Gigglygyal
New member
Over the past few years, we
Should Downloading Music really be free for everyone to read please!
- Thread starter Gigglygyal
- Start date
Gigglygyal
New member
There's one imporant thing I didn't see here: What if (copyrighted) music was purposedly released on P2P networks or the Internet in general, by the artist(s) themselves? Ie., a local, unsigned band that wishes to promote its songs.
I think the question is too generic.
It should be illegal to download copyrighted works without permission but there should be a places where you can 'legally' purchase the music. The music that is obtained legally should be in such a form that the buyer can use it in any (legal) way.
For instance, if I purchase some new song that comes out over the internet, I would like the ability to play it with a player of my choice and burn it to a CD to play in my car and stereo. As far as I have seen, with the current implementation this is not possible. It appears most 'distributors' are releasing the music on the internet for sale in a proprietary format that must be played in their player.
I believe that until this is changed 'online music piracy' will continue.
On the other side, I think that for unsigned artists the internet can be an excellent way of getting their music to the public. Most people would not go out and purchase an unknown group without ever hearing the song, so using the internet to create awareness can really help.
It should be illegal to download copyrighted works without permission but there should be a places where you can 'legally' purchase the music. The music that is obtained legally should be in such a form that the buyer can use it in any (legal) way.
For instance, if I purchase some new song that comes out over the internet, I would like the ability to play it with a player of my choice and burn it to a CD to play in my car and stereo. As far as I have seen, with the current implementation this is not possible. It appears most 'distributors' are releasing the music on the internet for sale in a proprietary format that must be played in their player.
I believe that until this is changed 'online music piracy' will continue.
On the other side, I think that for unsigned artists the internet can be an excellent way of getting their music to the public. Most people would not go out and purchase an unknown group without ever hearing the song, so using the internet to create awareness can really help.
Downloading music should be free.
But: If you are downloading copyrighted music which are sold in the stores it should be disallowed.
But why do you think so many people keep downloading?
Because they cant afford it? Yes and no.
They surely can afford to buy some CDs but keep in mind that the CDs are getting more expensive every year.
Why should I pay 15 - 20 bucks for a record I can download for free (of course there's the cost for the internet connection.)?
Whats the difference? If I buy a CD in a store I get a plastic cd box with some plastic cover which does nothing than pollute the enviroment
What I want to say is that the big corporations shouldnt go sue everyone for downloading mp3s or sharing mp3s but to reconsider their publishing strategy.
But: If you are downloading copyrighted music which are sold in the stores it should be disallowed.
But why do you think so many people keep downloading?
Because they cant afford it? Yes and no.
They surely can afford to buy some CDs but keep in mind that the CDs are getting more expensive every year.
Why should I pay 15 - 20 bucks for a record I can download for free (of course there's the cost for the internet connection.)?
Whats the difference? If I buy a CD in a store I get a plastic cd box with some plastic cover which does nothing than pollute the enviroment
What I want to say is that the big corporations shouldnt go sue everyone for downloading mp3s or sharing mp3s but to reconsider their publishing strategy.
pharmdcougargal12
New member
I really haven't been following it too closely, since I don't use P2P to download music (well, maybe 3 copyrighted pieces a year) - but aren't they already adding a surcharge to CDs now (maybe only Audio, not sure about data)? Is this money going to the RIAA? If so, shouldn't garage bands recording their own music be perturbed at having to pay this surcharge?
LINDSAY HEMNES
New member
Sorry. I voted wrong!!!!!!!! Meant to vole NO!!!
If I buy a book, I can have every friend in the neighborhood read it, without the printing industry is coming running, screaming on top of their lungs. RIAA is a big darn bully. RIAA think that because of slumping sales, the Internet and p2p is to blame, I remember when a LP was costing *****00-$3.00 and the sale was booming. Now the same albums is costing $10.00-$16.00, which is absurd, the album have paid is self many time over to the recording industry. And the BS RIAA is running that is to protect the artist is, as we all know BS. They do not pay the artist squat. Only artist like Rolling Stones, Michael [edit] Jackson and top artist like them, is getting paid. I download music so I can get the songs I like and not have to buy 15 CD to get the song I like, but, yes, I still buy CDs. I just wish that I could buy the album direct from the artists. Without the inflated RIAA prices!!
