http://www.vnunet.com/News/1152386

Couple this with the recent resurgence of users of P2P file sharing networks. Not looking good for the RIAA's anti-piracy battle.

i'm waiting for someone to light their main offices on fire or something

------------------
<Genki> oh, where are you going, with beards all a waggin, no knowin no knowin what bring dear Mr. Baggins, and Balin, and Dwalin, here down in the vally Ah ha!

Yeah, we definitely need a group of terrorists who know they're wrong and just don't care.

------------------
Steal my dreams and sell them back to me.....

well, if the RIAA would offer a service like iTunes and Napster or maybe SUPPORT one of them they'd see a lot less illegal downloading.

but no, they only want us to buy from the stores and pay almost $20 for one cd. greedy little fellas, aren't they?

------------------
i thought about this being the anti-sig... or the sig virus... or the sig of your nightmares... but i decided that some painful rhetoric might work instead...
just kidding.

All I need is their address, 20 minutes, and a few cocktails of the Molotov variety...

------------------
The future is here, and all bets are off.

I don't know if you realize this, but the reason they charge relatively high prices is that it costs money to rent a studio and produce an album. Then, if you wait for a bit, or just buy it the first week it comes out at places like Best Buy, you can get it for much lower prices.



"Maybe" is the key word here. There's just as great of a chance that people will always cry that prices for music are too high, or decry the incorporation of music, and continue to illegally download to "fight the system."

------------------
"LC Tusken: the idiot is the person who follows the idiot and your not following me your insulting me your following the path of a idiot so that makes you the idiot"
NMGOH || Jack Chick preaches it || The Link of the Dead

[This message has been edited by Wolfy (edited January 29, 2004).]

The people have spoken. Before too long we'll be able to download music at a reasonable price. Movies are next...watch out Hollywood, here we come.

------------------
http://www.napalmdeathsquad.com

I don't download to "fight the system" for fighting sake, I do it because I don't have $10 or $20 to fling around whenever I want music. Plus, I don't have a favorite artist; my favorites songs are across many genres from dozens of artists. I may only like one song from a CD with 15, so why on Earth would I buy the CD???

------------------
Kids must be shot by Monday.

Honesty tests for workers can't be trusted, report says.

Psychopaths are unpredictable.

Jay Leno's Headlines > Everything

No duh:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,6354,00.asp

------------------
Young men make wars, and the virtues of war are the virtues of young men: courage and hope for the future. Then old men make the peace, and the vices of old men are the vices of peace: mistrust and caution. It must be so.
-Laurence of Arabia

Couldn't see the original article, refused to show up. Doesn't matter, the argument's tried and true--RIAA, charge decent PRICES and you'll get decent SALES, pirating has little to nothing to do with that. But no they don't understand. "True" pirates would just as soon see their artists reimbursed for their efforts. I'd be glad to pay for 5 dollar Assemblage 23 albums--if they were 5 dollars. But no, the RIAA jacks up the price. "You're stealing and you don't care" argument, just shut the hell up. You can't say how we feel, but you do think you're somehow better than people who want decent prices. "Isn't 99c decent?" Yah, maybe if you're trying to destroy what little money 15-20 year olds have, which is the main source of pirating. Like the second article said, lower the prices, people don't have as much money as the RIAA wants.

------------------
There is no signature

See, here's the thing, it really isn't like you need the music. You people keep claiming "Oh boohoo, I don't have enough money to spend on these things that I must have! I deserve to listen to this music! They have no right to charge me money for their product!" They have every right to charge the prices they do, it's just people have found illegal ways to get around it, and now you're celebrating. What next? "McDonald's charges way too much for their meals! We'll just bum-rush their restaurants and hijack their supply lines and force them to lower prices!"

------------------
Roach - Steal acceptance, lend denial.

0 of 14.

I still like Canada's approach: place a tax on mp3 players, etc, in order to compensate the music artists. Of course, I'm not sure how well that plan is doing now...

