You've got lawsuit

[Wes]

EDIT: Strike this post. Misread.

Edited September 9, 2003 by Wes

[Mr March]

In many ways, this legal action is the ultimate example of the degradation of consumer choice in what used to be the free market. Rather than take all these years to adapt to the changing demands of the consumer, these companies are choosing to force consumers to buy their outdated product. It's really quite sad and doesn't say a lot for innovation.

[Mechwarrior]

I download music on a daily basis and don't feel any guilt. Those RIAA can blow themselves for all I care. Law suits don't scare me either, bring it on!

[GreenGuy42]

If I'm not mistaken, didn't one of the major distributors just lower their prices by US8? Stuff like that (plus decent quality stuff...) will give me the will to purchase CDs.

[MicronianDevil]

I can sort of understand the logic of "if a music file is shared on the internet, and the public likes it, the public will go out and buy the CD." But at the same time, why would I go buy the CD if I can download the whole CD online? Hmm...

A couple of weeks ago I was at the Iron Maiden concert and the singer, Bruce Dickinson, brought this subject up. The band was about to play a track from their upcoming album, but before they began Bruce told the crowd "if any of you got recorders to make bootleg disc to share on the internet, go ahead and turn them on. We (the band) figure if you share the file and people like this song, more people will buy our album."

I have never downloaded music but if given the chance I would. There are so many good songs on the radio at the moment I would love to have them. The problem is to get that one song I have to buy the whole album which usually ends up sucking but for that one song.

Oh well...lets see how it all plays out.

[Jolly Rogers]

I'm gonna go buy the new Iron Maiden tommorrow, and probably would if there was even one song I knew I liked on it (I haven't heard any of it), because I like the band and I like actually owning the merchandise.

New Maiden comes out this week? I am SOOOO buying it!

UP THE IRONS!

[Jawjaw]

Some of the excuses people use to download music for free really bothers me. Statements about how the RIAA screws consumers or the cost of cd's are too high, is no excuse to do the reverse to them. I'll admit that I have downloaded songs but not that many illegal ones. When I find something I like, I do buy it. I agree with everyone in that the RIAA needs to get their heads out of their ass and come up with a more constructive solution than suing the 60some million people that file swap. I heard they already dropped cd prices and that is a good start. I recently bought a brand new cd from Best Buy for $5.99. That might of been a mistake since it was marked $9.99 but that is still better than the typical $13-15.

[Dangard Ace]

If I'm not mistaken, didn't one of the major distributors just lower their prices by US8? Stuff like that (plus decent quality stuff...) will give me the will to purchase CDs.

That was Universal I think. As for CD prices....I just hit the used CD shops. I hate paying full price for new CD's...unless the CD is really really good(more then 3 songs I like.)

[NSJ23]

If I'm not mistaken, didn't one of the major distributors just lower their prices by US8? Stuff like that (plus decent quality stuff...) will give me the will to purchase CDs.

That was Universal I think. As for CD prices....I just hit the used CD shops. I hate paying full price for new CD's...unless the CD is really really good(more then 3 songs I like.)

3 Songs = a good CD? Man, When I did buy CD's if it didn't have at least 6 - 7 good songs it was dubbed and returned.

[bsu legato]

If only they'd offer a reward to turn people in. Then we all could make some money.

[Dangard Ace]

3 Songs = a good CD? Man, When I did buy CD's if it didn't have at least 6 - 7 good songs it was dubbed and returned.

More then three songs. Plus I usually end up buying soundtracks or stuff from guys like Paul Oakenfold/Chem.Bros etc. Usually the length of one of theirs songs is 3x the size of a song from 'popular' bands/singers.

[Nightbat]

Any word on how they handle sharing of Music Video's

I mean...they are to promote the artist, and most MV's are never released on DVD

some artists (a band I like: Helloween) we never see their videos since they are not in the market

(hell, there is'n any good Heavy Metal on dutch TV)

Edit: Maiden? I'm gonna see them Live in November!!!

Edited September 9, 2003 by Nightbat®

[The Shade]

Here's an exercise in logic for you:

1. CD burners came out and the RIAA did nothing.

2. CD-Rs came out, and were priced very low, and the RIAA did nothing.

3. MPeg creates the MP3 techonology and the RIAA did nothing.

4. Software companies created programs that would allow you to use all 3 points above in unison and the RIAA did nothing.

But, once the internet exploded and all 4 points above started being used in unison, then they started doing something. Sounds perfectly logical to me.

[the white drew carey]

2. White Drew

Posted: Sep 8 2003, 02:25 PM

Simply put, though, downloading music is illegal unless it is gotten through a legitmate service or by the artist/label themselves.

People just like to use the "Sticking it to the man/RIAA!" excuse to justify thievery.

