# Download music and prepare to pay..Starting 25Jun03



## Dime5150 (Jun 27, 2003)

If you share music on any of the networks:

Kazaa
Grokster
Limewire
Gnutella Networks

I suggest removing shared files. Yes it might not be very likely you get tagged but its possible. If you are, its terrible. I'm trusting the RIAA on this one.  I'm sure they will deliver on this promise.

http://www.riaa.com/news/newsletter/062503.asp


----------



## toast (Jun 27, 2003)

There are over 2 million people sharing "substantial amounts" of MP3 on those networks. RIAA may sue you in 2060 at the actual international justice pace.


----------



## Captain Code (Jun 27, 2003)

You might be OK if you're outside of the US.  Depends on what laws your country has.


----------



## binaryDigit (Jun 27, 2003)

Well it seems obvious that they'll go after the "big boys" first, that and users offering pre-release versions of high profile albums.  The odds are probably slim just because of the sheer number of people, but life will suck if you "win" the RIAA lottery.

This brings up an interesting point though.  If anyone out there is "sharing" their internet account (e.g. using an access point to allow others to connect), THEY could be in big trouble if any individual who's sharing the account is also sharing copyrighted material.  (e.g. say I'm sharing my cable modem account with others in my apt building.  Bob upstairs is sharing 120GB of albums.  RIAA tracks down the ip and it leads to MY account.  They come knocking at my door, I say "dudes, it's not me", they say we have proof it's coming from YOUR account and unless you can prove it's NOT you (i.e. finger the person who is actually doing it), then you're busted).

Now whether this will hold up in court (esp if the ISP allows you to use a router/NAT), but you could be hurting while it drags out in court.

It'll be interesting to see how this falls out once this happens to the first person.


----------



## blastic (Jun 27, 2003)

i use kazaa though virtural pc, i dont think i will be stopping


----------



## Stridder44 (Jun 27, 2003)

Well, I guess the whole idea is to take out the big servers and make an example of them. When this happens, people sharing will start saying "whos next?" and will no longer share. Mind you, they're only going after people who are _sharing_ files, not downloading them. After a point, there will be millions of leeches sucking on only so many servers, that the whole file sharing thing will kill itself. The only way to continue getting files would be via servers outside of the U.S. This seems, to me, what the RIAA is trying to do, but it's only speculation...


----------



## paulie-mafia (Jun 27, 2003)

The whole thing is ridiculous - so let's say the music industry is successful and manages to sue music fans for swapping tunes on the internet.  Well, from one point of view those people that get sued won't be able to afford to buy real music anymore as they'll spend the rest of their lives paying off the lawyers.  The other thing is that by acting in such an agressive manner the music industry will majorly p*ss off the very people it will then expect to buy its products.  At the end of the day its us, the people buying CD's, that have the power and not the record companies.  I, for one, only buy second hand music now - I refuse to put money in the pockets of an industry that has fleeced the market for so long and is now panicking because the market has the upper hand.

They could also look at it from the point of view that, before the internet, everybody was copying music - they just used cassettes.  Maybe the fall in revenues is down to the fact they churn out so much pish these days and the market for old albums has bottomed because we've all finished updating our vinyl to CD?

And another thing - how come it takes a computer business like Apple to launch a successful online music shop?  The technology to sell music on the internet has been around for years - why didn't the music industry wake up to the commercial opportunities sooner instead of complaining then deciding to sue people?!  Duh!

Rant over..


----------



## rhale1 (Jun 27, 2003)

Lets say the RIAA does succeed in making file-swapping less useful in terms of music. Apple could benefit from this, right? If they release a PC version of ITMS, I think that many people will go that route. I love the Music Store, and like Leo on TechTV's "The Screen Savers" said, its where I get a lot of my music now.


----------



## Stridder44 (Jun 27, 2003)

The RIAA can bend over backwards for all I care. Paulie-Mafia is exactly right on how we, the consumers, are helping the RIAA stay alive by buying their products. I don't know how suing us is going to help sales! And maybe sales would be better if some better music was being produce (not that all the music out there currently isn't good). 

Furthermore, I like downloading rather than paying $18.99 on some CD that costs 48 cents to make! I would MUCH rather pay the artist upfront, for they deserve it!


