RIAA at it again

[Icepick]

Just when you thought the RIAA couldn't get any greedier...

 

[rahvin]

Most of the people sued by the RIAA end up settling out of court for around 3-10k (others end up paying more or getting it dismissed in the rare circumstance where they sued the wrong person). As soon as they can sue enough people so that everyone knows someone that settled they will probably succeed in killing the sharing by scaring people. Given the age range of most of the people involved I figure they can probably accomplish this by suing a few thousand at each university. They will break even on legal fees with the settlement monies and a LOT of kids will be working to pay the RIAA for years.

If you swap music on the net consider what you would do if you suddenly owed the RIAA 5 thousand dollars and a lawyer a couple thousand more. You can't avoid the debt and they can get court orders seizing your scholarships, cars, bank accounts, computers or whatever assets you have. If you fail to pay them they can garnish any wages you make from now till the debt is paid. It will hurt most collage age kids tremendously and you have to ask yourself something, is your future worth the free music?

 

[Boze]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: AmusedIt's OK to share, but not to distribute on a large scale. Making a copyrighted song available for DL to everyone on the web is illegal distribution.

Shades of gray. How many people can I share with until it's "large scale"?

1, 10, 100, 1,000,000?

It's crap like this that killed the "reasonable speed for conditions" law in Montana.

Rather than use common sense, people have to have every little detail spelled out for them. It's crap like this that creates nanny-states.

Actually, its shit like you posted saying that its "OK to share", Amused. Recall the movie Swordfish near the end when Travolta's character asks Jackman's character, "If you have the cure to cancer in your hands, but the price is that you have to kill one little girl, would you do it?" To which Jackman's character replies, "Why not one? Why not 10, why not a 100?"

Same exact principle... either a behavior is wrong and unlawful or its not wrong and unlawful. Its wrong to steal... and 'sharing' is stealing. Inviting your friends over to listen to the new <insert artist here CD> used to be a pastime my mother and father did back in the 70s... however, now music playback equipment is readily and cheaply available for most anyone with a decent paying job, so there is no more, "Hey, let's roll over to Charlie's pad and spin the new Aerosmith vinyl!"... or however my Mom & Dad talked during the 70s... point being... anyone who has a rudimentary knowledge of the Internet and who can walk into a Best Buy can spend around $300 to $500 and get themselves a decent surround sound system and steal music all day long.

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: ToeJam13

Originally posted by: Goosemaster
This is very interesting argument indeed.

On one hand we have those who seem to justify their actions based on the shortcomings of an industry. On the other hand, we have those who seem to justify their actions based on their supposed morality.

Generally, a lengthy argument ensues, with a variety of catchy retorts and recursive insults, and in the end, everyone agrees to disagree.

Overall, nothing is achieved.

We also have those who don?t justify their actions ? they simply do it because so many others are also doing it that the likelihood of being caught is very low.

Personally, I justify my actions on a moral base since I feel that the records industry is ripping me off.

In the mid-1980s, the RIAA and the heads of recording companies were hauled in front of a congressional hearing on CD prices. Charges of price fixing were being pointed at them over the significant price differences between CDs and cassettes. I recall a lady representing one of the recording companies saying that the price differences were due to the higher cost of bleeding edge equipment ? A/D encoders, digital post-processors, CD presses and larger package size. However, she said that eventually the cost of CDs would fall below those of cassettes (she quoted around $5 per album). It never happened.

Today, the price of creating music is less than it used to be. The cost of high quality microphones and amplifiers has decreased in price. The introduction of digital 4 and 8 track mixers has substantially reduced the cost of post-processing music. The costs of facilities and technical personnel have gone up slightly faster than inflation, but the overall costs are down since new technology allows mixing to be done in less time.

Furthermore, the price of publishing music is also cheaper than it used to be. The cost of high-quality, high-speed CD pressing machinery has significantly dropped. Shipping and distribution channels have also become more efficient and inexpensive due to pressure from big-box stores and large chains. Need I mention Wal-Mart?

So the question is, why does it cost $18 for a new Led Zeppelin CD at Tower Records when next-door at Suncoast, I can purchase a second-run DVD new for $12? Both stores pay the same rent to the facilities owner. Both pay nearly the same wages to their peons.

Yet a DVD is inherently more expensive. Compared to a CD?s low-density single layer physical media with a simple 16-bit uncompressed PCM audio stream, a DVD is a high-density multi-layer physical media with multiple data streams. Those data streams take a lot of work to produce since you must perform a host of pre-processing work to convert film to video, as well as encoding the multi-channel audio streams. Oh, and you have to make at least two versions: NTSC and PAL. So in short, the production costs of a DVD are magnitudes higher than that of a CD.

