RIAA: "All Internet-users must pay us money!"

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77


How would they know which users use file-sharing and which do not? To me it seems that all Internet-users should (according to RIAA) pay RIAA, no matter do they use filesharing or not. How about dropping the price of CD's instead? I find it rather weird that a DVD movie and the Soundtrack of that movie are priced so close to each other, considering that one has the movie, the music and the extras, while the other has nothing but the music.

good point. tisi is the main reason i dont buy them. its like himm should i buy a CD or pay my bills this week?? hard decision there

The RIAA has given us 95% crap for the past god knows how long. I bet cd sales will go down another 6% because people pirate just to spite the RIAA.

This is totall true. sh!tty pop music dosent stay aqround forever it comes in and out. and its on its way out again. people are tired of it and want something new

and im sure sales will go down even more. and i hope they do. the RIAA is mad because they arnt pullin in billions of sales cause Nsync and teh BSB are gone now and they cant bank on that. the numbers are back to the way they were before Boy Bands hit it big. were they complaining then?? dont think so. They should just shut the fuk up realize that people are tired of listning of teh same old crap and get over it. and I can gaurentee that if they lowered CD prices to something decent sales would pick up. 20$ for a fukin CD is insane. Only CDs i buy are ones off Indy lables cause they cost like 8$ much more reasonable

and now that i have a Car stero that plays MP3s i dont see myself buying a CD anytime soon

 

[brxndxn]

There needs to be more piracy than that to shut the RIAA down.

I totally quit buying cds (albeit I quit listening to their sh|tty music) but I promised myself I will never buy one of their cds again.

I hate them. I used to be one of their biggest customers in their target demographic (14-19) buying $300 worth of cds a year. Since then, they've only accused us of being pirates and theives. I take that personally. Why some people don't, I do not understand.

 

[NokiaDude]

Have you ever bought a new CD? Its about $17-22 !!!!!!!!!! I dont have that amount of cash for ONE 60 MINUTE CD!!! I mean come on, some CD's are only 45 minutes!! :| And when you go buy a used CD you don't even know the condition of the disc. For me, to buy 5 CD's anywhere in San Diego typically costs me ~$100. When I could sign up for a broadband ISP, 50 pack of CD-R's and a 48x CD-Durner for ~$100.

 

[LuNoTiCK]

RIAA sucks ass. I wish people would just stop buying CD's to spite them.

 

[wyvrn]

I have bought 1 cd in the past 18 months. I never buy music anymore, and I don't steal it either. I just listen to the radio or do something else. Sales are going down and the RIAA is grasping for air now, I hope they die HARD.

 

[Gillbot]

If CD's weren't $20 each or more, maybe people would buy them! I know it'll be a cold day in........when I pay $20 for a crap cd with one good song. $8-12 isn't bad and I'd buy cd's when they were cost effective, rather than sorting through crap and messed up songs on the net.

Originally posted by: notfred
The RIAA can go fvck themselves. No one cares what they think anyway. They've been bitching for years now, and people are trading just as much music as before.

 

[911paramedic]

So when people go back to recording songs off the radio (yes, we used to do that, lol) are they going to start charging for our air? Radio waves are broadcast through the air, so I guess we should pay for that too...

Idiots. Sombody needs to hack their site again, it's been about a week since the last time it was done, they are due.

 

[LAUST]

I would not mind giving them money if they sold a CD for 7 or 8 bucks and a FAIR portion of that went to the artist, but when you hear about multi platnum artists only getting 50K from their record sales that is a bunch of $h!t

 

[Ausm]

Originally posted by: notfred
The RIAA can go fvck themselves. No one cares what they think anyway. They've been bitching for years now, and people are trading just as much music as before.

You took the words out of my mouth

Ausm

 

[spanky]

riaa can suck my bunghole

 

[Oakenfold]

Originally posted by: spankyOO7
riaa can suck my bunghole

I'm next after you okay?😉 Err let me clarify, the RIAA not spanky..heh.

Rosen hailed a recent U.S. court decision which ruled that Kazaa, operated by Australian-based technology firm Sharman Networks, could be tried in America, as an important legal step to halting the activities of file-sharing services.

I so cannot stand this woman...we have snipers running around gunning down poor innocent people when there are much more socially acceptable targets readily available.

Not condoning killing someone here but hey if someone HAS TO GO!

