RIAA: Black Friday RIAA Protest & Boycott organization starting here - Keep tuned

[Jetblade]

Originally posted by: isaacmacdonald

Originally posted by: Jetblade

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: Jetblade

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"You should be ashamed of yourselves."

Exactly. The unethical behavior isn't coming from the RIAA..

So its ok to overcharge for a product? Or at LEAST give the consumer more options to spend there hard earned money wisely by giving samples or for the consumers to buy what THEY WANT and not ADDED GARBAGE?

Go take some economics classes, then get back to us.

The facts are very simple here, people have been stealing & they're getting their hands slapped.

Viper GTS

So, you're telling me that a Movie that costs millions of dollars to make only costs $19.99 to own while music which offers 1 or 2 good songs and a bunch of garbage costs roughly $15.99?

I don't need to go to any economics class to figure this one out.

Interesting point, but movies are vastly different animals (as informed by consumption frequency).

Nonetheless, "the facts are simple" is a fairly stupid argument to make. Just because something is presently legal, doesn't make it ethical or even functional in a competitive sense. Pragmatism is required here not platonic interpretation of "law". I would wager, people primarilly download songs illegally because the alternative is cumbersome, time consuming, and the price most likely exceeds the utility provided by the product. The RIAA wants to frighten people into getting back into the business model that the RIAA prefers. I wouldn't argue that the RIAA is behaving unethically by sueing, but their current pricing scheme is questionable, and I doubt that massive strikes against the general public will really boost their record sales back into the record breaking numbers of the late nineties.

PS.. is there some kind of problem with riaa threads or what? Why did my thread about the 12 year old being sued by the RIAA get locked... hmmmm ahh, NM-

I think your thread got locked because it was a repost.

 

[apoppin]

I can see all you "elite" naysayers so quick to jump to the defense of the RIAA haven't a CLUE what we are protesting.

I an NOT advocating theft.

I am against FASCIST tactics and methods of the RIAA.
I am protesting their willingness to BREAK the LAW in suing their own customers.
I am against the privacy freedoms they would take away from our (up-to-now) free society
I protest their unfair use of paying off politicians to make unfair laws to benefit them
I protest their trampling over the free-use laws

I don't share music over the net

I don't care if you join me in protesting or not - (you sheep) Baah.

 

[tm37]

Originally posted by: apoppin
I can see all you "elite" naysayers so quick to jump to the defense of the RIAA haven't a CLUE what we are protesting.

I an NOT advocating theft.

I am against FASCIST tactics and methods of the RIAA.

how should they address the problem

I am protesting their willingness to BREAK the LAW in suing their own customers.

tow minor issues here
1. how is it illegal to sue their customers?

2. If someone is stealling from you they aren't really a customer

I am against the privacy freedoms they would take away from our (up-to-now) free society

If you have files to BE SHARED on your computer AVAILIBLE FOR ANYONE to download there is no invasion of privacy

I protest their unfair use of paying off politicians to make unfair laws to benefit them

They are tring to protect there intrest something every company does, nothing to this point has worked

I protest their trampling over the free-use laws

please explain

I don't share music over the net

congradulations

I don't care if you join me in protesting or not - (you sheep) Baah.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: tm37

Originally posted by: apoppin
I can see all you "elite" naysayers so quick to jump to the defense of the RIAA haven't a CLUE what we are protesting.

I an NOT advocating theft.

I am against FASCIST tactics and methods of the RIAA.

how should they address the problem

I am protesting their willingness to BREAK the LAW in suing their own customers.

tow minor issues here
1. how is it illegal to sue their customers?

2. If someone is stealling from you they aren't really a customer

I am against the privacy freedoms they would take away from our (up-to-now) free society

If you have files to BE SHARED on your computer AVAILIBLE FOR ANYONE to download there is no invasion of privacy

I protest their unfair use of paying off politicians to make unfair laws to benefit them

They are tring to protect there intrest something every company does, nothing to this point has worked

I protest their trampling over the free-use laws

please explain

I don't share music over the net

congradulations

I don't care if you join me in protesting or not - (you sheep) Baah.