Have to edit... we don't want you getting sued
If I buy a book, I can have every friend in the neighborhood read it, without the printing industry is coming running, screaming on top of their lungs. RIAA is a big darn bully. RIAA think that because of slumping sales, the Internet and p2p is to blame, I remember when a LP was costing *****00-$3.00 and the sale was booming. Now the same albums is costing $10.00-$16.00, which is absurd, the album have paid is self many time over to the recording industry. And the BS RIAA is running that is to protect the artist is, as we all know BS. They do not pay the artist squat. Only artist like Rolling Stones, Michael [edit] Jackson and top artist like them, is getting paid. I download music so I can get the songs I like and not have to buy 15 CD to get the song I like, but, yes, I still buy CDs. I just wish that I could buy the album direct from the artists. Without the inflated RIAA prices!!
Have to edit... we don't want you getting sued
Barbiecouture
New member
And only three choices. Perhaps we should invite the Palm Beach voters up here so they can call us idiots for a while.
mrsix12346
New member
On this issue I sometimes feel a bit like Ash in Army of Darkness (Evil Dead 3) after he breaks the cursed mirror and his evil alter-ego splits away from him.
On the one hand, I'm a musician, I like being paid for my work and I expect to get royalties for CDs that are sold with music I've written. I feel sorry for artists who have sweated blood and tears to become successful and yet lose x% of their income through piracy.
But on the other hand, I ask myself "Which do I prefer? Paying $20 dollars or downloading it free?" Doh.....let me think..... Many connected computer users have got used to loading their P2P software and getting whatever music, film or software they want. This, whatever your attitude, is going to be a very difficult tide to turn and the big labels declaring all-out war on their potential customers is not going to help things (in fact it's going to push more people towards file-sharing). The anti-copy systems that they've spent $$ developing are a complete joke as most of them are cracked before they're even released. Proprietary formats simply aren't viable and destroying one file-sharing protocol will simply be followed by the rise of another.
My evil alter ego would also argue that the artists who most suffer from piracy also earn vast amounts of money through TV appearances, concerts, endorsements, merchandising. Their label loses more, as it takes a far bigger percentage (poor Sony, poor EMI, how I weep for them). Smaller artists can actually win because having their music widely distributed will get them more concerts, TV appearances, better recording deals etc. - considering that most independent labels do a pitiful job in promotion.
But don't listen to him. He's totally immoral.
-Buy CDs, so that the big labels can purchase their own records to give them a better chart position.
-Buy Cds, so that the big labels can spend $$ promoting the top artist in their catalogue while neglecting the others.
-Buy Cds, so that the big labels can brainwash kids into listening to annodine mush with carpet-bomb marketing.
-Buy Cds, so that the big labels can swallow up independent labels and make them 'commercial'.
..I could continue, but I think you probably get the point.
Possible utopian future?
- Digital distribution by internet or shop terminals to memory-card-based walkmen or portable storage units (vastly reduced production and distribution costs).
- Premium enhanced interactive editions of albums published on DVD.
- No encryption. If you can decode it to listen to it, you can copy it so there's no point.
- Promotion almost entirely on the net (reduced advertising cost).
- Resurgence of independent labels taking advantage of reduced costs who can now use net distribution to compete with bigger labels.
- Big labels forced to spread promotion budgets over their entire catalogue instead of just the top artist to compete with the range of indie music.
- Increased diversity in commercial music.
- Low price-per-download or low subscription fee to incite people to pay for a quality service with good catalogue of music with fast, secure downloads.
- Generous free downloads to whet peoples' appetites. This results in returns through concerts, movie tie-ins, merchandising, DVD sales etc.
- Macterminator becomes world-renowned producer, svengali of several popular all-girl groups.
er...yes...quite
On the one hand, I'm a musician, I like being paid for my work and I expect to get royalties for CDs that are sold with music I've written. I feel sorry for artists who have sweated blood and tears to become successful and yet lose x% of their income through piracy.