You could say that movie costs are supplemented by theatre showings. Yet that doesn?t account for the fact that the Led Zeppelin CD was MASTERED nearly twenty years ago (it was published even earlier!) and most likely hasn?t been updated since.

So, I know that I am being robbed. I know it?s not legal because several states have fined the music industry over its practices: monopolistic business practices, price gouging, retail manipulation, and a whole host of other illegal activities. Yet its lobby and sheer power allows it to continue to skirt the law and flaunt its power. How can my single vote counter the RIAA?s law team and political muscle? How can I counter Senator Orin Hatch (R-UT) when he believes that the music industry needs to be further protected?

Simple, I can?t. So I can either stop listening to music or I can just come in through the back door. I personally chose something in-between: the grey used CD market. No new money to the RIAA and I get the music I want, usually at 50%-70% less than the cost of it new.

However, it takes a lot of time and energy to find high quality, undamaged used copies of rare albums. It?s even harder to find them at favorable prices. So until I do find them, there?s that method I won?t admit to using...

--

Supplemental:

While I feel for rleemhui and his issues with low-quality 128Kb MPEG audio formats online, my gripe with the RIAA is how they and their members have shunned DVD-Audio. Once you?ve heard your favorite artist recorded on 96KHz/24-bit PCM DVDs, it?s rather difficult to listen to regular 48KHz/16-bit PCM CDs.

Why hasn?t the RIAA sought enthusiasts? money? Simply, they don?t care. Its so much easier to shove the low-quality crap which is Britney Spears down our throats.

While your argument is passionate like those of others, you must admit that there is no moral justification to be found in your argument.

For example, think about Vacum cleaner reapir shops. I would assume that in this day and age business isn't great. Perhaps they charge $45 for a 1985 DirtDevil-compatible vacum belt that costs $.06 to make, and they aren't budging on the price. Will the populous unite against them and demand that they lower their prices? Why? Why not?

The answer is that no one cares. They are the owners of the property for sale, and they are charging whatever they want. Whether or not the item truly merits the price or whether the shopkeeper merits the surcharge is debateable, but his right to charge it is not.

Then we come to the music industry. Youths are obsessed with music. It serves to provide such profound inspiration to youth that they identify it and even call it their own. This is appropriate, but at a legal corssroads, youth begin to mix personal bias and desire with written law and statutes.

IT IS NOT YOUR FVKING MUSIC. STOP ACTING LIKE SUCH INNOCENT PRICKS AND TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR FVKING ACTIONS:|

phew...

Anyways

People like Toejam here seem to identify with the situation stating that they are the ones that are "being robbed," and that having the RIAA limiting Piracy clashes with their identity and creates restrictions for them.

Truly, I can relate, as I too was so vain and selfish.


That said, I now realzie that there is no moral context with whic hto base that argument on. We are members in a society that is based on rules that keep in together, as fragile as it will always be. These rules are here by our own choosing, and if we feel that they are wrong, we must be truthful to others, and most importantly to ourselves, as to why we are discontent.

I understand, and hell, champion thsoe who seek better music quality, higher standards of excellence, and increased convenience in the buying process, but I will never sympathize with you.

I am the man who sees the black woman on the side of the road with an ugly car and a flat tire. I am the one who stops and changes her tire. I stick to my morals in the face of all evil and all good, and I can tell you, what you are doing is not morally substansiatable. WHa I say now isn't bullsh!t. It is simply what I have observed.

That said, if you feel that this is the appropriate action taken in the appropriate venue to enact change,who am I to question you. All I ask, for the sake of your credibility, and for the sake of the cause..


STOP ACTING LIFE MUDDAFVKING PSSUIES. ACCEPT WHO YOU ARE ACCEPT WHAT YOU DO. ACCEPT WHAT YOU HAVE BECOME.

HEROS ARE REMEMBERED FOR THEIR TRUTHS AND THEIR CONVICTIONS. PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN BEATEN TO DEATH IN PROTEST OF TYRANNY DIED PROUD KNOWING THAT THEY DIED HONESTLY AND FOR A TRUTH THAT NO MAN COULD BEAT OUT OF THEM.

ALL YOU SLIMY PUSSIFICATED HIDING-BEHIND-A-THIN VEIL OF "APPEARANT" MORALITY MAKE ME SICK.

YOU MAKE A MOCKERY OF A JUST CAUSE. YOU RUIN EVERYONE'S FVKING CREDIBILTIY.

AM "I," THE BEARER OF BAD TIDINGS, PERFECT?

FVCK NO.

THE THING IS, I HAVE THE MUDDFVKIGN COJONES TO ADMIT IT.

YOU SHOULD TRY IT SOMETIME:|

 

[Goosemaster]

I'm sorry..I had a rough day:|

 

[ToeJam13]

Originally posted by: Goosemaster
I'm sorry..I had a rough day:|

We hadn't noticed.

