RIAA Launches Full Scale Assault / Jihad against pirates.

[Red Dawn]

I didn't see Metallica starve because of Napster, and I don't see any other artists starving now because of Kazaa.

But the executives miss out on larger bonuses because of it.

 

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: jumpr

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: jumpr
Kinda scary - is the Internet quickly becoming a police state for those who choose to encourage anti-monopolistic practices?

Something to think about.

😕

For those who are confused (ElFenix 🙂), what I mean is that if you're a band, it's almost IMPERATIVE that you sign with a RIAA member label if you want to be successful. The RIAA has access to huge amounts of money, promotional materials, etc. Even if you don't like their tactics, you pretty much have to sign up with RIAA if you want to make it at all in the music business.

There are a few groups/performers who have detached from the RIAA, but they were already established and very popular before they parted ways with RIAA. I'll see if I can find some examples.

The smashing pumpkins did and released their final album for free, this of course only strengthened by contention that they are the best band EVAR.

 

[Sideswipe001]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

I didn't see Metallica starve because of Napster, and I don't see any other artists starving now because of Kazaa.

But the executives miss out on larger bonuses because of it.

Amazing how once you get a little power and money, all you want is more power and money.

 

[Pezman]

The funny thing is that the RIAA still thinks that these bulldog tactics will hold up in the public opinion. THey say the damage is done and that traders will stop. Morons...

 

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: Paulson
You know they could easily solve this problem if they gave us an option of downloading mp3's with VBR for a $1 a piece... I know it'd buy it... 17 songs I like for $17 compared to a $17.99 cd with 1 song I like and 11 that I don't...

it just makes more sense that way... then they could be happy and I could too.

Why would they be happy? You should have bought 17X$17.99 cd's instead of $17 worth, the riaa has shown that they are only interested in your money, look at the kid that created the network search engine, the gracriously setteled out of court for the entirety of his life savings.

 

[Red Dawn]

Whacko Jacko denounces jail time for downloaders!

 

[isaacmacdonald]

Originally posted by: Sideswipe001
It seems to me that almost all of the people who pirate music over Kazaa or whatever aren't arguing about the legality of it. We know it's illegal. Mainly, it's the fact that we don't care.

It's Robin Hood mentality. Screw the rich company and give for free to the poor end user. No matter that it's illegal or not. Is it illegal to copy a radio broadcast to listen to it at home? I know I used to do this to get songs I wanted, but I don't remember lawsuits being handed out over it.

Sure, the fact that the music industry is out to screw people over doesn't make it legal to download music. But it sure as heck makes more people want to do it and feel justified in doing it.

Personally I think they are just whining anyway. I still buy music to support the bands that I'm a fan of. I still go to concerts. And no one can tell me that handing out the MP3s makes less people fans of the bands. In the 1930s Major Leauge Baseball teams were afraid to broadcast their games on the radio, feeling that it would hurt ticket sales if people could listen to the game for free. When the Reds finally did it, they discovered that instead of hurting them, it boosted ticket sales because it created new fans. They were handing out their product for free - and by doing it sold more of it.

The same thing holds true for music. I didn't see Metallica starve because of Napster, and I don't see any other artists starving now because of Kazaa.

Very well put.

The riaa doesn't want to adapt because this distribution model has a smaller profit margin. $1 a song, or flat monthly subscription fees are going to generate the kind of revenue they get from a $17.99 album. The problem is this model is extremely attractive to consumers because it's a far more convienent method of aquiring music. I regularly listen to perhaps 6 or 7 new songs per month. I spend probably $40.00 a month on movies, so $8/month would be a drop in the bucket.

But no. They're striving against a more efficient and convienent mode. They're striving against competitive advantage. That's just quixotic.

 

[Syringer]

Originally posted by: Paulson
You know they could easily solve this problem if they gave us an option of downloading mp3's with VBR for a $1 a piece... I know it'd buy it... 17 songs I like for $17 compared to a $17.99 cd with 1 song I like and 11 that I don't...

it just makes more sense that way... then they could be happy and I could too.

That's about the 500th time you've posted that. I think people know your view on it now.

 

Im gonna sue the RIAA for clogging our court system even more and making the courts violate some peoples rights to a speedy and fair trial.

 

[BooGiMaN]

i wasnt sharing...i was spreading the joy a good song can bring to the world 😛