Jump to content

Record Industry to sue downloaders

Admin

By Admin,
in Off-Topic

 Share

Recommended Posts

DurableTear All-Star

DurableTear

Posted
Posted

"This latest effort really indicates the recording industry has lost touch with reality completely," said Fred von Lohmann, a lawyer for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "Does anyone think more lawsuits are going to be the answer? Today they have declared war on the American consumer."

 

If you're going to be sued, you'll be pissed enough to never buy a CD again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rune All-Star

Rune

Posted
Posted

It's stupid to try to stop stealing?

 

I have no problem with this and actually want to see kids get busted for this. I barely download, and I have no problem with CD prices because I don't go The CHain stores. I go to The Grungy local store where every CD is under 10 except for Double Disc's and DVD/ CD's.

 

People need to stop going to These Chain Stores that's what's killing music.

 

Find The Local stores and you'll find cheap prices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Das Texan World Champion

Das Texan

Posted
Posted

You know the recording industry continues to rape consumers.

 

 

It costs them less than a buck to manufacture a CD, including recording costs and marketing.

 

 

As more and more CDs are sold the cost per disc go down, as your fixed costs remain fixed and your cost of production are so low, they will lower the cost for each disc sold.

 

 

No CD should be sold for over 8 bucks.

 

The quality has gone way down, the prices have gone up.

 

The cost of production has decreased rapidly.

 

Its utter crap what the RIAA tries to pass off.

 

This lawsuit is utter crap as well...if they produce a better product consumers would purchase the CDs.

 

 

And what chain stores are you talking about Rune?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rune All-Star

Rune

Posted
Posted

And what chain stores are you talking about Rune?

Basically every large record story... Joe Goodie, FYE, Best Buy, Tower(Which is funny because me brother manages the big one in Philly), Target any place where they have huge stores selling record. They hike prices because they know their The Big Distributor.

 

I'm telling everyone go to The Local stores. The Small ones that you see on Street Corners you get cheap records, Can find GOOD Indy records, and The People are a lot nicer.

 

 

Pudge, Not everyone is going to get sued but their going after kids your age and their going to get a select few and just make an example out of them, like 150,000 for every song.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rune All-Star

Rune

Posted
Posted

That's a bunch of bull and I doubt anyone is going to take this seriously and just download even more music. Make better music and we'll pay for it.

Well if it's such crappy music why are you downloading it?

 

Does not make much sense does it?

 

It's not The RIAA's fault it's basically The Consumers that it's so high because everyone feels obliged to go to The Mega Stores and buy those records. If you go to The Mom and Pop stores I guarantee you prices would go down but people by these records and so it stays.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DurableTear All-Star

DurableTear

Posted
Posted

That's a bunch of bull and I doubt anyone is going to take this seriously and just download even more music. Make better music and we'll pay for it.

Well if it's such crappy music why are you downloading it?

 

Does not make much sense does it?

 

It's not The RIAA's fault it's basically The Consumers that it's so high because everyone feels obliged to go to The Mega Stores and buy those records. If you go to The Mom and Pop stores I guarantee you prices would go down but people by these records and so it stays. All I download is Techno.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Johnny Reb Sky Carp

Johnny Reb

Posted
Posted

Good evening everyone.

 

 

Here is an insightful discussion on this very subject from about a month and a half ago:

 

http://pub237.ezboard.com/ffullsportpressf...tart=21&stop=24

 

 

Here are some highlights:

 

The record industry started another campaign yesterday aimed at making life more uncomfortable for online music-swapping fans.

 

Thousands of people trading copyrighted music online yesterday saw a message appear unbidden on their computer screens: "When you break the law, you risk legal penalties. There is a simple way to avoid that risk: DON'T STEAL MUSIC."

 

The messages, which seek to turn a chat feature in popular file-trading software to the industry's benefit, reflect the latest effort among record executives to limit digital copying of their products.

 

"People feel invincible when they're doing this in the privacy of their homes," said Cary Sherman, president of the Recording Industry Association of America. "This is a way of letting them know that what they're doing is illegal."

 

The association plans to send at least a million warnings a week to people offering popular songs for others to copy. Operated by a company that industry officials declined to identify, the automated system uses a feature in both KaZaA and Grokster, free software commonly used to share music files, that was designed to let users communicate with one another.

 

A spokeswoman for Sharman Networks, the distributor of KaZaA, said that the tactic violated the company's user agreement, which prohibits making search requests to accumulate information about individual users. Sharman, which is based in Vanuatu, a Pacific island nation, said in a statement, "We strenuously object to efforts outside the law, in violation of user agreements, or in violation of the privacy rights to indiscriminately spam, mislead or confuse" its users.

 

Until recently, the record industry has been reluctant to act against the several million people who copy music over the Internet from one another for fear of alienating its own customers. But with CD sales plummeting, the record labels have lately taken a more aggressive stance.

 

The industry filed lawsuits this month against four college students, charging them with copyright infringement and seeking billions of dollars in damages.

 

Last week, the industry group won permission from a federal judge to force Verizon to turn over the name of a subscriber it suspects of providing hundreds of copyrighted songs through KaZaA.

