Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Sorry for coming late to the post but Fuck the RIAA the Record execs have been stealing more money from artist then I ever could by downloading one song that happens to be the only good song on the freakin album

And Dagodevas you want to support the artist you like go to as many show as you can cause that is where they make their money. Oh yeah one more thing if money is the issue artist should start doing what a lot of the jam bands (ex. Phish, Moe, or Pearl Jam) and underground band have done and record a really good sound board recording and sell it off their websites.
Also ALL BANDS SHOULD LET PEOPLE RECORD AT THEIR SHOWS

hows this for an idea...

STOP BUYING CD's

THEN if enough people stop the RIAA will meet with the full force of a pissed off populous... but no it wont happen too many people want to help 'support the band' by giving them their big CD money...

even if the band makes $1 on every $10 CD.... and then if the CD sells 1 million copies the band gets 1 million bucks...

the band makes that on 1, 2 or maybe 3 stops on a tour easily...

At 10/3/03 10:06 AM, BleedingGumsMurphy wrote: And Dagodevas you want to support the artist you like go to as many show as you can cause that is where they make their money.

Thank you for the advice, but I said that earlier when I mentioned that music artists get their money from touring, merchandise, and appearances.

Thank you for the advice, but I said that earlier when I mentioned that music artists get their money from touring, merchandise, and appearances.

Which is why it's okay to download music. :D

I download music. They will not stop me. Even if they arrest me, millions more still download. Music is way overpriced.

At 10/4/03 02:54 PM, Slizor wrote: Which is why it's okay to download music. :D

No, it’s NOT alright to download music. Good Lord, how many times do I have to say “Copyright Laws” in this topic?

No, it’s NOT alright to download music. Good Lord, how many times do I have to say “Copyright Laws” in this topic?

Yes Dago is right, the copyright laws within this land of the USA makes it illegal to download or share music or any other programs with other parties. Now downloading isn't so bad, the sharing the music freely with out the "ok" with the music artist or company makes it illegal. It's the same as if you were to get a book and get a scaner and start scanning copies of that book and start handing them out for free without the "ok" of the author. Accepting the copy is perfectly fine, I think (Not hundred percent sure) since you are not commiting any crime, so downloading should be allowed, but sharing files without authors or artist consent should not be allowed. I mean the big download sites or what not should still be allowed for people to send out their own personal music that they want to world to hear, like new bands or new programers, but to continue to share files without the copyright holders consent should not be allowed. If I can find a law book here I will throw it on, but it should be neccesary.

Anyways all that is said and done, the RIAA should not sue single people but the creaters of large share file networks such as (Kazaa or Bearshare) stuff like that to prevent a large amount of share filing. Other than that, I would just suggest lowering the costs of CD's to please the public and give reason for people to stop downloading "Free music" in some sense. I know I would buy the CD's if the prices were to become lower in some time, but atm 18-23 bucks for a cd is kinda steep for it's listeners, teenagers and collage students, people 13-24 do not have a whole lot of money to spend, plain fact. Lower the costs of music CD and large programs, and sue the large share file networks and the problems will be sigificantly less and it will cheer up both sides of the disput. You got to compromise to get anywhere, that's where the RIAA is messing up, no such thing as compromise for them, anyways I chatted way too much later..

At 10/4/03 11:35 PM, sssuuu wrote: Yes Dago is right, the copyright laws within this land of the USA makes it illegal to download or share music or any other programs with other parties. Now downloading isn't so bad, the sharing the music freely with out the "ok" with the music artist or company makes it illegal. It's the same as if you were to get a book and get a scaner and start scanning copies of that book and start handing them out for free without the "ok" of the author. Accepting the copy is perfectly fine, I think (Not hundred percent sure) since you are not commiting any crime, so downloading should be allowed, but sharing files without authors or artist consent should not be allowed. I mean the big download sites or what not should still be allowed for people to send out their own personal music that they want to world to hear, like new bands or new programers, but to continue to share files without the copyright holders consent should not be allowed. If I can find a law book here I will throw it on, but it should be neccesary.

Ok, before I give you a decent reply, let me get this right: You’re trying to tell me that it’s not okay to make illegal copies, but it’s okay to accept them as long as you didn’t create them?