True, but you're missing another point. MP3 piracy is exactly what's supposed to happen in capitalism. As far as I'm concerned, when the RIAA makes competitive MP3 services available, then d/l-ing illegally is morally wrong.

Ummm... I don't remember anything I ever learned in school stating that stealing a product is a normal part of capitalism.

The RIAA doesn't feel they have to make a competitive MP3 service, they're already selling CD's, and that is the competetion. Beside that point, there are already several pay services online. THAT is direct competition. But people still fileswap because THEY DON'T HAVE TO PAY FOR IT. I think it's funny that so many people are using so many excuses to jusitify their actions when the real reason they fiileswap is because it's free.

In summation- People can argue the point with me all they want. And I do agree that this whole situation is a big fiasco and the RIAA is just a self-preserving beast. But the simple fact is that I am pointing out what the law currently dictates in this situation: Owning an MP3 of a copyrighted album or song without also owning a legitimate production copy of that album or song is illegal. Making available, for free, over the internet that same song/album is illegal.

I mean, you do realise that this is the same issue on whether or not it's OK to bootleg Macross productions that are legally available here in the U.S. (such as the TV series, MacII, Mac+ and, to some odd extent, DYRL)?

PS- Many people are mentioning the big labels and the bands that only put out one good song per album as a major point in their argument. Seriously, do yourselves a favor and go to a local concert. ANY CONCERT. Go to a local music store and ask where their label sampler section is. You can get a CD of about 25-30 songs showcasing all the bands on a certain small label (or in some cases, several labels) for the about $3-$4, literally the production cost of the CD. The moment you realise there's a whole world of bands out there who aren't played on the radio or aren't on a major label and are actually self-promoting and being reasonably successful at it, you'll immediately feel better. You'll start respecting these bands who put (gasp) 10-12 good songs on a 10-12 song album. You'll want to buy their CD (usually straight from one of the band-members at the merch table) for $10 because you know most, if not all, of the money is going to the band.

Edited September 9, 2003 by the white drew carey

[the white drew carey]

Here's an exercise in logic for you:

1. CD burners came out and the RIAA did nothing.

2. CD-Rs came out, and were priced very low, and the RIAA did nothing.

3. MPeg creates the MP3 techonology and the RIAA did nothing.

4. Software companies created programs that would allow you to use all 3 points above in unison and the RIAA did nothing.

But, once the internet exploded and all 4 points above started being used in unison, then they started doing something. Sounds perfectly logical to me.

I would think the RIAA did nothing because each and everyone of those points could essentially be proven in court as a tool for benign purposes.

[CAG]

the white drew carey Posted on Sep 9 2003, 09:58 AM

Ummm... I don't remember anything I ever learned in school stating that stealing a product is a normal part of capitalism.

Without digging out my macro-econ textbook, I believe that this is an example of the substitution effect. When a product is priced too high for the market, a lower priced (in this case "free") product comes out to replace it (CDs vs digital music). Sales of the original product fall, as consumers use the more desirable substitute. Thus, the original producers adjust the price level of their product to compete with the substitute. (I recently saw an article saying that there are indications that digital media is going to take off-less CDs and DVDs, more people paying for streaming access to movies and songs). So like I said, this theft occurs for the market to indicate that CDs are priced to high. Once the RIAA decides to compete (and there are some signs like I-music and the Universal price drop), then the theft becomes morally wrong.

I mean, you do realise that this is the same issue on whether or not it's OK to bootleg Macross productions that are legally available here in the U.S. (such as the TV series, MacII, Mac+ and, to some odd extent, DYRL)?

I don't think they're exactly the same. I'm limiting my discussion to music, as I think that movies are priced much more reasonably and the piracy is much less prevalent than music. Additionally, the bootlegging of Macross products is used to fund some pretty evil activities-something that is lacking in PtP sharing.

Right now I think the theft is more in an economic sense.....if record companies start competing, they'll do alright and piracy will drop off. If they dont, well lets take a reducto en absurdum. The lawsuits shut down all PtP sharing, without addressing any of the customers concerns about their product. Sales do not pick up. Are they going to sue people because they're not buying CDs?

In the end, I think its a moral grey zone- it is theft and is wrong, but at the same time its the way our economy is supposed to work, and is right.

[Khyron]

People never think about the costs that are needed to be made back by CD sales.

1. Singer

2.Recording Studio where they record it

3. Various people that work on the alblum - look at a CD insert and look at all the people that worked on it. Mixers/sound engineers, etc.

4. Promotion. Look at all the promotion that goes into an alblum. Flyers, posters, getting it on the radio or MTV, etc. That stuff doesn't come cheap.

5. Other workers at the studio need to be paid. Secretaries, accounting, janitors.

6. Record company itself - needs to make money or whats the point of putting out records.

So what the CD costs $17? That is the price that was put on it. Everything sold has a price put on it. Just because you don't like it doesn't justify stealing it. Either pay it or go without.

