[Van Patton]

What do you all think about the RIAA's threats of sueing users who have a substantial amount of mp3's and other files on their PC's? I personally think it's rediculous because for one it's legal to have copies of the mp3s if you own the cds and secondly half of the artists I have on my hardrive are jam bands who have personally stated they don't care how you get the music, they just want you to GET the music. If they were going to come after anyone they'd come after me because I have over 50gb of music! It's a shame when music has turned from being an art to being something that big companies market for a profit.

[Jeff Ulmer]

Quote:

It's a shame when music has turned from being an art to being something that big companies market for a profit.

Music has always been a commercial venture, even the classical composers were paid to create their works. It does cost money to make and release recordings, and artists, and the record companies that allow the artists to create, are entitled to make a living from their work like everyone else does. It's a shame music has become so easy to steal that people feel they are entitled to not pay for thier entertainment collections. I'm all for the RIAA going after those who are illegally distributing material they have no right to, which is what these lawsuits are about, not your backup archives. If you are not sharing, and aren't downloading material that is violating someone's rights, you have nothing to worry about.

[Steve Enemark]

It's one thing to market for profit, and quite another to gouge your customers and then sue them when they refuse to bend over for it.

[Jeff Ulmer]

Quote:

It's one thing to market for profit, and quite another to gouge your customers and then sue them when they refuse to bend over for it.

There is nothing forcing you to buy something you don't feel is worth the money. That doesn't justify stealing it though. If you don't feel the music on a CD is worth the asking price, use your power as a consumer and don't buy it.

[Brandon_T]

While I am torn on this issue, I do feel that the recording industry does ask to much for a CD. If you recall in the mid to late 80's, they promised us that the high cost of music at that time wer only temporary to help with the initial cost of the technology. I remember some record exec. stating that by the early 90s cd's should cost no more that $10 a pop. I don't know about you but I can't find new releases for close to that.

We will just have to see how this turns out.

Brandon

[Van Patton]

But I also think some of you are missing the point. Downloading music helps me find new artists. Since the boom of the file sharing age my CD buying has gone up a substantial amount. The record companies are giving us a lot of spin. CD sales are UP not down.

[Todd Hochard]

It's time for the RIAA to get their heads out of the sand, and pony up with a service like iTunes for everyone. 99c a pop, and I want to be able to play on any device I own.

I am tired of $15 for two decent songs. Of course, they know this, and revenue would likely be lower, with people skipping entire CD purchases, and buying 1-2 songs totalling $1-2.

But, honestly, I think the whole point is moot. I'd bet there are many like me, who have diverted a substantial portion of their entertainment spending from CDs to DVDs. So, in the end, it doesn't matter what the price is. I'm not buying much anyway.

Todd

[Glenn Overholt]

I don't think that you have anythng to worry about.

If you didn't know, the RIAA downloaded copyrighted music via peer to peer, and then got their IP numbers, and then got their real names and addresses from their ISP's.

I have a feeling that if anyone was doing this and stopped when the news broke that it is too late. They're all screwed.

The good news is that if you are having trouble getting into the college of your choice this Fall, then there might be some openings coming up!

I don't know if any of you caught it, but movies are next, and if anyone has been up/downloading those, you're probably already on their lists too.

As for their prices, it is sick. CD's don't cost more than a buck to crank out, and it is nice that the writers etc. are getting their money, but I guess what I want to ask is what does Tower Records and others pay for these?

Glenn

[andrew markworthy]

Copying copyrighted music is wrong, of course it is. It's not up there with child molestation or armed robbery as an evil thing to do, but it's still an illegal act, no matter how you look at it. However, the proposed law suits are arguably over the top and likely to backfire. To take an analagous situation, in 19th century England, kicking London Bridge, impersonating a Chelsea Pensioner, or stealing anything worth over 5 shillings was (literally) a hanging offence. The result was that until the laws were reformed, the public had little sympathy with the process of law because it was unecessarily draconian in response to the nature of the crime. Similarly, using the weight of the law to reinforce the profitability of an industry not noted for its reasonable prices is, to adopt Alexander Pope's phrase, breaking a butterfly on the wheel, and if anything will *encourage* illegal copying.


The problem is magnified in countries where the pricing is even more unreasonable than the USA. Take the dear old UK. Home of the Beatles, the Stones, and 10 pounds (c. 16 dollars) constitutes a 'bargain' CD. Just don't ask what normal retail price is.

[Carl Miller]

I agree the music industry has the right to protect its product. Whether this is the way to go about it, I don't think so.

We can site the legal issues, and discuss the subject till the cows come home. However any way you cut it, the RIAA suing a bunch of "little people" by legally compelling ISP's to divulge their identities, hunting them down and then stomping on them with all the force a billion dollar industry can muster just isn't going to look good.

Jeff, I agree 100% in principle with your position. However, the music industry is going to lose on the PR front if it takes this tactic.

The music industry would be better served by changing its business model. Personally, I'm appalled by the cost of CD's today and aside from a new Pearl Jam release every 2 years, and a new Tool release every 4 or 5 years, I rarely buy new music. What little new music I want I buy used a few months after release or when possible directly from the artist.

Yes yes, I know it costs money to put out the product. But it's not my fault that it takes 60 people to make your standard fare pop album because most popular artists are utterly talentless.

It's not my fault that the music industry is so anal that it believes the only way to make money is to put all it's money behind so called blockbuster artists and doling out long term multi million dollar contracts, hiring armies to help these talentless nothings make an album and then dropping another 3,5 or 10 million dollars on a series of videos to help sell the product...And in the process leaving little money for the development and marketing of innovative, talented musicians.

File sharing is a problem. Howver the RIAA is insulting in its stance that file sharing is the cause for the decline in sales over the past two years.

The product put out by the music industry is weaker than I've ever seen. It gave us Papa Roach, then 40 or 50 clones. It gave us Incubus, then 10 or 20 clones. Now we've got a bunch of Good Charlotte clones which are as undistinguishable as Good Charlotte itself. And I'm not even going to get into the constant parade of rap and hip hop clones borrowing the same George Clinton or James Brown beats and hooks that were used 4 weeks ago on another song by another artist.

Find it, clone it, shove it down your throat till the well runs dry...Dispose, rinse, repeat.

The music industry treats music and artists as a disposable product...Is it any wonder the customers treat the music the same way?

I've never downloaded a song in my life. Don't know how, don't have the equipment and really don't care to learn. If I did though, the RIAA's plan might stop me from doing it, but it sure wouldn't make me buy the same crappy music I wouldn't buy before.

[John Watson]

Carl, well said about the "quality" that is being protected by Big Record Man.

Its a damn shame when the stealing does affect the talented artists tho, and I hope something can be done about it tho.