 

[tcsenter]

And how do you know which users use file-sharing services? How do they know that the user in question uses file-sharing to download RIAA-related material? What if someone uses Kazaa to download porn, why should he pay RIAA for that?

I think the jist of the article was that ISP's would be obligated to monitor traffic from certain file-trading networks and identify subscribers who are using those sites. How they intend to go about 'making' the ISP's comply with this, I don't know, maybe a law requiring it, or a court order because RIAA is suing an ISP for this information. Or perhaps RIAA is going to get all the backbone owners together, Worldcom, UUNET, GTE, et al. and require this in the terms of their contracts before they lease access to backbone infrastructure. I don't know, but it can be done.

We all pay a 'royalty' on recordable analog and digital cassette tapes, VHS, other recording media, and many countries pay a royalty on every CD-R blank, whether or not you use them to record copyrighted content, you still pay it.

 

[ultimatebob]

Fortunately, most large ISP's have just as many high-priced lawyers as the RIAA does. Even if this law DOES gets passed by congress (and I doubt it), I doubt that the RIAA would be able to collect a dime from the Internet giants like MSN, AOL, or Earthlink without a huge legal battle.

 

[Hamburgerpimp]

I hate those bastards. The more they bitch the more I contemplate pirating!

On a serious note, the root of the problem has ALWAYS been that CDs are overpriced. They're rediculous, up to $20. In slow financial times especially, people turn to other methods for getting their music. Now the fvckers are going after the internet. They originally created the problem with high CD prices. Now they can eat it or lower the prices.

 

[Tab]

Isnt it funny when the fans who buy the artist's cds and the artist hate the RIAA? They can't stop my downloading, even though I barley ever download music. I just use broadband for gaming and faster internet browsing. If they did moniter our file sharing, wouldn't that be considered spying?

 

[tcsenter]

Fortunately, most large ISP's have just as many high-priced lawyers as the RIAA does. Even if this law DOES gets passed by congress (and I doubt it), I doubt that the RIAA would be able to collect a dime from the Internet giants like MSN, AOL, or Earthlink without a huge legal battle.

Are you aware that you just said the world's largest media conglomerate and a company owned by the world's largest software company, both of which go to great lengths to protect their own copyrights from infringement, and whom naturally sympathize with anti-piracy interests, is going to fight RIAA? Wow!

Earthlink, maybe. You're in fairy land if you think the other two will not work out a deal with RIAA.

 

[Parrotheader]

From what I've seen the biggest problem with the RIAA is that they just flat out want FAR too much in royalties to make any sort of music on the Internet (a huge medium you think they'd like to tap) feasible. Streaming Internet radio was essentially killed by the RIAA's huge royalty requirements, which is ironic because if I'm not mistaken regular broadcast radio doesn't actually pay royalties to the artists since the government previously ruled a long time ago that the artists were more than adequately compensated by the publicity they received having their music played on the airwaves. Only the unheralded songwriters were given royalties (and relatively modest ones) by radio stations which makes the most sense. Yet somehow, the RIAA was able to bully through legislation that made streaming Internet radio pay fees not only to the songwriters, but ALSO to the artists AND recording labels which broadcast radio never had to do. The claim of Internet radio being essentially a 'perfect digital copy' was used in the argument to justify tacking on these hefty fees from these additional two sources (both of which far outweighed the royalties the songwriters were requesting.)

My brother works for two major songwriters who have written dozens of hits and work with all sorts of big music names. I always find it interesting to get his take on what they think. He and his bosses are members of ASAP (the songwriter equivalent to RIAA) and obviously understand where the RIAA is coming from a copyright standpoint, but both think the RIAA is being FAR FAR too greedy in what they're looking for in compensation and their attempts to stop piracy. One of them thinks the RIAA is being overly aggressive in the hopes of having room to give in a compromise settlement with the government which is still acceptable to them. The other guy thinks that the RIAA is just scared and being flat out too greedy since they missed the boat on how to properly tap the power of the Internet to distribute their music effectively.

 

[GrumpyMan]

I think the mistake the RIAA has made is that now some people, such as myself, don't buy music just to spite them. All their whining and crying about not making enough money. Please, $20.00 for a CD is retarded when you only get one or two worthy songs. I've said it once and I'll say it again, the RIAA, my ISP, and Congress can make up all the new laws they want. I'll just get my computer, stereo, DVD players and throw them all in ocean and never use them again before I'll succumb to a money hungry grubbing company like the record industry. I'll just take up farming and berry picking with the bears. 🙂

 

[kami]

A major culprit, industry watchers say, is online piracy.