FIRST OF ALL - have you read this thread?
I'd be bloody repetitive to educate you in Cliff's notes style when it's ALL there for the discerning person who CARES ENOUGH to RESEARCH before stating his opinion.

 

[Ocuflox]

a 250,000 fine for the price of a compressed song - doesnt that seem like the punishment does not fit the offense

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: Ocuflox
a 250,000 fine for the price of a compressed song - doesnt that seem like the punishment does not fit the offense

That is the new proposed fine (plus 5 years in prison). The current maximum fine is $150,000. Still, IMHO, that is a little high, considering the nature of the crime, but many would disagree.

 

[tm37]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: tm37

Originally posted by: apoppin
I can see all you "elite" naysayers so quick to jump to the defense of the RIAA haven't a CLUE what we are protesting.

I an NOT advocating theft.

I am against FASCIST tactics and methods of the RIAA.

how should they address the problem

I am protesting their willingness to BREAK the LAW in suing their own customers.

tow minor issues here
1. how is it illegal to sue their customers?

2. If someone is stealling from you they aren't really a customer

I am against the privacy freedoms they would take away from our (up-to-now) free society

If you have files to BE SHARED on your computer AVAILIBLE FOR ANYONE to download there is no invasion of privacy

I protest their unfair use of paying off politicians to make unfair laws to benefit them

They are tring to protect there intrest something every company does, nothing to this point has worked

I protest their trampling over the free-use laws

please explain

I don't share music over the net

congradulations

I don't care if you join me in protesting or not - (you sheep) Baah.

FIRST OF ALL - have you read this thread?
I'd be bloody repetitive to educate you in Cliff's notes style when it's ALL there for the discerning person who CARES ENOUGH to RESEARCH before stating his opinion.

Take a chill pill here.

I just fail to see how they are invading privacy (if you are sharing files with unknown people)

I fail to see how sueing thosre people whop share files is illegal

ANd I fail to see how atacking thoose who share files over the INternet is a violation of fair use.

Now perhaps I am WAY OUT OF LINE HERE (and it has happened) but after reading through most of dmcowens thread I see a few things.

1. RIAA is against P2P file sharing as it is used to distribute works that it's mamber companies are the rightful owners of.
2. The RIAA is using the law to go after those who choose to distribute works that they are not the rightful owners of and that the member companies of the RIAA are the rightful owner of.
3. People seem to think that the RIAA is over steping it bounds by finding people sharing works on P2P netowrks that allow anyone to view files with the simple click of a mouse.
4. people feel that the fines and damages being asked for by the RIAA on behalf of member comapies are to extreme.
5. The RIAA is being mean to music lovers that just love music (yet don't want to pay for it.


now maybe I missed something BUT I still don't see the problem with the lawsuits.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: apoppin
I can see all you "elite" naysayers so quick to jump to the defense of the RIAA haven't a CLUE what we are protesting.

I an NOT advocating theft.

I am against FASCIST tactics and methods of the RIAA.
I am protesting their willingness to BREAK the LAW in suing their own customers.
I am against the privacy freedoms they would take away from our (up-to-now) free society
I protest their unfair use of paying off politicians to make unfair laws to benefit them
I protest their trampling over the free-use laws

I don't share music over the net

I don't care if you join me in protesting or not - (you sheep) Baah.

B.S. If protecting yourself against theft is fascist then call me Mussolini. A creator of intellectual property would consider copyright protection to be nearly as important as free speech. Which politicians have they paid off, and in what amounts?

You're placing the blame on the wrong people. The RIAA was forced to take the actions they're taking because nothing else they have tried has worked.

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: mugsywwiii
You're placing the blame on the wrong people. The RIAA was forced to take the actions they're taking because nothing else they have tried has worked.

Exactly. The RIAA wants people to stop illegally distributing music... Music that they (the RIAA) are entitled to make a profit off of in this great country.

