RIAA Sueing people downloading music

Originally posted by Guppy
What does everyone think about the RIAA sueing 261 people? I mean i am a downloader who downloads of people and i can see why they are sueing people but i just want to know what everyone else thinks. Does anyone actuall pay for the songs online cause if this does get more serious i might consider paying for it and downloading online. What about everyone else what do you all think about this dilema and what you gona do about it?

Gotta love Canada ;)

> People are being sued for breaking the law.
> People are being punished for stealing music which they haven't paid for >and for infringing copyright, at the expense of those who created it.

>I fail to see what's so controversial.

jacko, i've agreed with you almost 99% of the time, and found your comments witty, amusing, and well thought out.

respectfully, i disagree with you.

this is not a situation that is a cut and dry as you've so succinctly put it.

this is a very long-winded post, and i do apologize, but i've had spent a lot of time thinking about file sharing, and this rant has been bottled up enough.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF FILE SHARING

man is created/man evolves. man is bored hanging around the cave. man bangs on log with rock. man thinks it's pretty cool. man shares rock and log with fellow man. SHARING IS BORN.

man goes on to create a hollowed out log with animal skin covering and finds animal horns and bones and shells and anything else that can possibly create sound and begins to make instruments. man goes from tribe to tribe SHARING his creations.

man begins to create real instruments and songs, and begins to share songs with fellow man. folk music is born and SHARED with everyone.

man creates a lot more instruments and needs a way to create better songs. man figures out how to write musical notation. man has now created the very first FILE SHARING system, as sheet music spreads across the world.

FFWD>>

man creates a way to record sound. man promptly thinks about how to make a lot of money.

FFWD>>

man creates music and recording industries to distribute music and make as much money possible.

FFWD>>

man creates computers.

in the meantime, other men have learned how to dominate the music and recording industries to their benefit, at the expense of anyone and anything. since there are no readily available recording devices for people, the industry controls almost everything.

FFWD>>

man invents personal tape recorders. people across the world start copying their music, radio performances, etc. and FILE SHARE them with anyone who wants a copy.

FFWD>>

remember that man who invented the computer? he now has internet access, and the radio and the local record store play almost the same thing, day in, and day out, thanks to the industry's total control of the airwaves. man can't stand to hear the same song every hour, so he starts downloading music.

FFWD>>

the industry begins to notice everyone is seeking alternatives to their complete dominance of radio and television and the local music store. the industry learns about the internet.

FFWD>>

the industry is in a panic. people are seeking out new things. the industry, in what will become the biggest example of mismanagement in history, decides to NOT participate in the most popular product since the creation of the compact disc, decides to figure out how to STOP it.

FFWD>>

present day...

i've legitimately owned over 10,000 cd's/album's in my life. i've spent years going to the local store, spending hours thumbing through endless amounts of albums. when i was a teen, however, i began to find all the music around me to be the same old thing. i started turning the radio dial to anything i could find...i found a college station the far end of the dial. they played songs i never heard before. i listened. i went to the record store. i spent a lot of money that day.

time passed, i began to notice a trend in the college stations. i found the internet. i didn't find any mp3's at that time (they weren't around yet) but i read reviews. i went to the record store. i didn't find a lot of what i read about, but i spent a lot of money that day.

i kept reading reviews on the 'net, and kept going to the store. the selections got less and less. i tried listening to the radio, but by now the college stations, all of them, were playing the exact same thing. i special ordered, but got burned...a lot. by now, the local stores absolutely sucked.

then came mp3.

suddenly i had access to THOUSANDS of songs i didn't have previous access to. i went crazy. i've been through more than a few computers that just plain wore out because they were on all the time, downloading. fast internet access only fueled the demise of my computers.

i've stopped going to record stores. it's too much wasted time and gas to find NOTHING i'm interested in.

i stopped listening to radio, can you guess why?

i've stopped watching television. i have no desire to be bombarded with 20 minutes of advertisements to view 10 minutes of actual content.

i've stopped going to movies. when i go to see a movie that's rated R, i don't want to hear some five year old screaming at the top of his lungs. not to mention, i don't enjoy sitting in a theater with a bunch of people who won't turn off their cellphones, won't be quiet, etc. when i can sit in my living room with my friends and family and watch seabiscuit with tasty popcorn and not that nasty movie theater stuff that makes your lips shrivel. plus, we can have a nice pint whenever we want, and a bathroom break doesn't make you miss a single minute.

i now have TOTAL CHOICE in what i consume. this is something that REAL FILE SHARERS' (not just kids who don't know any better) CRAVE. it's something the industries' REFUSE to give us. don't you think i'd pay for everything i'd downloaded if i'd been given the chance? for a fast download? for an accurate download? for a QUALITY download? most FILE SHARERS are NOT thieves because we're insidiously trying to steal from someone. it's a convenience thing. something steve jobs nailed RIGHT ON THE HEAD. steve's big mistake though, is not getting enough out there for those of us who are more interested in variety.