------------------
"It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity."

-Albert Einstein

Thats an absurd analogy. Hamburgers are material goods. Mp3s are not.

------------------
The future is here, and all bets are off.

Illegal MP3s were ripped from the material good (the CD) that one person bought.

------------------
There are two asses in Massassi... and I'm one of them.
The Matrix Unplugged|The Valley of the Jedi Tower|Smaug's Lair

And you can always go to Burgerking. There aren't two RIAAs.

------------------
Snail racing: (500 posts per line)
-----@%

Besides, McDonalds sucks. Mp3s do not.

I'm no fan of fast food.

------------------
Frogblast the Vent Core!

--End of Line--

... Because copyright infringement is ****ing illegal!

That doesn't mean that cds aren't overpriced. Cassette tapes cost more money to produce, but cd's are still more expensive.

------------------
All you need is love.

[This message has been edited by dry gear the frog (edited January 29, 2004).]

But you have to include the recording and productions costs in that equation.

The problem with CD prices is that it can be difficult to tell how many copie will be sold. The more a CD sells, the lower the cost per CD, obviously. CDs are priced as they are because the successful CDs make up moeny for the ones that don't return a profit.

------------------
I'm not an actor. I just play one on TV.

[This message has been edited by Avenger (edited January 29, 2004).]

I simply cannot comprehend the pure IDIOCY of the replies some people give when asked why they steal music. "I don't have enough money to buy cds!"

WHAT. THE. ****.

That is not an excuse. I dont have the money for a yacht, but I haven't gone and stolen one. I don't have the money for 3D Studio Max, but I haven't run out and stolen it.

There's this thing called capitalism, and it's based on YOU buying **** if you can afford it. If you can't, YOU DON'T GET SAID ****.

------------------
WOOSH.
-----@%

The government is sitting on the money because they haven't decided how to distribute it yet.

whenever this Digital Radio thing is out you won't need to pirate because radio stations will be broadcasting CD qaulity music. It's all downhill for the RIAA now.

------------------


---Thomas jefferson, Declaration of Independance.

I don't recall anyone stating that. Be fair with your criticism.



Therein lies one of the many problems. They shouldn't have the right to charge what they do. The government needs to be more consistant. They over-regulate where they don't need to, and under-regulate where there should be more regulation. CD prices are ridiculous, and I believe that most Americans agree.



Excellent point.



And what is going to be your excuse when CD sales are lower than internet sales? You might want to develop your strategy now, because that's soon going to be the reality.



So is skateboarding outside the mall, speeding, hollywood-stopping, and not wearing your seatbelt, but I'm sure none of you do those things either.

One could make the argument that downloading illegal music is worse than speeding and/or hollywood-stopping, but illegal music never killed anyone (that I'm aware of). I think some of you really need to get off of your high horses. I'm sure half of you will now claim that you never break those laws. The humorous part is that I actually don't, but I do download illegal music. Go figure.




------------------
http://www.napalmdeathsquad.com

The RIAA needs to get realistic with it's propaganda, but in the end piracy does hurt the artist.

------------------
Shut up. I'm GOING to do this whether you like it or not.

Oh, right, right. Because other things are illegal, and he may do those things, that makes downloading music illegally okay. Well, phew. Thank God for that. That'll make shoplifting so much morally justifiable now.



Er...why? Are you somehow being hurt by prices that you think are too high? You know, maybe my school was biased, or something, but when we were taught the essential needs of a human being, "music" wasn't among them.



That those internet sales were authorized by the artists or by the label? That downloading illegal mp3s wasn't?

------------------
"LC Tusken: the idiot is the person who follows the idiot and your not following me your insulting me your following the path of a idiot so that makes you the idiot"
NMGOH || Jack Chick preaches it || The Link of the Dead

I'm one of the cases where artists have benefited from my downloading music. I discover bands I like and buy their stuff.