What do you propose the RIAA should do? Just ignore the hoards of people doing this illegal activity???

 

[Jhill]

Do any of you guys who defending the RIAA realize they were just found GUILTY of price fixing a few months ago?

They have a monopoly on the music industry and it has to stop for the sake of the artists and the consumer. And it will stop.

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: Jhill
Do any of you guys who defending the RIAA realize they were just found GUILTY of price fixing a few months ago?

They have a monopoly on the music industry and it has to stop for the sake of the artists and the consumer. And it will stop.

I'm not saying the RIAA is an angelic entity... But that doesn't justify stealing from them... Or using their copywrited material... Or whatever (illegal) term you want to use.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: tm37

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: tm37

Originally posted by: apoppin
I can see all you "elite" naysayers so quick to jump to the defense of the RIAA haven't a CLUE what we are protesting.

I an NOT advocating theft.

I am against FASCIST tactics and methods of the RIAA.

how should they address the problem

I am protesting their willingness to BREAK the LAW in suing their own customers.

tow minor issues here
1. how is it illegal to sue their customers?

2. If someone is stealling from you they aren't really a customer

I am against the privacy freedoms they would take away from our (up-to-now) free society

If you have files to BE SHARED on your computer AVAILIBLE FOR ANYONE to download there is no invasion of privacy

I protest their unfair use of paying off politicians to make unfair laws to benefit them

They are tring to protect there intrest something every company does, nothing to this point has worked

I protest their trampling over the free-use laws

please explain

I don't share music over the net

congradulations

I don't care if you join me in protesting or not - (you sheep) Baah.

FIRST OF ALL - have you read this thread?
I'd be bloody repetitive to educate you in Cliff's notes style when it's ALL there for the discerning person who CARES ENOUGH to RESEARCH before stating his opinion.

Take a chill pill here.

I just fail to see how they are invading privacy (if you are sharing files with unknown people)

I fail to see how sueing thosre people whop share files is illegal

ANd I fail to see how atacking thoose who share files over the INternet is a violation of fair use.

Now perhaps I am WAY OUT OF LINE HERE (and it has happened) but after reading through most of dmcowens thread I see a few things.

1. RIAA is against P2P file sharing as it is used to distribute works that it's mamber companies are the rightful owners of.
2. The RIAA is using the law to go after those who choose to distribute works that they are not the rightful owners of and that the member companies of the RIAA are the rightful owner of.
3. People seem to think that the RIAA is over steping it bounds by finding people sharing works on P2P netowrks that allow anyone to view files with the simple click of a mouse.
4. people feel that the fines and damages being asked for by the RIAA on behalf of member comapies are to extreme.
5. The RIAA is being mean to music lovers that just love music (yet don't want to pay for it.


now maybe I missed something BUT I still don't see the problem with the lawsuits.

I guess you didn't bother to read the thread . . .

The FAILURE to understand is YOURs

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Wingznut

Originally posted by: Jhill
Do any of you guys who defending the RIAA realize they were just found GUILTY of price fixing a few months ago?

They have a monopoly on the music industry and it has to stop for the sake of the artists and the consumer. And it will stop.

I'm not saying the RIAA is an angelic entity... But that doesn't justify stealing from them... Or using their copywrited material... Or whatever (illegal) term you want to use.

I see you are a big fan of the Sheriff of Nottingham!
The RIAA is pissing up a rope. Their sales are hurt by Piracy..in the form of illicit CD's that are easily available in Asia and Eastern Europe, not from Snot Gobblers like that 12 year old Downloading MP3's. These actions they are taking against the consumer is a PR Cluster Fscvk and will definately bite them in the ass.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Ranger X
You can count me in. Regardless of whether I download MP3s or not, I would not agree on the tactics the RIAA is using to get back at the people. I hope the boycott hits them hard!

BTW, can we get a sticky on this thread?