it's time for the entire world to wise up and face facts.

the RIAA is nothing more than another type of MAFIA. they've been convicted of price fixing, whined a whole lot years earlier when people were buying USED cd's, and started a failed campaign spearheaded by garth brooks to levy a tax of sorts on used cd stores although what they really wanted was used cd sales banned. NOW HOW MANY OF US ARE CRIMINALS IN THEIR EYES?

they are the same people who help MTV and the major labels PUSH what is essentially morally devoid garbage that advocates violence, sexism, drug abuse, rape, murder, and bigotry; and that's just eminem. do you know how many kids know the lyrics to his songs and try to act like him? what are they going to grow up to become? and don't give me that crap that it doesn't effect them. i worked in a music store for 5 years. i witnessed the decline, firsthand. wake up and realize what major labels are trying to turn our youth into!

the RIAA and their major label cohorts are the same people who are trying to kill internet radio, and trying to limit what we can hear on normal radio so we have NO CHOICE but to buy their products. i can't even buy "indie" music anymore because it barely exists. these groups have gone so far as to even monopolize the distribution of most "independent" record labels and artists. every time i buy a cd, they're going to get a cut.

it's time we all said, "NO MORE. THIS IS NOT RIGHT."

the RIAA isn't protecting artists, they're protecting their monopoly. this is why we the people created ANTI-TRUST laws once upon a time in this country. have we all become so blinded?

i REFUSE to pay ANYTHING to the RIAA. i have not bought a cd in over a year. i will never buy one again, even if the internet was completely gone tomorrow. apple itunes store? worthless to me. there's no independent music there! the majors have stripped almost every music store both virtual and real down to a minimum of selections. there's no variety, that's the way they want it!

you want music? go buy a used cd! it's $8.00 or so a pop and the RIAA NEVER SEES A CUT.

oh, and by the way, i can't count how many times i've seen a REPRESENTATIVE of a major label come in with 30 count box lots of PROMOTIONAL cd's to sell to a used cd store for their own greedy profit! it's like a street corner pusher skimming from the big dealer! this is their industry, and it sickens me! what about YOU?

you want to support artists you like? DOWNLOAD THEIR ALBUM AND THEN SEND THEM A CHECK IN THE MAIL! no cut for the RIAA!

best yet? go search for artists who want their music to be heard so badly, they offer it for free over the internet! there's a ton of 'em out there!

a great rapper once said, "PLAIN AND SIMP' THE SYSTEM'S A PIMP, BUT I REFUSE TO BE A 'HO!" never a better rallying cry, thanks, chuck d!

when 12 year old little girls start getting sued, it's clear something has gone horribly wrong. join the BOYCOTT THE RIAA movement.

and to the RIAA i say this:

your time will come. you've tried to line your coffers for far too long, exploiting everyone you could, along with all your record label executive criminals. you've ripped off artists, groups, and now the fans.

yeah, you've brought your tommy guns out of your trenchcoats, you've flashed steel and fired the first few shots...

but you're REALLY aiming at your own throats...

BOYCOTT THE RIAA AND THE MAJOR LABEL RECORD INDUSTRY NOW!!!

Downloading songs is no different to photocopying my books! And believe me, I want to be paid by those who read them - even if some might say that it's the reader who deserves payment for wading through such turgid tripe.

In your caveman analogy, the musical genius was probably excused hunting and the other cave-fans came back and brought him a nice slice of mammoth in payment for the songs he sang and the drums he banged. But cavemen aside, the artist needs to make a living, and paying money for their music seems the best way.

So how does the artist get the money they're legitimately entitled to?

And how does the music industry get a return on its investment?

I'm not pretending that the RIAA is snow white (far from it) but there must be payment for artists and copyright owners.

OK, so while I agree with many of the points geistwerks has made--the RIAA are mostly the bad guys here--that doesn't change the fact that file sharing copyrighted material is clearly a violation of the laws of the land. (The good news is that in a democracy, we have the right to try to get laws we don't like changed.)

But until those laws are changed, people who illegally trade copyrighted music are breaking the law, most of them knowingly so. If you're going to knowingly break the law, you'd better be prepared to take your punishment, too.

What bugs me is is when people use all the stuff geistwerks mentioned as being the basis for some kind of exception to the law, that the law somehow now shouldn't apply. Friggin' crybabys. if you break the law, you pay the price if you get caught. Do you have the right to try to get those laws changed? You bet. Does that exempt you from paying the price when you violate the law? NO. If you're going to engage in file sharing as some kind of civil disobedience, then you have to be enough of an adult to deal with the consequences.