----------



## citizentony (Jun 27, 2003)

The RIAA is shooting itself in the foot, they are going out and are not doing it in style. There is no longer a need for them and they know it. By suing it's customers it will evantually run them away. I will no longer buy an album from the store, the new music is starting to get worse as time goes by. I use ITMS all the time, though the price would be better at 50c a song since they eliminate the cost of production. I figure it will go down once the idea catches on to the mainstream. There is no cost of printing the book, burnung the CD, shipping, storing. Just record onto a hard drive and transfer it to ITMS. No need for an RIAA, just artists and smaller label companies.

I do find it funny how it took a computer maker to come up with the best way to take care of music in the current society, not the all powerful, your songs are our concern and we will protect them for you, RIAA.


----------



## mr. k (Jun 27, 2003)

Why don't the damn labels just give users more options to download music legally?  The apple music store is perfect here, but only for mac users.  When iTunes for PC comes out I bet music downloading will drop significantly, but will still persist.  The major record labels should just make it more worth it to buy a CD.  It would be a lot easier to go to best buy, and drop $20 on two CD's then on one CD with a little change.
Because of all this RIAA shit I got a little worried and took my carracho server offline, but why would I spend all that money when I can just let other people upload the CD's I want to my computer?  I also get much more variety in music then I would because people upload their favorites too, and I get to hear all kinds of music.


----------



## Ricky (Jun 27, 2003)

Try to justify it all you want, but it's still stealing.  I'm glad they're not standing idly by anymore.


----------



## blastic (Jun 27, 2003)

And which record company do you work for?


----------



## adambyte (Jun 27, 2003)

My opinion: I go to a state university, live in the dorms... the average college student. And, although there are many people who are like me... downlaod a little, and, if i like it, will buy the album... These "ethical downloaders" are greatly outnumbered by the average college student who downloads a whole album and burns it. There's plenty of CDRs sitting around dorm rooms that have bad handwriting of album names on them.

Record sales are down. And I don't think it's because there's less stuff worth buying. There's just as much good and bad music as there was ten years ago.

I think this strategy is going to work. The RIAA will scare the masses, and there will be very little in the way of music sharing.

Though, this is too little too late, anyway. The way of the future is through the iTunes music store, and the sites of small artists, themselves.


----------



## Ricky (Jun 27, 2003)

> _Originally posted by blastic _
> *And which record company do you work for? *


::ha::


----------



## Dlatu1983 (Jun 27, 2003)

Exactly who's stealing from who here? You hear about people like Britney Spears making $15 million a year...but what did the record company make off her album sales? Hundreds and hundreds of millions.  They absolutely rape the artists, and then cry because kids are downloading in their bedrooms, and they lose a few thousand sales. By the way...when it comes down to it, most of the time, if I don't download it, I probably won't buy it anyways. Thats why I believe in warez....do you REALLY believe that some 16 year old kid who decides to d/l Photoshop to mess around with would have paid $500 for it had it not been available online? Give me a freakin break. How many of you who have 4, 5, 6, thousand songs would have bought HALF of them had they not been available on Limewire? It's time for the record industry to take a reality pill. Downloading helps more than it hurts....it gets the artists name out there. I've bought plenty of albums BECAUSE I downloaded a song or 2.  There's no way I'm gonna pay $20 for a CD that I've never heard a single track off


----------



## Ricky (Jun 27, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Dlatu1983 _
> *It's time for the record industry to take a reality pill. Downloading helps more than it hurts....it gets the artists name out there. I've bought plenty of albums BECAUSE I downloaded a song or 2.  There's no way I'm gonna pay $20 for a CD that I've never heard a single track off*


And this is exactly why the iTunes Music Store was created.


----------



## buggerit (Jun 27, 2003)

the main drama is this:
record companies failed miserably to identify this incredible shift in markets in their industry.  there are very few industries that have been impacted by technology - think about the major players (ebay, amazon).  even though these services are out there, people still PREFER (sometimes) to buy books at a store, or trade through the paper with local people.  obviously they're very good business models, and have a large market, but the important thing is that their's still room for a 'bricks and mortar' market to complement the internet alternative.

with music - the benefits of online music selling far far faaarr outweigh the negatives (no cd case, lesser quality - for some).  the music industry have had their heads up their arses for so long and have failed to identify any potential.  EVEN NOW, with the relative success of the iTMS in such a small segment (<1%), euro record companies are STILL squabbling over petty details with regards to a rollout of iTMS internationally.  It's a sad and sorry state, and you can blame the kiddy pirates all you want, but the record industry has to take a long hard sober look at itself and get it's proverbial s**t together before they die out..

rant over


----------



## pyroboy (Jun 27, 2003)

Record companies also complain they are selling less and less records every year. Ironically enough, they are also making less records. You can only sell what you make. If they sold the same number of albums in 1998 as they do now, where would sales be?

