RIAA is at it again, 261 more lawsuits

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: KnightBreed
Instead, you'll be fined with criminal charges placed on your records. Not to mention spending the night or week in jail. The 2.25 mill is rediculous. There isn't a chance in hell, the RIAA will even receive a fraction of that amount.

Of course not, but you would need to hire a lawyer and spend thousands in legal fees and miss alot of school or work if you want to fight them, else give them your bank statement and let them take everything that you own.

The RIAA is using predatory legal tactics to take money from others to finance their litigious jugernaut.

Very true. Maybe that's a good reason to quit stealing music?

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: HJB417

Originally posted by: pulse8

Originally posted by: KnightBreed

Originally posted by: brxndxn
I stopped downloading music because all the new music is complete sh!t. I wish I had something worthwhile to download.

"announces amnesty program for individuals." Well FVCK!!! Who the hell gave them the sweeping power to enforce the law?

Enforce the law? Did you even read the article? Signing the declaration basically means you are exempt from being sued - not arrested.

No company should ever be able to survive after alienating and suing all their customers. I will be very happy the day every company in the RIAA goes bankrupt.

People steal from WalMart all the time. If they get caught, they get arrested. How is that any different than what the RIAA is doing? Except in this case, the police authorities aren't actually doing a thing - hence, why they are suing instead of arresting.

If I steal a CD in Walmart that has 15 songs on it, they aren't going to sue me for $2.25 million.

but if u do it 3 times in california, u get life in prison

Petty theft is not a felony.

 

[rh71]

So do they get the big sharers/downloaders or do they grab anyone at random ?

<-- doesn't get it...

 

[DurocShark]

1: Quit sharing.
2: Don't buy CD's from RIAA members (artists and labels)
3: DON'T SIGN ANYTHING!!!

Seems simple enough to me...

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: KnightBreed

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: KnightBreed
Instead, you'll be fined with criminal charges placed on your records. Not to mention spending the night or week in jail. The 2.25 mill is rediculous. There isn't a chance in hell, the RIAA will even receive a fraction of that amount.

Of course not, but you would need to hire a lawyer and spend thousands in legal fees and miss alot of school or work if you want to fight them, else give them your bank statement and let them take everything that you own.

The RIAA is using predatory legal tactics to take money from others to finance their litigious jugernaut.

Very true. Maybe that's a good reason to quit stealing music?

Ummm, no. I do not take kind to being bullied and then @ssraped repeatedly every time I purchase a cd, but that's just me...

the suits targeted "major offenders" who made available an average of 1,000 copyrighted song files.

Ummm, I guess I need to cut down on my shared folder. Maybe just share those songs from the artist that whine the most?

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: DurocShark
1: Quit sharing.
2: Don't buy CD's from RIAA members (artists and labels)
3: DON'T SIGN ANYTHING!!!

Seems simple enough to me...

4. Buy used CD's. I've been doing this for years!

 

[oLLie]

Originally posted by: rh71
So do they get the big sharers/downloaders or do they grab anyone at random ?

<-- doesn't get it...

Not sure I think it's people who share > 100 copyrighted songs, dunno.

*edit* post above a few posts puts the # of copyrighted songs at 1000 before you get in trouble

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: KnightBreed

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: KnightBreed
Instead, you'll be fined with criminal charges placed on your records. Not to mention spending the night or week in jail. The 2.25 mill is rediculous. There isn't a chance in hell, the RIAA will even receive a fraction of that amount.

Of course not, but you would need to hire a lawyer and spend thousands in legal fees and miss alot of school or work if you want to fight them, else give them your bank statement and let them take everything that you own.

The RIAA is using predatory legal tactics to take money from others to finance their litigious jugernaut.

Very true. Maybe that's a good reason to quit stealing music?

Ummm, no. I do not take kind to being bullied and then @ssraped repeatedly every time I purchase a cd, but that's just me...

Then quit listening to the music! Stick to indie, emo, or whatever music on minor labels unassociated with the RIAA. If you don't like the price and or the RIAA, then boycott the music. Simple as that. If you choose to steal the music, don't bitch and moan if the RIAA subpeonas you.

 

[Kev]

Originally posted by: KnightBreed

Originally posted by: pulse8
If I steal a CD in Walmart that has 15 songs on it, they aren't going to sue me for $2.25 million.

Instead, you'll be fined with criminal charges placed on your records. Not to mention spending the night or week in jail. The 2.25 mill is rediculous. There isn't a chance in hell, the RIAA will even receive a fraction of that amount.

Originally posted by: Kev
because the riaa has been targeting parents or grandparents who don't even know what their kids are doing, and young kids who don't know that what they're doing is wrong. Do you think it is right for the RIAA to ruin family's lives based on the weak evidence they use?

It's the parent's responsibility to know what their children are doing! People lambast parental figures all the time when some kid breaks something, steals something, or brings a knife or gun to school. People shout from the rooftops that the adults in the house should have know that there kids were delinquents.

But now it's not the parent's fault? Hypocrites. The RIAA cannot sue children, so the parents are the next likely target - and justifiably so.

when did an entire family get sued for thousands of dollars because their underaged kid shoplifted a cd from wal mart? it's not like file sharing is causing physical harm to anyone. the punishment is not fitting the crime.

 

[Peacekeeper100]

I personally think nothing holds with the RIAA argument anyway. They say sales are down 31% in the last 3 years. They are lucky then! There are a lot of industrys that sales droped more than 31% in the last 3 years. There also hasn't been a lot of good music coming out either, especially for the price they are selling them at.