Or the other culptrit could be LACK OF QUALITY MUSIC, NOT EVERYONE LIKES MANUFACTURED SH!T THAT THEY'VE BEEN PUMPING OUT FOR THE LAST FEW YEARS. :|

How in god's name would they determine whether a user is using a file sharing app for other purposes other than music...or would they charge them too? I guess everyone who uses a blank CD uses it for music too and that's why they want extra tax on those.

RIAA will go down as quite possibly one of the most hated companies of this century.

At least the MPAA doesn't sound as bad right now...I don't hear nearly as much from them. Then again they're smart and realize that if they STFU everything will be fine and that box office and DVD sales are both skyrocketing.

 

[MrBond]

I wondered how long this would take. It's just a matter of time before lawsuits are filed against the little guys (like that company that's suing little companies for infringing on their e-commerce patent to build up a big bankroll to go up against the big guns of ecommerce). Then when the legal fund is big enough, they just have to go after AOL, Earthlink, and the other big providors.

P2P networks can hop from port to port, but the only real way I can see them surviving is to stop using strange ports and start using ports like those that are used by other services (http, irc, gameservers).

 

[tcsenter]

I think the jist of the article was that ISP's would be obligated to monitor traffic from certain file-trading networks and identify subscribers who are using those sites. How they intend to go about 'making' the ISP's comply with this, I don't know, maybe...a court order because RIAA is suing an ISP for this information.

Hey hey! I'm not too bad at this prediction stuff.

Judge Orders ISP's to Help in Piracy Fight

 

[stebesplace]

Who gets music off the web anyways these days? I can only find the stuff on web shares, nothing on the web like in the old school days.

-Steve

 

[jjones]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

And how do you know which users use file-sharing services? How do they know that the user in question uses file-sharing to download RIAA-related material? What if someone uses Kazaa to download porn, why should he pay RIAA for that?

I think the jist of the article was that ISP's would be obligated to monitor traffic from certain file-trading networks and identify subscribers who are using those sites. How they intend to go about 'making' the ISP's comply with this, I don't know, maybe a law requiring it, or a court order because RIAA is suing an ISP for this information. Or perhaps RIAA is going to get all the backbone owners together, Worldcom, UUNET, GTE, et al. and require this in the terms of their contracts before they lease access to backbone infrastructure. I don't know, but it can be done.

We all pay a 'royalty' on recordable analog and digital cassette tapes, VHS, other recording media, and many countries pay a royalty on every CD-R blank, whether or not you use them to record copyrighted content, you still pay it.

And why do you think people are bitching? I really don't understand why you keep defending the RIAA. If I use Kazaa that means I'm automatically downloading music? If I buy a CD, that means I'm automatically recording music onto it? The answer is "no" to both cases; I don't use Kazaa for mp3s and I don't use blank CDs for recording music. Why should I, as a consumer, pay to keep afloat an organization and industry that has all the tools, and all the means, and a virtual monopoly? I refuse to buy new CDs from them and will continue to do so; I can only hope their are enough like-minded people to keep the pressure up on them until they finally realize that this war they are waging with the consumer only hurts themselves. They want to force their rules, their product, onto the consumer who does not want it and then try to coerce politicians to pass laws to make the government force the consumer to pay for unwanted product and services. In effect, they want the government to force the consumer to subsidize their industry and that they themselves not be held accountable for their business practices.

I say bullsh!t. I won't be responsible for the mansion payments and private jets and parties of the bunch of greedy, ignorant bastards that constitute the RIAA.

 

[Orsorum]

She urged the major music labels, which include Sony Music, Warner Music, EMI, Universal Music and Bertelsmann's BMG, to ease licensing restrictions, develop digital copyright protections for music, and invest more in promoting subscription download services.

Sounds good to me.

 

[apoppin]

ISP ordered to identify Kazaa user TODAY's News:

IN WHAT IS WIDELY viewed as a test case, U.S. District Judge John Bates said the wording of the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) requires Verizon to give the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) the name of a Kazaa subscriber who allegedly has shared hundreds of music recordings.

Another judge that fell for the RIAA BS.

EDIT:If the ruling is upheld on appeal, music industry investigators would have the power to identify hundreds or thousands of music pirates at a time without filing a lawsuit first.