Ever Heard Of The Riaa?

[SuperDeagle]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18644781/wid/1191 5829?GT1=9951

"Barg couldn't imagine anyone expected her to pay $3,000 — $7.87 per song — for some 1980s ballads and Spice Girls tunes she downloaded for laughs in her dorm room. Besides, the 20-year-old had friends who had downloaded thousands of songs without repercussion."

Really I got a chuckle from this, but to be honest I think it's a little drastic (the settlement cost).

[packow]

You have no idea the damage that using these downloading services does. They need to make examples out of people.

[SuperDeagle]

Damage? Oh you mean to the musical artists who don't get money through CD sells?

[djstaz0ne]

Screw the RIAA, if bands or djs need money, they should do more live sets or performances. CD sales shouldn't account for large percentage of the artist's income.

People who support an artist will buy their shit regardless. I don't really see the point of buying a CD that only has 3 or 4 good tracks on it. I would much rather download the cd, and hear for myself which tracks are good. If i like the whole CD, i usually buy it. If there are only like 3 good tracks, i don't.

[EndGameOmega]

For all of you who hate the current copyright laws; Here's something worse:

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA64 41968.html

[devilchrono]

I agree that if an artist wants to make more money they should just tour more. I'm sure however if I was an artist I would be slighty upset.

[SuperDeagle]

At 5/15/07 02:17 AM, devilchrono wrote: I'm sure however if I was an artist I would be slighty upset.

I'd actually be the opposite. I would love the fact that people like my music enough to spread it out.

[Jaketheclonetrooper]

Actually I think it's pretty stupid.

1. The artist who made it is rich enough. it's not like they'll go bankrupt or something if people download songs off the internet.

2. Downloading the songs actually promotes the artist. The people will be like " I got this song off the internet, and I think it's awesome. I'll go watch these guys live when they tour to my country.

[SuperDeagle]

At 5/15/07 08:57 AM, Jaketheclonetrooper wrote: I'll go watch these guys live when they tour to my country.

Exactly, isn't that how musicians get most of their money anyway?

[troubles1]

At 5/14/07 10:31 PM, packow wrote: You have no idea the damage that using these downloading services does. They need to make examples out of people.

let me get this straight, you are for letting young people get high, but against them listing to music for free. I think you got you priorities messed up. I am advocate for file sharing. as the link on my Sig says, fuck them.

[SuperDeagle]

At 5/15/07 12:28 PM, troubles1 wrote: I think you got you priorities messed up. I am advocate for file sharing. as the link on my Sig says, fuck them.

Well it's not like they can stop you from doing it anyway, except for what they did with these college students, but thats their fault for using a campus computer.

[Draconias]

At 5/15/07 08:57 AM, Jaketheclonetrooper wrote: 1. The artist who made it is rich enough. it's not like they'll go bankrupt or something if people download songs off the internet.

How ignorant of you to assume that. The majority of singers and musicians aren't super rich, like Britney Spears or the rare celebrity singers like her. The vast majority only earn moderate sums, so you reall are ripping them off badly.

2. Downloading the songs actually promotes the artist. The people will be like " I got this song off the internet, and I think it's awesome. I'll go watch these guys live when they tour to my country.

Promoting in the sense that they are known, yes. Promoting in the sense that they earn more money than you've stolen, no. If you downloaded it off a website, why won't your friends just do the same?

[SkyCube]

Both sides of this argument are right to a certain extent. File-sharing can be either good or bad.

If (like myself) you use it to discover/check out new bands so you can decide who to spend your money on, its great. I have bought far more CDs thanks to file-sharing than I otherwise would have done.

If however you are one of the many dumb teenagers who never buys CDs, and downloads everything (often with the excuse "music should be free, man!"), it's not so good. These are the people who are a problem.

It all depends how you use it.

Although I have to say that the way the RIAA behaves is sometimes quite unethical (suing children etc.) and doesn't do much for their cause.

[troubles1]

At 5/15/07 12:43 PM, Draconias wrote:

At 5/15/07 08:57 AM, Jaketheclonetrooper wrote: 1. The artist who made it is rich enough. it's not like they'll go bankrupt or something if people download songs off the internet.

Promoting in the sense that they are known, yes. Promoting in the sense that they earn more money than you've stolen, no. If you downloaded it off a website, why won't your friends just do the same?