I think the worst case of overcharging is with older stuff. I don't like having to pay $16 for Joy Division and Smiths cds. Stuff by The Beatles is also criminally overpriced.
It seems strange paying for their music when similarly influential literature and paintings can be found online.

------------------
All you need is love.

You can blame pricing of Beatles' CDs on Michael Jackson - he owns all of the songs. Ooooh...more reasons to hate MJ.

------------------
"LC Tusken: the idiot is the person who follows the idiot and your not following me your insulting me your following the path of a idiot so that makes you the idiot"
NMGOH || Jack Chick preaches it || The Link of the Dead

Piracy helps the artists. It only hurts the record label.



------------------
All the prism in the world couldn't make hue.

Well, I just recently did a count on how many CD's I've bought with in the last year. The grand total being 17. These CD's ranged in price from 10-24 dollars, but to be more fair, lets say each one cost $15. So 17 CDs at $15 a pop, thats $255 I've spent on CD's in the last year. Around 13 of these said CD's I was influenced to buy after listening to some of the music on MP3.com(great source for legal music, when it was alive) and Kazaa(great source for mostly illegal music). In my case, the RIAA seems to have caught me in their trap with good music, but there is no way I would have bought a large majority of those CD's without having previously listening to the music. But now the stupid monopolies of the internet industry have taken away my beloved MP3.com, so it really leaves me no choice but to use Kazaa. Now, am I saying that my actions right? No, all I'm saying is that if the RIAA wants me to continue buying their CDs, they damn better allow me to use Kazaa to find music I like or give me back MP3.com. There is no way in hell that I'm forking over another $250 to them this year if I havn't thoroughly previewed what I'm buying first.

Sure. Stop downloading, it's evil. boo-hoo

What the RIAA fears, is that downloading lets people discover "indie" music. that's right! labels not under their dreadful wrath! What a tragedy! Oh No! we must not let the usually more talented and devoted underground musicians take over the stupid crap that the RIAA endorses! We MUST NOT LET THE LISTENER LISTEN TO GOOD MUSIC!

File-Sharing has helped a great share of bands sky-rocket into stardom. examples? here's one:

Opeth, they were unknown two years ago. when Blackwater Park got ripped by some guy, and downloaded, everything got better for them. Last thing I heard, they were planning a tour in Israel. Not bad for a Death (Oh no! Death metal! it must be evil )Metal band from Sweden.

Another one, Stormlord, they've been around for 10 years, from Italy. Their last album, At The Gates Of Utopia, got massively spread around the internet, and now everyone I know is hooked to them.

Yeah. File Sharing is so evil, it helps worthy artists live with their music.

Give me a ****ing break.



------------------
* Seb goes around singing "I'm too sexy for my body"
* Wolfy goes around singing "I'm too sexy for Seb's body"
* Cave_Demon steals Seb's underwear (underwear stolen: 39)

Sorry, but I have to laugh at that. Piracy does hurt the artists because they don't get money from record sales to pay back the record compay for the loan they receive to pay for recording, production, distribution, and promotion. That's how the business works.

I can understand why people think CDs are overpriced, but how many of you actually know what kind of money goes into getting the CDs to the store where you can buy them?

That said, I think the RIAA is shoving it's head up it's *** with the way it's handling the whole situation. They'd be much better off working on a pay to download service similar to Itunes.

------------------
I'm not an actor. I just play one on TV.

You know, in my opinion, the RIAA and other people shouldn't even be *****ing about this stuff. Why? Because it was inevitable. When the Internet kept increasing in resources, and users, at least one of the thousand total idiots that work there must have thought "Gee..Large global expansion of an electronic network, now used by literally hundreds of millions of people worldwide..Yeah, some illegal downloading is BOUND to happen".

They aren't just shoving their heads in their asses now, they have had them there all the time.