Now that Universal has dropped their MSRP down to $12.99 I will probably start buying CD's again, well at least from them. Places like Wal-mart and Best Buy will probably have new CD's for $9.99. Right about the price they should be at. I noticed a couple of new WB CD's for $10.99 at Wal-mart too, but they haven't offically announced anything.

 

[rh71]

Originally posted by: oLLie

Originally posted by: rh71
So do they get the big sharers/downloaders or do they grab anyone at random ?

<-- doesn't get it...

Not sure I think it's people who share > 100 copyrighted songs, dunno.

*edit* post above a few posts puts the # of copyrighted songs at 1000 before you get in trouble

So basically the same as the Napster situation... you can download, but not share ?!

 

[dquan97]

Artist quality has gone down over the years...can't remember when I last bought CDs...

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

Originally posted by: Kev
when did an entire family get sued for thousands of dollars because their underaged kid shoplifted a cd from wal mart? it's not like file sharing is causing physical harm to anyone. the punishment is not fitting the crime.

Why doesn't the punishment fit the crime? Keep in mind some of these people have thousands of MP3s shared on Kazaa and the like. Or perhaps it doesn't seem like a serious crime because there isn't a tangle, physical item that has been stolen. I dunno. *shrug*

 

[pyonir]

Originally posted by: brxndxn
No company should ever be able to survive after alienating and suing all their customers.

Playing devils advocate:

That statement makes no sense at all. If you are downloading music for free, then you aren't one of their customers. If you ARE one of their customers, they aren't suing you, because you aren't downloading free music.

 

[alkemyst]

The amnesty applies to the civil side, the state could possibly still press charges against someone if they wanted too (it's doubtful they would if the offended party isn't interested)...

These suits are only against those serving music, not the downloaders....the average 'bust' involved those with 1000 or more songs online being publicly offered.

In perspective that is a small music shop and hence why they are pissed....however, by attacking those serving it will cut down on those downloading if they crack down hard enough.

I like downloading music, I like buying music too...if I like the song and the other songs are of quality I will buy the album (I have less mp3's that I don't own the originals too than I do original cds)

 

[Regs]

When Brittany Spears and Justin Timberlake are in the top 10 on the charts... who the hell is paying for this shite!

The last time I bought an album was the newest offered NIN's . Why? Because it was worth the money!

And For fawk sake I'm sick of these wiggers who try to mix rap and metal! That is like acid piss in my ears. I'm also sick of these lame ass spoiled basterds on mtv that have inflated bank accounts. They try to relate to the "hip" crowd like they actually suffered the many things the bands sing or rap about.

Really though, the Music Industry has fallen into the shitter. That's why they are losing so much money, not because of pirating. Maybe if they stop just targeting 15 year old girls and the rich white kids who like to pretend they are ghetto , I would have something to chose from .

 

[dabuddha]

Originally posted by: pyonir

Originally posted by: brxndxn
No company should ever be able to survive after alienating and suing all their customers.

Playing devils advocate:

That statement makes no sense at all. If you are downloading music for free, then you aren't one of their customers. If you ARE one of their customers, they aren't suing you, because you aren't downloading free music.

Perhaps he means potential customers. But I do see what your point

 

[Buttzilla]

i think most people here have some agreement. if artists would come out w/ better quality albums the general public would be more incline to purchase the albums! record sales have dropped over 30% not because hoards of people using Kazaa but because money hungry mongols stick a hit single in a crappy cd and make people buy the whole damn thing!

last cd i bought was john mayers 'room for squares.' now there's a cd worth paying for, i even bought the live dvd.

 

[BD231]

Originally posted by: Regs
When Brittany Spears and Justin Timberlake are in the top 10 on the charts... who the hell is paying for this shite!

The last time I bought an album was the newest offered NIN's . Why? Because it was worth the money!

And For fawk sake I'm sick of these wiggers who try to mix rap and metal! That is like acid piss in my ears. I'm also sick of these lame ass spoiled basterds on mtv that have inflated bank accounts. They try to relate to the "hip" crowd like they actually suffered the many things the bands sing or rap about.

Really though, the Music Industry has fallen into the shitter. That's why they are losing so much money, not because of pirating. Maybe if they stop just targeting 15 year old girls and the rich white kids who like to pretend they are ghetto , I would have something to chose from .

Quit b*itching, your argument is retarted. The young crowed is where the money is at and your taste for music means nothing. NIN is piss to my ears, and many others as well. You have no facts on anyones life other than what your TV is feeding you, so don't throw someones troubles out the window because they're making fat cash off sh*t you don't like.

I'm not fending for these people, I'm simply arguing your 100% bias statements that put hate in the wrong places.

 

[rh71]

Take for example, how Evanescence goes about it...

They put out a kickas$ complete album in Fallen... I wouldn't hesitate 2 seconds to pay $15 for it. Their previous album isn't available anywhere anymore so they tell us to download it instead. They are truly for the music if you've heard them speak. They rawk. We need more bands like them.

 

[Brutuskend]

A public service announcement

 

[DietDrThunder]

I think it is about time that the Music Industry get their heads out of their rears and give the public what they want. I stopped buying music CD's about 7 years ago. I got tired of paying $12 to $18 a CD when I may have liked only one or two songs on the whole CD. That's anywhere from $6 to $18 per song. Now, when the Music Industry gets smart and starts selling songs for $1 a pop for downloading, then, maybe I'll buy music again. Oh, and I don't pirate music either. I haven't heard anything of late that I just have to download.