Fri Dec 19, 2008 10:18AM EST
See Comments (213)
At last, the music industry admits what we've known for years: That filing music-swapping lawsuits against teenagers, little old ladies, and corpses is a fool's errand (not to mention an expensive headache for the defendants). But don't worry—the RIAA has something new up its sleeves.
Join in the discussion. Here you'll see the comments in the order they were posted.
People are stupid. The artist doesn't make ----- off of record sales. It's the record labels that bring in the big bucks. Why else would they be so intense about stopping illegal downloads? Want to support the artist? Go to their shows, by the merch -- that money is what REALLY goes to the band/singer/rapper.
Well who knows maybe the guy im downloading from is actually a online store and i had to paypal him and i used a p2p program to get it. how can they tell? I'm not about stealing peoples music but i am against Dumb people making dumb rules and laws. freaken make some real laws like not sending my job to china so i can make some decent money to buy a darn CD!
"Show some humility or some dignity". Well, as some say, I got to their concerts, buy a t-shirt or two. Sorry but the tickets and the merchandise cost more than a single CD is worth. Don't forget that some people aren't _lucky_ enough to have the money to BLOW OFF on CDs that are obviously overpriced. Also that most music and songs and CDs owe their selling by the uploaders. People who share, people who show... hey, sorry but if it weren't for these 'uploaders', the songs wouldn't even be famous. Admit it. If it's good, it'll still take some time. Most things are passed around and become famous by a large audience. In this era, it's through uploaders -legal or illegal-.
Didn't Comcast just lose a huge lawsuit in which they were accused of cutting off or slowing down internet connections to people using file sharing programs...So if they did just lose this lawsuit what is going to motivate them to do the same thing again?
all this is well and good but i would like to know what they are doing about the "LEGAL" spyware that counts keystrokes tracks where you go on line and sells info on everyone of our intrests when we are out on the web?
I own an ISP and you bet your booty I will disconnect you in a New York minute! My TOS states that if you engage in any illegal activity, you will get one warning and after that you are GONE. The music industry can come after me for allowing illegal activity to continue on my network. I certainly am not going to take food from my families mouth because you tightwads are too cheap to pay for music. Why don't you just go down to the local store that carries CD's and steal them? It's the exact same thing. I wish that they could put you all in jail for three months and fine you the $10,000 that they are able to do under the law. If you file share something that has a copywrite then you are a thief, plain and simple.
To those of you who say we are stealing music: IT'S NOT STEALING IF SOMEONE IS WILLING TO SHARE. Think about it. Someone has to go and buy the music in order to put it on SHARING services. Then, people go and download the song that the person is SHARING. Therefore, it's not technically stealing because someone who already has the rights for the song he/she bought wishes to share the music with others. Think of it in terms of a bookstore. If someone bought a book and sets it out for people to SHARE, that would not be stealing. It would only be stealing and breaking the law if that person did not purchase the book in the first place and ran out of the store. In this case, someone has already bought the music and has no problem sharing the song with others. How can you possibly classify that as stealing? Who they really should be going after is the people who are selling these shared copies of music.
Yeh!! THE NEXT THING YOU KNOW,THEY WILL BE ASKING THE HARD WORKING PEOPLE OF AMERICA TO BAIL THEM OUT ALSO.LOL
._.; I just wish the RIAA would take in account of the audience. No offense but if they can sue a dead person, kids, and the elderly... sounds similar to they haven't got any morals. And I agree with catwolf2002. We should just band together and buy one copy and just pass it about. That way, we're perfectly 'legal'. I suppose the big artist will be happy that only one copy got sold for each part of the state/city. .___.;;; It's like the RIAA are just losing it. They're doing and saying whatever they want. I think most of us here would actually CARE more if the ARTIST themselves tell us. They make more than they ever need anyways -if they don't blow it off stupidly- and some artist can honestly thank the uploaders for giving their music and songs a 'name' through passing it about in the cybernet.
Music companies should create an incentive to buying music. The fact is, illegally downloading music is MUCH easier than any of the legal alternatives. Most paid for downloads aren't of the best quality, and have DRM attached so you can only play it on the mp3 player that happens to be hottest at the time. It's also easier to stay at home an download illegaly than it is to get out and buy a cd. Music companies need to figure out a solution that makes it easier for the consumer, rather than treating them like criminals.
