RIAA at it again

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: sxr7171

Originally posted by: Chaotic42
As someone who used to copy music left and right in my younger days, I have to admit that now that I'm an adult I realize that I'm not entitled to the music. If it's not good enough to buy, I just don't get the CD.

Oh, I did some things in my younger days, but stopped when I got a job. The college kids today pretty much are more restricted than we were. I guess we got a little lucky in that we came in at the beginning. Still Napster at $15 a month is a easy and legal solution.

Allofmp3.com is another easy and legal solution. Entire CDs for about $1 (LAME 320Kbps VBR), and there are plenty of other encoding options. Tons of new releases, lots of European releases (naturally), and they must be doing very well because they've grown noticeably, their catalog and bandwidth in particular.

BTW, Allofmp3 is legal. I don't care if it's legal because of some shady loopholes, it's still legal (and you don't have to go to Russia to find shady loopholes...US tax law puts them to shame)

 

[RobCur]

Originally posted by: Proletariat
What exactly is the problem here? Some students were sued because they were sharing copyrighted material and somehow the RIAA is to blame for this?

Wow... pretty interesting sense of morality some people have, to say the least.

Who cares??? let them share whatever they like! Get a freakin' clue already

BTW, why not try to sue my ass as well when I take a piss on the side of the road?

 

[allisolm]

Originally posted by: sxr7171

Originally posted by: rocadelpunk
sucks for those kids.

lesson be learned, listen to indie music that isn't on riaa watch list ; P

They had the nerve to share 2,000 files on average so they were asking for it. I bet they hid behind the "safety" of internet2 being a new limited access research network. They probably didn't expect this to happen.

According to the RIAA (take the stats for what you will since the RIAA is putting them out), "The average number of mp3 files shared by users sued in this round is more than 2,300, while the average number of total files is more than 3,900. Some users have shared as many as 13,600 mp3 files and as many as 72,700 total files (such as audio, software and video)."

Some of them were doing lots of "research".

 

[sxr7171]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: sxr7171

Originally posted by: Chaotic42
As someone who used to copy music left and right in my younger days, I have to admit that now that I'm an adult I realize that I'm not entitled to the music. If it's not good enough to buy, I just don't get the CD.

Oh, I did some things in my younger days, but stopped when I got a job. The college kids today pretty much are more restricted than we were. I guess we got a little lucky in that we came in at the beginning. Still Napster at $15 a month is a easy and legal solution.

Allofmp3.com is another easy and legal solution. Entire CDs for about $1 (LAME 320Kbps VBR), and there are plenty of other encoding options. Tons of new releases, lots of European releases (naturally), and they must be doing very well because they've grown noticeably, their catalog and bandwidth in particular.

BTW, Allofmp3 is legal. I don't care if it's legal because of some shady loopholes, it's still legal (and you don't have to go to Russia to find shady loopholes...US tax law puts them to shame)

I used allofmp3 for a while but since I'm particular about lossless files, I've run through their selection of OE-EX catalog. I try to stop by every now and then to see if there's any new music or older stuff I've developed a taste for that's in OE-EX format. I end up paying around $0.80 a song anyway because they are big files. So if Apple offered lossless files in their store, I would happily pay the $0.99 they charge.

 

[sxr7171]

Originally posted by: allisolm

Originally posted by: sxr7171

Originally posted by: rocadelpunk
sucks for those kids.

lesson be learned, listen to indie music that isn't on riaa watch list ; P

They had the nerve to share 2,000 files on average so they were asking for it. I bet they hid behind the "safety" of internet2 being a new limited access research network. They probably didn't expect this to happen.

According to the RIAA (take the stats for what you will since the RIAA is putting them out), "The average number of mp3 files shared by users sued in this round is more than 2,300, while the average number of total files is more than 3,900. Some users have shared as many as 13,600 mp3 files and as many as 72,700 total files (such as audio, software and video)."

Some of them were doing lots of "research".

I think that we all sometimes fall prey to a false sense of security when we're part of an elite group with access to a network that few have access to. Still what they did was wrong.

 

[Golgatha]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Sunbird

I don't know anyone who said that on here, they may advertise that copyright infringement is wrong as long as they have money to do it.

I don't think anyone could begrudge RIAA/MPAA that.

I think people whined when the MPAA did this: http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:ro...orrent.com/+loki+torrent&hl=en&start=1

And I remember a while back the RIAA created an anti-piracy curriculum for junior high students, people got all pissed about that.

My point is though, there's not much that the RIAA and MPAA CAN do to combat piracy that won't piss people off. I don't envy their position. They create a product that is very easily duplicated, it's "expensive" when you consider only the cost to mass-produce it compared to selling price, and people don't have any issue with pirating it. The end result iis people love what they produce, but hate the organizations.

I'm sorry, but the RIAA and MPAA don't produce any products. They do their best to get money from the theives who won't pay for their customer's products, however they make the products have a higher price tag for those who do pay for the products.

I still don't get why studios give the RIAA or MPAA money though. They could lower their prices for those who actually pay for their products, and hey, maybe even sell some product to those who pirate currently in the process. In any case they would save money by not supporting either one of these organizations. Heck, why not sue the thieves themselves and generate revenue? It all makes no sense.

 

[Aisengard]

RIAA and MPAA are spiraling. You can tell, when they resort to desparate money-making measures like charging $1000 per song for copyright infringement. They ruin people's lives that only downloaded music. They are an evil bunch, and Karma will bite them in the ass by sending them to oblivion. Thank the lord that the internet and us piraters will still be around long after those suits. The good guys always win.