The entire record industry is a losing proposition for artists. Record companies can cry that they need someone like Britney Spears to sell lots of albums so they can afford to foster new talent. Only they don't foster new talent.

There has been more one-hit wonder bands in the last 5-7 years than in any time in rock music. The reason is that record companies no longer foster band development like they used to. They want an artist like Alanis Morissette or Britney to sell the shit out of one or two albums. 

I really feel we are in a musical wasteland state right now worse than any era of candyass rock or bad disco because record companies are completely out of touch with reality. There is nothing new. There is nothing exciting and wouldn't you know it, record sales are flat. The record companies have no new products to sell. The same thing happens from time to time with Apple. We percieve that the product line is flat and then we are unwilling to buy something new. Look at the 15" Powerbook. We all know something better is coming and many of us are holding off. The same goes with the G5. Just try and order one and see when it will ship. Apple is being slammed with new orders of people who held off because they percived the G4 as being old and behind the times. Nobody blames the consumers, they blame Apple.

Well, I blame the record companies. As Apple has shown, people are willing to buy music. They don't have to be guilted into it. They don't want funky formats or overly-ridged controls on usage. They just want good music.


----------



## ApeintheShell (Jun 27, 2003)

I'm in college and don't have any money by the time i pay my tuition. So i rely on the 2000 cd wallet we own. Otherwise, my brother picks up a cd at Second Spin.

Last year when I was in a dorm people downloaded games, software, music. Somehow, i didn't see the incentive in stealing.
 Maybe i am crazy but when i own the game, software, music i don't have to worry about the RIAA or police in my home. 

E.T. : Beeeeee Gooooood


----------



## citizentony (Jun 27, 2003)

I do not agree with stealing the music, I just think that the RIAA has handled, or are handling it all wrong, and in the process have sealed their fate. Companies like Apple with their ITMS will provide the music at a small cost, and artists will make deals with Apple directally or through smaller labels, still becoming rich without the overhead going to the RIAA. The cost to get the song to the masses is greatly reduced this way and we get to hear less main stream music. Also, smaller groups have a chance now.

It is a point game, how many downloads is illegal? how many uploads? Can you share a cd with a friend? If I were downloading 4,5,6k songs and were sued, I would laugh it off. That's $2970 to $5940 at .99c a song. Small claims court territory. Let's say I download/uploaded/shared 50k songs, that's $49500K worth of songs. Now were talking a loss. At this point, if you did not see a lawsuit coming, you are an idiot.

I have downloaded maybe 300 songs over the years, but at this point the only songs on my computer are ones that I have purchased through ITMS. I agree with sharing music to a point which has a varying limit depending on the types of music. If you download whole Cd's, that is wrong, go buy the thing. If you download  one or so songs that you really like off of a Cd, who cares. I hated having to buy a whole Cd for 1 or two good songs.

There, to me, in lies the difference between music and other types of piracy. A few songs off a CD with 12 songs is not too bad. A whole CD is. A whole software package is. A whole game is. You can't split just one or two favorite levels from a game, nor can you take just a few aspects out of Photo Shop.

On the software front: If that 16 year old that downloaded his illegal copy of photo shop thinks it is okay because he cannot afford to buy it, he is wrong. I can not afford a BMW M5, so I should just go jump in one and drive around like it is mine? Is that right? No, it's grand theft auto. If you can not afford something, you can not have it. Just because software is easy to steal, does not make it okay. People like this are driving up the cost of future versions via the cost that Adobe has to put into measures that ensure the safety of the software. 

If you share music en mass, you deserve to be sued. But I would not worry about if you do not share thousands of songs a day.