Yeah, piracy is a problem now. The problem is it was inevitable from day one. People, in general, don't care where the music comes from so much as they care about how they got it. That being said, out of the trunk piracy was a issue before the internet. Now that the internet has taken off, people find that they can steal music easily and without penalty (well, none that is legal, to say the least). It's a matter of how the RIAA chooses to deal with the problem. The major shortcoming in the RIAA's tactics is that (much the the MPAA's system) they hold incredibly high prices by charging incredible amounts to cover overhead due to union pay wages and strict buisiness wide pay practices. Unions are one of the sole reasons hollywood productions cost tens of millions of dollars a year to produce and distribute. Likewise they are also the reason music costs only $5 less than the suggested retail price of a DVD movie, which cost millions more to produce and involed MANY more people. This is also why you will never see some of the greatest movies put on film in any theater and is also why some of the best in independent music will never be heard on the radio.

<3 RIAA/MPAA/Unions

[edit: Fixed some odd typos I didn't notice until now]
------------------
A bus station is where a bus stops. A train station is where a train stops.
On my desk I have a workstation...


[This message has been edited by Farix (edited January 30, 2004).]

This whole thing has me so frellin mad. Wolfy over there "You don't need music." No we don't. But have you ever just sat and listened to music? Have you ever found a piece of music that you listen to over and over again? Likewise, we don't need cars, we don't need computers, we don't need the internet, we don't need games. But what about those? And wolfy, FYI, most people do buy the CDs after listening to the music. I'm an exception for one reason only--I'm broke from just buying a new computer. I'm sorry man but music is one of the great arts, and to say that I can nor should not be able to listen to it just doesn't appeal to me. When I get a job, which should be next month, I'll reimburse artists slowly. Till then, give me my Kazaa.

------------------
There is no signature

I don't believe that, and have seen no real evidence that points to this conclusion. There are a million different types of people who download music, and many of those include people who in some way reimburse the artist.

For instance, when I download a song (illegally or legally, it's all the same to me), if the artist is worthy, I'll spread the word to my friends. I can account for dozens of CD's by some of my favorite artists being sold to my friends because of file-sharing (I don't share files with the public), in this year alone. I can account for many CD's in my own collection that would have never been purchased if it weren't for file-sharing. Most of the music I listen to is from overseas, is sometimes difficult to get ahold of here in the states, and I would never waste what little money I make on buying random albums without downloading the mp3's to see if I enjoy them first. I bought the entire collection (minus a few singles) of Juno Reactor's albums even before they started getting big in America, and it was all due to file-sharing. I won't bore you folks with more examples, I'm sure you get the point, whether you pretend to or not.



I don't recall stating that "downloading music illegally is okay." My point is that you folks are all over file-sharing like white on rice and half of you can't see beyond your own hypocracy. You folks are always so quick to pass judgement and create goofy analogies like your crap doesn't stink, but if you're like most humans, half of you probably break the law on a daily basis. So are we all going to hell? 99% of you break the law, and it's just strange to see people on their high-horses passing judgement on people who download music and then turn around and go out to run a stop sign. You folks must be so much better than we are.

And btw, shoplifting is a goofy analogy.



Do you believe everything that you learn in school? I don't recall stating that music was a necessity, but one could easily make the argument that it could possibly be. Are you the official source on what is necessity? Are you one of those people that thinks that anything that doesn't send us back to the caveman days isn't a necessity? Personally, I'll leave it up to the individual to decide what is necessary for them.



Irrelevant to Cazor's post, which is what I was responding to.



Contrary to what the other side would like you to think, you're one of the many.



Agreed. People are greedy and they'll sell anything as long as there is a profit to be made. There's nothing illegal about it, but one could easily question the morality of such things.

Grashopper4232: There are millions of people that are right there with you bud. If the other side of this debate had their way, you'd be paying for music without ever getting a chance to sample it first (like we've been doing for years). I want to sample an entire album when I purchase a CD...anything less would be a waste of my time.



I can name hundreds of artists that I listen to, that I would never have heard about if it weren't for file-sharing (most of my music falls in this category). I totally agree with your entire post.



