*DAMN R6 Forum

im suprised this hasnt come up yet in the forum. its probably because most of our opinions are the same. but id be interested to here what people think about the issue, and what the music industry is doing wrong/right

I decline to answer this post on the grounds that it might incriminate me.

hm, i hadnt thought about it that way....well i guess if nails answer serves for all of you, this thread is dead before it started

I can neither confirm nor deny....

 I can't deny, however :looks at iTunes:, I can confirm. ;)

Personally, I think the RIAA is going about things the wrong way.

For me, at least, the more of this shit that they do, the more it encourages me to pirate music, mostly to be stuborn, and show that they can't change what I'm doing.

The best way to prevent against music pirates would be to promote things like Apple's Music store, and encourage setups which allow you to purchase a single song at a time.  

i would like to plead the 5 th, and my attorney mr cocrane will do all the rest of my speaking for me...

The thing that pisses me off the most is how people act like stealing music is more noble then stealing a TV or a car.

If you are against the status quo and how they sell music now, there are plenty of legal ways to protest.  But stop pretending that it's anything better then shoplifting a new iPod from BestBuy or pinching someone's bicycle.  It's not.

And Typhy, the RIAA does support iTunes, and iTunes is up and running.  So if you've pirated anything since iTunes has been up, you are just lying to yourself.

alright wtf is RIAA?  and me steal music well i have one thing to say about that!, NONONONOy34NONONONONO

The RIAA is the lobbying group for the whole recording industry.  It represents the labels, artists, distributers, etc.  

The reason you hear about the RIAA going after pirates is because the way that copyright laws are structured, someone needs to actually file a suit about infringement to enforce the laws.

Stealing an ipod or pinching a bike are different from illegally downloading songfiles--much more of an adrenaline rush, lol.  (One would imagine)...

http://www.boycott-riaa.com/

I've downloaded music and will continue to, although only a tiny minority of the music I download is from RIAA artists (not saying this justifies it). I understand that the RIAA has made efforts to try to please the consumer in light of the file-sharing controversies of past years, but their efforts have been pathetic. None of the artists I listen to have spoken out against file sharing, but for those that have, I give them this challenge: you must provide a way for people to listen to your record, in the comfort of their own homes, before buying it. It's unreasonable to expect anyone to buy something based on advertising or one single that happens to be on the radio (or more likely than not, not on the radio, since that medium is basically dead). Here are some other links that sum up the way I feel about this and the Record Industry's role in music:

Atlantic Monthly article about music royalties (http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2000/09/mann3.htm)

and everyone who has ever bought a compact disc should read this:
Steve Albini on the Major Labels (http://www.arancidamoeba.com/mrr/problemwithmusic.html)

So while I'm not saying its moral or justified to steal music, its going to happen, and the RIAA needs to come up with a way to deal with it. I do hate the RIAA with a passion, but I understand that they have the law on their side.

I live in Sweden so the RIAA can't touch this. Dunununu, can't touch this. *reveals his 30 GB stash of music*

how would u like if you worked hard for something, then millions of people stole it, and you knew you can make money on it.

Heres my point of view...

RIAA great and everything.... They are serving a good point and all. But im still gona download. Actually instead of doing apples or any1 elses mp3 programs. I found out this cooool way to download and give the guy to wrote it the $$$. Basically it works like, you download a song anywhare then u send the artist the money. Im kinda fussy on how it works nor i have a website off the back of my mind to show you. It beats apple lames selection of artists. (im not saying itunes store is lame, im saying its selection sucks for what i want)

The thing i dont get is how Sony, or any other companies that make MP3 PLAYERS dont get any shit. I seriously doubt anyone who uses them has actually baught the cds, and then copied it to their HD and then uploaded onto the mp3 player.

Blake, all the music on my MP3 player is music I bought either on CD and ripped or from through iTunes.  So take your doubts away.

Now I'm just dying to know?

What does buccaneer listen to?