----------



## Daeyin (Jun 27, 2003)

"On the software front: If that 16 year old that downloaded his illegal copy of photo shop thinks it is okay because he cannot afford to buy it, he is wrong. I can not afford a BMW M5, so I should just go jump in one and drive around like it is mine?"

I truly don't understand people who compare software theft to property theft. 

I don't have a car, and frankly I don't need one, so I wouldn't buy one.
As of now, the car company will make $0 from me.  If I walk in and steal a car from BMW, they suddenly lose $40,000.  They can no longer sell that car to another customer, it is just gone.

I don't own Photoshop, and frankly, I don't need it either.  So, right now Adobe is making $0 from me.

If I illegally downloaded it, it doesn't prevent Adobe from making money from other sales of the product.  I have no intention of buying a $500 piece of software (just don't need it).

But if I did, say, pirate it for a month to do something with it, maybe learn how the app works, Adobe doesn't lose $500... they were never going to make $500 to begin with.

Same thing on the RIAA page about their crack down.

Chuck Cannon, President, Nashville Songwriters Association International says " It is my opinion that groceries are overpriced but my opinion does not trump the fact that if I go into a grocery store and walk out with some bread without paying for it I am a shoplifter."

True.  The net loss of the store is the price of bread... they cannot sell it.

If a music downloaded never had any intention of buying the song (and if there were no means to download it, s/he would simply live without it) the net loss is $0.

I think this is the case for the vast majority of downloaders.  They have no intention of buying song x, ever, but having it is a kind of novelty.

Personally, I think music is an integral part of a society, and it pains me to see it taken out of the hands of the people who make it by a corporation.

If Amaco, Shell and a few other gas stations decided to get together and outsell the competition (perhaps by setting up dozens of big gas stations near smaller ones, lowering price and taking a profit loss for a bit), then raised the price of gas to $18/gallon when the competition was gone the whole nation would be up in arms!

"Price fixing!" people would cry as they raided gas stations nation wide.

And The newly merged Shell-Aco would reply that we were taking money out of the hands of those who worked so hard to get us the crude oil, money out of the hands of the families of gas station workers.

Oh, we gas stealers would be made to look like real villains while the Shell-Aco funded news media would show the world pictures of starving gas station attendant wives... evil evil gas stealers!


And, it would all be an elaborate ruse to draw attention away from Shell-Aco's exploitation of their workers who are only making (after paying back Shell-Aco for the use of their equipment) $22,000/ year after taxes.  Meanwhile, Shell-Aco's CEO would give press conferences in his Armani suit and laugh it up.

One final word:
I find it amusing that when capitalism fails its usual beneficiaries they whine.  When you sell a necessity at exorbitantly (and artificially) high prices a black market develops.


----------



## cfleck (Jun 28, 2003)

$18-$20???

where the heck are yo people shopping?  bargain hunt man!  if any of you are from the US (and i suspect you are, but i may be wrong) then you are either lying about the price, or you are stupid.  moving on...

i'm not so sure that dl'ing helps more than it hurts.  yes its true that most people wouldnt buy half of the albums for the songs they dl'd, but fact is, people used to buy records blindly, or at least more so.  
i'm sure you've all been guilty of buying a cd because you heard a song or 2 on the radio by a particular artist.  or maybe you purchased a single now and then.  

guess how many singles get sold nowdays?  i'm betting on a hell of a lot fewer.  and we all complain about the crap they put out, how the artists get screwed, how its too expensive....

so what!!!  i've never heard an artist complain about lack of money.  i have heard them say how they blew all their money, but thats another story.  and so its expensive.  deal with it!  thats the price of entertainment.  i dont think i've heard anyone complain about the price of movie tickets and they are more rediculous than cd prices if you ask me.

fact is, everyone is jumping to condem the music folk because they want to take away something that is clearly not legal.  it doesnt matter if a LOT of people do it.  its still not right no matter how you slice it.  it does not become a "right" just because you physically have the power.

so here is my proposal.  cut back on sharing.  if you have more than 2 dozen illigitamate songs, then you need to either buy them, or delete them.  there is no need for you to propogate the practice.  if you think about it, the only thing you are doing is making the riaa get more legal teams involved and that my friends will raise the price of your beloved music and, yes, continue to "screw you over."

peace


----------



## citizentony (Jun 28, 2003)

I compare software theft to property theft because software is a property. You walk to the store to buy it, install it on your computer, Agree to the terms of the license, and use it. You, therefore only own one license for the software, meaning you can only install it on one computer that you own. Now, I install it on all of my machines as an individual, if I were a company though, I would not.