[Abombz!!]

I don't think they're exactly the same. I'm limiting my discussion to music, as I think that movies are priced much more reasonably and the piracy is much less prevalent than music.

I would like to add a note regarding this statement..... movie piracy, in the last few years, has reached the level of music piracy. You can find movies that haven't even been out on theaters yet, on DVD. <_<

[Abombz!!]

I'm gonna go buy the new Iron Maiden tommorrow, and probably would if there was even one song I knew I liked on it (I haven't heard any of it), because I like the band and I like actually owning the merchandise.

New Maiden comes out this week? I am SOOOO buying it!

UP THE IRONS!

I hate been broke, damnit!

[NERV]

i have over 5,000 MP3's i dl about 8 a day on average, i feel no guilt, CD are just not worth the money, cassette prices went down, why didnt CD prices ever go down? if the RIAA did somehow manage to wipe out mp3s i would not goto the store and buy a cd, just cuz i dont have the free music doesnt make the CD worth it, most new music sucks, look at what we have, christina aguilera? good charlotte? i dont even download this crap why would i buy it?

[Khyron]

Just think about this. If studios find that people are more likely to download songs instead of buying the CD, what incentive do they have to sign more artists? Most people will download the CD and use the 'I will listen because I don't want to chance buying crap CD' excuse. Then once they have the CD, they figure why spend the $$ on something they got for free.

Studios will just stick to the singers that have proven they still do sell records.

So because of all the stealing of music, potential bands will never get a contract and you will never hear their music. Hows that sound.

[muswp1]

Well, since my computer had a double HD failure on Saturday (both drives have been iffy for a while, that's why I haven't been around much), the RIAA won't find much on my computer. I am just waiting for someone to point out in court that the RIAA is essentially hacking other people's computers to gain their information. I would love to see if the "evidence" they possess is actually legally admissable in court.

[Effect]

Interesting point.

[JsARCLIGHT]

Just think about this. If studios find that people are more likely to download songs instead of buying the CD, what incentive do they have to sign more artists?

If the music is being DL'ed for free, as in ripped off, then yes you are 100% correct... but if the studios get on the digital tomorrow bandwagon and charge for those DL's then I would think that they would still be making enough money to "hunt new tallent".

Most people will download the CD and use the 'I will listen because I don't want to chance buying  crap CD' excuse.  Then once they have the CD, they figure why spend the $$ on something they got for free.

No argument here, that is a strong point. Why buy the cow when you get the milk for free?

Studios will just stick to the singers that have proven they still do sell records.

They do that now. Most "success stories" are manufactured by the music industry lately. They want a hot new band? Bing! They assemble one from the leftover parts of another passe band.

So because of all the stealing of music, potential bands will never get a contract and you will never hear their music. Hows that sound.

At it's base that is semi-flawed logic. If anything the music biz would want to hunt down as much "low overhead" tallent that they could muster so they could lower their overall CD price in an attempt to make themselves compeditive again. Honestly, "musician" should not be one of the world's highest paid professions... only in the last 50 years have musicians and the "music industry" become the bloated, overpaid and top heavy beast they are.

I'm not trying to start a fight, defend "theives" or jump your shist here... I'm just saying that the Music biz needs to go back into the war room and come out fighting with what they do best: music. Litigation is almost a pathetic crybaby solution to a problem that will persist no matter how this turns out. They need to fix the world their problem is in, not attack the problem.

[Jawjaw]

i have over 5,000 MP3's i dl about 8 a day on average, i feel no guilt, CD are just not worth the money, cassette prices went down, why didnt CD prices ever go down? if the RIAA did somehow manage to wipe out mp3s i would not goto the store and buy a cd, just cuz i dont have the free music doesnt make the CD worth it, most new music sucks, look at what we have, christina aguilera? good charlotte? i dont even download this crap why would i buy it?

There is always good new music out there. Sometimes it is hard to find but it is there. Two very recent cd's that I would call excellent are the new BRMC and Jane's Addiction cd's. The generic/disposable music has always sucked IMO. The movie industry is much the same. For every great film, there is a 20 or more that are very average or just plain bad.

[bsu legato]

but if the studios get on the digital tomorrow bandwagon and charge for those DL's then I would think that they would still be making enough money to "hunt new tallent".

I've always had a problem with this reasoning. There's no way the people I know who download will ever pay anything to DL music, no matter how cheaply priced. Not as long as there is the option to get it for free.

[JsARCLIGHT]

Then perhaps the flawed nature of big music biz has met it's match: the cheapskate with better tech.

The more and more "connected" and open the world becomes, the lines between what people can and cannot "have for free" are starting to be erased. Sure it is illegal and "unethical"... but when the music biz took off back in the 40's and 50's they where selling their records resting confident in the knoweldge that people had to pay for their product as there was no way for them to "Steal" it yet... but now in 2003 there are more ways to "Steal" the music than there are ways to buy the music legitimately. That should tell everyone something, especially the music biz.