Right, this is a scare tactics...there's 2 simple ways to "stop piracy": 1. Make music/song "worth buying (just because you can sing or write songs means you can sell your albums). 2. Cut down prices of cds!!!...for years, the music industry is complaining that they're "dying" - yet, they are still "alive"...and those "struggling", is still here...I supposed that only mean one thing - there's still MONEY in it.....but, alas, I don't think they'll cut prices...errr, I forgot the word...well, anayway, it's a word with G R E E D in it.........until they "accomplish" that 2, pirates (and music lovers) will ALWAYS find a way to SHARE!!!
The only problem I have with the RIAA, is that no provision exists to permit obsolete music or, obsolete formats. . .I have found easier sometimes to download a piece of music, rather than trying to rip it from an album or, audio tape! furthermore, what about Quadraphonic music, and since the RIAA is dragging its feet on a Blue-Ray audio standard, those of us enjoy multi-channel sound and have difficulty with the necessary equipment needed to reproduce it-puts into a bit of a quandry! I once, seven years ago tried to order a CD from a band that was a "cult" favorite, I would have had to spend $ 345.00 for a specially made copy, essentially a demo disk. So, to heck with the RIAA, if the music industry produced better music, then people would, as I have, purchase music CD's!!
Comcast was nailed for lying about it. I can shape my traffic any way I like. If I want to cater to Gamers, then I can advertise that and que their traffic to jump ahead of everyone elses. If I want to appeal to home base businesses then I can have VOIP traffic have high priority que. Comcast was throttling, got caught and then lied about it. Stupid mistake. They should have just said, "Ya, we throttle what we consider non-critical traffic." They would have been fine then. You certainly do not have to buy internet from them, Right? They do not have to have you as a customer either............
I believe there is enough padding in the price of a CD that they could come down in price a bit, but those of you claiming that they cost way more now I have no clue where you get this idea from. A CD today costs $15-$20. When I got my first player in 1989 a CD cost $15-$20.
RIAA perhaps think that there will be a major breakdown to music industry.personally, i dont buy cd just to listen a digitized song when it is available on the net . RIAA cant think of any intimidation other than this because basically, they cant control the majority over the minority. its still not a best strategy somehow a good one. People will somehow manipulate this file sharing system its a like a nightclub ,usually underage not allowed somehow have an access because theyre faking that they are not underage.
"And here's another possibility, courtesy of yours truly: Say your ISP catches you sharing tunes via P2P. No problem—download away! But when you get your next cable bill, you'll find the itemized songs added to your monthly charge, kind of like an iTunes bill." I like this idea a lot better. If you get caught, you pay for it. The money that the ISP provider receives from your bill gets transfered to the artist or movie-maker, software provider, etc. Not a whopping thousand dollar fine. If you download a whole album, then you pay for that whole album. Much better idea than the stupid financial headaches companies file suit for.
the pineman 2006... shut the fck up you m0ron... no one cares what you have to say...
I Don't Download free music, but Im able to listen to my favorite Artists like Tiyephoenix,Famnice, Amandadiva, jonhope401 and from sites like myspace and youtube . My thing is this, After you have listen to A song over 200 to 1000 Thousand times , I Think And listener Should be responsible enough, to purchase the song or the Album, Come on! Whats .99 cents or $5 to $8 dollars for and EP. especially if the artist is not widely known, So I do understands RIAA'S ARGUMENT in a SENSE, But thats for only people who are working jobs. Now if your facing unemployment I can see freeloading or downloading thats a legitmate excuse! money is tight.
I think its kinda ironic to see these large record labels squirming a bit while they see nightmares of dollars floating helplessly out the window. How long has it been that these people (Record Execs) have been capitalizing on artists and leaving them with a laughable percentage of the revenue they have generated. No one is going to feel sorry for the labels and given the economy may even d/l more music. During the depression the general public actually thought of some of the bank robbers as heroes, a federal crime. Why? Becaise the banks were seen as greedy, foreclosing on homes and farms etc... This isn't as drastic but the same principle applies. The public is sick of seeing greedy corps and execs devouring consumer dollars by coming up with different schemes and ploys to seperate you from your money. Kinda nice givin it back to the man.
Please enable your browser's cookies to activate the My Tech column.
| Computers | Home Office | Wi-Fi & Networking | Phones & PDAs | Cameras & Camcorders | TV & Home Theater | Portable Audio |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
46 Posted by eury2 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 3:56PM EDT Report Abuse
LOL ok for the people saying what would the music artists and music company's do for food and shelter ok for 1: artists are millionaires get is they have so much money they buy big ass houses and everything they want and will never go without food or shelter for the rest of their lives and their kids lives 2: music company's are almost multi billionaires so these company's / artists will never ever go without they have so much money they are set for the rest of their lives rich people just like to complain how broke they are when their bank accounts have 6 figures instead of 7