How many people out there doing massive file-sharing are also actively working legal routes to get the RIAA to change (such as organizing and publicizing boycotts and then really boycotting the RIAA products), or actively lobbying to get the copyright laws changed? Probably a pretty small percentage. I think most of the beefs people have with the RIAA are legit, but this does NOT mean everyone should get a free pass to fileshare with complete impunity.

Yes, CDs are way overpriced. Yes, the selection sucks. Yes, the RIAA has missed the technology boat and done a lot to alienate their customer base. The same thing could be said to be true about lots of other industries as well, but I have yet to see massive campaigns saying it should be OK to, say, steal cars off automobile dealer's lots because you don't like the way the auto industry does business. The ends do not justify the means.

That said, I do think the RIAA are idiots in the way they're handling this, and they're only going to alienate people. I think, despite the fact that they have the legal right to do so, that they really shouldn't pursue these suits, but should instead devote their money and energy to fixing some serious problems, many of which geistwerks described. But the do have the legal right to do so, and if you've been illegally sharing files and they come after you, I don't think you have a leg to stand on about it.

Did I miss something? Is there any large corporate enterprise that isn't driven primarily by greed? Still, I don't understand how that's equivalent to the tobacco suits--are people being killed by diseases they're contracting as a result of using CDs? What damages would people be suing for?

OK, that makes sense. Yeah, sign me up as a member of that class...

There's too many sides to argue... and I don't feel like getting into everything but I do think the RIAA is taking things a bit too far... I mean, come on... suing a 12 year old girl for downloading nursery rhymes? That's just ridiculous.

Originally posted by dcx693

The terms of the settlement are probably confidential, but in a statement quoted in the story, the girl says: "I am sorry for what I have done. I love music and don't want to hurt the artists I love." Sounds to me like the girl understood that she was doing something illegal.

Or just saying what she was told to say.

Audioboxer, perhaps that was part of the settlement. As I stated at the beginning of the paragraph..."The terms of the settlement are probably confidential..."

In fact, I read in another news story (sorry don't have a link), she (or her side) professed that they thought the music downloading was legal given that they'd paid a monthly fee to Kazaa. If that's true, it really sounds like the girl didn't know any better. After all, if you were knowingly stealing music, why would you then pay money to use Kazaa? Perhaps they thought Kazaa licensed all those songs? In any case, her statements "jibe" with each other.

Moreover, breaching the privacy of criminals is surely small beer, compared to what the file sharers are doing - cynically stealing music (and therefore earnings) from the artists.

Yeah, the courts ruled it constitutional, but if we take a look back in history, courts ruled slavery constitutional. I know that these are totally different things, but I still stand by the fact that I seriously doubt that the judge in the court was an "just another citizen". Just like Congress. But oh well, I generally buy my music anyways. NEW Nickelback. WOOT!

stonesmurf22, I don't follow your argument at all. WHAT'S THE BASIS for claiming it's not constitutional? I understand that the courts do change their minds from time to time, but I don't see what a judge being "just another citizen" or not has to do with it. A judge even at the level of the circuit courts *never* been "just another citizen." Nor have members of Congress, but I don't understand how that's relevant to a legal argument about constitutionality. Please help me understand your point.

Originally posted by Jackonicko
$10? That's ?6.66. That's not enough for record companies and retailers to make a reasonable profit. Perhaps for a downloaded album, but not for a CD.

I hate to say it, but I think that CD prices do seem to be falling towards a pretty realistic level. If you can't get a chart CD for ?9.87 now you're not trying - the problem comes with recent back catalogue stuff, which can still be ?14 or ?16 or more.

I bought the new Cooper Temple Clause the other day. ?9.87 including a second enhanced CD of videos and stuff. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me, though not all artists have caught on to the idea of enhancing the perceived value of the product in this way.

jacko, there's been numerous models worked out were cd's could be sold for $2-3 a pop and the record companies would still make loads of money. maybe not the billions they want, but still millions.

most people walk into a music store with a set budget, let's say $50... if cd's are cheaper, they're just going to buy more! with a broader selection in stores, there's more opportunity. listening stations loaded up with mp3's could let listeners sample everything before they buy.

retailers aren't making any real profits on cd's anyway. they make money on the accessories you buy, which is why some places push their employees so hard to rattle off a list of things you "may need" such as a cd storage folder, etc. a lot of big US retailers actually sell albums at a loss, such as best buy.

and what is reasonable profit? so they can all live like kings and have gucci and prada shopping sprees everyday? i'm not supporting that when everyone around me struggles to make ends meet.

Look, I said before, I agree that the RIAA are bad guys--I'm totally with you on that. Greedy, vindictive, all-around nasty, etc. I cheer whenever they lose in court, too. I have never said that I support the RIAA.

