Anyone else feel like the RIAA/MPAA are full of it?

[jdoggg12]

I was reading this article and saw this quote:

The RIAA said Tuesday that "global theft of sound recordings cost the U.S. economy $12.5 billion in lost revenue and more than 71,000 jobs and $2 billion in wages to U.S. workers."

It just seems completely ludicrous to me that they can be losing that much money. For me, of all the media I have [*ahem*] downloaded, almost none of it would I have otherwise purchased. Occasionally I come across stuff where i'd like to support a particular artist, but I rarely find that on "legit" sources. Most of the music i've purchased recently is b/c I heard several good songs of a particular artist on Pandora, which may be going out of business b/c the RIAA doesn't like it and has been charging obsene royalties to.

I guess the question I pose is this; how many of you get your media in ways that the RIAA/MPAA hate (regardless of legality) only b/c it's free and otherwise wouldn't pay for it were it not free or at least ridiculously cheap?

 

[XZeroII]

I believe it.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

I'm not a fan of the "If I didn't download it, I wouldn't have bought it" excuse. Why do you feel entitled to listen to music or watch movies without paying for them? Do you have some sort of innate right to this media?

Fine, if it's not good enough for you to buy, don't buy it. But in my opinion you don't have the right to download something just because it's substandard. Either pay for it or go without.

 

[manowar821]

Absolutely full of it.

 

[jdoggg12]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
I'm not a fan of the "If I didn't download it, I wouldn't have bought it" excuse. Why do you feel entitled to listen to music or watch movies without paying for them? Do you have some sort of innate right to this media?

Fine, if it's not good enough for you to buy, don't buy it. But in my opinion you don't have the right to download something just because it's substandard. Either pay for it or go without.

Pandora - they feel I shouldn't be allowed to listen to that for free. Whats your take on that?

 

[Ronstang]

The RIAA/MPAA use completely bogus numbers to get the attention of Congress because they fail to note that the overwhelming majority of people who pirate music/movies WOULD NOT buy them if there was no way to get them free.

 

[mugs]

I don't think the $12.5 billion represents the total amount that has been pirated, it's a fraction of that amount that they projected would have been purchased without the availability of pirated media.

I stopped buying movies and switched to unlimited rental services a few years ago, because I realized I didn't watch my movies enough. I started buying more TV show seasons, because I watch those repeatedly. If there was an online streaming service that gave me a good selection of movies and TV shows unlimited, I'd pay $30-40 for that. If the service were good enough that I could cancel my cable TV (wouldn't take much), add $20 to that.

 

[jdoggg12]

Originally posted by: mugs
I don't think the $12.5 billion represents the total amount that has been pirated, it's a fraction of that amount that they projected would have been purchased without the availability of pirated media.

Bingo. Its like they assign a dollar value to every single "free" copy floating about as if every movie/song would've otherwise been purchased at retail price.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Originally posted by: mugs
I don't think the $12.5 billion represents the total amount that has been pirated, it's a fraction of that amount that they projected would have been purchased without the availability of pirated media.

I stopped buying movies and switched to unlimited rental services a few years ago, because I realized I didn't watch my movies enough. I started buying more TV show seasons, because I watch those repeatedly. If there was an online streaming service that gave me a good selection of movies and TV shows unlimited, I'd pay $30-40 for that. If the service were good enough that I could cancel my cable TV (wouldn't take much), add $20 to that.

Yep. They're way off on how they're figuring their losses. Fact is, they're trying to offload their inability to adapt to changing marketplace on piracy. Also, I don't know about you, but when you as an industry start calling your customers thieves, you tend to alienate people a little bit.

Unfortunately, there was no mass revolt against either the RIAA or MPAA. People just rolled their eyes and said whatever instead of actually doing something about it. Personally, for whatever reason, I find very few movies are worth owning anymore, and often times buy used ones for cheap. When the cost for a month of Netflix, where you can rent at least 5-10 movies is the same as it costs to buy one, its almost a no brainer. I don't think it needs to be said what a pooch-screw the HD format war was. Album sales were going to decline once people were able to buy the one or two songs they liked off of an album. Hell, books are still doing quite well in this day and age, despite competing with video games, movies, TV, and the Internet.

 

[DaveSimmons]

I don't fit any of your poll choices.

1. I use Netflix and Napster to legally view movies/TV and listen to music without buying it.
2. If I like something enough to want to own it then I buy it.

No yarrr matey infringement needed.

 

[Capt Caveman]

I buy it when it's on sale and never pay retail.

 

[adairusmc]

I am not a thief, I buy my movies and music.

 

[AccruedExpenditure]

Originally posted by: adairusmc
I am not a thief, I buy my movies and music.

Someone get this man a cookie

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: AccruedExpenditure

Originally posted by: adairusmc
I am not a thief, I buy my movies and music.