Here's another thought for you guys.  All of the Tasty's out there that don't think the artists against p2p file sharing.  This is from the AFTRA (American Federation of Television & Radio Artists).  ie, the Union for many of the artists out there.  You can find this at http://www.aftra.org/ .  One thing you have to remember, while Madonna or Metalica may not hurt from losing the cash, there are plenty of studio musicians and others that are being directly hurt by file sharing.  It's no different stealing music, books, movies, or software.  You may as well shoplift your copy of Raven Shield as download it from some bit torrent.  It's the same thing.  And "sharing" music is no different then stealing the CD from the truck that was shipping it.  Shit, if you at least stole it from the store you'd only be hurting your local store, the industry and the artists would still get the cash.

WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT PIRACY  

Ann Chaitovitz
 National Director, Sound Recordings
 AFTRA  

Piracy has devastated the music industry and now threatens other entertainment industries and all performers' livelihoods.   For example, a pre-final cut of the movie "The Hulk" was on the Internet pre-release, and the "Harry Potter" movie landed on the Internet pre-US release (due to a screening in London).

The problems of piracy are not new.  For example, most of us made cassettes of our dorm-mates' albums in college.  But with taping, the album was only available to a limited number of people and there was degradation in quality from the vinyl record to the cassette.  

While digital technology has created many opportunities for the industry and for performers, when a recording is posted on-line, it is:  



available to millions of people,


who are able to copy it quickly,


without any degradation of quality.




We must remember that technology is not bad or the enemy.  We must harness opportunities of technology and minimize the threats -- something the music industry has been unable to do.  

Just as radio was the canary in the coal mine for media consolidation, music is the canary in the coal mine tale for Internet piracy.  Because of limitations on bandwidth and compression technologies, music was one of first types of works to be vulnerable to Internet piracy, but as those limitations are disappearing, other types of works are now becoming vulnerable.  Approximately, 400,000 to 600,000 films are downloaded illegally everyday.  

How Did We Get Here?  

 So, why have so many people turned to illegitimate music piracy? We must understand the causes of music piracy, so other industries can learn from them and not repeat the same mistakes.

 Music Piracy is largely a reaction to the radio and music industry's inadequate servicing of fans that want music. At the same time technology was developing, five other important things were happening:  





Cassettes and singles were being eliminated: singles have been each generation's first experience in buying music.  The single would bring young people into the stores and introduce them to purchasing music.




The record labels stopped or restricted new artist development.




The record labels focused on the 12 to 25 year-old demographic and mostly ignored those over 35.




The record industry tried to freeze the existing paradigm and keep control over distribution mechanisms.  It did not take advantage of the opportunities presented by new technology -- until fairly recently, the record labels did not work with new technologies or offer good legitimate services.  



This forced people who wanted to take advantage of the opportunities presented by new technology to use illegitimate services and created an entire generation of people who think music is, and should be, free.  

The consolidation of owners within the radio industry is one of the major causes of piracy.  Consolidation resulted in homogenized and narrow repetitive playlists which forced music fans to try to find music in new ways, and there weren't any legitimate alternatives available, so many music fans turned to illegitimate services.





Where We Are Now  

 Piracy now threatens the music industry.  Here are some statistics evidencing the threat:  

The worldwide industry went from $40 billion in 2000 to $26 billion in 2002 (not all due to piracy -- other factors include the recession, competition from DVDs, etc.).


Users now download more than 2.6 billion copyrighted files, mostly songs, each month.


KaZaa, a major peer-to-peer service, is adding new users at rate of 13 million a month, 270 new members a minute.


Blank CDs outstrip sales of pre-recorded music CDs by more than a 2 to 1 margin.




Piracy hurts artists, songwriters, the music industry and the public.  It makes it even more difficult for an artist to earn a livelihood and to continue honing his or her craft.  It harms the ability of the artist to earn health and retirement benefits -- if artists are unable to earn enough to qualify for health and retirement, they may then have to go on public assistance, hurting taxpayers.  As the music industry suffers and finds it difficult to make a profit, there will be less investment in new music, one of the few U.S. exports with a positive balance of trade.  

There also are economic repercussions: one needs broadband and computer access, which tend to to be more prevalent in the middle and upper classes, to download music files.  As a result, poorer citizens, who still have to purchase music, have to pay higher rates to subsidize the wealthier citizens, who can download.  