 

[KK]

Everyone needs to download whatever they like, and if they like whoever they downloaded, then just send the money straight to the artists. Fvck the middleman.

KK

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: KK
Everyone needs to download whatever they like, and if they like whoever they downloaded, then just send the money straight to the artists. Fvck the middleman.

KK

Never happen.

The RIAA - after they are taken down a notch - needs to fix their broken busines model - it is not up to me to point out how (they'd have to pay me too much to help them).

and YES this is NO DIFFERENT than the 13 colonies in OUR history refusing to bow to UNFAIR taxation without representation. Right NOW there is a battle for our FREEDOM that the RIAA and other megabuxcorps are trying to kill. They are unfairly backing unfair legislation that will kill many of our freedoms.

THEY have started to dismantle OUR rights and I am just suggesting that we (non-violently) "push" back.

 

[apoppin]

This thread is not to convince anybody of anything. However, IF you feel the RIAA has overstepped their bounds - there is a PROTEST you can not only participate in but get in on the "ground-floor" of a major and possibly effective movement.

 

[flexy]

Originally posted by: apoppin
I can see all you "elite" naysayers so quick to jump to the defense of the RIAA haven't a CLUE what we are protesting.

I an NOT advocating theft.

I am against FASCIST tactics and methods of the RIAA.
I am protesting their willingness to BREAK the LAW in suing their own customers.
I am against the privacy freedoms they would take away from our (up-to-now) free society
I protest their unfair use of paying off politicians to make unfair laws to benefit them
I protest their trampling over the free-use laws

I don't share music over the net

I don't care if you join me in protesting or not - (you sheep) Baah.

* i protest the utterly ridiculous prices for CDs, like $20 (more for imports) for some CD with 13 or so songs on it.
It's TRUE - why pay $20 when you COULD download the same off the net ?
Is a CD really worth $20 ???? NO !!!!!!
I would think twice whether to download or to BUY a CD when the max. price for a CD would be, say $9.99...more is a CD definetly not worth..could be even cheaper. MAKE THE CDS CHEAPER AND SEE YOUR PROBLEM GETTING SOLVED BY ITSELF !!!!!

* i also protest the absolutely horrible quality of MTV America (in comparison to MTV Europe and other stations in Europe)
MTV America is the biggest load of **** and it looks like the music market here consists ONLY of hip/hop, soul and rap shit.
I am sick of seeing hip-hop on MTV here - these is NOT a racist statement, i only noted that after coming over here from Europe...and i think there is definetly MORE to music than soul and hip-hop garbage !!!!!!

* the biggest problem of the RIAA is that they cannot stop a trend and ignore signs of the times and technological possibilities.
Inet bandwidth will get BIGGER - people WILL also download more movies, people WILL download whole DVDs as soon as DVD burners are faster and more mainstream.
These people can not (it's impossible !) to stop a trend (which includes the whole WORLD and not only the US)...sue some individuals and then hope to get some benefits out of it.
As said, i say it again: DROP CD prices - and THEN we can look further ! Everytime when i go to borders etc. and see some CDs i would LIKE i shake my head because i cannot AFFORD it (even as someone who has an income) - i just WONT and will not spend $30 for a (say) import techno CD..because $30 is a lot of money for MEDIA which i rather save than spend on a CD...

(Btw. same with software of course....you might think, "ok, i get this game at best buy, it's good and it is only $9.99". So you go and grab it. If the same game would be....say $59..what happens ? A lot of people get cracks...that's just how it is, like it or not...)

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: flexy

Originally posted by: apoppin
I can see all you "elite" naysayers so quick to jump to the defense of the RIAA haven't a CLUE what we are protesting.

I an NOT advocating theft.

I am against FASCIST tactics and methods of the RIAA.
I am protesting their willingness to BREAK the LAW in suing their own customers.
I am against the privacy freedoms they would take away from our (up-to-now) free society
I protest their unfair use of paying off politicians to make unfair laws to benefit them
I protest their trampling over the free-use laws

I don't share music over the net

I don't care if you join me in protesting or not - (you sheep) Baah.