Anyways all that is said and done, the RIAA should not sue single people but the creaters of large share file networks such as (Kazaa or Bearshare) stuff like that to prevent a large amount of share filing. Other than that, I would just suggest lowering the costs of CD's to please the public and give reason for people to stop downloading "Free music" in some sense. I know I would buy the CD's if the prices were to become lower in some time, but atm 18-23 bucks for a cd is kinda steep for it's listeners, teenagers and collage students, people 13-24 do not have a whole lot of money to spend, plain fact. Lower the costs of music CD and large programs, and sue the large share file networks and the problems will be sigificantly less and it will cheer up both sides of the disput. You got to compromise to get anywhere, that's where the RIAA is messing up, no such thing as compromise for them, anyways I chatted way too much later..

Well, I don’t think anything will become of suing Kazaa or any other file-sharing program. They tried that with Napster and it didn’t work, though they did end up crippling them in the end. CD prices, however, do seem to be lowering (due mostly to the fact that file sharing is widespread).

Ok, before I give you a decent reply, let me get this right: You’re trying to tell me that it’s not okay to make illegal copies, but it’s okay to accept them as long as you didn’t create them?

Well in some sense what I said about accepting them is perfectly fine is a bunch of crap, since accepting or buying stolen goods is a crime and both parties that shares and the downloaders should get punished equally.

But should the crimes be carried out by the police and take them to jail for downloading and sharing music that is copyrighted, cus than you would have a whole lot of people in jail, which should happen but in this case it's on such a large scale counted by the millions I mean how are the courts and the officals going to respond to this?

They could make a law stating that any futher use of downloading or sharing copyrighted music shall be punishable by the law and the owner of the copyright?

Or make the Sharefile networks do something where you have to pay some money for downloading each song, something like 25 cents a song, but than again the music companies would have to agree with it, but it could be the best option out of this entire case.

But yah that fact is that music is a item or "goods" of an artist and that it should not be given out for free by file sharers. Downloading free music is a crime in all aspects and the law should be able to take part and punish people for their crimes. But like I said it will be very humerous to see the law prosecute millions of americans for such a common crime that people do everyday without even thinking of it..

Dagodevas I have some questions for you. What prevents the RIAA to make a competitive P2P program that charges a monthly fee? What allows them to use hacking techniques(which is illegal, and considered a felony to the new Department of Homeland Security) to get information to sue people? What prevents the RIAA from wasting $70 million on lobbying to Congress and Senate?

For the First question, let me give you some information. At the present moment there are approximately 4.1 million people on Kazaa. At $10 a month, this would be 41 million dollars. This would probably be more since the number of subscribers does not equal the number of people on at a given moment. Staying with the 41 million dollars per month, this would equal $492 million dollars a year. That is almost a half a billion dollars per year.

For the second question, let me give something from the US code. In Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 47, Section 1030 it states several things that are AGAINST what the RIAA is doing.

They list songs that are not songs just to get peoples IP address. Now for the US Code against it

"knowingly and with intent to defraud traffics (as defined in section 1029) in any password or similar information through which a computer may be accessed without authorization"

Now, this could mean anyone in P2P can be sued by anyone right? Well not exactly, an interpretation of this code allows people to determine who can access their computer and who can't. One reason for a program like PeerGuardian is to disallow the access from unauthorized source (namely the RIAA and MPAA) from accessing their computers.

With the third question, your on your own.

At 10/5/03 01:47 PM, Ravens_Grin wrote: Dagodevas I have some questions for you. What prevents the RIAA to make a competitive P2P program that charges a monthly fee? What allows them to use hacking techniques(which is illegal, and considered a felony to the new Department of Homeland Security) to get information to sue people? What prevents the RIAA from wasting $70 million on lobbying to Congress and Senate?

Good God. I’m not FULLY supporting the RIAA. I’m not Mr. RIAA here! I know that they shouldn’t break into other people’s computers because it’s a Fourth Amendment violation and what not. I’m simply saying that it’s wrong to download bootlegged music because it violates Copyright Laws. Am I going to have to say this a dozen more times before this topic is finished?

At 10/5/03 02:46 PM, Dagodevas wrote: Good God. I’m not FULLY supporting the RIAA. I’m not Mr. RIAA here! I know that they shouldn’t break into other people’s computers because it’s a Fourth Amendment violation and what not. I’m simply saying that it’s wrong to download bootlegged music because it violates Copyright Laws. Am I going to have to say this a dozen more times before this topic is finished

i fully understand that by me downloading music, i am in fact violating copyright laws as well as stealing, i dont have a problem with this and i guess if i get sued, then its a consequence i should be aware of

At 10/5/03 12:52 AM, sssuuu wrote: But should the crimes be carried out by the police and take them to jail for downloading and sharing music that is copyrighted, cus than you would have a whole lot of people in jail, which should happen but in this case it's on such a large scale counted by the millions I mean how are the courts and the officals going to respond to this?