What We Must Do  

We are now playing catch up, and we need a multi-pronged line of attack in order to recreate a profitable U.S. music industry. We need to:    

offer comprehensive legitimate services
????? these services must offer more than the illegitimate services - e.g. access to artists, priority tickets to live shows, a week of free streaming


educate the public about the dangers of the illegitimate services (e.g., pornography, enabling public access to information contained on one's computer) and make the illegitimate  services more unwieldy by practices like spoofing


educate the public about intellectual property and its artistic, cultural and economic value


undo the problems created by radio consolidation


enact legislation to educate the public and clarify the law.  There are two pieces of legislation now pending which demonstrate that Congress has acknowledged and is trying to address the devastating impact on-line piracy has had on artists, the music industry and the public.  The legislation recognizes the reality of the on-line environment and would provide the government with the resources and authority needed to educate the public and develop deterrence programs.


Music owners must sue services that are making money by providing opportunities and encouraging people to infringe sound recordings


Music owners may even need to sue individual infringers.  The district court in Grokster, currently on appeal, ruled that companies who make money by creating and distributing the software enabling and encouraging copyright infringement are not liable for their customers' infringement and that copyright owners have to sue the individuals committing the infringement.  The goal of such cases would be to educate the public about the law and the value of intellectual property and to deter future infringements
????? The RIAA's announcement that it was subpoenaing the identities of individuals who have uploaded copyrighted recordings has had a deterrent effect and reduced the number of downloads.


It may already be too late to significantly reduce peer to peer on-line piracy.  Should we now acknowledge that peer to peer piracy will continue to exist, try to lessen its pervasiveness and figure out how to monetize it?

Other industries should pay attention to the lessons to be learned from new technology's impact on the music industry.        

Only 2 to 1?  People use blank cds for a lot more than pirating music, for instance I have gigabytes and gigabytes of blank cds with shit ive burnt to conserve space on my hard drive.
Anyway, the thing that pisses me off the most about the RIAA is that the money doesn't go into the hands of the artists that made the music, but into the hands of filthy rich record executives.  And i find it sad that art has become some commercial.  Musicians like Motzart, Jimmy Hendricks, beethoven, segovia etc. Didn't start out because they wanted money, its because they wanted chicks, I mean because they had a passion.  I don't think filing law suits against their consumers will do anything either.  First of all they're hurting their own market, and secondly they will never be able to stop piracy, people are going to download, or copy music no matter how many people they sue(sp?).  I think you all heard how that 12 year old girl had a suit filed against her and settled out of court for about 2 grand.  The girl is 12 years old! She has no idea of the ethical issues that go with piracy, I guarentee you that all her friends did the same thing. 2000 dollars is a lot of money,  and I've heard of people with huge librarys of mp3's but think about how many cds 2000 dollars will get you.  The average price of a cd is about 13 bucks, 2000 divided by 13 is about 150 some odd albums.  Your average album has about 14 songs. 150 times 14 is 2100 songs.  My itunes library has 1228 songs with 91 cds i have purchased with my own money.  Now I find it hard to believe a 12 year old girl pirated over 2100 songs and have a library worth 2000 dollars.  So what if she broke the law, she is fucking 12 years old and does not deserve to be penalized.  They should've just made her buy the damn cds (which I'm sure she did considering she dished out the money to pay for kazaa's premium service). And besides, how many no talent boy bands could there posibbly be!

1) They aren't suing their customers, they are suing thieves.  If they were customers, they would be buying, not stealing it.
2) The way copyright law works, the RIAA has to file suit.  That's the way the laws are enforced.
3) Mozart sold the rights to his music back in the day too.  Business 101, the artists SELL the rights to their music in many cases to the industry.  The industry is buying it on the basis that they will make more money off it.  They are assuming the risk in that case.  Recording contracts don't have to be set up that way, but most artists chose to in order to make the quick and sure buck.
4) I keep hearing about the costs of CD's going up, but they were $12-$14 when I started buying them years and years ago, and they still are.  So those arguments are just bullshit.
5) If a 12 year old steals a comic book worth $10k, her parents are still responsible, aren't they?  This should be no different.  Parents are responsible for their children, to teach them better.  Maybe that's where all this was lost.

