Download music and prepare to pay..Starting 25Jun03

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.
 
"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.
 
$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
 
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.
 
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?
 
About software...what do you think about "previewing" it? Do you agree/disagree
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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).
 
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]! :D
 
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.

;)
 
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 ;)
 
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.
 
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. :mad:
 
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. :mad:
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top