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: ToeJam13

Originally posted by: Goosemaster
I'm sorry..I had a rough day:|

We hadn't noticed.

 

[0roo0roo]

While I feel for rleemhui and his issues with low-quality 128Kb MPEG audio formats online, my gripe with the RIAA is how they and their members have shunned DVD-Audio. Once you?ve heard your favorite artist recorded on 96KHz/24-bit PCM DVDs, it?s rather difficult to listen to regular 48KHz/16-bit PCM CDs.

they didn't shun it. they destroyed with their excessive paranoia. if they had not held back dvda compatibility because of "copy protection issues" and had every dvd player dvda compatible from day one the installed base would be immense.

and then theres the issue of the copy protection. lets see... do consumers want to buy a music format thats basically impossible for them to use the way they want? want to rip to cd or mp3 for ipod or computer or car? screw u man!!! u buy the music again or suffer through analog recording for no real good reason. want to make a music mix? f*ck u again!! u can't be trusted! just to screw over paying customers that apparently can't be trusted. so..the customers shunned them and good for the customers.

its really sad since the higher quality of the dvda or sacd would have really made buying music that much nicer. like how dvd gave consumers more quality and value for their money. customers flocked to it in record speed. bastids.

because of this every time i buy a cd it is a bitter experience. i know i'm not buying the best quality that i could have gotten if they had not been such idiots. its annoying to know that i'm throwing money at a format that should have been obsolete.

 

[PHiuR]

haha, two of the kids are in my building. 25 of them are in my school.

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: PHiuR
haha, two of the kids are in my building. 25 of them are in my school.

Which one are you?

 

[royaldank]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
because of this every time i buy a cd it is a bitter experience. i know i'm not buying the best quality that i could have gotten if they had not been such idiots. its annoying to know that i'm throwing money at a format that should have been obsolete.

Did you have a bitter feeling every time you bought a DVD or VHS tape?

No sympathy for those caught trading music. If you haven't gotten the message yet that it's illegal and you can be sued, then so be it. Just don't cry if it happens. They are stealing and should be prosecuted if caught. If I'm caught speeding I'm not going to cry about it.

 

[jpeyton]

Anybody else think Goosemaster needs to back away from the computer and STFU?

Since when does one person's take on morality ring true for all?

Morality is a matter of perspective more than anything, and it is constantly up for debate. I agree, some arguments for morality are much clearer cut, and some are grayer (is murder moral vs. is jaywalking moral), but on the topic of file-sharing, I'd much rather debate how RIAA's actions will not stop (and only slightly slow) the growth of file-sharing.

Things are going to get much worse for RIAA as 1)broadband proliferates throughout the US, 2)new (more covert) methods of file sharing emerge, 3)globalizaton of the phenomenon will allow us to get free/cheap access to music from offshore sites (allofmp3 is a great example).

Some of you argue these lawsuits are necessary. I argue that RIAA already knows how pointless their legal efforts are in the long run, but they're out of options in trying to slow the growing number of traders.

 

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Oops! Maybe the RIAA will figure out sooner or later that people are going to continue to download regardless of how many people they file against. Maybe it's time to start blaming the current business model that causes the piracy instead of blaming the piracy...

They already sell single songs, and over the internet, too.

How else would they stop this? Give the music away?

That's about it. They'd have to give it away.

Music piracy is not about objections to business models. It is about a sense of entitlement and theft.

Nah, I disagree. When you're selling songs online for the same song/$ amount that you would for a CD then your model is messed up. Selling something over the internet that is in a digital format should not cost the same as walking into your local Best Buy and buying a hard copy.

Of course I haven't really looked into a lot of the more recent online outlets so perhaps the price structure has changed.

The original argument against CD's was that there were 1 or 2 songs you liked that you paid $16 for. That is $8 a song. Itunes is what $1 per song? Looks like you are saving a bundle... I have to agree with Amused here. People seem to think it is their right to be able to fill up a 40gig ipod for free or close to it.

 

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: RandomFool
RIT sent out an email about this a few weeks back saying that the RIAA contacted them and they wouldn't give out the info unless there was a court order or something. It was kinda scary, but It made me glad I moved off campus.

Piracy isn't going to stop no matter how many people they sue. I'm pretty sure the RIAA knows that and doesn't care. It's all about the money and trying to scare the normal person away from downloading. Hopefully someday they'll give up and go home.

Also, I'm almost positive that most people by now know it's wrong to download music, unless they've been living in a bubble without access to media. I still buy cds not as often because they're so damn expensive if prices were lower i'd buy more but they're not so i don't.