 

Verizon is appealing that decision, but analysts said another court decision last week might force the industry to focus on file traders, rather than the software they use. A federal judge in Los Angeles ruled that Grokster and Morpheus, two popular file-trading programs, could be used for both legal and illegal purposes ? like a Xerox machine. Because the owners of the software cannot control what people do with it, the judge said, they are not liable for copyright infringement.

 

"It forces the R.I.A.A. to shift its focus to the actual participants on the network," said Phil Leigh, a digital media analyst at Raymond James. "I would credit them here with taking a step that gets their message in front of users in a fairly obvious way without the terror of a process server at their door."

 

Record companies, analysts said, are trying to strike a bit of fear in the hearts of file traders without sowing the kind of hostility that could lead to a boycott or even increased music swapping.

 

Record industry officials emphasized that the campaign was intended to be an educational effort in line with earlier television ads that featured prominent artists. The record companies cannot learn the real name or address of other users simply by using the instant message feature built into the program.

 

In addition to warning users about the legal risks of their actions, the message explains that file trading hurts musicians and songwriters. The users are also directed to www.musicunited.net, a site created by supporters of the campaign.

 

But the record labels still need to contend with the insistence of many file traders that what they are doing is justified by what they see as the industry's failure to lower prices and provide an inexpensive system for downloading music legally.

 

One frequent KaZaA user, who declined to give his name for fear of the legal consequences, said he would simply check the box in the software that blocks instant messages.

"This is an ongoing war between the community of true music fans against the big corporations that control music," said the user, a 34-year-old man in Hicksville, N.Y. "It's possible that this will scare some people, but it won't scare all people."

 

This was an article by Amy Harmon and the link is here...

 

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html...DAD0894DB404482

 

A couple of highlights from a well known person in the music business, known as Ariel Bender...

 

The price of compact discs has not remained the same over the course of the past ten years.

 

They have been graduallly increasing in price over that period of time.

 

In fact, the MSRP has jumped this year by $1 from the previous MSRP of $17.99 to the new MSRP of $18.99 for a newly released single compact disc.

 

The new release by Linkin Park (Meteora) is the first release this year to bear the new MSRP of $18.99.

 

Future releases by popular artists will bear this new price increase as well.

 

And the RIAA wonders why CD sales are rapidly plummeting?

 

 

And one more tidbit...

 

Hey, I as much as anyone else want to see artists reap all profits for the art they sow, but I have no symapathy for the RIAA. RIAA keeps music artists on food stamps far more than folks who download tracks.

 

I'm not hip (to use an un-hip term) to the download business, but I think the next step in evolution is to go a step further underground.

 

Borrowing a page out of the NetFlix business model, participants just pay nominal fees, and ship batches of CD's from one user to another.

 

I'm only scratching the surface here with my idea.

 

Ask me for details and I will squeeze out another synapse or two.

 

Adios

 

 

 

Again these are just tidbits of information from the entire topic. I shed no tears for the RIAA. They sure as hell are not saints. What they have done in the past is unjust.

 

And this is just the tip of the iceberg. If this lawsuit wins, the RIAA will eventually lose big time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SportsCenter Jumbo Shrimp

SportsCenter

Posted
Posted

That's a bunch of bull and I doubt anyone is going to take this seriously and just download even more music. Make better music and we'll pay for it.

Well if it's such crappy music why are you downloading it?

 

Does not make much sense does it?

 

It's not The RIAA's fault it's basically The Consumers that it's so high because everyone feels obliged to go to The Mega Stores and buy those records. If you go to The Mom and Pop stores I guarantee you prices would go down but people by these records and so it stays. All I download is Techno. all i download is rap

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rune All-Star

Rune

Posted
Posted

all i download is rap

Meaning your #1 on the list. Rap being the most downloaded is the biggest target.

 

DT is safe, Techno, Oldies and other obscure downloaded musis are mainly safe. Mainly because it does not sell in stores.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DurableTear All-Star

DurableTear

Posted
Posted

all i download is rap

Meaning your #1 on the list. Rap being the most downloaded is the biggest target.

 

DT is safe, Techno, Oldies and other obscure downloaded musis are mainly safe. Mainly because it does not sell in stores. most of the techno/trance I download are German groups so the RIAA doesn't give a poop about me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Katrina1211 Hammerhead

Katrina1211

Posted
Posted

from how it's phrased in the article, only those users who offer "substantial collections of MP3s for illegal sharing" will be targeted in the lawsuits, and then goes on to talk about how there's no "set number" of files you have to be sharing in order to be a potential target.

 

with that said...are the users who don't share files (but still download) still targets?

 

if everyone starts to change their settings to not share files, no one will have files available for download, and the whole p2p system crashes. am I right?

 

couldn't you just change your options to not share files and still be OK?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Johnny Reb Sky Carp

Johnny Reb

Posted
Posted

I am not sure on the rules neither.

 

 

However, I do recall hearing that sharing of music is technically not illegal even, there always was a clause that people can share music with one another as long as its not for a profit.

 

That is why MP3.com got into so much trouble, because they were selling music.

 

The creators of Napster saw the legal loophole and pounced on it. However the RIAA and all their billions saw that it was ended, even though nothing illegal was technially done.

 

I feel no sorrow for the RIAA. They have gouged both artists and consumers for years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...