RIAA, Downloadin music Options

[stryker76]

Ok i kno that some how eeryone here as either download music illegally or has a CD with music downloaded Illegally.....

So well there is this group of people out there called the RIAA....these smelly ass monkey scrotums are the ones goin out there and gettin all these KIDS..yes KIDS sued or downloading music....we have all heard about that girl that got busted for having like 2000 songs....and she was in the pepsi commercial....well me personally i got 400+ songs downloaded to my computer.....downloading music off the internet is now different then recording it off the radio....i mean come on y are people so anal it is just music....

So what is your opinion....Do you think it should be to download music free off the internet...or not????

[waccoon]

because the artists with millions of dollars to mess around with lose twenty dollars.

[*NatiMarie*]

I mean, artists do lose money but then it can have some positive effects. The people that are mostly complaining about them are the really rich people. Some starting artists do not mind having their music distributed in the internet because they want people to be able to listen to new sounds, in order for them to buy their CD. Kind of like a sampler. I mean, downloading music, the same as taking it off the Radio. We all do it, I mean, music cannot be prevented from taking it from a certain destination. Sometimes it's also taken straight from the Radio or from borrowing a CD and recording the songs on a cassette. Their making such a huge issue of downloading music online if the same can be done on a radio. Hmm...more on the issue later
Lost train of thought...

[stryker76]

I found that the only people really complaining about the money is the record companies......but yet record sales have gone up from downloading music...did you kno that 40% of all music on the radio is controlled by only 4 major conglomerate companies....and that only about 10% of record sales go to the artist......they dont care bout the money most the time...its the music they enjoy playin and writing that is y that are in the business

[LiNHy POO]

yeh the artists are losing money ... but i think its pretty stupid that they sue kids juss for downloading music... but it would be nice if could download for free

[stryker76]

Umm you can Download for free...if you got the programs....i got 400+ songs...and mine are free

[rivendell]

There was an article in last month's RollingStone magazine about a study that Harvard did concerning the impact of illegal downloads on the recording industry. The study found that illegal music downloads are NOT making an impact on the recording industry, and therefore are not the cause of all the money the industry is losing. Of course, the RIAA and the record execs are not pleased with this finding, because it basically means all those people who got slapped with fines didn't do what they were getting sued over.

So why is the recording industry suffering? Its not because I downloaded the new Modest Mouse song or a couple Michelle Branch tracks -

Its because they make you pay 20 bucks for a new CD.

[*Kathleen*]

Yeah, Jess, I read that article. Besides, it's much easier to get exposure from the Internet, and faster. The thing is, this hurts the smaller, local bands from getting money, although they would still get more exposure. I don't know where I stand on this, though, because I can truly say I have not downloaded anything illegally in my life. I see where the artists are coming from, though, when they want their money. They earned every last penny, and as you said - they don't see most of it. It's the record companies that are complaining. Still, the artists have a lot of money to begin with, but that's because they worked hard to get where they are, and they're still going strong. Like I said, I'm neutral on this.

[WildGriffin]

time's change, the ancient dinosaur that is the music industry needs to learn to adopt.

[onenonly101]

That pisses me off when artist want to get mad. We made you who you are, how dare you say we can't get a little something for oursleves. I frankly don't care if they lose .05 million form their 20 million check for this week.

[*kryogenix*]

That pisses me off when artist want to get mad. We made you who you are, how dare you say we can't get a little something for oursleves. I frankly don't care if they lose .05 million form their 20 million check for this week.

what if you lost a percentage of your paycheck because people stole from you? i'd be pretty upset. just because they can afford to be stolen from, doesn't mean they should be stolen from. artist put hard work into creating their music, they deserve to reap the profits. however, i think the RIAA is going a little too far. it's almost like a mob, they're threatening people and forcing them to pay up.