* i protest the utterly ridiculous prices for CDs, like $20 (more for imports) for some CD with 13 or so songs on it.
It's TRUE - why pay $20 when you COULD download the same off the net ?
Is a CD really worth $20 ???? NO !!!!!!
I would think twice whether to download or to BUY a CD when the max. price for a CD would be, say $9.99...more is a CD definetly not worth..could be even cheaper. MAKE THE CDS CHEAPER AND SEE YOUR PROBLEM GETTING SOLVED BY ITSELF !!!!!

* i also protest the absolutely horrible quality of MTV America (in comparison to MTV Europe and other stations in Europe)
MTV America is the biggest load of **** and it looks like the music market here consists ONLY of hip/hop, soul and rap shit.
I am sick of seeing hip-hop on MTV here - these is NOT a racist statement, i only noted that after coming over here from Europe...and i think there is definetly MORE to music than soul and hip-hop garbage !!!!!!

* the biggest problem of the RIAA is that they cannot stop a trend and ignore signs of the times and technological possibilities.
Inet bandwidth will get BIGGER - people WILL also download more movies, people WILL download whole DVDs as soon as DVD burners are faster and more mainstream.
These people can not (it's impossible !) to stop a trend (which includes the whole WORLD and not only the US)...sue some individuals and then hope to get some benefits out of it.
As said, i say it again: DROP CD prices - and THEN we can look further ! Everytime when i go to borders etc. and see some CDs i would LIKE i shake my head because i cannot AFFORD it (even as someone who has an income) - i just WONT and will not spend $30 for a (say) import techno CD..because $30 is a lot of money for MEDIA which i rather save than spend on a CD...

(Btw. same with software of course....you might think, "ok, i get this game at best buy, it's good and it is only $9.99". So you go and grab it. If the same game would be....say $59..what happens ? A lot of people get cracks...that's just how it is, like it or not...)

The ONLY way the RIAA will listen to us is IF we DO something!
An organized boycott will give them something to "think" about.

 

[Palek]

Suing 12-year-old girls and grandpas and slamming a 150-250 thousand dollar fine on them is most certainly too much. You do not see a shoplifter getting the same kind of punishment for taking a CD or DVD from a record store. Someone at the RIAA must have clearly been frustrated and a little too angry about the current situation. I believe a "little" more common sense on the RIAA's part is critical in avoiding a PR disaster. They have the right to protect their IP and turn to law inforcement to aid them in curbing copyright violations, but 250 thousand dollars and 5 years in prison? That is excessive.

Lots of people are talking about cutting out the middleman, but is that really feasible? There will always be a middleman, it's just that the transactions will take on a different shape. Now (but not for much longer it seems) we have record companies that provide the resources and logistics necessary for getting an artist's music to the consumer. CD's are on the way out, it seems, and the future is in internet-based distribution. However, somebody still has to provide the server, the storage, the bandwidth, the software, the financing solution etc. I don't think artists have the time and energy to deal with all of that, and even if they did, they probably would not want to bother and would instead ask a middleman to deal with the business side of things. Besides, the recording, mixing and mastering will still need to be done by someone, and not every artist has enough cash to set up a proper studio for themselves.

I guess the real issue is that the RIAA is seemingly really stubborn and unwilling to let go of its current business model. I know that out the average 16 dollars one pays for a CD, not much goes to the artist. Maybe 1 dollar. But that is still 1 dollar. I am curious... I bet there are some people on this board who have some idea about the costs involved in running an online music store like Apple's. Out of the 1 dollar paid for a song, how much would end up going to an artist? Let's say there are no "traditional" record companies involved anymore. There would be some sort of a representative for the artists who would deal with advertising and getting their music in the databases of big online distributors, then there would be the distributors themselves, and that's it. How much money would the artist see out of a 1 dollar sale? I'm really interested.

I'm just wondering, maybe the 1 dollar out of 16 is still a good deal for musicians these days. Please feel free to correct me!!!!

