RIAA suing Russian “pirate outfit” for $1.6 trillion

[xvi]

At .99 per song, it isn't so bad.

Yeah, but some people don't feel like paying $10,000+. Especially starving college students.

 

[Steevo]

If you need 10,000 songs a year then perhaps you need to recognize that your want to be entertained is becoming a addiction. For me, the music that I choose is mostly free. I know alot of DJ's through one. And have access to all their works.




And begging anyones pardon, the "free" program Audicity for recording and editing files also allows recording from any source, be it streamed, or otherwise. Perhaps not the cleanest of files, but for free VS putting on crap software? And the ability to clean the file up some.



Any music video, any time. Or video and audio capture via a few free plugins. What happened to people being creative?

 

[Saurian]

CD's costing 16 dollars+ when little of that money goes to the artist anyways, is rediculous. I'd happily pay 10-12 bucks for every album I wanted if 3/4 of it went to the folks that made it - and the rest made to the facilitator (ie, the record company).

In all honesty, I buy more music then I ever have before. I will go on a binge of downloading music (Usually downloading 4-10GB over a couple of days) and then going through that to find what I like. If I find that I like the majority of the album, I'll go snatch up the CD. However, its an injustice to all to have to buy a CD with 1 good song, 1 decent song, and 12 filler songs. And if I'm going to pay for music, I'm getting a damn hard copy.

That said, I have the urge to blow 50 bucks on allofmp3 right now, haha.

 

[xvi]

If you need 10,000 songs a year then perhaps you need to recognize that your want to be entertained is becoming a addiction.

I didn't say anything about per year...

And begging anyones pardon, the "free" program Audicity for recording and editing files also allows recording from any source, be it streamed, or otherwise. Perhaps not the cleanest of files, but for free VS putting on crap software? And the ability to clean the file up some.

Then the RIAA will start up the same argument that we had with VHS. How many times have you seen a movie that's been recorded from the TV? Or better yet, copied from a friend?
It's going to be the same story here except that the RIAA has the ability to catch a couple people.
People record movies from the TV just as People can (and should be able to) record music from the radio.

Personally, I'd rather download a high bitrate copy from the pirate community rather than fumble around with software to capture a web stream/radio.

 

[Solaris17]

years and years ago making music was written and made by artists not by record labels...but when recording companies started to become monsters they change they music industry...its no longer about making good music, but more about making alot of $$$$...

with that said i see a near future where p2p and other such systems of exchange will take back music and force many recording companies out of business....wouldn't it be nice to just have good music that was made for the sake of making it and not for the money........

i compare music and movies to going to an art museum....museums around here you can get in and walk around for free...you don't have to pay to look at anything....could you imagine paying $.99 to see a single painting? Hell no....so why should music be any different......because of the record labels is why....they will be their own undoing....

well said bud.

 

[Wile E]

No one ever brings up how these artists are the ones signing contracts with these industry labels. The labels aren't holding them at gunpoint, they aren't releasing their music without consent, they aren't stealing their music. The artists and their lawyers know full well what is happening and what is going to happen before they sign. Why don't they just start up their own private label and distribute? Because the money is in the LARGE labels. If artists never signed contracts, there would be no record labels.

They don't start their own label because it is too expensive. Have you ever seen a band go into a bank and ask for a loan to start a label? I have, and the bank's reaction isn't pretty.

I, in no way advocate piracy, but the labels are the bad guys. They're the reason CDs cost so much to produce or buy. The have their hands in every facet of the music industry, and they control the prices of everything from studio time for the artist, right down the final purchasing price of the CDs for the consumer, and every step in between. It's an extremely crooked and cutthroat business, right on par with Hollywood, if not worse. The ones that are hurt the most are the artists, not the labels.

But, like I said, I do not advocate piracy. Stealing is stealing. But the RIAA and labels need their heads examined. These amounts that they sue for are unjustified.

 

[overcast]

Yeah, but some people don't feel like paying $10,000+. Especially starving college students.

Well then those people need to decide whether obtaining 3 new songs every single day is worth more than a year of college education.

 

[overcast]

They don't start their own label because it is too expensive. Have you ever seen a band go into a bank and ask for a loan to start a label? I have, and the bank's reaction isn't pretty.

I, in no way advocate piracy, but the labels are the bad guys. They're the reason CDs cost so much to produce or buy. The have their hands in every facet of the music industry, and they control the prices of everything from studio time for the artist, right down the final purchasing price of the CDs for the consumer, and every step in between. It's an extremely crooked and cutthroat business, right on par with Hollywood, if not worse. The ones that are hurt the most are the artists, not the labels.

But, like I said, I do not advocate piracy. Stealing is stealing. But the RIAA and labels need their heads examined. These amounts that they sue for are unjustified.