Someone get this man a cookie

One of the other posters stole it

 

[Baked]

They don't know who the fuck the pirate distributors are, so they go after the p2p kiddies. How typical. War on drugs? Yup, arrest the 12 year old runners and 16 year old dealers, but don't wanna go after the king pins.

 

[Cogman]

I am not an avid music fan. So I don't download/buy any music. If I really need to listen to something, the radio is fine for me. Yes, I know this is really far from the norm.

But honestly. I don't think the MPAA or RIAA would be seeing the amount of money they are saying they lose if pirating stopped all together. The would at best see a slight increase in revenue. From what I have seen, the people that generally pirate do it because the media is unavailable to them, pirating makes it easy to get what they want now.

I am not saying it is right, but if it was stopped all together you would just have people that have and people that don't, not much more. Of course, maybe that would cause an influx of people that do something more with their time then play games/listen to music/and watch videos. Society might start to see some pretty big intellectual leaps forward (Or higher crime rates, take your pick).

 

[CorCentral]

You mean ....... "IS FULL OF IT"?


WTF are Full of it?

 

[JackBurton]

Can you add a "Fvck them!" option in your poll? That's my answer.

 

[jdoggg12]

Originally posted by: CorCentral
You mean ....... "IS FULL OF IT"?


WTF are Full of it?

Well, MPAA and RIAA are two entities. The plural of "is" is "are". Do you need me to draw a diagram too?

 

[CorCentral]

Originally posted by: jdoggg12

Originally posted by: CorCentral
You mean ....... "IS FULL OF IT"?


WTF are Full of it?

Well, MPAA and RIAA are two entities. The plural of "is" is "are". Do you need me to draw a diagram too?

You're right, but I hate hearing it like what's below.......

For Example.....
Microsoft are a bad company.
Apple are a bad company.

 

[Nitemare]

I wouldn't pee on them if they were on fire.

I might beat out the flames with a baseball bat though.

I would be more inclined to purchase an album if the artist got more than a few pennies on the dollar.

 

[AstroManLuca]

I can afford to buy music, but I don't anyway. I also don't pirate music or movies. Here's why:

- I don't care about obtaining music to own forever. I absolutely must have variety. It's hard for me to listen to a song more than once a month without getting really sick of it. Hence, I listen to the radio. Same goes for movies. No desire to own movies, so I rent them or just watch TV or play video games instead for that.
- I know that 90% of the money I spend on music and movies just goes to the industry that wants to punish me for buying their products, and only a tiny bit goes to the people who actually made the stuff, so I can't in good conscience buy any of it.

 

[frostedflakes]

I'd be interested to see an unbiased (i.e. not done or funded by the music and movie industries) study on the effects of piracy. Those numbers seem high, although if you include losses for distributors and retailers, I wouldn't be surprised if the losses are pretty significant.

And the ironic thing is, the RIAA tries to evoke sympathy by pleading for fans to "stop hurting the artists," but this affects record labels and retailers much more than artists. IIRC retailers and the record labels account for like 3/4 or more of the cost of a CD. Artists get such a small chunk. It pisses me off that more don't embrace digital distribution and just sell music directly to the fans with no middle men to profit off their hard work. If I was a musician, I'd never sell my music off to some fatcat record label exec, that's just stupid. But I guess for a lot of "artists," it's about cocaine and whores, not the music..

/rant

 

[jdoggg12]

If you want to support the artist, buy concert tickets

 

[Ronstang]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
I'd be interested to see an unbiased (i.e. not done or funded by the music and movie industries) study on the effects of piracy. Those numbers seem high, although if you include losses for distributors and retailers, I wouldn't be surprised if the losses are pretty significant.

And the ironic thing is that, the RIAA tries to earn sympathy by pleading for fans to "stop hurting the artists," but this affects record labels and retailers much more than artists. IIRC retailers and the record labels account for like 3/4 or more of the cost of a CD. Artists get such a small chunk. It pisses me off that more don't embrace digital distribution and just sell music directly to the fans with no middle men to profit off their hard work. If I was a musician, I'd never sell my music off to some fatcat record label exec, that's just stupid. But I guess for a lot of "artists," it's about cocaine and whores, not the music..

/rant

And then it would be likely no one would know who you were or care enough to download your music and pay you. Unfortunately for most artists the record labels are a necessary evil. It is only the well established bands whose contracts with the labels have expired that can truly benefit from controlling their own digital distribution.

The biggest problem with the record labels is they are stuck in the old business model of how things are done and have not adapted to the digital age. It is funny how they loved the CD when it came out because it was cheaper to manufacture and distribute and allowed them to charge almost double for "perceived" value. Kind of ironic that when the CD burner hit the scene they got bit right in their fat asses. Karma is a bitch.