But on the other hand, I ask myself "Which do I prefer? Paying $20 dollars or downloading it free?" Doh.....let me think..... Many connected computer users have got used to loading their P2P software and getting whatever music, film or software they want. This, whatever your attitude, is going to be a very difficult tide to turn and the big labels declaring all-out war on their potential customers is not going to help things (in fact it's going to push more people towards file-sharing). The anti-copy systems that they've spent $$ developing are a complete joke as most of them are cracked before they're even released. Proprietary formats simply aren't viable and destroying one file-sharing protocol will simply be followed by the rise of another.
My evil alter ego would also argue that the artists who most suffer from piracy also earn vast amounts of money through TV appearances, concerts, endorsements, merchandising. Their label loses more, as it takes a far bigger percentage (poor Sony, poor EMI, how I weep for them). Smaller artists can actually win because having their music widely distributed will get them more concerts, TV appearances, better recording deals etc. - considering that most independent labels do a pitiful job in promotion.
But don't listen to him. He's totally immoral.
-Buy CDs, so that the big labels can purchase their own records to give them a better chart position.
-Buy Cds, so that the big labels can spend $$ promoting the top artist in their catalogue while neglecting the others.
-Buy Cds, so that the big labels can brainwash kids into listening to annodine mush with carpet-bomb marketing.
-Buy Cds, so that the big labels can swallow up independent labels and make them 'commercial'.
..I could continue, but I think you probably get the point.
Possible utopian future?
- Digital distribution by internet or shop terminals to memory-card-based walkmen or portable storage units (vastly reduced production and distribution costs).
- Premium enhanced interactive editions of albums published on DVD.
- No encryption. If you can decode it to listen to it, you can copy it so there's no point.
- Promotion almost entirely on the net (reduced advertising cost).
- Resurgence of independent labels taking advantage of reduced costs who can now use net distribution to compete with bigger labels.
- Big labels forced to spread promotion budgets over their entire catalogue instead of just the top artist to compete with the range of indie music.
- Increased diversity in commercial music.
- Low price-per-download or low subscription fee to incite people to pay for a quality service with good catalogue of music with fast, secure downloads.
- Generous free downloads to whet peoples' appetites. This results in returns through concerts, movie tie-ins, merchandising, DVD sales etc.
- Macterminator becomes world-renowned producer, svengali of several popular all-girl groups.
er...yes...quite
I have to agree with the MacTerminator.
In fact, thanks to organizations like Naptser, Gnutella, etc...THE RECORD INDUSTRY SAVES FAR MORE MONEY IN MARKETING, PROMOTION AND DISTRIBUTION COSTS THAN THEY WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE.
During that height of the Napster contraversy I worked for internet radio where I produced many interviews with artists like, BT, Shuvel, Toni Iomme, Matt Johnson of 'THE, THE', Linikin' Park, Ice-T, Slash, Christopher Lawrence, Scott Thompson of 'Kids in the Hall' and many others...
All of the afforementioned artists expressed support for the digital future of music and most importantly, many of them expressed that a record contract is not with the listener, but with the record company. Also in almost all cases, each artist stated that more of their money was earned by something other than record sales, like touring, and merchandising; and this was before Napster.
This whole thread is just a BOT message to get statistics on how numb we are to this issue so that the record execs and all the lobbyists in their pockets can pass new legislation or create a means tax the user for this freedom.
As if these ego driven, fascist geeks weren't greedy enough already...
In fact, thanks to organizations like Naptser, Gnutella, etc...THE RECORD INDUSTRY SAVES FAR MORE MONEY IN MARKETING, PROMOTION AND DISTRIBUTION COSTS THAN THEY WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE.
They are so, so NOT losing any money; and if they are it's because they are not forward thinking enough to change their infrastructure around this new digital age. And by the way...Since when was downloading a degraded ***, mp3 at a bitrate of 128k - 324k so great anyway...It's nowhere near as good as the sound of a actual CD. But this point is moot because unlike the record exec, we are moving forward and the quality is getting better.
And, although I forgot to copy and paste the quote; the first answer to the first question that started this thread about sharing MP3's being 'DISTRIBUTION, NOT PROMOTION' is innacurate, when seen from a marketing perspective.