WELCOME TO CAPITALISM.

 

[Steevo]

It is interesting that you will not argue the grounds that they act like thugs, and recording from alternate sources is wrong.



Like the FM recording that a Creative card can offer, but was omitted for a short time due to pressure from RIAA.



Hands in every pie.

 

[Jimmy 2004]

Let's be careful guys, we don't want to get into flame wars and obviously there are some conflicting descisions here. Civilised discussions are fine, and at the moment this thread is ok but if it does get worse I expect the mods will close it quite quick.

 

[xvi]

Well then those people need to decide whether obtaining 3 new songs every single day is worth more than a year of college education.

In the eyes of many college students, pirating is still an option. They don't care if it's legal or not. Of the millions of people who do it, how is anyone going to notice one more?

There are lots of ways to share music without the use of the internet (where the RIAA can try to stick their noses in). The internet should be private anyways..

 

[overcast]

In the eyes of many college students, pirating is still an option. They don't care if it's legal or not. Of the millions of people who do it, how is anyone going to notice one more?

There are lots of ways to share music without the use of the internet (where the RIAA can try to stick their noses in). The internet should be private anyways..

That's the same excuse people who don't vote give. "Well my one vote doesn't mean anything anyhow". If everyone had that attitude, it adds up. Get it?

 

[xvi]

That's the same excuse people who don't vote give. "Well my one vote doesn't mean anything anyhow". If everyone had that attitude, it adds up. Get it?

True. Of course I would never condone pirating. The only change RIAA will make in the pirating world is that we'll see more secure or alternate ways to transfer files between users. DRM will most likely flop and open source will prevail. Isn't this what we've seen before?

 

[Steevo]

DRM will most likely flop and open source will prevail. Isn't this what we've seen before?

Not too much though, just due to the stupidity of many users.

 

[Grings]

the fact that any hmv sale will have loads of albums for £3.99 yet charge £15.99 for a chart cd shows that these huge 'loss of revenue' figures are bo*&^%s!

i myself have about 450 cd's yet i do download albums (if i like it i buy it, as the quality from my expensive cd player is far better than even lossless wma etc, even through an x-fi crystalizer)

same with movies too, not sure about hdmi vid cards, but my ati avivo's component(no not composite) output cant touch my dvd player with a £70 rgb scart cable

 

[Wile E]

WELCOME TO CAPITALISM.

No, more like WELCOME TO MONOPOLIZATION. The labels control everything in the music industry, literally everything. Thru shady back doors deals, pay offs, blackmail, etc., etc. They're as bad as politicians. Once again, I don't believe that pirating music is acceptable, but neither is the music industry's behavior. More thought should be put into effects of piracy on the artists. Screw the labels, they don't deserve to be defended by anyone. Nor do they deserve to recieve the damages that they ask for. Piracy should be dealt with just like shop lifting, Or, on the larger scale of this case, like any other stolen goods operation. No such operation that I've ever read about has ever caused, or been forced to pay, $1.6T. That's flat out ridiculous. You can scream capitalism all you want, to me what the labels are doing is nothing short of highway robbery.

 

[Gwargor]

I can understand why the rest of the world hates the US they think they a the world police.

ppl in the US need to get a fucking life.

What does the RIAA have to do with the US government? Some people just bash to bash I guess.

 

[ex_reven]

if we didnt pay for music, it would become a pastime rather than a profession

therefore musicians would no longer earn money, meaning less people would be interested in music and on the whole there is a diminished chance of developing young artists who are charged with keeping music modern and updating music into the next generations. In finality, this means that our future generations might not have music to look forward to in the next hundred years.

If you look at art, the process is similar. The dark ages (as thought by many modern kids) was not a time of no technology, excitement or cavemen. The dark ages was a period in time where ART and LITERATURE was at its lowest esteem of development, religious texts and the artworks previously thought as beautiful became stagnant ideas. The only thing that rescues us from these 'dark ages' is the new talent we find in every generation, without which, further evolution of the human race becomes impossible.

So yes, let 'p2p sharing to encourage autonomous music'.
Simultaneously I hope you enjoy watching a part of human life dredge slowly into the gutter.

 

[trodas]

Let's hope RIAA suxxkas lose it

 

[pt]

Let's hope RIAA suxxkas lose it

YEY
I'M A COMUNIST

 

[Steevo]

if we didnt pay for music, it would become a pastime rather than a profession

therefore musicians would no longer earn money, meaning less people would be interested in music and on the whole there is a diminished chance of developing young artists who are charged with keeping music modern and updating music into the next generations. In finality, this means that our future generations might not have music to look forward to in the next hundred years.