[Khyron]

Maybe the Music business should fight back with high tech. Hire some info tech people to Since music on a CD is essenially a computer file, they could place some sort of code in it that could cause it to not play in the various MP3 programs that people have on their computers (winamp, real player, Winmedia). They would have to research the coding of the players to find some bit that would stop playing the song when it encounters it. Then add the bit to the songs digital info. The CD would still play fine on CD players but a digital copy would stop playing.

All future alblums would include the hidden info. Maybe alter the code between random CDs and keep it going. This way, even if a hack to allow the info to be ineffective was created the next version of the info would nullify that player.

.

[JsARCLIGHT]

Whenever a new lock is made, someone makes a skeleton key for it within the week. Proprietary copy-protection never seems to work in the long term. The best ideas I've heard have been the "On Demand" services solution and the self-destructing CDs... two ways that allow the consumer to get something very cheap and easily but then limit their options on how they use it from there. I know here in the midwest the Video On Demand thing on Digital Cable and Satelite is starting to give the rental places a run for their money.

[Mechwarrior]

The Riaa has been screwing us on the price of music for years. When Cd's became popular, the price of tapes dropped off alot. So the excuse that it costs alot to make a cd to get a profit is bull. It's actually cheaper and faster to create a cd than a tape, but prices went up even more, because they know people will pay for it. But now i have the upper hand. It's way easier to open WinMX type a song and download in 25 seconds for free, same goes for movies ,video games, and media of all sorts. Is it wrong? Yes. Can I get in trouble? No.

So now they are forced to drop the price and move to new technology. The fact is , is that only a small percentage of people actually know how to acquire media for free. If everyone knew how there would be a problem, but that's far from the case. The hell with cd's anyways. Everything is Mp3 format now anyways. Car stereos, Portable MP3 players, Laptops, Home PC's, Networking, even cell phones that I use are MP3 format. The RIAA is forced to change and they don't like it. Why would I want a cd that holds only 15 songs of one band, when I can make my own with anything I want on it for free, and it holds 200 songs instead. That's what it boils down to. Consumers have a choice that the RIAA does not want people to know about so now before the average consumer finds out , they are using these scare tactics. But at the same trying to compete also. So I win either way.

[Mechwarrior]

Maybe the Music business should fight back with high tech. Hire some info tech people to Since music on a CD is essenially a computer file, they could place some sort of code in it that could cause it to not play in the various MP3 programs that people have on their computers (winamp, real player, Winmedia). They would have to research the coding of the players to find some bit that would stop playing the song when it encounters it. Then add the bit to the songs digital info. The CD would still play fine on CD players but a digital copy would stop playing.

All future alblums would include the hidden info. Maybe alter the code between random CDs and keep it going. This way, even if a hack to allow the info to be ineffective was created the next version of the info would nullify that player.

.

There a million ways why this won't work. A script kiddie could bypass any of these attempts. Just look at the Céline Dion fiasco when she tried that, she basically just wasted millions on a service that a felt tip pen could render useless. And since everything is moving to digital and away from cd's, the RIAA will be forced to deal with downloading media regardless. CD players are old school, so I don't think they want to waste any money in that area. It will be interesting though how they tend to deal with the whole "Buy and download" strategy.

[CAG]

I live in a dorm. I dont have a stereo, I use my computer. I don't have the right to listen to my legally bought CD on a computer? Or in a car (comp locks usually dont let car CD players read CDs)?

JsArclight is right- fix the world, not the problem.

[Nightbat]

You know, when it comes to the "Music Industry"

are we stealing from them?

....Or are they just plain ripping us off???

[Jolly Rogers]

It's not a necessity of life. If you think it's too expensive, don't buy it. No one is pointing a gun at your head forcing you to have all the music.

I'd like to see people ripping off Mercedes and Lexus cars from their local car dealerships and try to make the same argument: "you car dealers rip us off, we're sooo justified in taking these cars for free because those poor workers in Mexico and some third world countries don't get paid squat for the labor they put into building these cars."

[JsARCLIGHT]

I like the way you think! I'm gonna go do that this weekend and use that excuse... then at my trial I'll claim that I played this video game called Grand Theft Auto and it made me go out and steal cars.

Excuses are like azzholes, everyone has one. Getting that excuse to get your bacon out of a lawsuit is what counts. Let's hope all those poor guys have good ones.

On another note (this is something that has been interesting me this whole time):

What are the age groups most responsable for online/internet property "theft" (games, songs, etc.)? I and some guys at the office had a little talk about this subject months ago and one topic that kept coming up was that almost everything online requires a credit card... and kids don't have credit cards. The inability to legitimately purchase things online might spur a lot of people into "theft"... has anyone ever thought of that?