Tasty, I listen to everything from Mozart to Barenaked Ladies.  You'll find plenty of Ska in my collection, quite a few books on CD that I listen to on planes, and just about everything that Toad the Wet Sprocket did.  The only thing you wont find much of is Rap and Country.  My iTunes has around 20 gigs worth of MP3's.  Why are you so interested?  Think I didn't listen to unsigned bands before they hit it big (if so, guess again).  I have CD's in my collection that were self produced by bands like BNL and the Virve Pipe (when they were actually a good house band at parties) and the Waltons before they ever signed.

http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2003-09-07-1.html

Great essay by Orson Scott Card on copyrights and p2p.

No I didn't intend to use your musical collection to make any sort of political point, just curious what you listened to. It says a lot about a person's personality, y'know.

I like Jeb's essay from Card. Read my Albini essay.

Ahhhhhhhhhhh. First off, I would like to state that this is somewhat hypocritical, since I have downloaded music in the past (but no longer do so). Stealing music doesn't just hurt the record industry and the stars. Sure, the record companies pocket money that the artist earned, but the record companies got those artists famous in the first place. This isn't my point, however. My point is that you're also hurting the companies that print up the CD's, the people who manufacture the CD jewels and print up the artwork, the people who make the artwork, producers, sound engineers, songwriters, managers, promoters, and studio musicians who play on a lot of these albums(well, mostly just solo projects and pop music, but still).
The last one bothers me the most. First of all, these guys and gals barely get any credit in the first place. They're not insanely rich, and work very hard for their money. They don't even get paid enough in the first place. Most of them get paid up front, and probably don't receive royalties from the albums, but if less albums are being sold, they're definately going to get paid less. By illegally downloading music, you're harming all of the little guys a hell of a lot more than the record companies and artists. So please, don't even bother with that "I'm protesting against the RIAA and the record companies" bullshit. You're just using that as an excuse to steal music, and to make you feel like you're on a morally higher ground. These people should be getting sued, and the RIAA has every right to.

Gee, how ironic.

Psh, up your nose with a rubber hose, Tasty. ;) I never said I was better than anyone, I was just pointing out how much stealing music hurts the little guys, and that saying you download music to hurt the RIAA and record companies is bullshit.

A long long time ago, I used to purchase all of my CD's. Then I had practically all of 'em stolen. Over 100 CD's, all legally purchased, *poof*. Think about that... at a minimum of $10 a piece per CD, that's over $1000 worth of music. So, we thought about it for a bit, then bought a 52x burner and a couple 50-stacks of CD's for less than $400 and have slowly been using Limewire and Kazaa to rebuild our collection, as well as purchasing new albums I didn't previously own. Granted, I've also downloaded a few I didn't own, but no more than what I've had stolen and didn't download.. And if I download some of a new band that I like, I usually go out and buy their album, as it's too much of a pain in the ass to find all the tracks to have a complete album.

I guess I'm one of the few who actually use hotline/kazaa/limewire for their so-called "backup" purpose.

One thing the people that keep posting the anti-RIAA stuff need to remember.  The RIAA has gone after some of the very large abusers.  Not the guy that's replaced some stolen CD's or the one that has pulled down a dozen songs.  But people that have shared thousands and thousands of them for the most part.  

How is the RIAA wrong for going after those people?  If you are anti-RIAA, answer me that.

Like the 12 year old girl with under 100songs, or the 70 year old woman who didn't even know that she had kazaa. Or a mac user who didn't have kazaa or was sharing any music.

I have nearly 6,000 mp3s right now, and there isn't a chance i'm gonna loosen my pants, cause i'd be raped. I just don't want to pay 15$ for a cd, which i will rip and put the mp3s onto my ipod, and only listen to a few songs.

Aside from the obvious complaints against the RIAA, you have to remember that the record companies own the rights to the music, not the artists. As for all the financial harm that has happened to them, think about the fact that they are releasing hardly any music and inflated prices.

Some stats from a recent wired article.
The cost of a cd has risen 16% since 1997
The amount of releases has dropped 14% since 1999
the total amount of revenue has dropped 13% since 1999

It really does seem like a good business model to stop releasing as much music, hike up the prices, then finish off a long day by dropping a nice steaming tubgirl colored shit into the mouths of their prime demographic.

