-

Jump to content



Sign up for a free account!

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and you won't get the popup ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
- - - - -

RIAA impending lawsuits


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
574 replies to this topic

#1 of 575 Van Patton

Van Patton

    Second Unit

  • 459 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 27 2001

Posted June 29 2003 - 04:29 AM

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.

#2 of 575 Jeff Ulmer

Jeff Ulmer

    Producer

  • 5,593 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 23 1998

Posted June 29 2003 - 04:55 AM

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.

#3 of 575 Steve Enemark

Steve Enemark

    Second Unit

  • 485 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 31 1969

Posted June 29 2003 - 04:58 AM

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.
"The feel of the experience is the important thing, not the ability to verbalize it." -Stanley Kubrick

#4 of 575 Jeff Ulmer

Jeff Ulmer

    Producer

  • 5,593 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 23 1998

Posted June 29 2003 - 05:12 AM

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.

#5 of 575 Brandon_T

Brandon_T

    Screenwriter

  • 1,900 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 03 2000

Posted June 29 2003 - 05:36 AM

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

#6 of 575 Van Patton

Van Patton

    Second Unit

  • 459 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 27 2001

Posted June 29 2003 - 05:51 AM

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.

#7 of 575 Glenn Overholt

Glenn Overholt

    Producer

  • 4,207 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 24 1999

Posted June 29 2003 - 05:57 AM

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

#8 of 575 Todd Hochard

Todd Hochard

    Screenwriter

  • 2,314 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 24 1999

Posted June 29 2003 - 05:55 AM

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
I love to singa, about the moon-a, and the june-a, and the springa...
-Owl Jolson

#9 of 575 andrew markworthy

andrew markworthy

    Producer

  • 4,766 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 30 1999

Posted June 29 2003 - 06:27 AM

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. Posted Image

#10 of 575 Carl Miller

Carl Miller

    Screenwriter

  • 1,461 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 17 2002

Posted June 29 2003 - 06:41 AM

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.
Carl

#11 of 575 John Watson

John Watson

    Screenwriter

  • 1,937 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 14 2002

Posted June 29 2003 - 07:00 AM

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.

#12 of 575 Jeff Ulmer

Jeff Ulmer

    Producer

  • 5,593 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 23 1998

Posted June 29 2003 - 07:18 AM

Quote:
CD's don't cost more than a buck to crank out

Nothing is ever priced at what it costs to replicate, otherwise, what would be the point of making it? You are forgetting about all the production costs, advertising costs, distribution costs, the cost of the retail space, staff costs, etc. When you go out for dinner and blow $50 on a single meal, you aren't paying the >$6 it cost for the supplies are you?

Also, if sales are up, then the laws of supply and demand would dictate the pricing is actually too low, otherwise they would be stagnant or declining. If you accept a capitalist society, then the selling price is what the market will bear.

There is nothing wrong with enforcing the laws, after all, that is the only way they have any meaning.
Quote:
The product put out by the music industry is weaker than I've ever seen.

Then why is there so much demand for it? If it was that bad, why would people bother to waste their time downloading it? If you want to send a message to the industry, stop buying their product, and stop downloading it. That would be the effective way of saying, "give us quality, or we're not interested." Downloading only proves there is interest, and provides a perfect argument for claiming lost sales due to piracy.

#13 of 575 Rob Gardiner

Rob Gardiner

    Screenwriter

  • 2,950 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 15 2002

Posted June 29 2003 - 08:13 AM

Quote:
It's a shame music has become so easy to steal that people feel they are entitled to not pay for thier entertainment collections.

Quote:
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.

With all due respect, both of these statements are wrong. There is nothing wrong with copying the copyrighted work of another for personal, non-commercial use. It is perfectly legal to tape songs off the radio for free, as long as the copies you make are neither sold nor distributed to the public. Downloading MP3s is no different. That is why they are going after UPLOADERS only in this case, because downloading is not illegal.

Quote:
Also, if sales are up, then the laws of supply and demand would dictate the pricing is actually too low, otherwise they would be stagnant or declining. If you accept a capitalist society, then the selling price is what the market will bear.

Jeff, perhaps you missed the recent news that the record industry has settled a price-fixing suit for $140 million.

#14 of 575 David Ely

David Ely

    Supporting Actor

  • 761 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 01 1998

Posted June 29 2003 - 08:24 AM

Does anyone know how this will affect people outside the US?
Visit my website
Golden's Domain

#15 of 575 Jeff Ulmer

Jeff Ulmer

    Producer

  • 5,593 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 23 1998

Posted June 29 2003 - 09:27 AM

Quote:
Downloading MP3s is no different. That is why they are going after UPLOADERS only in this case, because downloading is not illegal.

You are failing to see the vast difference between taping off the radio and downloading. Radio station pay to play the music they air, therefore making a copy is one thing. If files are being distributed without proper licensing, then downloading is violating the copyright holder's right. It is very different, and is illegal if the files were not being distributed through licensed channels. They may be going after uploaders first, but in no way does that exempt downloaders. The key is personal, non-commercial use. Gaining something of value is considered by the courts to be a commercial transaction, whether or not money is exchanged. Downloading whole songs for your music library in no way falls under fair use, except perhaps in very limited and rare circumstances.