I would venture to say 'distribution AND promotion', but not the kind of distribution that they profit from.
I don't think I need to go into the obvious senario of what it means for the artist if 10 thousand users download an MP3 of their music and how well it will promote them...Even if the music does suck, someone out there will like it, because lets face it; we all have an achilles heel in our soul that likes to be tickled.
The cost of this promotion...FREE for the Artist and the Record Company Exec...A savings of maybe 250k in marketing/promotion and a loss of 200k in CD sales (only if you include downloading the whole CD at $20 a unit). Sounds like you just made 50k. Tweek on it some more and I'm sure you can find away to cut more costs and make even more. Oh, but you're already doing that by trying to squeeze us, aren't you?
And as far as 'DISTRIBUTION'; the record industry will always tell the artist that they will have to pay back the cost of distribution in a record deal and that 'distibrution' costs money...blablabla. But look what happens to the record exec when we freely share MP3's at no cost or profit to the user except for a CPU and an ISP.
The record exec wants to find a way to tax us for it, not because he's too stupid to see that this is a grand marketing oppurtunity, but because he now sees a way to screw us in both holes by saying that we are 'unauthorized distibutors' and stealing from the artist. Excuse me, but You've been stealing from the artist since there was an artist. Can you say 'PRINCE', George Michael...
Side Note:
George Michael paid 40 million to get OUT of his contract with Sony, because they were screwing him (There's a joke there, somewhere).
At the risk of speaking for all file sharers out there, I believe we are also the greedy ones feeding our melodic achelles heel, not to PROFIT, from so-called 'DISTRIBUTION', but really to SAVE our hard earned greenbacks. So, it comes as no surprise that the finger is pointed this way and also to no surprise that we all may suffer some consequence as a result of how easily we can let our conscience be steered be fingerpointing record geeks who make us out to be the bad guys who are 'STEALING' from the artist.
Dear God, save us all from the MUSIC BUISINESS.
A record exec will go to any length to keep us from realizing that, by sharing MP3's, we are doing them a great service.
During that height of the Napster contraversy I work for an internet radio company where I produced many interviews with artists like, BT, Shuvel, Toni Iomme, Matt Johnson of 'THE, THE', Linikin' Park, Ice-T, Slash, Christopher Lawrence, Scott Thompson of 'Kids in the Hall' and many others...
All of the afforementioned artists expressed support for the digital future of music and most importantly, most of them expressed that the contract is not with the listener, but with the record company. Also in almost all cases, each artist stated that most of their money was earned by something other than record sales, like touring, and merchandising; and this was before Napster.
Dj Dan Busch
In fact, thanks to organizations like Naptser, Gnutella, etc...THE RECORD INDUSTRY SAVES FAR MORE MONEY IN MARKETING, PROMOTION AND DISTRIBUTION COSTS THAN THEY WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE.
During that height of the Napster contraversy I worked for internet radio where I produced many interviews with artists like, BT, Shuvel, Toni Iomme, Matt Johnson of 'THE, THE', Linikin' Park, Ice-T, Slash, Christopher Lawrence, Scott Thompson of 'Kids in the Hall' and many others...
All of the afforementioned artists expressed support for the digital future of music and most importantly, many of them expressed that a record contract is not with the listener, but with the record company. Also in almost all cases, each artist stated that more of their money was earned by something other than record sales, like touring, and merchandising; and this was before Napster.
This whole thread is just a BOT message to get statistics on how numb we are to this issue so that the record execs and all the lobbyists in their pockets can pass new legislation or create a means tax the user for this freedom.
As if these ego driven, fascist geeks weren't greedy enough already...
In fact, thanks to organizations like Naptser, Gnutella, etc...THE RECORD INDUSTRY SAVES FAR MORE MONEY IN MARKETING, PROMOTION AND DISTRIBUTION COSTS THAN THEY WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE.
They are so, so NOT losing any money; and if they are it's because they are not forward thinking enough to change their infrastructure around this new digital age. And by the way...Since when was downloading a degraded ***, mp3 at a bitrate of 128k - 324k so great anyway...It's nowhere near as good as the sound of a actual CD. But this point is moot because unlike the record exec, we are moving forward and the quality is getting better.