By placing it on the internet and letting others download it and use it, you have broken the license agreement that you agreed to. It really is not that difficult to understand. 

OTOH, i have no qualms with letting your friend use a copy of it. Esp. if that person has a tallent but no means to attain the software. My concern lies in the mass sharing of a peice of software. Say, I upload Photo Shop to the internet and tell everyone on this board where to get it. Everyone downloads and uses it. Sure some of them have tallent and need it, maybe some get it and never use it, some will download it, tinker with it and delete it. Some will put it on their own FTP and share it with another board. Somewhere along the line at least one person that would have bought it will have thought this was a better and cheaper means and taken it. There Adobe looses money.


----------



## Dlatu1983 (Jun 28, 2003)

I agree, and disagree. I don't think there's anything wrong with downloading music to "preview"...how many times have you heard a great song on the radio, rushed out to buy the CD, and then it was absolute crap. I see nothing wrong with downloading a few songs to see if you like it...if you don't like it, the industry loses nothing, because you're not buying the CD. But if you DO like it, buy the album, and support the band. About software...what do you think about "previewing" it? Do you agree/disagree with downloading photoshop, FCP, etc, and seeing what you can do with it before you pay hundreds of dollars on a product that can't be returned if it's to your liking?


----------



## citizentony (Jun 28, 2003)

> About software...what do you think about "previewing" it? Do you agree/disagree



It really depends. I have no problem with letting someone preview software. Most companies these days see the good in this also. ie. MS Office for 30 days.

The problem is that not all companies offer a preview so someone that bought the software must post it onto the internet to let others download a full copy. Not everyone will use it for a preview. Now, if your friend owns Photo Shop and can give it to you with out having to post onto a public ftp there is no problem. Esp. if you really do buy it at a later date. That is really just free advertisment for the company. 

It is a touchy area indeed.


----------



## Aeronyth (Jun 28, 2003)

Somebody has to buy the albums before they can be available online....Artists make enough money as it is, the record companies make even more...so they lose a few dollars....go check the billboard charts, records are still going platinum...multiple times.

Yeah, yeah, artists make a living off their music...blahblahblah, they're doing fine...just fine.

I'll continue to download music...and buy albums.


----------



## adambyte (Jun 28, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Aeronyth _
> *Yeah, yeah, artists make a living off their music...blahblahblah, they're doing fine...just fine.
> 
> I'll continue to download music...and buy albums. *



No offense, but it seems like you have a rather flippant attitude about people who make their living in the art of music. 

How would you feel if someone downloaded YOUR whole album? That "do unto others" stuff rings true, buddy. 

*counts to 10, breathes* ... I shall calm down.

Then again, I suppose I'm a little biased... I hope to one day maybe make a living off my song-writing hobby.


----------



## Stridder44 (Jun 29, 2003)

It sucks...you'd think by buying a CD you'd be supporting the artist...but really, most of that money supporting the RIAA. Its disgusting.


----------



## toast (Jun 29, 2003)

I'm sorry, buying a CD is just encouraging the actuaal system to perpetuate - and the actual system is: a CD is 95% money for majors and a couple of ¢ for the artist. This is disgusting, I will not help those people. Music should be more than a business but it's not.

On the other hand, I go at every concert I can. I'm just coming back from the Vienna Jazz Festival (saw Sakamoto and Joao Gilberto last night).


----------



## Dris (Jun 29, 2003)

I was going to say something, but everyone else pretty much said it.  The RIAA is trying crap scare tactics that will ruin a few more lives in hopes of turning more good artists into money cows, and churning out more crap artists that will make millions anyway.  But don't think it'll work...Check out the rebels at http://www.dmusic.com!  Oh yeah, and [plug level="shameless"]http://tudris.dmusic.com/[/plug]!


----------



## adambyte (Jun 29, 2003)

Dris- This is a cease and desist order. You are bordering on copyright violation of my signature. Please remove the offending phrase, "plug level="shameless" from your post. As you can see, it is much too similar to what is in MY signature. If you do not remove the offending content within One (1) Week, legal actions shall be taken.