Ha, it could be worse, My school charges ALL students so that the students in the Res Halls can download from Itunes. The budget is in the millions for this, but the people that live off campus do not have access to this service, we just have to pay the bill for it. This of course was pushed through by the Fraternity controlled Student Government who interestingly enough are connected to my school's gigabit network.

 

Originally posted by: DaiShan

Originally posted by: RandomFool
RIT sent out an email about this a few weeks back saying that the RIAA contacted them and they wouldn't give out the info unless there was a court order or something. It was kinda scary, but It made me glad I moved off campus.

Piracy isn't going to stop no matter how many people they sue. I'm pretty sure the RIAA knows that and doesn't care. It's all about the money and trying to scare the normal person away from downloading. Hopefully someday they'll give up and go home.

Also, I'm almost positive that most people by now know it's wrong to download music, unless they've been living in a bubble without access to media. I still buy cds not as often because they're so damn expensive if prices were lower i'd buy more but they're not so i don't.

Ha, it could be worse, My school charges ALL students so that the students in the Res Halls can download from Itunes. The budget is in the millions for this, but the people that live off campus do not have access to this service, we just have to pay the bill for it. This of course was pushed through by the Fraternity controlled Student Government who interestingly enough are connected to my school's gigabit network.

Can't you ssh or some other means of remotely connecting and leech the living hell out of itunes?

 

[SelArom]

i have a solution. Artists need to STOP signing with these greedbasterd money grubbers and distribute their music themselves. send their demos to the local radio stations, make their music available online. then people willl know that their money is going DIRECTLY to the artists, and the artists wouldn't be such GREEDY BAS@RDS and charge $18 an album for songs drmed so that you can't do crap with them.

i bet that would help reduce piracy

-SelArom

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: SelArom
i have a solution. Artists need to STOP signing with these greedbasterd money grubbers and distribute their music themselves. send their demos to the local radio stations, make their music available online. then people willl know that their money is going DIRECTLY to the artists, and the artists wouldn't be such GREEDY BAS@RDS and charge $18 an album for songs drmed so that you can't do crap with them.

i bet that would help reduce piracy

-SelArom

ClearChannel. That is all.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Anybody else think Goosemaster needs to back away from the computer and STFU?

Since when does one person's take on morality ring true for all?

Morality is a matter of perspective more than anything, and it is constantly up for debate. I agree, some arguments for morality are much clearer cut, and some are grayer (is murder moral vs. is jaywalking moral), but on the topic of file-sharing, I'd much rather debate how RIAA's actions will not stop (and only slightly slow) the growth of file-sharing.

Things are going to get much worse for RIAA as 1)broadband proliferates throughout the US, 2)new (more covert) methods of file sharing emerge, 3)globalizaton of the phenomenon will allow us to get free/cheap access to music from offshore sites (allofmp3 is a great example).

Some of you argue these lawsuits are necessary. I argue that RIAA already knows how pointless their legal efforts are in the long run, but they're out of options in trying to slow the growing number of traders.

I disagree. The lawsuits are meant as a deterrent. Once enough people know someone who has had to settle a lawsuit for several thousand dollars, people will be scared to share music for fear of a lawsuit. It became so popular because it was so easy to get away with. No one EVER got "caught." Maybe if they had started earlier, it wouldn't have gotten so big.

It seems like the RIAA can't do anything right with some people. They can't use copy protection, that punishes legitimate customers. They can't shut down the file sharing networks, people complain that the .0001% legal traffic warrants keeping them around. They can't file lawsuits and settle them for an order of magnitude LESS than they could win in court, that's heavy-handed. They can't use education campaigns, that's brainwashing. I'd love to know what WOULD be acceptable.

 

[CRXican]

Internet2 huh?

good thing I use Internet1

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: CRXican
Internet2 huh?

good thing I use Internet1

They have the Interent on computers now?

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: royaldank

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
because of this every time i buy a cd it is a bitter experience. i know i'm not buying the best quality that i could have gotten if they had not been such idiots. its annoying to know that i'm throwing money at a format that should have been obsolete.

Did you have a bitter feeling every time you bought a DVD or VHS tape?

No sympathy for those caught trading music. If you haven't gotten the message yet that it's illegal and you can be sued, then so be it. Just don't cry if it happens. They are stealing and should be prosecuted if caught. If I'm caught speeding I'm not going to cry about it.

wtf are u talking about. dvd gave me far more than vhs. the special features..commentaries,the picture quality. why would i be bitter about that? oh and i stopped buying vhs long ago.. i was a dvd early adopter. so that was very long ago indeed.

 

[tooltime]

it seems scary when you think where this could go in the next few years.

 

[tooltime]

they could easily track personal information on file share'rs on new levels

 

[tooltime]

they have big money behind them and their atty's

 

[tooltime]

seems like they could use this money spent on better things