And, although I forgot to copy and paste the quote; the first answer to the first question that started this thread about sharing MP3's being 'DISTRIBUTION, NOT PROMOTION' is innacurate, when seen from a marketing perspective.
I would venture to say 'distribution AND promotion', but not the kind of distribution that they profit from.
I don't think I need to go into the obvious senario of what it means for the artist if 10 thousand users download an MP3 of their music and how well it will promote them...Even if the music does suck, someone out there will like it, because lets face it; we all have an achilles heel in our soul that likes to be tickled.
The cost of this promotion...FREE for the Artist and the Record Company Exec...A savings of maybe 250k in marketing/promotion and a loss of 200k in CD sales (only if you include downloading the whole CD at $20 a unit). Sounds like you just made 50k. Tweek on it some more and I'm sure you can find away to cut more costs and make even more. Oh, but you're already doing that by trying to squeeze us, aren't you?
And as far as 'DISTRIBUTION'; the record industry will always tell the artist that they will have to pay back the cost of distribution in a record deal and that 'distibrution' costs money...blablabla. But look what happens to the record exec when we freely share MP3's at no cost or profit to the user except for a CPU and an ISP.
The record exec wants to find a way to tax us for it, not because he's too stupid to see that this is a grand marketing oppurtunity, but because he now sees a way to screw us in both holes by saying that we are 'unauthorized distibutors' and stealing from the artist. Excuse me, but You've been stealing from the artist since there was an artist. Can you say 'PRINCE', George Michael...
Side Note:
George Michael paid 40 million to get OUT of his contract with Sony, because they were screwing him (There's a joke there, somewhere).
At the risk of speaking for all file sharers out there, I believe we are also the greedy ones feeding our melodic achelles heel, not to PROFIT, from so-called 'DISTRIBUTION', but really to SAVE our hard earned greenbacks. So, it comes as no surprise that the finger is pointed this way and also to no surprise that we all may suffer some consequence as a result of how easily we can let our conscience be steered be fingerpointing record geeks who make us out to be the bad guys who are 'STEALING' from the artist.
Dear God, save us all from the MUSIC BUISINESS.
A record exec will go to any length to keep us from realizing that, by sharing MP3's, we are doing them a great service.
During that height of the Napster contraversy I work for an internet radio company where I produced many interviews with artists like, BT, Shuvel, Toni Iomme, Matt Johnson of 'THE, THE', Linikin' Park, Ice-T, Slash, Christopher Lawrence, Scott Thompson of 'Kids in the Hall' and many others...
All of the afforementioned artists expressed support for the digital future of music and most importantly, most of them expressed that the contract is not with the listener, but with the record company. Also in almost all cases, each artist stated that most of their money was earned by something other than record sales, like touring, and merchandising; and this was before Napster.
Dj Dan Busch
I just wanted to bring up some other issues/thoughts. Why are CD's priced so high? Its outrageous! The consumer is getting robbed blind, and nobody seems to care. Have been for years.
Think about cassette tapes. You can get music on cassette cheap these days. $6? $7? pretty darn cheap compared to CD's.
A CD new is anywhere from $13 to $20 or more, depending on where you buy them. This is crazy. I understood CDs being priced higher when the technology was new, but its NOT new anymore. they have been around a long time now.
A new CD should cost NO MORE than $10. tax included.
I know lots of work goes into making the music on a CD. Lots of people have to get paid.
But still, the prices are too high. their is a difference between making a profit and making a killing!
perhaps if the artists want to insure that more people buy their music and THEY, the artist gets paid, they should lower the CD prices!
How many times have you paid $15 for that cd you wanted and only ONE song is good, the rest suck?
my .02 worth.
Think about cassette tapes. You can get music on cassette cheap these days. $6? $7? pretty darn cheap compared to CD's.
A CD new is anywhere from $13 to $20 or more, depending on where you buy them. This is crazy. I understood CDs being priced higher when the technology was new, but its NOT new anymore. they have been around a long time now.
A new CD should cost NO MORE than $10. tax included.
I know lots of work goes into making the music on a CD. Lots of people have to get paid.
