road show. The record execs tell you that predictions are that the market will likely top out at sales of 650,000 units. That's about $20K in your pocket. Someone early on thinks your CD is pretty hot too and they start the campaign on getting copies of your material onto web sites and e transfers across the country. You start to see the sales numbers which shot up in the first few weeks dwindle to nothing. Everyone is talking about how hot your band is but no one is buying the disc and the record execs come back and tell you, "Sorry, we thought you were hot and were going some place but the sales are just not there." The second CD deal is canceled, the road show is canceled and your band dissolves before your eyes. Your projected $20K tops out at $8-10K and you take it, pay your bills and go to work for Target and see your CD in the $3 discount rack at the checkout. It's a harsh reality that is playing out everyday. If you are really hot, then there are the real professionals (thieves) who are out making look alike copies which are being sold and you see nothing from the sales. Wouldn't you want an advocate, someone to go after these thieves and who will share your legal expenses to get them prosecuted. If you were an artist, you would want to belong to the RIAA and you would want someone fighting for you so you could devote your time to advancing your art. If music is important to you, then don't copy it.
Signed,
A person who works in the music industry...

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

OK. It's simple. Stealing is stealing. If it's for sale and you don't pay for it, it's stealing.

Side Note: I must be the only Dead Head here on CD. Trading for non-commercial personal use of Grateful Dead shows has always been allowed and encouraged. They allowed tapers into all the shows and if you were a regular, they allowed you to tap into the sound board.

It's still allowed, but has some restrictions. See http://http://www.archive.org/about/faqs.php#245




And A Stupid Question...

If I pay $20.00 for a CD and I don't want it anymore will the RIAA be upset if I sell it on eBay for $10.00? I'm selling the original.

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

I hand my buddy my headset so he can give commands in CS computer. Now is he stealing from logitech for not buying the headphones? You really can't simplify a topic like that. Stealing in this case is based on your perspective. I see music as data, companies see music as licenses. They way you view music changes what can be done or not done with it.

yes, that would be illegal. They claim you paid for a license to the music, not the music itself. That is why people have been brought under lawsuit for selling iPods on ebay that have not been wiped.


I disagree. Musicians are still making millions of dollars off their music. I have yet to see any musician file bankrupt because pirates have taken significant amounts of proffit.

The RIAA blames every loss in sales on pirates and yet there are extremely large communities that are boycotting music to force the RIAA to stand down. The RIAA tends to spin losses even from boycots into more reasons for stricter legislation. Music has always been copied, "pirated", and purchased illegally. That's just an assumed fact of sales.






I might add, while I disagree with the RIAA tactics, I also do not download or pirate any music. Any music I listen to is either from free based artists that use services such as the older Ampcast to gain respect and reward for their music or it is paid for.

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

Unfortunately, you are not hearing about the muscians who are being decimated by the pirating of music. Most musicians are on the financial edge as it is, if they fall off, or turn to other income streams to live, you never hear about it. It still is happening all the time. How many bands do you remember hearing only one song from? Did you have a band you thought was going to make it big that just disappeared?
Music has only been pirated, copied, etc. when the technology has made it easy. Prior to cassettes it was very difficult. Of course it took a while for the general public to talk themselves into stealing and calling it OK. When people made themselves believe it wasn't stealing and it was easy to do, they began doing it in a big way. How many people do you know that regularly copy music? Say each one of them has caused a loss of revenue this year of 25 cents. How much money does that add up to for this year in lost revenue? Does that sound like the number the RIAA is claiming it cost the industry this year? Musicians are not the only ones losing out on this. I know of at least one hundred recording studios that have gone out of business in the last 10 years. All of their hardware is on a shelf waiting to be sold to recupe the money their investors and banks lost when the businesses folded. That's a lot of people out of work as well. We may not be talking millions, but if you were one of them and you couldn't put food on the table for your family, you would be pretty upset. Everytime you heard someone talk about copying a CD you would cringe.

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

Feel free to show me an examples of bands that was forced to turn to other avenues of life because of pirated music and not because they failed to make successful music, develop their image, or change with popular culture.

It may be happening all the time, but I would expect the RIAA to be the first to bring up cases in which artists were conclusively being decimated by pirated music and not being decimated for only producing one song or producing only mediocre material.

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

The RIAA is out to protect the artist... something like that. They're acting on behalf of the recording companies more than the artists. I have never heard of an artist receiving money from one of the RIAA's lawsuits, have you? Most artists make their money off of their concerts; ticket sales, shirts, etc. How much do you really think an artist is making per song?

Let's, since it's most appropriate, look at iTunes. Selling a single song for 99 cents, how much do you figure the artist makes? Less than they used to. It used to be as much as 30 cents, and now it's down to a dime per song. Over iTunes, a standard cd is making an artist a whopping $1.60, and that's only if a person buys all of the songs on the album.

Who's screwing the artists?