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Palek
Suing 12-year-old girls and grandpas and slamming a 150-250 thousand dollar fine on them is most certainly too much. You do not see a shoplifter getting the same kind of punishment for taking a CD or DVD from a record store. Someone at the RIAA must have clearly been frustrated and a little too angry about the current situation. I believe a "little" more common sense on the RIAA's part is critical in avoiding a PR disaster. They have the right to protect their IP and turn to law inforcement to aid them in curbing copyright violations, but 250 thousand dollars and 5 years in prison? That is excessive.

You know, people keep throwing that those huge numbers around - you realize that's the MAXIMUM penalty, right? And you realize that the RIAA settled with the 12 year old girl's family for a paltry $2000 for her hundreds of violations? And you realize that these are civil lawsuits and not fines, right? And you realize that the RIAA probably didn't realize it was a 12 year old girl, right? (I may be wrong on that one, correct me if I am) Since when does being 12 years old or a grandfather absolve you from responsibility for your actions anyway?

 

[Palek]

Originally posted by: mugsywwiii

Originally posted by: Palek
Suing 12-year-old girls and grandpas and slamming a 150-250 thousand dollar fine on them is most certainly too much. You do not see a shoplifter getting the same kind of punishment for taking a CD or DVD from a record store. Someone at the RIAA must have clearly been frustrated and a little too angry about the current situation. I believe a "little" more common sense on the RIAA's part is critical in avoiding a PR disaster. They have the right to protect their IP and turn to law inforcement to aid them in curbing copyright violations, but 250 thousand dollars and 5 years in prison? That is excessive.

You know, people keep throwing that those huge numbers around - you realize that's the MAXIMUM penalty, right? And you realize that the RIAA settled with the 12 year old girl's family for a paltry $2000 for her hundreds of violations?

Thanks for clearing that up for me. I actually did not know. I promise to do my homework next time.
In light of your comments, please ignore my comments about the RIAA being excessive.

<EDIT>Just to make myself clear, I do not support file-sharing. Apart from the perceived excessiveness (which turned out to be untrue), I had no issue with the RIAA.</EDIT>

<EDIT2>I found an interesting article that made me think about all the money I've been spending on music. In short, it talks about how, when we buy a CD/tape/etc, we supposedly pay for a licence to listen to an artist's music, and brings up a valid point: why aren't we allowed to use this licence to obtain a copy of the music we already paid for on a new type of media, for a nominal trasfer fee?
I totally agree with the writer. I do not want to shell out another 13-16 bucks when my old CD's become unreadable. Does the customer really have no right to get a cheap replacement for a CD that's unusable because of its age?</EDIT2>

 

[Grizybaer]

Just some thoughts.


Do you believe in the right to take a CD you just purchased and rip it into mp3?s so you don?t have to keep pressing eject,

Now, what if your computer was shared, like more than one person uses it, would you have to delete the mp3?s before they use it because they could potentially listen to them??

Now, what if I felt it was necessary to share my HD, I?m at multiple computers and need to access files. Everyone on my network now potentially has access to those mp3. Do I need to delete them??

If you answered yes, you NEED to delete them, please explain.

Also, how this is different from you having the physical cd and lending it to another person.


Lastly, this should move away from the simple points, these being

Stealing is wrong, if you do it, dont defend, its wrong, just accept it.
But but.. CD's are so expensive.. Well, then dont buy it. I'm not driving a BMW, too expensive. If there's a BMW dealer that leaves all the keys in the cars on a nice open lot, well, he's a fool but you still dont take the car, you know its wrong.

they're expensive but, they could charge whatever they like, you dont have to buy it. Imagine if AMD wasnt here, intel would have their way with us. we wouldn't upgrade our comps the way we do. The whole monopoly thing is a different discussion.

Lets leave these topics behind and focus on our rights, ethics and morals.