But still, the prices are too high. their is a difference between making a profit and making a killing!
perhaps if the artists want to insure that more people buy their music and THEY, the artist gets paid, they should lower the CD prices!
How many times have you paid $15 for that cd you wanted and only ONE song is good, the rest suck?
my .02 worth.
Treblinka_
New member
Whether you agree that music downloading is right or wrong, you should be aware of the consequence of your actions. Lots of information on this at:
http://www.musicunited.org
http://www.musicunited.org
syazdefined
New member
I thought the original one sided post rang a bell...if someone posts something why don't they have the balls to come back and answer their original post?
Spam,propaganda? possibly...
The link,lifted from the RIAA'S FAQ.... http://www.riaa.com/Music-Rules-2-FAQ.cfm
Spam,propaganda? possibly...
The link,lifted from the RIAA'S FAQ.... http://www.riaa.com/Music-Rules-2-FAQ.cfm
shorty_2_us
New member
> Liability for copyright infringement is not necessarily limited to the persons or entities who
> created (or encoded) the infringing sound file. In addition to being directly liable for infringing
> conduct occurring via the site, a linking site may be contributorily or vicariously liable for
> facilitating copyright infringement occurring at the sites to which it links.
Flabbabbab.
You have to state, that you cannot influence, what the linked sites upload and that you take no warranty for them.
Done.
The only one responsible is the site-owner.
Top get a good and secure text for your disclaimer search for disclaimers on the web.
Addon to the future:
-More regional/local and specialized artists => Downloading just shows you the song, but the artists concert is something different. That means you have more people who get paid for producing music on the stage. That means they aren't dependent on the label, only on the stages, where they play.
-Artists could play live on the web, then they can just be asked for other songs. If fifty people in a chatroom apy 1$ each, they can easily pay the artists. Jsut get the labels out and you save a hell of money.
-Paying per donate and concerts. Noone will pay 10
> created (or encoded) the infringing sound file. In addition to being directly liable for infringing
> conduct occurring via the site, a linking site may be contributorily or vicariously liable for
> facilitating copyright infringement occurring at the sites to which it links.
Flabbabbab.
You have to state, that you cannot influence, what the linked sites upload and that you take no warranty for them.
Done.
The only one responsible is the site-owner.
Top get a good and secure text for your disclaimer search for disclaimers on the web.
Addon to the future:
-More regional/local and specialized artists => Downloading just shows you the song, but the artists concert is something different. That means you have more people who get paid for producing music on the stage. That means they aren't dependent on the label, only on the stages, where they play.
-Artists could play live on the web, then they can just be asked for other songs. If fifty people in a chatroom apy 1$ each, they can easily pay the artists. Jsut get the labels out and you save a hell of money.
-Paying per donate and concerts. Noone will pay 10
To give you an idea. In the studio I collaborate with, we often order 1000 copies of the demos we record - professionally printed with a 4 page , full-colour inlay - for around $1000 (ie. $1 per unit). The bands usually sell these for $5-6 which makes them a healthy profit if they sell most of them. Obviously, for more copies, the cost-per-unit will be even less.
In this case, we don't spend much on promotion. We place a couple of mp3s on the studio's and the band's web-sites and maybe have the odd poster printed. The rest is through word-of-mouth, concerts and some local TV or radio appearances. On this basis we've managed to move several thousand copies (at local and regional level). We don't even consider the possibility of air-time on national TV or Radio as this market is almost completely controlled by the big labels.
Here, mainstream CDs (not necessarily new releases) are selling for about 21 euros - and the euro has recently been at parity with the dollar. I won't bother writing what I think about this price as most of it will be turned into asterisks by vBulletin.
The only problem with this thread is that (apart from the thread-starter) we're preaching to the converted. Almost everyone who frequents this forum is a P2P user - and we all know what the main use of P2P is. Perhaps we should find an RIAA thug forum, post the same things and see what kind of reaction we get there.
In this case, we don't spend much on promotion. We place a couple of mp3s on the studio's and the band's web-sites and maybe have the odd poster printed. The rest is through word-of-mouth, concerts and some local TV or radio appearances. On this basis we've managed to move several thousand copies (at local and regional level). We don't even consider the possibility of air-time on national TV or Radio as this market is almost completely controlled by the big labels.
