RIAA at it again

[jlee]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: Modeps
Mathlete, it's spelled 'independent'... but as I pointed out before, there are a ton of studies that have been done. 1/2 show piracy hurts, 1/2 say piracy helps... I put little credence in any study released that's not almost unanimously accepted.

I think piracy helps when it comes to older people who don't really listen to the radio anymore. I doubt I would have bought a single CD in the last 3 years or so if it hadn't been for recommendations from friends and the availability of downloadable 'samples'.

Yeah..

If I hadn't downloaded anything, I wouldn't have purchased some CDs that I have..so they actually made money off me. Whatever..heh

 

[spacejamz]

It looks to be pretty useless to make some people understand what is right and what is wrong about this situation.

 

[mobobuff]

I downloaded some songs last year using RIT's network, and also MSU.

Wasn't for me though, girlfriend wouldn't stop nagging me to get the songs :|.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: spacejamz
It looks to be pretty useless to make some people understand what is right and what is wrong about this situation.

It's unfortunate that I can't tell which side you're on from that statement. That pretty much illustrates your point.

 

Had to go work for a few hours, now I'm back.

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.

Knowing the extent of the law is not "crap" as you put it. Knowing how far you can push something and having thoes limits down in black and white do not create nanny-states. It creates a situation where the person with the most money, makes the rules. That is simply unacceptable.

You constantly contradict yourself when arguing about morality. Leaving it up to the people to decide reasonable limits means you believe in relative morality. You preach absolute morality sometimes and relative morality other times. Which is it? Can't decide? Then you believe in relative morality. Please try to understand that.

This is why morality can not be relative.

You always say that, and it's wrong. Morality -is- relative, just like everything else. We could go back and forth on this like usual, but I'll leave that to another time.

Back to the topic at hand. If you have been paying attention all along to the events in the music industry you would know that everybody and their mother knows the music industry is a joke. It is a dinosaur that has strayed so far away from its intended purpose the record execs don't even listen to the music they produce, don't know the names of the artists they employ, don't care about anything in the industry but money. These big labels are a disgrace to the art form of music. Yes, remember, music is an art form not a little plastic part you mass produce and package up. Seems everyone involved in the decision making process of the industry has totally forgotten that.

The music industry as it stands is incredibly inefficient, apathetic and only benefits a select few. Their distribution model is straight out of the 80s. Sure some companies have tried to create online distribution solutions, but thoes are mostly a horrible joke. The product they sell is crippled in quality, useability and value. The companies that are actually making an effort for online distribution arn't even involved in the recording industry. So where the hell are the record companies and labels in this whole gig? They are sitting there with their thumb up their ass and figuring out ways to litigate themselves out of adapting to market conditions and consumer demand. Litigation is the death throe of a crumbling organization.

When you have 14yr old children creating distribution solutions in their bedroom that millions of people very quickly adapt to, what does that say for a multi-billion dollar industry? It says that they don't have a clue what they are doing. They refuse to adapt to changing market condition and consumer demand. Instead of actually trying to come up with a solution, they spend their money sueing a handful of young potential customers. What exactly is that going to accomplish? What message does that send out to the public? They use these law suits as a means to "put people in their place". That is just telling the public that the industry is not willing to adapt to consumer demands and that the consumer must use the distribution model the labels have or else they will sue you off the face of the planet. It's a pathetic way to run a business.

 

[eigen]

My school is not on there so I will just continue to get multiple albums per day via Bittorrent and I2.

 

[arcenite]

Originally posted by: Doboji

Originally posted by: arcenite

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: Crazyfool

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: Crazyfool

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: toekramp

Originally posted by: tfinch2
I wish everyone that pirates music/movies/software would be punished. I reported a lab assistant here on campus a few weeks ago. She was watching a pirated movie while on duty, you could see the tag of the rippers or whatever in the letterbox. She was fired that week.

and that makes you a cock

"He who stands for nothing, falls for anything."