----------



## toast (Jun 29, 2003)

LOL @ adambyte, he understood it all


----------



## cwoody222 (Jun 29, 2003)

I agree that this is stealing but I have serious fears and doubts about the legality of how they're suing people.

I'm hoping these cases will hopefully get some current stuff overturned...like their ability to get your ID from your ISP simply by asking?!?!  They need not show any proof of wrongdoing.

They are not proving any stealing.  They are providing filenames existing in a folder and a "share?" checkbox is checked.

Again, I agree it's wrong (I do it) but it's way too flimsy.  We need some real laws and checks and balanced here.

Especially since we're not talking about something serious...it's just music sales, folks!

Oh, PS Frankly I think the RIAA should also sue a few smaller sharers (people with only 50-200 songs) just to prove that "no one is safe".  That's what I'd do if I was them.  Although I sure hope they don't do it


----------



## citizentony (Jun 29, 2003)

I just wonder how many folks they sue who will evantually counter sue for invasion of privacy. How many they sue that had not shared any music, but a friend had. etc... Also, after suing enough people, who will even buy a product associated with them? Some people will be scared that if they listen to it wrongly they will get sued.

They probably will not go after small traders (50-200 songs) because there is not enough revnue loss to justify the court costs. Plus like I said earlier, that is small claims territory and won't be worth their time.

They don't seem to realize that they are suing their biggest fans, the people that listen to lots of music and are passionate about the music. 

I pesonally will not be supporting them, and have decided to not buy music until the RIAA is gone. Except through ITMS of course. Until more services like ITMS or even ITMS becomes larger there will be mass illegal trading. 

The RIAA has acted wrongly in dealing with this and I feel that will be their downfall. They are probably scared in seeing that they are useless in today's market and are trying to regain the control that they have lost forever. RIAA is now a group people fear because they sue people their own fans. I mean, what was the final user base of Napster? >90 million? That's alot of fans to be suing.


----------



## Stridder44 (Jun 29, 2003)

Maybe people will revolt and burn down the RIAA headquarters...


----------



## Dris (Jun 29, 2003)

lol, sorry AdamByte!

By the way, don't expect many countersuits if any...The RIAA is a big company with a expensive lawyers, and the people they sue aren't likely to have much money for resources to fight back.  That's how the system works.


----------



## citizentony (Jun 29, 2003)

I'll bring the matches.  

Yea, there won't be many if any countersuits. But it sure would be fun to watch.


----------



## Stridder44 (Jun 30, 2003)

LOL! Any other pyros out there?


----------



## cwoody222 (Jun 30, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Dris _
> *lol, sorry AdamByte!
> 
> By the way, don't expect many countersuits if any...The RIAA is a big company with a expensive lawyers, and the people they sue aren't likely to have much money for resources to fight back.  That's how the system works.   *



Uh, yea? 'Cause no big company is ever sued! Whatever.

Tobacco companies, McDonald's, automotive companies are all sued...and the RIAA just lost a class action lawsuit about price fixing.

There will be counter suing.  THAT'S how the system works.


----------



## Dekatophil (Jun 30, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Captain Code _
> *You might be OK if you're outside of the US.  Depends on what laws your country has. *



At least not in Germany, from this autumn (fall) onwards. That is, once the new copyright law is enacted.
Well, we'll see. Nothing is eaten as hot as it's cooked, as we say in Germany.

P.S. You're Korean ? (I'm asking because of the Korean 'think different' signature 
P.S.2: I hope that applies only to Windows users, otherwise, I'd at least expect a '??????' . That should be haseyo. Sorry, I don't get any Korean up here. Uploading an image doesn't work either.


----------



## gwynarion (Jun 30, 2003)

> _Originally posted by citizentony _
> *If I were downloading 4,5,6k songs and were sued, I would laugh it off. That's $2970 to $5940 at .99c a song. Small claims court territory. Let's say I download/uploaded/shared 50k songs, that's $49500K worth of songs.*


Actually the numbers would look more like this:
4k of songs = $600,000,000
5k of songs = $750,000,000
6k of songs = $900,000,000
50k of songs = $7,500,000,000

Of course these are maximum numbers, but that is where they could go to since the judgment can be up to $150,000 per copyrighted work.  One college student who is being sued is looking at a possible $97.8 billion judgment being leveled against him.  Now I don't think that there is very much chance that the maximums will be awarded by the courts, but the possibility exists and it is one hell of a big stick to shake at potential defendants.