Here, mainstream CDs (not necessarily new releases) are selling for about 21 euros - and the euro has recently been at parity with the dollar. I won't bother writing what I think about this price as most of it will be turned into asterisks by vBulletin.
The only problem with this thread is that (apart from the thread-starter) we're preaching to the converted. Almost everyone who frequents this forum is a P2P user - and we all know what the main use of P2P is. Perhaps we should find an RIAA thug forum, post the same things and see what kind of reaction we get there.
.!.!.!.!.!.!
New member
If the record industry would realize that times are changing and with new technologies comes the change in how business should be done to meet the bottom line and compensate artists for their hard work and labor.
P2P is the technology of the future for exchanging information quickly and efficiently between people in a day and age where information is needed on the fly and time is of the essence. The only way to eliminate this and other future advancements of technology and use net is by firmer laws controlling use of the internet. I hope not!
The music industry should adapt to the changing ways of our nation and create a P2P service that allows them and the artists to get paid for their work, but allows technology and the net to become a way of the future. Music available at your fingertips by a pay per download format. I for one would gladly pay for this service and I am sure opthers would follow suit.
The shame is that the RIAA had a tremendous format in Napster yet the pushed them underwater til they drowned so they could aviod the inevitable changes that these new worldwide technologies have brought to the table.
Imagine the avenues and opportunities that worldwide paid downloads would open for the RIAA and the Artists whose work may never be heard.
"Times a changin''........
Time for the RIAA to realize this and conform the way they do business!
Their old fashion greedy mentality is all that keeps this change from becoming a reality.
P2P is the technology of the future for exchanging information quickly and efficiently between people in a day and age where information is needed on the fly and time is of the essence. The only way to eliminate this and other future advancements of technology and use net is by firmer laws controlling use of the internet. I hope not!
The music industry should adapt to the changing ways of our nation and create a P2P service that allows them and the artists to get paid for their work, but allows technology and the net to become a way of the future. Music available at your fingertips by a pay per download format. I for one would gladly pay for this service and I am sure opthers would follow suit.
The shame is that the RIAA had a tremendous format in Napster yet the pushed them underwater til they drowned so they could aviod the inevitable changes that these new worldwide technologies have brought to the table.
Imagine the avenues and opportunities that worldwide paid downloads would open for the RIAA and the Artists whose work may never be heard.
"Times a changin''........
Time for the RIAA to realize this and conform the way they do business!
Their old fashion greedy mentality is all that keeps this change from becoming a reality.
*{-Lily(<3)Rain-}*
New member
I forgot to mention,did the original spammer get permission from the RIAA to copy and paste their website?
I ask because I cannot see any permission or acknowledement given to the author(s) of the original document.
Copyright is sometimes a one way street.
Tut Tut
I ask because I cannot see any permission or acknowledement given to the author(s) of the original document.
Copyright is sometimes a one way street.
Tut Tut
luv.lollipops..23
New member
I read the topic and not the poll question (which are exact opposites, BTW), so I clicked on YES. If I would have read the question on the poll, I would have clicked on NO.
Panda Bear O_o
New member
Just had to post a few links, sort of big picture stuff. The first one is from a recent column in InfoWorld:
The Gripe Line (Ed Foster): An Uphill Battle
"It's almost a bad joke to see how many bills to deprive consumers of digital products their rights were introduced in Congress this year..."
This article starts off talking about software, but stick with it. It goes into the efforts to get laws passed that will allow hacking the computers of P2P users. Corporate vigilante justice, enshrined as law. If they pull this off, any thinking person will shudder. This could be nothing less than the first move by corporations to take over the police powers of the state.
This link is to a recent John Dvorak article in PC Magazine.
One Buck Forty Or Die
He finsihes it up with this gem:
"The U.S. government should not be corrupted by the Recording Industry Association of America and should instead do more about (CD) price fixing. And let's stop lecturing people about legality and morality. Students in particular are not moral reprobates, nor are they fools. They are pragmatists, and they stretch the rules along with their budgets... Give up. Rethink your business model. The problem will be solved."