The RIAA sues the people that upload a lot of music, programs, etc. like Buccaneer said.  I have downloaded music before, and so have 99% of you guys who will read this.  The reason people file share is because it is extremely easy, you have all the resources in your home, it is free, takes a few minutes(depends on what you are downloading and your connection speed).  I'm not sure about this, but won't this eventully hurt the economy more and more.  I mean downloading music would result in record store closings,  fewer artists sponsored by the RIAA>people will lose their jobs and some artists' music we will never hear; people start downloading movies and games for free>Blockbuster will probably close, game stores will close, BestBuy and CompUSA could strip some of their game collection, movie theatres close.  However, programs like Apple's iTunes could slow this process down until a solution is found or it could prevent this.

Do you guys not know where to shop for CD's?  I have never paid $15 for a CD that wasn't a double album.  Most of the CD's I pick up are from $9.99 to $12.99.  Remember that for the next part.

Also, what you are saying Jeb is that you don't want to pay.  Yeah, that's what theft is, isn't it?  I mean, you've said it before, you know what you are doing is wrong.  So how does that make the RIAA wrong for going after people?


Not in all cases.  But yes, in most cases, the artists sell the rights to the music to the companies.  But, if the companies aren't making the money, they wont be risking it on new artists either.  Simple economics.  BTW, there are plenty of artists that do own rights to music.  That's usually one of the things they learn as soon as they hit it big.


I've seen these numbers, and I have to wonder how they inflated them.  They based the 16% off CD prices of $17 if I remember the article correctly.  That's bullshit, plain and simple.  Sure, compare the highest priced CD's now to the lowest of 1997.  In reality, I've been buying CD's for 16 years or so.  They were $20 when they first came out.  Then they quickly dropped to the $10-$13 range.  And as far as I can tell, they've stayed right there for years.  Sure, if I go to Sam Goodies at the mall, I'm going to pay an extra $5 per CD, but that's for idiots.  The RIAA doesn't control price jacking at malls, and only the stupidity of consumers that go there instead of Best Buy and other stores keeps them in business.  

Also, look at the amount of releases vs the amount of revenue.  Think they may be tied together?  I release less music and I take in less money.  Those are tied so closely, it's stupid to try and judge anything other then the obvious from them.  It's not like Revenue is the number one priority of these companies (Profit would be).  


I still disagree that the people that steal music are not the prime demographic.  These people wouldn't be buying anyway, right?  So going after them doesn't hurt a bit.

As for the "stories" about the 70 year old woman that didn't even know she had Kazaa, yeah, that's likely now isn't it?  She managed to upload and download many songs without knowing it.  If you really believe that, I have some great bridges for sale.

Like I said, what is the RIAA doing that is so bad??

the 70 year old woman story is why I'm gonna put a 1tb warez, snuff, mp3 and divx server at my granny's house :)

I mostly download singles, or buy them from itms. Like i've probably mentioned before, i download and listen to electronic music mostly, and i couldn't buy 90% of the music i download because its not released here, its from a whitelabel or an unreleased remix. I don't have an extensive collection of stolen music from under the RIAA's umbrella, but most of the songs i have i wouldn't have bought anyways.

As far as cds go, the medium is dead, the price is to high. Perhaps if they offered coupons for free beer with cds, it could turn around, but i doubt that will happen.

And as for the article... The statistics are based off studies from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Nielsen Soundscan, and the RIAA. The "average" cd price in 1997 was $13.19, in 2002 the average price is at $15.25. Its in the october issue.

Besides, most of the cds i'd buy aren't the $4.99 bargain bin Jimmy Buffet cds that you cherish in your old age bucc  ;)

OoOOooOOoo, Bucc, he just called you old man!! YOU GONNA TAKE THAT?

Better recheck the math.  The article I read said the 16% figure, but the CD's were in the $17 range.  If you figure out the % you are looking at it's closer to 13%  

BTW, inflation was running at what, 2.5% per year the last few?  (had to go look that up, couldn't remember).  So over those 5 years, prices according to the numbers you just gave went up 13.5%, while inflation went up 12.5%.  So I guess the price of CD's only climbed 1% over inflation.  Is that so much?

BTW, CD's will be dead in a few more years I'm sure.  The latest BNL comes out on DVD that I'm getting next week.