[stryker76]

for some info on this from an artist POV.....go to launch and watch KORN - Ya'll Wanta Single.....it is about corrupt record companies stealling artist money and junk....the only artist that care about people downloadin music are those that own there own record company...and yes CD sales in general have gone up since people started downloadin music

[WildGriffin]

what if you lost a percentage of your paycheck because people stole from you? i'd be pretty upset.

Bush's tax policies do just that Sorry...had to squeeze it in.

[initial-seven]

OF COURSE, i dont want to pay to get free music

[*kryogenix*]

Bush's tax policies do just that Sorry...had to squeeze it in.

i'm hoping you're just joking. because taxes, though we don't like them, are not stealing. and why single out just bush? what about the other 40 some odd presidents?

  OF COURSE, i dont want to pay to get free music

wow. yeah, i guess i don't want to pay to get free food from the grocery anymore. or i don't want to pay to get free clothes from the mall anymore. heck, i don't want to pay to get a free car anymore. but, it's not stealing, right?

[WildGriffin]

wow. yeah, i guess i don't want to pay to get free food from the grocery anymore. or i don't want to pay to get free clothes from the mall anymore. heck, i don't want to pay to get a free car anymore. but, it's not stealing, right?

if cars and groceries could be duplicated by anyone as easily as an MP3 could, yeah, i'd steal em.

i'm hoping you're just joking. because taxes, though we don't like them, are not stealing. and why single out just bush? what about the other 40 some odd presidents?

Cause Bush favors the rich when doing taxes, therefore giving unequal taxes to the less fortunate, therefore stealing from the less fortunate when compared to the rich. I guess every other republican did it too..i dunno how many republicans have served as president though.

[*kryogenix*]

if cars and groceries could be duplicated by anyone as easily as an MP3 could, yeah, i'd steal em.

easy duplication doesn't justify stealing.

[WildGriffin]

easy duplication doesn't justify stealing.

stealings alright when it doesn't hurt anyone. I was simply pointing out that "stealing" an mp3 is nothing like stealing a car...or groceries. It's not really stealing in the first place...it's just duplicating. Usually when something is stolen its in the possetion of another person and not with its rightful owner.

It's sort of like plagarism, in that no actual material is being stolen. But it's not plagarism because nobody claims that the music they've taken and duplicated is there own. The only people that stand to get hurt are the CD companies, but they haven't taken a big hit from music sharing..or else CDs would've dropped in price by now.

[m@dcow]

i think that the RIAA has a point... ... i'm basically neutral on this subject... just incase the RIAA are watching... i take the 5th

[ComradeRed]

[*kryogenix*]

stealings alright when it doesn't hurt anyone. I was simply pointing out that "stealing" an mp3 is nothing like stealing a car...or groceries. It's not really stealing in the first place...it's just duplicating. Usually when something is stolen its in the possetion of another person and not with its rightful owner.

It's sort of like plagarism, in that no actual material is being stolen. But it's not plagarism because nobody claims that the music they've taken and duplicated is there own. The only people that stand to get hurt are the CD companies, but they haven't taken a big hit from music sharing..or else CDs would've dropped in price by now.

well, i think it's more like pirating software, where you are taking the intellectual property of the programmer.

wouldn't cd prices go up to compensate for lost profits?

[ComradeRed]

This is especially true when you pirated the Red Army Chorus like me.

On another note... I feel like God when I quote myself.

[WildGriffin]

wouldn't cd prices go up to compensate for lost profits?

They'd go down to compete and to keep selling.

[*kryogenix*]

They'd go down to compete and to keep selling.

how do you compete with something that's being given away for free? i think it would be more logical to raise the prices to compensate for the profits that the companies never get due to the rampant piracy.

[annchovie]

i think it's wrong. you're taking profit away from people who have worked for it. even if its only one song/software. if a billion people do the same thing as you did, then it will add up. has anyone seen the ladykillers? in it these people steal A LOT of money from a casino. and the guy consoles himself by calculating it out to be that there was only one penny taken from each person.

anyways, i saw in a magazine that CD marketers lowered their prices.