If it's wrong, and you're caught doing it, it's always someone else's fault, isn't it. Or they're a jerk or something. :roll:

What if you were caught red-handed in a bank vault lifting bags of cash. Would you call the cop a cock for upholding the law? Probably, but that's because your kind are douche bags.

If you get caught, don't be a douche bag. Who ever turned you in did the right thing.

Nobody likes a snitch.

So if someone committed a crime and you knew who did it you wouldn't notify the authorities? :roll:

Nope, not my responsiblity to snitch people out.

And I respect that if that's what you feel. I'm not trying to change your moral views.

It doesn't bother me though when Tom, Dick, and Harry think I should have done something else. I did what I thought was the right thing to do. Think what you want of me, this is ATOT after all.

Karma is a bitch. Getting someone fired for merely watching a movie is ridiculous. She was minding her own business, as you should have.

Holy crap I agree with Arcenite.

:beer:

 

[arcenite]

Originally posted by: eigen
My school is not on there so I will just continue to get multiple albums per day via Bittorrent and I2.

It doesn't say they're going after people who download, it's the people who are sharing (uploading).

 

[Sunbird]

I prefer hooking up with friends and copying what they have and they copy what I have, faster than any internet connection (HDD to HDD) and hey, you can chat and stuff with your budies too!

 

[Mathlete]

Wow Sampson. You call illegally uploading and allowing others to steal music, "a distribution solution" .

Wow, just Wow.

you should look up the definition of euphemism

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: tami
downloading is NOT a crime -- it happens to be available, and she took advantage of it. what YOU did, however, is stupid and yes, for that, you're an idiot.

furthermore, did you get her fired because you were jealous that she was watching a movie at the time?

Acutally yes downloading is a crime. Granted it is not one they are going after right now.

what he did is NOT stupid. Karma is not going to bite him on the rear end. If anything karma caught up witht the women watching.

1)she downloads a movie (wich is against the law)
2) she watches it in FULL VIEW of anyone
3) she did it during work hours
4) got fired for it.

looks like karma caught up whith her.


Some of you are really amazing. Downloading music is thieft. I remember when they were even thinking about allowing people to download songs for $.99 (wich i think is fair) and most people said they would pay that. Now you guys are complaining its to much. sheesh.

I agree the RIAA sucks balls. They should have to get information on the person with proof before they sue. These blanket law suits should be outlawed. Also if they can't make money then they should go out of business like any other place does. This sueing everyone is out of control.

But i do not blame them for the suits. just wish they had to fallow the law like every other person does.

But anyway stop makeing excuses for the thieft. hell just admit you dont want to pay since you can get it for free. Stop saying its not against the law/ your rebeling against the RIAA/ etc they are all BS arguments/excuses.


Personally think $.99 a song to download music is great. i get to pick the songs i want $18 for a cd full of songs I want is worth it. I agree that the quality is crap. They just doing that to save on download rates. i wish they would increase the quality myself.

 

[eigen]

Originally posted by: arcenite

Originally posted by: eigen
My school is not on there so I will just continue to get multiple albums per day via Bittorrent and I2.

It doesn't say they're going after people who download, it's the people who are sharing (uploading).

When you dl you up.Thats the way the torrent works.

 

[spacejamz]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: spacejamz
It looks to be pretty useless to make some people understand what is right and what is wrong about this situation.

It's unfortunate that I can't tell which side you're on from that statement. That pretty much illustrates your point.

let's just say that all of these excuses to justify their downloading are feeble at best...BTW, I don't like Ferrari's business model and since they cost too much, so I'll just go steal one...

 

[Slvrtg277]

Why does this get driven into the dirt every single time it's mentioned? Give it a rest already. The horse is nothing more than a sliver of a horseshoe at this point.

 

[arcenite]

Originally posted by: eigen

Originally posted by: arcenite

Originally posted by: eigen
My school is not on there so I will just continue to get multiple albums per day via Bittorrent and I2.

It doesn't say they're going after people who download, it's the people who are sharing (uploading).

When you dl you up.Thats the way the torrent works.