If you look at art, the process is similar. The dark ages (as thought by many modern kids) was not a time of no technology, excitement or cavemen. The dark ages was a period in time where ART and LITERATURE was at its lowest esteem of development, religious texts and the artworks previously thought as beautiful became stagnant ideas. The only thing that rescues us from these 'dark ages' is the new talent we find in every generation, without which, further evolution of the human race becomes impossible.

So yes, let 'p2p sharing to encourage autonomous music'.
Simultaneously I hope you enjoy watching a part of human life dredge slowly into the gutter.

"The dark ages" was a time where the iron hand of religion bonded with government power to try and keep the populace under its control. If it didn't say what the bible taught, then it was hearsay, and if it did, then it was just more to confuse the mind. So anything that was not approved by the governmental religion, was treason, or sacrilege.


To be honest, the RIAA, and their ability to pocket politicians is like a mainstream religion, where if you do not belong, then you are a outcast and deserve nothing. And if the RIAA had it their way, you would not have it any other way. You would be spoon fed your entertainment, and use your hard earned money to pay for their exuberant lifestyle. So in essence, the american revolution was a breaking of the antagonistic ties to that lifestyle, a gracing of freedom from oppression.


The RIAA and other human made corporations (oil, insurance, etc...) are who really rules this country. Think about it, no insurance, you go to jail, no oil, you go NOWHERE. When did it happen that we needed to be told how to live, think, act, pay out our monies, listen to, drink, eat. It was when we gave that trust to these companies, we entrusted them with our money, and they took it and made a place for themselves that we cannot seemingly do without.



So who here is to blame?

 

[ex_reven]

"The dark ages" was a time where the iron hand of religion bonded with government power to try and keep the populace under its control. If it didn't say what the bible taught, then it was hearsay, and if it did, then it was just more to confuse the mind. So anything that was not approved by the governmental religion, was treason, or sacrilege.

in a way yes, but it wasnt as heavy handed as you described
for example, artists back in that time could not publish non christian artworks (in christian european lands) not because they would be punished, but because it was seen as against the norm. Back then they didnt have alot of people willing to commission artists (pay them) to create unpopular works, especially since the majority of the rich were devout and respected christians who relied on their ties to the upper class in order to remain at the top of society.

By commissioning a painter (real painters were rare, due to the fact that few people could afford them) who painted non normal scenes, against the conventions of the art at that time would have been a pointless risk to their own livelyhood. Because of this, art and literature could not evolve into anything more than the conventions deemed it could. They were restricted by rules that existed to maintain religious stability. If art was created of normal everyday subject matter, what does that say about artworks of Christian icons? They would indeed become ordinary, and the Catholic church was unwilling to allow that to happen.

But it was in no way punishable by law, that only really happened in times such as the Spanish inquisition, and even that was restricted to a landmass, not a major global epidemic.

 

[ATIonion]

Let's hope RIAA suxxkas lose it

man thats great....did you find that somewhere or did you just thow that together yourself??

 

[ex_reven]

The RIAA and other human made corporations (oil, insurance, etc...) are who really rules this country. Think about it, no insurance, you go to jail, no oil, you go NOWHERE. When did it happen that we needed to be told how to live, think, act, pay out our monies, listen to, drink, eat. It was when we gave that trust to these companies, we entrusted them with our money, and they took it and made a place for themselves that we cannot seemingly do without.

So who here is to blame?

You cant blame anyone, the rule of the world is to populate or perish.
And while you might think that these companies are uber corrupt, you would be surprised to see how much of their infrastructure is devoted to things like helping the environment, customer assistance and maintaining the order of society.

Sure there are issues, but they only exist because of loopholes that exist in the laws we have written, and loopholes develop because our laws cannot keep up with constantly evolving human nature and human behaviour. And as for everyone being for themselves, of course we are? When hasnt humanity existed for itself or a nation at the expense of another?

 

[Steevo]

You cant blame anyone, the rule of the world is to populate or perish.
And while you might think that these companies are uber corrupt, you would be surprised to see how much of their infrastructure is devoted to things like helping the environment, customer assistance and maintaining the order of society.

Sure there are issues, but they only exist because of loopholes that exist in the laws we have written, and loopholes develop because our laws cannot keep up with constantly evolving human nature and human behaviour. And as for everyone being for themselves, of course we are? When hasnt humanity existed for itself or a nation at the expense of another?

Enron.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070103/ap_on_bi_ge/exxonmobil_global_warming
Bids on rebuilding in Iraq, Louisiana, or anything else. Nahh, just let one overpriced company do it.


What has populating to do with insurance and other big companies running the country and the world.

Money talks and bullshit walks.

Say what you want about how great these companies are, and every company, but when it comes down to it, they are there for the almighty buck, and will do what ever it takes to make it.