#16 of 575 Carl Miller

Carl Miller

    Screenwriter

  • 1,461 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 17 2002

Posted June 29 2003 - 10:01 AM

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

Thanks, and I agree. I have nothing against the artists, and I don't want them to suffer from lost sales either.

Quote:
Then why is there so much demand for it? If it was that bad, why would people bother to waste their time downloading it?

Long post ahead.

There is a demand for individual songs, but less demand for complete albums. Is that due to file sharing? Or is it due to people thinking that for the cost of a CD, given the product, it's not worth the money?

The RIAA insists it's all due to file sharing. I say it's a combo. Quality plays a part in all this, and I'll give you a personal example.

My son is 13, and already disgusted with music. He mows my lawn, takes out the trash, does a few chores and in return gets his allowance...A $20 bill each week. He wants to buy a CD, drops $17 at Tower or FYE, our closest local stores, likes 2 songs and hates the rest. If you ask him, he'll tell you that this happens too much. And he doesn't like having $3 leftover for the rest of the week...He's not a fan of the dollar menu at McDonalds.

He'll also tell you that while Disturbed is good, that there are 10 other bands that sound a lot like them that aren't good. He won't spend his $20 on those clones anymore, he's learned his lesson.

My son doesn't download any music, we're not equipped for it. He has 10 friends who feel the exact same way he does. Some of them file share, that much is true, but the plain fact is that if there was something worthwhile for them to buy, they'd buy it.

My son flips through my CD collection constantly. He doesn't like most of the music but he comments about the variety of music that was popular and available at the same time.

That diversity of sound and style may be out there today, but it's not easy to find, and it's often not readily available.

Today, my son is getting into Screamo...I don't know why he likes it, but he does. He was turned onto it by a friend who downloaded MP3's from a local bands website. Know how many Screamo bands albums there are in Tower? Two. If he could find em', he'd buy em.

That my son bought 25 CD's with his own money last year, but has only bought 4 this year isn't the result of file sharing. The same goes for his 10 friends, and probably a third of his middle school.

Let's not forget that a portion of the drop in CD sales in recent years is due to people my age...Who have turned all the records they wanted into CD's and have found very little new music of interest, and the price of CD's to be somewhat, shall we say, ridiculous? You really think I'm gonna spend $18 (the price at Tower last I checked) for Pink Floyd's Meddle when I have it on record and have heard it 1,000 times before? $18? That's insane.

Sure I could get it on Amazon for less, but when the CD is $18 one place, and $12 another place, I'm thinking the music industry is really taking me for a ride with inflated prices, and I'm not so willing to buy as much anymore.

Finally, let's not forget the economy here as well. The 13-18 year olds may be the ones with the biggest music buying power, but their wallets are funded by their parents. I know I'm not the only parent of a teenager who is less willing to toss his kid an extra $20 here or there to buy a CD given that times aren't so good.

The RIAA has their head in the sand if it truly believes that the drop in sales is due only to file sharing. Of course, this wouldn't be a surprise, they had their head in the sand when the net took off too...Watched the explosion of music file sharing from the sidelines and got left out in the cold. The amazing part is that 2 years before music file sharing took off, there were articles in computer mags predicting the explosion.

I guess we'll see what happens after the RIAA beats people into submission through the legal system. When the industry sales don't increase back to their "expected" levels, who is the RIAA gonna blame then?

Harry Potter?
Carl

#17 of 575 Krystian C

Krystian C

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 150 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 24 2003

Posted June 29 2003 - 10:07 AM

David,

Don't think it will affect us at all, one of the "A"'s in RIAA is for America. Don't think they can hold any jurisdiction over us.

#18 of 575 Ricardo C

Ricardo C

    Producer

  • 5,060 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 14 2002

Posted June 29 2003 - 10:20 AM

While I don't approve of file-sharing, my official statement on the matter is a big fat "fuck you" to the RIAA. They are never going to stop file-sharing, and all this strategy will accomplish is creating even more ill will towards them.

They need to accept the new status quo and develop marketing strategies that adapt to this new reality, because their current strategy is only going to backfire.

Man, an hour wasted on this sig! Thanks, Toshiba! :P

#19 of 575 David Ely

David Ely

    Supporting Actor

  • 761 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 01 1998

Posted June 29 2003 - 10:28 AM

Quote:
Don't think it will affect us at all, one of the "A"'s in RIAA is for America. Don't think they can hold any jurisdiction over us.


That's what I figured. I feel my original question should be slightly clarified. I'm not personally concerned about the RIAA. Do I download music? Yes. Do I purchase music? Yes, everything I download and enjoy gets purchased. If they have a problem with that, TOUGH! Posted Image
Visit my website
Golden's Domain

#20 of 575 Glenn Overholt

Glenn Overholt

    Producer

  • 4,207 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 24 1999

Posted June 29 2003 - 10:32 AM

Jeff, I meant to cover 'everybody' in the etc, but I have to throw back this.

If sales are down, then the law of supply and demand should dictate that the price should go down. Yeah, right!

It would be interesting to see how many pennies everyone gets for the sale of 1 CD. That would be interesting, to say the least.

Glenn


Back to Music & Soundtracks



Forum Nav Content I Follow