Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Music' started by Tim Hoover, Jul 14, 2006.
Details here: www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=33025
I heard about this on the radio this morning...the DJ was imploring listeners to send the RIAA copies of Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People.
They sound like the Mafia to me. A "strong arm" action. Do this or else! Good for her to fight back. 8^ )
While this case isn't applicable, what the RIAA is doing by offering an out of court settlement to those who can be proven to be file sharing large collections is actually pretty generous considering the statutory penalty for the offenses these people are being charged with could be in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars since the penalty is based on a per infraction basis - so every song is counted and added up. I forget the dollar figure per infraction, but it is in the tens of thousands. Of course sueing dead people or people without computers is pretty pointless.
Don't forget dishonest.
While I agree with this statement completely, it sadly gets lost as the RIAA instead prefers to offer settlements to those who are merely SUSPECTED of file-sharing. In the RIAA's view, no proof is needed...
Go sue China already.
"Go sue China already." Yea, not SH%T. They're losing billions a year in lost revenue and they go after a mom that has NO computer. It's stupid crap like this that pushes me away from buying new CDs. I buy 99.9% of my CDs used. They play jusy as well and cost a FRACTION of what they do in the store. Putting aside the fact that I use trade credit that saves me about 10% in tax. That way I get my music and the RIAA can kiss my $$$ goodbye. Yay RIAA - thanks for saving me some serious change and pusing me away from your glorious business plan.
Using a few examples of the RIAA making bonehead moves as justification for boycotting new CD purchases is fine, but the only people you really hurt by not buying new CDs are the artists, whose ability to continue making music is based in large part on album sales. The labels will continue to sell millions of copies of Britney Spears albums, but will continue to shun the acts which actually have talent but won't reach the same size audience as the artist du jour.
This is how the record companies do business today, and there is absolutely no reason on earth to think if the lost revenue attributed to boycotting new CD purchases were recovered, that the record companies would then turn around and invest those recovered revenues into the devleopment of new, talented artists. I know you have a vested interest in this industry Jeff, and I'm sorry that artists will suffer should people boycott the industry over it's reckless legal proceedings....But ultimately, the lack of support the record industry gives to developing talented artists is due to its own business model and that is what needs changing moreso than anything else. The only way to do that would be for people to stop buying new CD's and unfortunately talented artists would get hurt in the process. In my opinion, talented artists are running out of time because the way the industry has spent the last 15 years concentrating on producing disposable music by disposable artists, it has created generations of people who don't care about the music, or the artists beyond the present. It won't be too much longer before there is nobody around who cares enough about quality music at all, let alone cares enough to boycott the industry due to its business practices.
Thanks Carl, that's just about what I was going to say. "but the only people you really hurt by not buying new CDs are the artists" Not true. I hurt the record companies. The artists are just collateral damage. But to be honest, I give more $$$ directly to the artists than any other person I know by seeing them in concert. From what I know the majority of THAT money goes to the artist unlike the deals the record companies give new artists. If you REALLY want to supprt a band go see them live. Is it my fault that record companies have chosen their current model of taking money in one hand and slapping the cuffs on the other. They chose their course and I've chosen mine. I used to spend thousands of dollars on New CDs and New DVDs a year. Now I typically buy used unless I can't find it. And then it's only a half dozen movies a year. I'm just really tired of buying a CD that has 1 or 2 good songs and the rest filler. Or CDs that are 36 minutes long. I could go on and on but I'd be wasting my breath. This latest incident is just another excuse to KEEP boycotting. If the RIAA wants my business they know what to do.
The only person you really hurt in this type of pointless "boycott" is yourself, you don't get to enjoy new music you like. Unless you're "boycotting" on one hand and stealing it to listen.
Not necessarily true, there are plenty of good independent label bands out there making great new music. All of my favorite albums from this year are on indies.
I don't steal music and am in fact anti-file sharing...I don't even boycott and was just responding to the thread. But I've only purchased 3 new CD's this year as there's barely anything new that I'm interested in. But yes, you hurt yourself when you boycott. That's part of the concept of boycotting, isn't it? To do without something you may like, want or need for some principle or cause? And, the boycott hurts the artist as well. The only party that doesn't get hurt, unless boycott is done in huge numbers, is the music industry....And in a roundabout way, that sort of sums up this entire situation regarding the industries reckless and heavy handed legal actions. If people do nothing in response, the music industry continues with their reckless legal actions and people get hurt. If people boycott, the artists get hurt. When does the music industry get hurt? Never. And that is exactly why the music industry continues to legally assault innocent people. The music industry has no financial motivation to clean up its act, and lacks the ethics to do so voluntarily as it should.