You can disable that with the proper programs. i.e. netlimiter. Though BitTorrent is not what is in question. It's nearly impossible to track down the people using BT, because of the way the system works. It is not centralized, much like I2 is.

 

[Sunbird]

Originally posted by: spacejamz

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: spacejamz
It looks to be pretty useless to make some people understand what is right and what is wrong about this situation.

It's unfortunate that I can't tell which side you're on from that statement. That pretty much illustrates your point.

let's just say that all of these excuses to justify their downloading are feeble at best...BTW, I don't like Ferrari's business model and since they cost too much, so I'll just go steal one...

Piracy on high seas = stealing (+ murder/rape/pillaging) Yarrr!!!

Piracy on the web = copyright infringement (yawn)

Taking a ferrari without permission = stealing (hope you crash and kill yourself, car stealing punk)

Edit: I forgot to press quote first

 

[arcenite]

Originally posted by: Sunbird
Piracy on high seas = stealing (+ murder/rape/pillaging) Yarrr!!!

Piracy on the web = copyright infringement (yawn)

Taking a ferrari without permission = stealing (hope you crash and kill yourself, car stealing punk)

There is a very big difference between copyright infringement and murder/rape/stealing a car.

 

[EyeMWing]

Quick question... Isn't I2 a private network? Who gave them access and authorization to use it for the purposes of hunting people down to file suits against?

 

[EndGame]

Originally posted by: EyeMWing
Quick question... Isn't I2 a private network? Who gave them access and authorization to use it for the purposes of hunting people down to file suits against?

The RIAA declined to explain how it could detect piracy over Internet2 except to say it acted lawfully. Internet2's corporate members include Warner Brothers Entertainment Inc., a subsidiary of Time Warner Inc., a leading music label. Even Internet2 officials said they were unaware how the entertainment companies traced the purportedly illegal activity on their network.

"They haven't shared with us," Van Houweling said. "We have provided no special access to any of those organizations that would enable them in some non-standard way to gain access to this information."

 

[arcenite]

Originally posted by: EyeMWing
Quick question... Isn't I2 a private network? Who gave them access and authorization to use it for the purposes of hunting people down to file suits against?

I do not know enough about I2 to answer your question, but I'm assuming with the proper equipment, anything is possible.

 

Originally posted by: Mathlete
Wow Sampson. You call illegally uploading and allowing others to steal music, "a distribution solution" .

Wow, just Wow.

you should look up the definition of euphemism

Is that all you can do, is try to nit pick my post? You're not even taking it for what it's worth. Arn't you a teacher or something? If so, I find it sad you are educating our youth.

Yes, they are creating a solution to distribution by normal means on a physical medium. I was not getting into the specifics of legality. No where was that mentioned, you just assumed it.

These kids put together software and vast networks that millions of people flock to. The recording industry, or any number of other companies are barely making an effort to create such technology. They could take what these people are creating and adapt them to a legal means of distribution. They are not even attempting to do that.
The companies have a lot to learn from the public.

Personally think $.99 a song to download music is great. i get to pick the songs i want $18 for a cd full of songs I want is worth it. I agree that the quality is crap. They just doing that to save on download rates. i wish they would increase the quality myself.

Save on download rates? That sounds like a crock of crap to me. Since they are losing money on the whole itunes deal just to get people to buy ipods, bandwidth cost is the least of their worries. Itunes product is crap.

 

[arcenite]

Originally posted by: SampSon

Originally posted by: Mathlete
Wow Sampson. You call illegally uploading and allowing others to steal music, "a distribution solution" .

Wow, just Wow.

you should look up the definition of euphemism

Is that all you can do, is try to nit pick my post? You're not even taking it for what it's worth. Arn't you a teacher or something? If so, I find it sad you are educating our youth.

Yes, they are creating a solution to distribution by normal means on a physical medium. I was not getting into the specifics of legality. No where was that mentioned, you just assumed it.