I understand what you mean, and I agree. It would futile to try and apprehend EVERY person responsible for downloading music. That would be like trying to apprehend everyone who has ever smoked marijuana or have jaywalked. However, downloading music is a costly crime and there should be a time when someone says “enough”. However, it’s a hard crime to fight. It’s either one: apprehend those who download and distribute bootlegged music or two: shut down the source of the bootlegged music (P2P programs). One requires constant effort and the other is simply too tricky. There just doesn’t seem to be any easy way to fight it. However, that doesn’t mean they (the RIAA) shouldn’t stop fighting all together.

They could make a law stating that any futher use of downloading or sharing copyrighted music shall be punishable by the law and the owner of the copyright?

That’s true, but how would they enforce it?

Or make the Sharefile networks do something where you have to pay some money for downloading each song, something like 25 cents a song, but than again the music companies would have to agree with it, but it could be the best option out of this entire case.

That’s another good point, but they tried something like that with Napster and it practically went nowhere.

But yah that fact is that music is a item or "goods" of an artist and that it should not be given out for free by file sharers. Downloading free music is a crime in all aspects and the law should be able to take part and punish people for their crimes. But like I said it will be very humerous to see the law prosecute millions of americans for such a common crime that people do everyday without even thinking of it..

They wont. Like I said, it’s futile to prosecute every downloader on the net, but they have to fight back somehow.

Oh, and it’s a little off-topic, but I have a question for you. Your profile reads your job as being “government”. Is it possible if you could be a little more specific? I’m just a little bit curious to what you mean by that.

For the second question, let me give something from the US code. In Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 47, Section 1030 it states several things that are AGAINST what the RIAA is doing.

Yes, I would have to agree with you here, I mean if the RIAA is going to proscute people by the law they got to be able to do it within the law boundry, which could be very hard.

My own personal thought that the RIAA is going to fall short from stoping anyone really from downloading songs, I mean they done about what a 1000 cases at max? so they still got about what 4 million 5? 6? more to go? Really the RIAA got to find a way to attack the sourse and stop the things like Kazaa and Bearshare or whatever else is out there, other than that they will fall short of their goal by the millions. Yes Yes I know that it will be tricky or what not in stoping the large share file networks, but what other options do they really got?

Oh off the topic in my profile, (Goverment) means IRS, that's about far as I am going to say.

At 10/3/03 10:06 AM, BleedingGumsMurphy wrote: the Record execs have been stealing more money from artist then I ever could by downloading one song that happens to be the only good song on the freakin album

If everything I read in an article by the producer of Nirvana's "In Utero" then you are very correct.

Steve Albini, producer of "In Utero"

Now that article is true than omg, who would want to get in the music industry in the first place, I mean as an artist, they are getting screwed!

Record Industry 700k that's insane. If this is true than people are not really screwing the artist that bad, just the record companies..

As the newest member of the DAG, I have come to release chaos in this forum(don't ask why I don't have a chubby devil...)! Yes, quake with fear!

Well, getting that off of my chest, let me just say that I do not like the RIAA. I do not support the RIAA, I wouldn't sit down with the RIAA for dinner. But it is an infringement of the copyright laws to download free music. Two wrongs don't make a right here, so if you wanted the music industry to stop putting the "robbing me blind" prices on these CDs, you should just stop buying them alltogether. Well, seeing as how I am an innitiate to the DAG, it is my sworn duty to turn everyone against each other... So let me just give you a few topics to debate:

How do you all feel about abortion?

How do you feel about gay marriage?

How do you feel about horribly wealthy republicans?

How do you feel about incredibly poor democrats?

How about independents or green party?

And last but not least, how do you feel about music piracy?(I.E. Filesharing)

In case one of my DAG superiors happens to read this, how am I doing?

Yeah, there ARE copright laws. But NOBODY cares. They are barely enforced. Videotaping or TIVOing something off a TV is illegal but those are sold everywhere. Why not crack down on TIVO-users, or anyone who uses videocasettes, for that matter. Hell, even my OWN SCHOOL downloads music off KaZaA for their morning broadcast.