And I'll have you know that I do not have one single Buffet CD or mp3 in my collection.  Not even "Cheeseburger in Paradise".  I will fess up to some James Taylor though, but only because I've found that it's great music to mash to with new girls.

And yes Nomad, I'll take it from Jeb because like sex, he can't really deliver much of a punch, if you know what I mean.  He listens to electronic, but couldn't even find "Red Tape" by Agent Provocateur.  Pffft.

Bucc beat me to it. Damn. Like he said, I don't know where you guys shop, but I've never seen a CD for over $12 other than at the mall. If anything, prices have gone down. About 5 years ago, I remember CD's being at least $15 at Best Buy. Then again, even if CD's were $5, a lot of people wouldn't buy them, unless the CD store was right next door. It all comes down to laziness. =D That's why the iTunes music store is so popular.

iTunes is also great because it's bringing back the single.  I know I'm really showing my age now, but we used to buy 45's all the time when I was a kid.  It's where the term "b sides" comes from, because eventually you turned it over and listened to the other side of the single you bought (they were labeled side A and side B usually).

Singles were cheap, like 45? a piece when I was buying them.  Which is still in line with the 99? deal that Apple has going now.

I think buying music through iTunes is a great option for everyone.  They just need to keep adding to their library.  Overall I'm impressed that in the first few months they had about half the songs I was looking for on the whim.  Which is about the same as a typical music store unless I go to a real good one. (for example, I'm trying to replace a lost tape and was looking for "Chuck Taylor's" by Tom Collins and the Cocktail Shakers.

Outkast is selling for 19.98 in the iTunes store. You can buy the physical discs at Best Buy for 10.99. Somehow, I don't think I will be shopping at iTunes anytime soon (since I like full albums and don't particularly care for singles anyway).

The reason people are angry at the RIAA for prosecuting file sharers is that most feel they represent only their own personal economic interests and not the artists that we love. And yes, I know, they assume the risk and put out the CD and yadda yadda yadda, but you have to realize your audience here. I think Belle and Sebastian accurately spoke for the musical community when they said "boo to the business world": most music fans don't care if record execs get a paycheck or not. The record industry created this value-added system of distribution themselves as a way to make profit off of art. Music can exist without them, and dare I say I think it would be a lot better without them. Why should we care if they collapse? Independent music fans like myself feel that the RIAA labels are a very negative influence on music today, and we want them to die. So in the words of SiX.roybatty: "diediediediediediedie".

I own "Songs You Know by Heart" by Jimmy Buffet and I'm proud of it. Cheeseburger in Paradise is a damn catchy song.

Tasty, your "revolutionary" ideas about the worth of business are old and tired, not to mention ignorant.  Music itself would exist, but not in a healthy, strong way.  You think we'd know who Wolfgang was today if it wasn't for the industry?  Remember, they bought the rights to his music too.  And they put it out there for people to hear.  

Without the industry, most bands would never get published widely.  That is a fact.  Just look at your independent artists.  Yes, they chose to be independent, and that's great for them, but are they making more $$$ then if they signed with a label?  Is more money making it into their hands staying independent?  A greater percentage is theirs, but a higher percentage of jack shit is still jack shit.  

You also ignore all those studio musicians, etc that have been mentioned.

Tasty, understand that being against the rich just because they are rich, is just as stupid as any other prejudice.  

Exactly Bucc, and not to mention the fact that if these artists didn't want to share their profits with the record companies, they wouldn't have signed with them in the first place. They pay a price to have their music distributed all over the world. Now I don't like record companies any more than the next guy, but you have to give credit where credit is due. Besides, like Bucc was saying, these musicians signed to major labels are still putting more money in their pockets compared to the ones signed to independent labels, even with the percentage of money the major label pockets. You have to realize, however, these labels aren't just keeping all of this money. They're spending it on advertising, promotions, and a bajillion other things that most of us, including me, don't know about. Now, if a band wants to give all of their music out for free, they have every right to, but since they're signed to a label and trying to SELL albums, that means that they want to profit from their music. There is absolutely no excuse for downloading music illegally, no matter what you tell yourself. If you don't have the money to buy an album, then you just live without the album until you can buy one. I don't steal cars just because I don't have the money to buy a car.