However, just because the RIAA are bad guys doesn't mean that people therefore have the right to act as if copyright law doesn't apply to them. And so what if piracy is "part of the culture"? That doesn't mean it's moral, ethical, or legal. You know, the whole "two wrongs don't make a right" thing? Ring any bells?

geistwerks, the answer is very simple - and it starts with iTunes. The industry could easily make it possible for me to choose between

a) illegally downloading crappy quality from Kazaa - when the fileowner is online

or

b) downloading premium quality from a proper site for say $1, plus a voucher for some off-line goods (for example, every 10 downloads you get a free jewel case insert/poster/t-shirt...).

If this was a genuine choice then the number of people going route (a) would shrink dramatically.

History proves that if you overprice a product you just can't stop people copying. There a zillions of examples.

I agree SynBryne. You cannot reason with someone who agrees that his actions are illegal, then says it does not matter.

If you call the RIAA a bunch of crooks, then what are you, geistwerks?

Originally posted by Jackonicko
$10? That's ?6.66. That's not enough for record companies and retailers to make a reasonable profit. Perhaps for a downloaded album, but not for a CD.

A friend of mine works for a very large record company and when CD's first came out the prices were high due to the cost of the technology to manufacture them, but he has told me CD's now only cost about ?3 to make. So priced at ?6 thats 100% profit - now bear in mind that most CD's are on sale for an average of ?14. Do your own sums.........

I hate to say it, but I think that CD prices do seem to be falling towards a pretty realistic level. If you can't get a chart CD for ?9.87 now you're not trying - the problem comes with recent back catalogue stuff, which can still be ?14 or ?16 or more.

For a good cheap way of getting back catalogue CD's try FOPP Records. They always have racks of CD's at ?5 & ?7. I posted a while back about Peter Gabriel CD's. For years they have never dipped below ?14, but I walked into my local FOPP and picked up PG 1,2,3,4, & So at half price. Now they are back up to their full price.

Bargains can be found - but really all CD's should be bargain priced..............

Jackonicko, your response sounds reasonable, but what about this: One day while in a store, it just stuck me as weird that a movie soundtrack cost more than the same movie on DVD.

I started thinking about why this was the case.

1 - It's harder to pirate movies, but it's done. So even if CDs were priced more to make up the difference, it wouldn't be a huge factor. 2 - True, movies have much more of an afterlife (they run first in theaters, then go to pay-per-view, then to DVD, then to the rental market), but the production costs for DVDs are a bit higher. I would also imagine that movies cost so much more to produce, and that the marketing costs are also much more.

So why is it that DVD movies are cheaper than their accompanying soundtracks? I don't want to jump to any conclusions. Anyone have thoughts on this?

Originally posted by SunByrne
I give up. It's impossible to "discuss" social policy with someone who doesn't believe any of those things matter. Do you rape small children and butcher little old ladies, too--or just condone it when it happens? I mean, the only thing wrong with actions like those is that they're immoral and illegal...

(Note: I am not equating file sharing with pedophilia or murder. I'm just pointing out that if we decide that morality, ethics, and the law don't matter a whit, civil society is done for. I sincerely hope geistworks doesn't now or at any point in the future have children...)

that's really uncalled for. just point blank uncalled for.

you are essentially calling me a rapist and saying i'm unfit to bear and raise children. i haven't insulted you in such a fashion, and wouldn't, and you act this way towards me, because i share files and you don't believe it's right? we have a different opinion on ONE INSTANCE of LAW, so i'm some sort of bloke who commits evil?

so, during the american prohibition, anyone who drank alcohol was a rapist?

anyone who currently smokes weed is a pedophile?

you ARE equating file sharing with those things, and you are EQUATING ME with being some sort of pervert.

i've posted WHY i file share. it's because i can't obtain the music i want any other realistic way.

i asked a friend just the other day about file sharing. he has at least 2 terrabytes between himself and other people in his household. i asked him if he would pay for the music he has downloaded, or will downloaded.

his answer? "absolutely. i hate file sharing."

whoa! not the answer i expected. i asked him to explain.

"man, i'm sick of downloading something, then spending an hour trying to tag it properly, or finding out the tracks i've downloaded have glitches and imperfections in them."

we talked for another 30 minutes or so on the subject, and i found out most of his friends felt the same way as he does, and the same way i do.

we WANT to pay for music.

WE DON'T LISTEN TO ANY MUSIC "PROTECTED" BY THE RIAA.

we just want to be able to get our "avant garde" music thru channels easier than driving 2 hours to a cd store, spending 1 hour finding the cd or waiting 3 weeks for it to arrive in the mail.

who the heck wouldn't log onto a file sharing service when it takes 3 hours to download an album?

WAKE UP.

All:

For the most part this thread has remained civil, until the raping/beating of old ladies bit was introduced.

Yes, SunByrne, you did say you're not equating it with raping/beating old ladies; but, well, you really were in your first paragraph.

