12 Year Old Girl sued by RIAA

Originally posted by arden
Off-topic, but still: I'm pretty sure I've heard of AAR, though I've never heard them.

I've always wondered at filesharing programs that try to get you to upgrade to a "pro" version. They don't bring much of anything new, and I'm not going to pay $10 for a program that lets me download stuff for free (legal/moral/ethical issues aside).

I wonder if anyone has ever shared the registered version of a P2P Pro application? :|
Click to expand...

What I found kind of funny is the maker of Acquisition, the beautifully made Gnutella client for the Mac, basically had to start a manhunt for people who where using his program to download its own pitrated registration key so they wouldn't have to pay $15 to avoid the little nag.

While I wouldn't want to encourage this, it is rather telling how quick people are to bite the hand that feeds them.

d8n_two

BTW: The Rejects big hit was "Swing, Swing"
 
I bet it is a bit off-tpopic, yet it might be of some interest.


In Spain, where I live, sharing music is not a crime (all that you can do is exercise a civil action). Furthermore, our copyright laws allow every person to make one copy for personal use, and also to share.

Sadly, recently our Goverment has made a Law which adds a "blank media tax" (which is stupid, by the way, as it is not only referred to CD Audio, but to any digital media); and, probably, by the end of the year, they will change our copyright laws so as to prevent even private copying.

This is terribly stupid.

:(
 
Originally posted by d8n_two
BTW: The Rejects big hit was "Swing, Swing"
Click to expand...
Funny story about that song. I have an .mp3 file of that song (and 3 other AAR songs) on my hard drive, that I downloaded from the internet. I got it from (wait for it) http://allamericanrejects.com :D Someone told me to download it and tell them what I thought of it. I didn't really like it, but for some reason I kept the .mp3's anyway. That was right around the time that their record was released. A couple weeks later I flip through MTV and I see them. I laughed pretty hard, and checked their website. Now they only had the lyrics for each song and the ability to stream Swing Swing. Funny what fame does to a person.

I wonder what the legality of those files are now. Oh well.
 
Funny what fame does to a person.
Click to expand...

It's more like what it does to your record company, promoter, etc. When they find out they can make a lot of money off your product, they sure as heck don't want you giving it away.

A lot of bands do that anyway, put MP3s up before an album is released or before songs get on the radio, and then pull them once things get rolling. It's all about marketing.

d8n_two
 
I doubt anybody can do anything to you for having those songs, since you legally downloaded them straight from the source before they decided to take it off. Not even the RIAA has the right to indict you for something you did while it wasn't illegal (if it even is now :rolleyes:).
 
A lot of what happened with the 12 year old girl is propaganda. Everything I have read said that they are going after people with playlists consisting of 1,000 songs or more. The girl lives in the projects, and she "supposedly" paid $30 to kazaa? The NY Post said that they joined Kazaa for $30 3 months ago. So in 3 months, a 12 year old girl downloaded over 1,000 songs? How many 12 year olds do you know that can name 100 songs off the top of their head? Not only that, but in order for her to download 1,000 songs from Kazaa, this girl who lives in "public housing" (projects), would either A) have to have two phone lines, with one permantely connected to the internet with a HUGE que to be constantly downloading, or B) they have broadband. Either way, when I got online when I was living with my parents, my mom wouldn't let me get a second phone line, let alone broadband if it was avaliable. Personally, I think that the girl and her mom were both downloading stuff from Kazaa, and knew it was illegal. You can't tell me that living in "public housing", you don't know that Kazaa is the best way not to pay for music. Not only that, but they have all ready shown that they are working the system if they obviously had enough money to pay $30 for Kazaa Plus, and about $45 a month for broadband, but they can't pay rent on a place of their own. I do feel sorry for the family, but I don't think she is as innocent as the media is making them look. Any thoughts? I know this all sounds extremely insensitive, but the girls entire story seems so full of crap. Of course everyone wants to feel sorry for the little girl, and the RIAA will look awful. It is all propaganda.
 
Why would anyone support a system that the artist gets paid 4% of the revenue from the music they create? So if there are four people in the band, they get 1% each. it is sickening.

Fight the power!
 
I agree with you, the system sucks. But, by pirating music, you are taking even more of the 4% away from the artist. Stealing is just wrong. I admit, I did the Napster and Acquisition thing, like everyone else here,whether or not they care to admit it. But I've stopped, and just have music that I legally own. By continuing to pirate music, you are screwing over the artist even more. The change needs to come from within the RIAA. I've all ready seen two of my favoriate bands lose their record contracts because even though their singles had great radio air time, and was popular, the singles weren't making any money, so they got dropped.

I support the system that only pays the artist 4%, because even though it may be little, it is the only system that exists as of now. I'd rather continue to support the artist, with the existing system, then stab the artist in the back, and not let them get any money at all for what I listen to.

Give every man what you owe him. If you owe revenue then revunue, if taxes pay taxes, if respect give respect.
 
By "pirating" you are hurting the giant corporations literally 10x more than the artists, forcing a new busyness model will benefit the artist big time, and it is long overdue. These giant record companies are irrelevant, I can record an album in my spare bedroom with 95% for the production value as any record company. They have a strangle hold on the media outlets like best buy and the radio stations nation wide, and the artists and the music we listen to are suffering
 
By pirating, you are not really forcing them to go with a new business model, as much as forcing them to do the same thing they are doing now. Piracy isn't the answer. The more you pirate, the more great bands will be cut for stupid bands like Good Charlotte or Britney Spears. That scares me.
 
You may be cutting into the $20 or so that the RIAA would get from you by downloading an album instead of buying it, but you are not really hurting the RIAA as much as the artist. The RIAA has billions of dollars to push around; I mean, they finance the artists. If the sales of a CD don't make a profit, the RIAA looks to another artist and the first artist goes broke from trying to afford studio time, tour costs, etc. You won't affect the RIAA in any noticeable way.
 
I don't understand your logic, the riaa makes its money from selling cd's. The artist makes the vast majority of their money from playing live shows. The record companies created the riaa to protect their interests. I would argue that the record companies are moving away from supporting artists or musicians. How can you describe Justin Timberlake as an artist or musician? The majority of the record companies resources are going to manufacturing bands like linkin park and britney spears, they produce performers, not artists. If you haven't noticed entire genres have been dropped by the major record labels like JAZZ! Just like Chuck D said it is a Gestapo, it makes no since that if I am an artist in Detroit, I need to go through a record company in LA or New York to be played on the radio in Detroit. Their busyness model needs to change, and they are doing everything they can to stop it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top