Don't laugh, there is truth to his statement. First of all, you can't put all artists in the same category. There are many artists that are making a killing because of file-sharing. After you take them out of your equation, you can rethink your strategy. If you'll care to think/dig a little deeper you'll come to a different conclusion. One that shows file-sharing as a friendly carebear.

Interesting post Farix.






------------------
http://www.napalmdeathsquad.com

I have no problem with the download of music authorized by the artist.



I think it's quite relevent to Cazor's post. His point was that the illegal mp3s downloaded now weren't authorized for download, and that ones available through Napster and iTunes are authorized for download through those services.



Hee hee. Frellin. Damn Sebacean.



You need a car to commute to work. Computers help with lots of complicated calculations that would take much longer if by hand, and they allow for better monitoring and examination of hospital patients (to give a specific example). Games aren't necessary, no, and I don't support the illegal download of those, either. I'm planning on being a computer game designer - it'd be stealing from myself and threatening the stability of the industry into which I plan on entering.






Unless, of course, you think that legally downloading isn't okay.



I speed on the highway (10 mph above the limit) and on the mall drive (25 in a 15). Aside from that? No, I don't break the law. I'm not sure why you think that, simply because the majority of people break the law, that makes it okay for you to do so. Nice diversion tactic, though.



Care to explain why it's goofy? Or would simply like to post another baseless refuting of an analogy?



Then make such an argument. If it's not a necessity, then why do you need to download music? Why can't you wait just that smidgen of time for the prices to come down?

------------------
"LC Tusken: the idiot is the person who follows the idiot and your not following me your insulting me your following the path of a idiot so that makes you the idiot"
NMGOH || Jack Chick preaches it || The Link of the Dead

Nobody's making the argument that file-sharing is bad. What's being said is that piracy is bad - when you download the latest Linkin Park album and don't pay, for example. I'd agree that it's a great technology for obscure or independant bands.

I especially hate it when people complain about the quality of today's music, as if it's somehow declined. Okay, look, maybe you don't like what's popular today - well, then I guess you'd better stick to that collection of 78's, because music is art. It's not like a car or a computer where it either works or it doesn't, and you're entitled to a fully operational product; music is all subjective. You get what you can out of it. It's okay to say, "If they don't put out some solid albums, they can forget about seeing my cash!" but that's not license to start pirating music.

------------------
Shut up. I'm GOING to do this whether you like it or not.

[This message has been edited by Tracer (edited January 30, 2004).]

I am as anti-RIAA as they come, but i wasn't saying that CDs should be that expensive. I was just proving that what GBK said was a bad point. And what the hell do legal downloading of songs off the net (internet sales) have to do with illegally downloading them which was what i was talking about? I doubt that there will be a time that buying songs off the net will be used more than illegally downloading them.

You just bring up a lot of baseless points. Argh. thats all.


------------------
There are two asses in Massassi... and I'm one of them.
The Matrix Unplugged|The Valley of the Jedi Tower|Smaug's Lair

Ok...

Those of you who use file-sharing to download the music of independent or overseas bands (ie anyone not under the RIAA corporate umbrella), the RIAA isn't targetting you. Even if you share all such music when connected to Kazaa or the like, the RIAA search routines won't pick you out because they aren't bothered about illegal distribution of music that doesn't belong to them.

Those of you who download the music of big name bands, then proceed to share it all with the world, bands who are signed to labels covered by the RIAA. You're the ones who are being targetted. You also have very little excuse since the only argument you have is "i'm trying to sample the music before I buy it", the thing about big name bands is that unless you've been living under a rock, you will have heard their music on the radio or tv.

They forget, it doesnt matter what it costs them, without us, they make nothing. Even if they stop illegal downloading, people still wont pay that much for a CD... one way or another they lose.

------------------
"Ahhhh!! I'm Burnin'! I'm Burnin!!!" - Cleaner from Max Payne 2