----------



## Giaguara (Jun 30, 2003)

when you buy a cd, the artist is given normally 1-2 % of the price. so when you pay 20 $, the artist gets a few cents and the record company and the store and marketing etc the rest.

i would rather buy the albums that i like online, simply download them (i don't like to own the cds), and then pay some $s to the artist directly.  i wish the artists generally made their own pages etc, and then something like itunes-style pay and download the music you like, or even better, download and then pay as much as you like.

amazing but i found like last week the cheapest cd-single i've ever seen so i had to buy it: price was one euro cent (about 1,05 us-cent now). i wonder how much the artist gets of that ...


----------



## citizentony (Jun 30, 2003)

> _Originally posted by gwynarion _
> *Actually the numbers would look more like this:
> 4k of songs = $600,000,000
> 5k of songs = $750,000,000
> ...



Since there is no way I could ever make a dent in that I would probably not worry about it too much. In fact that could constitute cruel and unusual punishment in the right judges eyes.
Reminds me of the guy with the potential to hijack the satelite companies broadcast, so they sue and win like $98 million at $500 a month. Do you really think he won't fight it? And win?

You could always wait till they sue you and get charged $900m. Go to the store under good faith to show you have changed your ways and buy a CD, brake the CD on accident and slice the heck out of your hand and Sue them for damages, and come even.


----------



## bbos (Jun 30, 2003)

The eff () has posted a bit of a spanner - http://www.eff.org/share/  They are actively working against the RIAA.

My view on all this is that capitalism is killing the radio starrr.  An interesting dilema is that we all want to make more money - including the record labels.  So to quote Monty Python, "Society is to blame".  The philisophical question is - why is the desire to make more money getting "faster"?  Why do more and more people want to make more and more money - with the rich getting richer yada yada...  Therein lies the problem, world over.

Just a few thoughts!


----------



## paulie-mafia (Jul 1, 2003)

So, I guess all this means the moral of the story is....

We all should have goen to law school - man, there's some big bucks to be made in suing people!  Think of all the CD's you could buy from the legal fees you'll get out of the RIAA... ;-)


----------



## Dime5150 (Jul 2, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Giaguara _
> *
> 
> i would rather buy the albums that i like online, simply download them (i don't like to own the cds), and then pay some $s to the artist directly.  i wish the artists generally made their own pages etc, and then something like itunes-style pay and download the music you like, or even better, download and then pay as much as you like.
> *



Artists do that. Check out www.mp3.com. But you can't get your music out to the world on your own. Thats why the record companies. 

Its a fact of life. Record companies control music and its distribution and it won't be changing in this lifetime. An artist trying to sell his/her/their songs on a website  on their own isn't going to pay the bills like signing with a record company. Bands want to make money doing what they love and that is music. They want to get paid like everybody else. The iTunes store is a step in the right direction. But you ain't getting on their without being on a record label. I do think its a logical w solution without hurting any party involved (well maybe cd manufacturer and printing press for the art but i'm sure their will ALWAYS be a market for music on media). Its obvious that the RIAA approves it otherwise we wouldn't see it.


----------



## bbos (Jul 6, 2003)

Most people are exposed to music through the radio, and generally most people need to hear a song a number of times to like and buy it.  There are a number of radio networks in australia (ie. a station or two per major cities).  If they teamed up with a site like http://www.mp3.com or itunes music store, then they could push the music, get them popular and have people buy it.  All done without a record label.  This might be too extreme and I see a need for having a label, though I believe that they are far too greedy to be of a benefit to the bands or the listening/viewing public.

So I would like to see independant music sites start making a real impact in the market - but a promotions vehicle is needed.

To conclude my post, here are some interesting stats in the latest TIME mag:
* $174 Million - Average income of the 400 wealthiest US taxpayers in 2000, nearly four times what it was in 1992
* 22.3% - Percentage of their income paid in federal taxes, down nearly four percent from 1992.  [That's 6.96 million 'saved' per rich person or 2.8 trillion for the whole lot].

Apologies for getting off-topic though I thought this is interesting in light of talking about super-rich people trying to get their way.


----------