So, let's bring it back and talk about the pros/cons and leave personal attacks out of it OK?

Adam

Originally posted by geistwerks
that's really uncalled for. just point blank uncalled for.

you are essentially calling me a rapist and saying i'm unfit to bear and raise children. i haven't insulted you in such a fashion, and wouldn't, and you act this way towards me, because i share files and you don't believe it's right?

I did NOT say that you were actually a rapist or that you beat old ladies. I did, however, say something pretty radical to make a point, and that point is:

Morality, ethics, and legality ARE important. Really, really important.

Your level of outrage indicates that you, too, also consider some at least some subset of those things important.

we have a different opinion on ONE INSTANCE of LAW, so i'm some sort of bloke who commits evil?

I never said you were someone who committed evil (though I admit I did ask if you did). But we differ on more than just one instance of law. I think laws, morals, and ethics ought to help guide our behavior, and you said, and I'm quoting here: "It's not moral, ethical, or legal. so what? it's not going to stop me..." That's a very, very strong thing to say. THAT'S what I was reacting to, not file sharing itself.

My point is that anyone who actually has a completely flagrant disregard for morals, ethics, and the law certainly seems to me like they have the capacity for great evil. Morals, ethics, and the laws are generally the reasons that people are outraged by suggestions of things like rape and beating old ladies--which is why I suggested them.

However, my point is no more or less outrageous than saying "so what?" to the idea of moral/ethical/legal guidance for behavior. If we had no morals, laws, or ethics, then actions like rape and murder would indeed be perfectly acceptable. I don't think they are or should be, and that's on moral and ethical grounds. What your response to my post demonstrates is that morals, ethics, and laws do, in fact, matter, despite the fact that you said they won't stop anyone--I think they should.

And, yes, I would be *very* frightened of someone with the attitude that "morals/ethics/laws don't matter" raising children. "Hey, kids, it's OK to brain Tommy with a baseball bat--it's just morality, after all, and don't let morality stop you." I think it's patenly NOT outrageous to suggest that someone who reasons this way is unfit to raise children. (And you DID say that issues of morality wouldn't stop you, don't dodge me on this one--I quoted you directly.)

Now, if you actually do believe that morals, laws, and ethics DO matter, I retract any statement along those lines. I apologize for offending you, but I didn't think it would be possible to offend someone devoid of morals or ethics.

so, during the american prohibition, anyone who drank alcohol was a rapist?

anyone who currently smokes weed is a pedophile?

Of course not, and to reiterate, I never said that it was. I think most people who drank during prohibition or who smoke weed now would indeed say that morals, laws, and ethics do matter. I did NOT say "anyone who breaks any law might as well be breaking all laws," which as you point out, is ludicrous.

you ARE equating file sharing with those things, and you are EQUATING ME with being some sort of pervert.

No, I did NOT equate file sharing with those things, not directly OR BY IMPLICATION, either. I am, however, saying that if a person does not care about laws/ethics/morals, there's no reason that it should matter to to that person what they do or what people suggest they do.

Furthermore, I am NOT claiming that file sharing is as heinous as rape or any other serious crime. Those two actions differ legally, morally, and ethically. But you completely dismissed those things as a factors in deciding what behaviors are appropriate. If morality/law/ethics are NOT guides to what is appropriate behavior, then there really is not a difference between file sharing and rape.

But that's outrageous, you say? Of course that's outrageous--I wllingly acknowledge that equating them is indeed outrageous. THAT WAS EXACTLY MY POINT. The logical conclusion of a statement like "morals? so what" is that rape and file sharing are, in fact, not really different. So don't be outraged at ME, you're the one who said morality, law, and ethics don't matter.

Your heated response suggests that you DO think they matter. So, what's the story now? They matter, but somehow you're excused from them in the case of file sharing? Fine, that's a different argument--but it's not the one you made.

i've posted WHY i file share. it's because i can't obtain the music i want any other realistic way.

And I don't believe that's a well-justified reason for breaking the law. Going to the store and paying for it (or doing so online) is both realistic... and legal! Yes, it's inconvenient and expensive, but it's NOT "unrealistic". In essence, what your argument is saying is that your own personal inconvenience and expense is more important that the laws of the land or the moral/ethical position that forces you into. I think it's a Bad Thing for people to believe that their own convenience and frugality justifies committing crimes.

I mean, quite seriously, if I want a yacht, well, I can't afford one and it'd be dang inconvenient for me to procure one legally. Does that now justify my going and stealing one? Your argument above says yes, and I would say no. (I made this arguments with cars but you never responded to this point--I believe it's because you have no argument, but I'd be happy to be wrong here.)