[ComradeRed]

This is especially true when you pirated the Red Army Chorus like me.

On another note... I feel like God when I quote myself.

Oh come on! I'm sure someone wants to rebut my argument! Kathleen? Anybody?

[WildGriffin]

That's an argument?

Communism, one love

[ComradeRed]

That's an argument?

Communism, one love

ok so it isn't really an argument, but i think we can agree that is the coolest stereotypical Russian ever drawn.

[shawty_redd]

i only have about 100 songs from downlaoding but sometimes i stumble upon new artists/songs that i never knew existed and if the artist releases a couple good songs then i'll go out and buy the album..the most recent cd i bought was usher-confessions..i could have easily downloaded the whole album but i didn't..they claim that they're losing money but some sources say that downloading is actually helping them...i dunno im gonna countinue to download..but if they keep suing then i might stop or download less....

[WildGriffin]

coolest stereotypical Russian ever drawn.

Some horns sticking out of the hat would make it a masterpiece.

[machinoman]

how do you compete with something that's being given away for free? i think it would be more logical to raise the prices to compensate for the profits that the companies never get due to the rampant piracy.

yeah! if people think music is too expensive so they download it, raise the prices. that will get people to stop downloading music... ehh? eeeehhhh? genius.

(actually this would lead everyone to download music, thus negating all existance)

[*kryogenix*]

yeah! if people think music is too expensive so they download it, raise the prices. that will get people to stop downloading music... ehh? eeeehhhh? genius.

(actually this would lead everyone to download music, thus negating all existance)

no, but the lawsuits will stop people from downloading music.

[ComradeRed]

no, but the lawsuits will stop people from downloading music.

Technically, it's only illegal to upload not download, since when you download you never agreed to a EULA.

[*kryogenix*]

Technically, it's only illegal to upload not download, since when you download you never agreed to a EULA.

isn't the EULA in the sharing software though? and aren't copyright laws in effect as well?

[ComradeRed]

isn't the EULA in the sharing software though? and aren't copyright laws in effect as well?

The copyrights only apply to those who are actually copying, not those who are recieveing. Those recieving never agree to an EULA.

[Jiggapin0]

Screw RIAA! Down with Metallica! Napster forever!

[mai_z]

it's the record companys and the sell outs who really care about the music downloading, most artists (i mean real singers n stuff, not those cheesy sellout celebrities) wouldn't care, as long as you listen to and like their music...... like Edison's new CD is called Please Steal This Album.l... basically saying that he doesn't care about the sales, and he just wants people 2 listen

[dasturbd]

I'll still buy CD's from the store, if I really like the artist...but some of the songs out are simply one-hit-wonders and there's no way I'm wastin my money on an entire CD for one good song

[Jiggapin0]

no, but the lawsuits will stop people from downloading music.

Statistics show that illegal downloading of music has increased even after lawsuits. At least that's what I heard on the news.

[euroFUSION]

I think the RIAA is just power-hungry for some money... ugh, I think it's wrong how they're forcing ISP to give up customers' Web logs and all...

[WildGriffin]

What the RIAA is doing is fair, but impractical.

Best way to fight the RIAA is to keep downloading as you always do. RIAA ain't got nothin on me.

[angel-roh]

well i dont knoe wat will other singers will think bot cus they did so much things and so much hard work to it... but i dont kno y it's so illegal and they get sued. it's pretty gay that we get sued... gosh... i mean is that the reason that the singers wanted to be a singer? so they can get jackpots into their pockets? i thot singers jus want to get famous and let ppls listen to their songs. like for me... i luv this one singer...but her album...i only liked 2 songs... and it will be a waste to buy an album...so i jus burned them. so yeah...and some ppls out there who are poor doesnt have that much money to buy an album, so they burn a cd...i think it's illegal to burn a cd and sell it...thats so illegal!!