 

[jpeyton]

I would protest RIAA for their anti-piracy tactics alone, such as audio CDs that cannot be played or ripped by a computer CD-ROM. I'm sure there are drives and software out there that will circumvent this, but the average J6P is out of luck. I think it's my right to make MP3s from a CD I own so I can play it in my portable MP3 player, but RIAA is moving in a direction that will severly hinder that.

But another reason RIAA sucks is because they are failing to evolve along with the rest of the entertainment industry. The movie industry is riding very high, with good reciepts for both blockbusters and smaller studio films, but also because of the insane amount of DVDs that are being consumed by the American public. The video game industry is feeling the same level of success, with triple-A titles selling millions, online gaming taking off, and a game hungry public that has somehow managed to support three major consoles (and portables) with some success.

How has music CDs evolved since their introduction? For the most part, they haven't. I won't trivialize some of the added content (like music videos and links to websites) added to some artists CDs, but besides that, the only thing that has changed is the music. Unfortunately, music CDs no longer represent value to consumers at their current price. If you want to see what represents value to consumers, look at services like iTunes, Rhapsody, etc. iTunes has sold 10 million songs at $.99 each because consumers want instant access to particular songs they like, without the hassle or expense of buying an entire CD full of songs they don't want. The ironic thing about iTunes is that it has a relatively small catalog of music, their price per song is still pretty high, the quality of the songs could be better, and the only people who can buy off their site are Mac users. Imagine if the major record labels opened up half their catalog, made good quality digital recordings with DRM, and priced each single at $.49. I could see sales 10x that of iTunes.

That day will come. You can make it come sooner by letting the RIAA know that it has failed. Don't purchase new music at high prices; buy used, buy independent, or get it from other sources RIAA cannot sue us into submission.

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: Grizybaer
Just some thoughts.


Do you believe in the right to take a CD you just purchased and rip it into mp3?s so you don?t have to keep pressing eject,

Absolutely. I believe that is covered under fair use.

Now, what if your computer was shared, like more than one person uses it, would you have to delete the mp3?s before they use it because they could potentially listen to them??

No, as long as they would be responsible enough not to go burning tons of CDs of your MP3s, or anything silly like that.

Now, what if I felt it was necessary to share my HD, I?m at multiple computers and need to access files. Everyone on my network now potentially has access to those mp3. Do I need to delete them??

No, if your network is at home, I wouldn't worry about anything. If you're at college or work, just set the permissions so you're the only one who has access to the MP3s.

If you answered yes, you NEED to delete them, please explain.

N/A

Also, how this is different from you having the physical cd and lending it to another person.

Not sure how what is different, but when you lend a CD to another person, you can't play it while they have it. Note that I'm not going to be a strict legalist and say that you have to delete your MP3 or CD-R backups for the duration of their possession of your original CD. There are certainly those who would go to the extremes and take such action (such as my dad, who wouldn't quote 5 words from a book), but I'm not one of them (in fact, I usually care about not having my CDs scratched or otherwise damaged, so I don't lend them to anyone, anyway).

Lastly, this should move away from the simple points, these being

Stealing is wrong, if you do it, dont defend, its wrong, just accept it.
But but.. CD's are so expensive.. Well, then dont buy it. I'm not driving a BMW, too expensive. If there's a BMW dealer that leaves all the keys in the cars on a nice open lot, well, he's a fool but you still dont take the car, you know its wrong.

they're expensive but, they could charge whatever they like, you dont have to buy it. Imagine if AMD wasnt here, intel would have their way with us. we wouldn't upgrade our comps the way we do. The whole monopoly thing is a different discussion.

Lets leave these topics behind and focus on our rights, ethics and morals.

Right. Basically, if you can't afford it or don't really want it or just plain hate the RIAA (understandable), then don't buy it. However, that's not an excuse to commit copyright infringement to get it.

Maybe if enough people realize what the RIAA is doing and refrain from purchasing CDs or downloading music illegally, then the greedy illegitimate children will feel a disturbance in the for^H^H^Hwallet and reconsider their methods.