This article generated so much discussion on the PC Magazine Forums that he posted this follow-up:
When Is Stealing Not Stealing?
I don't always agree with him, but he's definitely asking the right questions in these articles.
As for Empire895 who laments that the opposition "can't even find the time to follow up on their beliefs but also don't have the intelligence to put it in their own words and truly express the reasonings behind their beliefs," I can only ask you this:
Have you ever worked for a big corporation?
There's a corporate goal, and everyone is expected to pursue it Nobody likes someone who brings up contrary ideas. Nobody's interested in opening a "dialog". Forget "reasoning" and if you have "beliefs" that differ from the corporate misson, leave 'em at home. Your job is to carry out orders that have been handed down from the top of the chain of command. If you don't do this, you're not a "team player".
RIAA has a mandate is to agressively eliminate, by any means possible, the threats to the continued AND CONTINUALLY EXPANDING profitability of the recording industry.
Corporations grow or they die. They don't want a smaller slice of the pie, no matter how greedy they've been in the past. That's called reduced earnings, and stockholders don't like it. And taking a short term loss for a long term gain is unacceptable. You're expected to have a short-term gain and a long term gain.
So the strategy is: fight like hell against any innovation that takes money out of their pocket in the short term, but lay the groundwork to profit from that innovation in the long term. That's what all these proposed laws are about. Once you can't buy a PC, a Mac, a Walkman or a PDA that doesn't have copy-protection hardwired in, RIAA will toss it's campaign against P2P like a used Big Mac wrapper.
The sad part is, by the time their plan is all sewn up, we will all have lost a lot of our legitimate rights. And they'll still be charging too much for music and screwing over artistis.
The Gripe Line (Ed Foster): An Uphill Battle
"It's almost a bad joke to see how many bills to deprive consumers of digital products their rights were introduced in Congress this year..."
This article starts off talking about software, but stick with it. It goes into the efforts to get laws passed that will allow hacking the computers of P2P users. Corporate vigilante justice, enshrined as law. If they pull this off, any thinking person will shudder. This could be nothing less than the first move by corporations to take over the police powers of the state.
This link is to a recent John Dvorak article in PC Magazine.
One Buck Forty Or Die
He finsihes it up with this gem:
"The U.S. government should not be corrupted by the Recording Industry Association of America and should instead do more about (CD) price fixing. And let's stop lecturing people about legality and morality. Students in particular are not moral reprobates, nor are they fools. They are pragmatists, and they stretch the rules along with their budgets... Give up. Rethink your business model. The problem will be solved."
This article generated so much discussion on the PC Magazine Forums that he posted this follow-up:
When Is Stealing Not Stealing?
I don't always agree with him, but he's definitely asking the right questions in these articles.
As for Empire895 who laments that the opposition "can't even find the time to follow up on their beliefs but also don't have the intelligence to put it in their own words and truly express the reasonings behind their beliefs," I can only ask you this:
Have you ever worked for a big corporation?
There's a corporate goal, and everyone is expected to pursue it Nobody likes someone who brings up contrary ideas. Nobody's interested in opening a "dialog". Forget "reasoning" and if you have "beliefs" that differ from the corporate misson, leave 'em at home. Your job is to carry out orders that have been handed down from the top of the chain of command. If you don't do this, you're not a "team player".
RIAA has a mandate is to agressively eliminate, by any means possible, the threats to the continued AND CONTINUALLY EXPANDING profitability of the recording industry.
Corporations grow or they die. They don't want a smaller slice of the pie, no matter how greedy they've been in the past. That's called reduced earnings, and stockholders don't like it. And taking a short term loss for a long term gain is unacceptable. You're expected to have a short-term gain and a long term gain.
So the strategy is: fight like hell against any innovation that takes money out of their pocket in the short term, but lay the groundwork to profit from that innovation in the long term. That's what all these proposed laws are about. Once you can't buy a PC, a Mac, a Walkman or a PDA that doesn't have copy-protection hardwired in, RIAA will toss it's campaign against P2P like a used Big Mac wrapper.
The sad part is, by the time their plan is all sewn up, we will all have lost a lot of our legitimate rights. And they'll still be charging too much for music and screwing over artistis.