The reality of the world is that pretty much all of us have limited resources and have to do without things we want to have. The desire to *not* do without is powerful, but I don't think it justifies crime. From your posts, it appears that you believe that it does. I think such an attitude ultimately leads to a completely uncivil society.

i asked a friend just the other day about file sharing. he has at least 2 terrabytes between himself and other people in his household.

And if the RIAA came in and sued him for this, would they be legally justified in doing so? I believe so. If faced with this, would your friend get up and say, "yes, I willingly and knowingly broke the law, I will be an adult and accept the consequences of my own actions"? I don't know your friend, so I don't know.

But your argument so far has been that you and other people people should NOT be held responsible or accountable, because the RIAA is a bunch of bad guys and the current system in place isn't very good. I agree on both those counts--they are a bunch of bad guys and current delivery methods really need a lot of work. However, that doesn't justify file sharing on legal, ethical, or moral grounds. Your response was not to reply with a legal/moral/ethical justification (you know, something like "file sharing isn't really immoral or unethical because..."), but rather to say 'who cares about morals, laws, and ethics?'

I think that's a really, REALLY dangerous response. Why? Because it logically forces you into a position where you have to then accept some other pretty nasty conclusions, like rape being acceptable. I think it's basically impossible to have a reasonable discussion with someone who actually believes things like that, and that we as a society are ultimately doomed if people really believe that and use it as a justification for breaking laws. I'm sorry if that came off as a personal attack--I was just trying to show you the frightening entailments of your stated position. What you said was literally the scariest thing I've ever seen on the Internet--bar none--and I wanted to try to get you to see why. I pushed the envelope a little too far, perhaps, and for that I apologize to you and the forum, but I think now my point is pretty clear: simply brushing off morals, laws, and ethics is bad, really bad, 11-on-scale-from-1-to-10 kind of bad.

I submit that everyone ought to care about morals, laws, and ethics, and furthermore that YOU care about such things.

Originally posted by geistwerks
the rest of your post consists of you explaining your use of semantics and saying how you are justified and i am not, yadda yadda.

"yadda yadda" is not a counterargument, it's the refuge of someone who has no good argument. The fact that my argument requires thoughtful application of logic to the semantics of what you said does not make it invalid.

oh wait, let me address this one comment:

>And, yes, I would be *very* frightened of someone with the attitude that >"morals/ethics/laws don't matter" raising children. "Hey, kids, it's OK to >brain Tommy with a baseball bat--it's just morality, after all, and don't let >morality stop you." I think it's patenly NOT outrageous to suggest that >someone who reasons this way is unfit to raise children. (And you DID say >that issues of morality wouldn't stop you, don't dodge me on this one--I >quoted you directly.)"

that is a ridiculous assumption, and you know it.

I'm sorry, what am I assuming? That you don't use a set of morals or ethics or a respect for the law to guide your behavior? No, YOU said that originally, not me. It appears that you agree that it might be bad to raise kids that way. Good, I'm glad to hear that.

If you want to tighten the scope of your "laws/ethics/morals won't stop me" such that it applies in some cases and not others, fine. Just out of curiousity, how do you decide when you can ignore them and when you can't? Whenever it's inconvenient to do so?

let's say i can afford a yacht. i want to buy a yacht. unfortunately, all the yacht dealers are in antartica.

Yep, that would indeed be inconvenient--so I guess that makes it OK to steal a yacht now, right? You imply that it would be, so you are indeed saying that your own convenience justifies your behavior, regardless of the legality or morality of it.

Despite what you said, I do, in fact, understand that argument. I just don't think it's very good.

my belief is this: build a better system. build a way for people to legitimately pay for music, and they will come. and those who don't and continue to share? sue 'em, i don't care. it's not the answer, and will inevitably destroy the music industry.

See, now here's something we do agree on. I completely concur that the current distribution system (and pricing) stinks, and a large proportion of the current problem would go away if it were better. Further, I agree that the RIAA would be much better off if they spent their time and energy solving this problem rather than trying to nail 12-year-old file sharers in court.

I just don't think that means that people who do engage in large-scale file sharing are justified in doing so. That's a completely separate argument.

Originally posted by SunByrne
"yadda yadda" is not a counterargument, it's the refuge of someone who has no good argument. The fact that my argument requires thoughtful application of logic to the semantics of what you said does not make it invalid.


no, it's a method of someone who is not going to bother with debating what was a terribly insulting and inappropriate comment. period. then you try to justify yourself as being such. i'm not going to respond to it. but you think it makes you're argument somewhat more valid.

if you had read some of my previous posts, you'd already read many of my arguments, many of which counter your points. that last post was a big summary of them. i'm not going to repeat what i've already typed anymore.

there is one fact in both our arguments. we each have a different side of the issue and will never agree. since my posts are typed after i've worked 12 hour graveyard shifts, and can barely spell, i'm not continuing.

why don't you go watch the tech tv music wars special?