Downloading the Music actually helps the artist, and you are not understanding the process, there are the Artists that are Rich, like METALICA, WHO before the sold out and got rich and started suing the people who supported them, they would have in there youth supported it they were True artists about the music, and getting it in the hands of there fans.

then you have the struggling Artist, who because of people downloading and sharing the music make a name for themselves and there fan base gr owes, so now the artist gets a chance to make money the way they should, playing concerts, and plus selling merchandise shirts, stickers, what have you.

the record industry is so full of shit they sue the fans, yet they refuse to make changes to sell a better product, lots of the the Cd's they put out have a couple of quality songs, and the rest are fillers. plus they have drm, and other crap on it, so yea it is in the best interest of the consumer to download the CD, listen to it then if they feel it is worth it buy it. I do that with everything, Movies, software, music. if it is a good product I will get it. or go to the movie theater, or see a concert , buy a shirt. whatever.

[WolvenBear]

At 5/15/07 12:43 PM, Draconias wrote: How ignorant of you to assume that. The majority of singers and musicians aren't super rich, like Britney Spears or the rare celebrity singers like her. The vast majority only earn moderate sums, so you reall are ripping them off badly.

No, but it's the ones who are who are making the loudest fuss.

Promoting in the sense that they are known, yes. Promoting in the sense that they earn more money than you've stolen, no. If you downloaded it off a website, why won't your friends just do the same?

But the "starving artist" to which you refer would never get to these people otherwise. Not everyone gets on the radio. And you're not going to find many who will drop 15-20 bucks on someone they've never even heard of before. So, they gain a new fan (at least potentially), who they never would've reached. They lose nothing. You don't find this kind of bruhaha on the local scene because artists NEED as many people to hear their stuff as possible. It's not until they're big and everyone "should know who they are" that they start complaining like this.

It's no different than taping songs off the radio or making a friend a copy of your cd, neither of which they can do anything about. But whereas that is a local only market, now local artists in Tennessee can get their stuff to people in Australia.

[Memorize]

They should only be capable of suing around $15.00 every 13 songs.

Considering the cost of a CD.

[WolvenBear]

At 5/18/07 12:51 AM, Memorize wrote: They should only be capable of suing around $15.00 every 13 songs.

Considering the cost of a CD.

I think other things should come into play too. Like, how they got the song (I have several that I've gotten from the artists' sites for free), if they've bought any CDs of the artists they dled, if they buy cds, and how many, etc.

Like if someone has 1000 songs, but has a good chunk of those on CD, and a lot of CDs that have none of the songs from the computer, then I'd be happy with that person getting no fine as opposed to someone with 300 songs and no CDs.

[SolInvictus]

At 5/18/07 01:02 AM, WolvenBear wrote: ....then I'd be happy with that person getting no fine as opposed to someone with 300 songs and no CDs.

300!!!!!!!!!!!!!

damnit; that movie ruined my life.

[WolvenBear]

At 5/18/07 01:10 AM, SolInvictus wrote: 300!!!!!!!!!!!!!

damnit; that movie ruined my life.

It ruined your life?
The hell are you...some kind of terrorist?

It is quite possibly the greatest movie ever made, and enriches everyone who sees it. And you're saying it ruined your life?

You should be shot.

[SolInvictus]

At 5/18/07 01:34 AM, WolvenBear wrote: It ruined your life?
The hell are you...some kind of terrorist?

It is quite possibly the greatest movie ever made, and enriches everyone who sees it. And you're saying it ruined your life?

You should be shot.

not ruined as in bad. ruined because i can no longer see the number 300 without thinking of yelling Sparta and feeling like i have to punch the person closest to me.

[WolvenBear]

At 5/18/07 01:41 AM, SolInvictus wrote: not ruined as in bad. ruined because i can no longer see the number 300 without thinking of yelling Sparta and feeling like i have to punch the person closest to me.

Oh, that's not ruined.

That's being a man.

Considering we live in a society that makes us feel bad for that, I understand your mistake.

I'm calling off the hit now.

[SolInvictus]

At 5/18/07 01:48 AM, WolvenBear wrote: I'm calling off the hit now.

but i had all my pointy objects ready.

[packow]

At 5/14/07 10:37 PM, SuperDeagle wrote: Damage? Oh you mean to the musical artists who don't get money through CD sells?

No, to the entire music industry. It hurts people at all levels of the industry. People who work in the CD factories are getting laid off. People getting laid off in marketing, finance, business... everyone involved in the industry suffers.