These kids put together software and vast networks that millions of people flock to. The recording industry, or any number of other companies are barely making an effort to create such technology. They could take what these people are creating and adapt them to a legal means of distribution. They are not even attempting to do that.
The companies have a lot to learn from the public.

Personally think $.99 a song to download music is great. i get to pick the songs i want $18 for a cd full of songs I want is worth it. I agree that the quality is crap. They just doing that to save on download rates. i wish they would increase the quality myself.

Save on download rates? That sounds like a crock of crap to me. Since they are losing money on the whole itunes deal just to get people to buy ipods, bandwidth cost is the least of their worries. Itunes product is crap.

Bandwidth is cheap.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: geno
And Jose Canseco was the man because he ratted everyone out, too!! Everyone loves a rat, don't they? Canseco did the right thing.

No, he wrote a book intending to publicly humiliate his peers and make a profit. That is NOT the right thing.

If you saw someone getting mugged, would you walk up to the guy as he's getting mugged and ask him "excuse me sir, I know you're busy getting stabbed and shot and all, but are you going to offer a reward for returning your gear that this guy is stealing from you? Because if you do plan on offering a reward, I'd be more than happy to step in and stop him provided that you pay me"? Obviously not. Extreme situations? Yes. Different basic, underlying principles? Hell no.

Originally posted by: arcenite
Karma is a bitch. Getting someone fired for merely watching a movie is ridiculous. She was minding her own business, as you should have.

Was she getting paid to watch movies? Probably not. Was she watching an obviously pirated movie? Yes. Was it HIM that fired her? No. He did his duty by notifying those in authority over her and they agreed that she shouldn't be doing what she was doing. THEY made the decision to fire her. If you want to bitch, go bitch at them for firing someone who's not doing their job. I'm not going to argue the whole "promoting piracy" thing because I still have loads of stuff from my pirating days archived somewhere in my room and people here don't seem to understand that the whole "I didn't download it, I just *found* it" or something arguement is just bullsh|t. If you're using pirated stuff, you're endorsing and enabling piracy. Believe it or not, some employers value honesty, integrity, trust, and all that other moral/ethical stuff that way too many people in this thread seem to think is horse sh|t.

 

[arcenite]

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: geno
And Jose Canseco was the man because he ratted everyone out, too!! Everyone loves a rat, don't they? Canseco did the right thing.

No, he wrote a book intending to publicly humiliate his peers and make a profit. That is NOT the right thing.

If you saw someone getting mugged, would you walk up to the guy as he's getting mugged and ask him "excuse me sir, I know you're busy getting stabbed and shot and all, but are you going to offer a reward for returning your gear that this guy is stealing from you? Because if you do plan on offering a reward, I'd be more than happy to step in and stop him provided that you pay me"? Obviously not. Extreme situations? Yes. Different basic, underlying principles? Hell no.

Originally posted by: arcenite
Karma is a bitch. Getting someone fired for merely watching a movie is ridiculous. She was minding her own business, as you should have.

Was she getting paid to watch movies? Probably not. Was she watching an obviously pirated movie? Yes. Was it HIM that fired her? No. He did his duty by notifying those in authority over her and they agreed that she shouldn't be doing what she was doing. THEY made the decision to fire her. If you want to bitch, go bitch at them for firing someone who's not doing their job. I'm not going to argue the whole "promoting piracy" thing because I still have loads of stuff from my pirating days archived somewhere in my room and people here don't seem to understand that the whole "I didn't download it, I just *found* it" or something arguement is just bullsh|t. If you're using pirated stuff, you're endorsing and enabling piracy. Believe it or not, some employers value honesty, integrity, trust, and all that other moral/ethical stuff that way too many people in this thread seem to think is horse sh|t.

I know employees that value their right to privacy. They shouldn't give a sh!t where she got the movie. Is she selling the stuff or distributing to other employees? Highly doubtful. People need to learn to mind their own business.

 

[spacejamz]

as i stated earlier, explaining/arguing all of this is useless...people who download illegally are gonna justify it in their head and to everyone else no matter what...