Originally posted by Jackonicko
jstn

Let's remain calm and civil.

Similarly, Geisty, you are wrong to download your copy of this hand-made limited edition CD of some German whistling the Horst Wesel. The fact that the only copy sold out in two minutes is not really an excuse, morally or legally.

But it's not a flogging offence, it doesn't bother me that much, and I suspect that you're safe from the RIAA.

But I don't view people who download commercially available music on an industrial scale in quite the same light, and the defence you have been mounting is one which defends them in just the same way.

File sharing is theft, and while there can be extenuating circumstances, it is always morally and legally wrong.

But let's keep the debate polite and friendly, eh?

now this is the jackonicko i know and appreciate. thanks for some levity in what was becoming a very depressing discussion. :) you've cheered me up a bit, and i needed that. i've had a worse than hell few weeks at the old job, and was getting in a rut, and probably being a lot more negative than i needed to be.

first, the flogging. well, i may need it by now, but i think the artists i love would pardon me. i've spent thousands on them by now. file sharing doesn't have to be theft. there just needs to be a better system!

commercially available music? well, i'm just not into it. i've said it in other posts, but if you like chart music, there is the itunes store. i'm sure anyone can browse that store and gather the latest singles at .99 cents and be done with it. perfect sound quality, no tricks, no gimmicks, no lawsuits.

windows users prolly have some options, but i haven't explored them.

one of the biggest things i worried about when i actually bought cd's and albums was the time factor. if i didn't make it to "so and so" store in time the album would be gone in a heartbeat. have you ever tried to grab a record from a dozen fiending dj's? it's like going after that steak you dropped in a piranha-infested stream. and then that's it...it's gone. FOREVER. i have records that no one has even bothered to rip yet. i have cd's that no one has uploaded as mp3's. and this stinks!

we need more options like the itunes store. period. i think "illegal" file sharing will go way down if better options are released. i keep browsing indie sites, i wish they would get a clue, but most of them are locked in the "BUY A CD/RECORD" phase.

well, then again, so is everyone else...

Oh, and in the spirit of a kinder, gentler thread, I think there are some salient points of common ground that geistwerks and I have:

[1] Current music distribution mechanisms are outdated, inefficient, annoying, etc.

[2] The RIAA are bad guys who have systematically ripped off their customers for years, and are doing tremendous PR damage to themselves (at least in some circles) with their current tactics.

[3] Improved distribution and pricing setups will likely be a much better way to combat the problem (in the long run, if not in the short run) of file sharing than what the RIAA is engaged in right now.

We just disagree about whether or not those things justify file sharing. I say no, he says yes. Overall, though, we probably actually agree on more than we disagree on, so that's something.

Originally posted by SunByrne
Oh, and in the spirit of a kinder, gentler thread, I think there are some salient points of common ground that geistwerks and I have:

[1] Current music distribution mechanisms are outdated, inefficient, annoying, etc.

[2] The RIAA are bad guys who have systematically ripped off their customers for years, and are doing tremendous PR damage to themselves (at least in some circles) with their current tactics.

[3] Improved distribution and pricing setups will likely be a much better way to combat the problem (in the long run, if not in the short run) of file sharing than what the RIAA is engaged in right now.

We just disagree about whether or not those things justify file sharing. I say no, he says yes. Overall, though, we probably actually agree on more than we disagree on, so that's something.

i totally support the kinder, gentler thread idea.

1. YES.

2. YES.

3. YES.

well, we only disagree on the personal methods people NOW GAIN THEIR MUSIC FROM. i guess we are not so different. but we're not yet about to hold hands and sing "cumbaya my lord"

"(that's a joke, son.) "

LOL you guys kill me. (LOL= acronym for laugh out loud)

My prediction for the next 2 years:

-RIAA sues up to 1,000 kids and adolescents thus causing a mass hysteria of fear and insecurity among these file sharers.

-Arnold wins the election because people in california want to see him "clean up the sunshine state" like he did with mars in "total recall". He then goes to the RIAA with a bazooka saying "sue this sissy man" and blows them away.

-Meanwhile in washington: George W. Bush realizes that he is the president of the United States saying "you mean we are at war?" and #### Chaney kills him with a letter opener.

My AP Psychology teacher realizes that her students are human beings with brains and a soul and apologizes for treating us like crap.

I realize that spending 3 hours writing a reply to someone i've never met in a forum and going as far as to use a thesaurus to make me perceived as an intelligent beings isnt very intelligent and that i need to get a life. (ahem geistwerks)

death is #8

I think that until the RIAA ensures that the artists it represents produce albums that are worth the arm and leg they want to pay for it they should ease off. I've bought a ton of CDs, some are worth it and some don't have more than one or two songs and are consequently a waste of money. I'm also not going to shell out 6 bucks for a single just to have to rip it.

If they had evolved with digital music then I think they'd have a more valid complaint but the apple music store is less than a year old so I don't think it was realistic of them to expect people to deal w/ their increasing prices for diminished quality.

Suing fans is not a smart way to win anybody over either but hey, if I hear summn I really like I I can dwld it for a good price why not? Until then, they need to chill.

My badd if I've echoed any sentiments already posted here but that's my 2 cents.

i agree, the people in the RIAA would get so intimidated that they would not only stop sueing, but would rename themselves to "i love kazaa". I mean, shouting rubble would scare anyone, i know it would sure scare me.

i really wanted to read that post, but it just looks so long...

once again, i really wanted to read to see if you responded back to me with humor, anger or stupidity, but like before, it's jsut too d@mn long and i just got back from work so i'll just assume that hopefully what i decided not to read will not cost me in the future.

#1, #3...I'm not quite sure what you are talking about. But, few here seem to either. Now you certainly seem feisty and sleepy and have obviously gone to making assumptions about me and the hours i work. How do you know how much i work? And yes, i have a part time job, but i have hard classes in school and community service as well. And if you can work for 8 hours and spend another hour writing in these forums then i say, good for you.

geistwerks, we've been around the block FAR too many times for me to say "I told you so." It would be just way too rude.

I will comment on a couple other points you made, mostly in agreement.

I think it will be hard for Apple (or anyone else) to really get all the indie labels on board, because there are too many of them. I think you've really nailed it, though, in terms of how it *could* happen, which is some kind of licensing.

Actually, I'm stort of surprised that a whole bunch of indie labels didn't get together and try to do something like the ITMS years ago. I suspect it's a lack of tech savvy and resources, but who knows? I'd be cool if it'd happen, though. I mean, the setup cost has to be huge, but once you get it set up , the distribution price per album has to be smaller, so in the long run, a win for the indie labels, right? Maybe there are details I don't know about that make this not true.

And on the audio quality thing: I consider 128 kbps AAC very roughly equal to 192 kbps MP3, and this is just marginally acceptable to me. I know most people don't care that much, but some of us do, and it'd be nice to have those of us who do care have at least the option. I'd pay like a nickel extra per track for it, if it was really a storage issue.

Everyone, please lets not get into personal slanging matches. Just try and stay on topic.
Thanks

I read in the paper the other day that the RIAA just went to a record company and got a random selection of people using Kazaa. They caught an 8 year old girl who was innocently downloading a few songs. That is just wrong...the RIAA should search for the main users who share thousands of files, not users who just use it occasionally.

All in all, for proper talented artists who perform live and who don't rely purely on album sales e.g. Metallica. Most artists from albums make about 10-20% in royalties, then out of this they have to pay for the expenses of making the album, promotion etc. so at the end of the day they don't make that much. The main profit comes from touring where the record company sees none of the money. Whereas, none talented artists aka Britney Spears and co. would lose out because they can't tour they rely on album sales, MTV, commercials, and changes in image to make themselves a profit.

But the RIAA don't care about you downloading songs from smaller artists, they only care about protecting those artists which can bring them big amounts of money, such as your Britneys, Aguileras, Timberlakes...

Also no thought has been put into copy-protection CDs. There is usually no warnings on the CD, which could mean it doesn't work on a particular CD player or CD ROM drive, some are even mean't to cause the computer to crash or mess up hardware or software. And innocent people aren't being able to put music on their portable music players.

The overall approach the RIAA has been highly unproffesional, and if they would have taken measures to get services up for legal downloading sooner. Although the high CD prices and limited selection is mainly the record stores fault, they mark-up the prices and decide what to selection to buy in to be their most profit.

Slash,

Few bands make any profit from touring. Mostly it's undertaken to keep the fan base loyal and interested and to promote the CD sales which bring in the money. Some big name bands are able to make a profit from touring through sponsorship and merchandising (eg the Stones) but they are a rarity.

Few artists make more than 10% in Royalties, and have significant fees and expenses to find. Despite that, royalties from record sales, TV appearances etc. forms the bulk of income.

loGan, with respect that's like saying that shop-lifting, drink-driving, rape or child abuse isn't going to go away so we should just recognise that the "world has changed". Using your twisted logic we should accept and embrace crime and anti-social behaviour simply because it's rife.

New technology can be used legitimately, as with the iTunes Music Store, or it can be used illegally - to distribute child pornography or steal other people's intellectual property. That's not an expression of "blocked views on file sharing", that's knowing the difference between right and wrong. If you won't condemn illegal file sharing, you're part of the problem, and if I were Dennis I'd ban you. There isn't room for disagreement on this issue I'm afraid, mate. It's illegal - Full Stop, end of story, and it's immoral - Full Stop, end of story.

I disagree and am entitled to my view, if it gets me banned from this site for expressing a view then so be it. I wou