Turnabout is fair play

Post by **bio** » Thu Sep 25, 2003 2:27 pm

Take that you greedy bastards!

jc · Post by jc » Thu Sep 25, 2003 4:12 pm

261 lawsuits against music listeners though! SHEESH.

Post by **miftah** » Thu Sep 25, 2003 6:21 pm

I find the real irony in the fact that it's recognizably illegal activity that the legal system cannot police. The RIAA thinks that a few lawsuits are going to stop people...

They sue 261 people out of, what, 6 million connected to any given Kazaa server at any one time? Damn, those are good odds. Why worry?

And what's best is they still can't get P2P technology declared contraband, because there's still a possibility that they the RIAA and MPAA don't own the material exchanged.

So it bites them in the ass. They push for us all to trade up to the glory of digital technology (with an incredible markup at that) and when people gain access to that same technology, they end up losing money they've gained in milking us for a new format.

Live by the sword, die by the sword. They're getting what they deserve.

Musicians are just the innocent by-standers who will suffer for the backlash of economic karma. I feel bad for 'em, but in a way, they're equally responsible for it, and under the same principle. You lay down with dogs...

Sorry about all the clichÃ©s.

jc · Post by jc » Thu Sep 25, 2003 6:52 pm

the other day i made a mix CD to give to a friend of mine. i stopped by a friends house first and just got to talking with him, he noticed the CD and made some off-hand comment about piracy/copyright violation yadda yadda. appearantly this was a touchy subject with him, even though he has no personal interest in the issue to protect. my logic is that if i introduce someone to new music they might be tempted to go out and buy it. is the ultimate goal of the musician to get rich or have his/her music listened to? probably different for each one, but i think that the musicians would be into music if they didn't have something to say and want other people to hear it. i'd like to see definate proof that p2p services hinder the music industry anyway.

also not that the guy belly-aching about burning CDs illegally gambles on poker and sports. i pointed that out to him but he had some stupid justifying argument, meh.

mmeowgrl · Post by **mmeowgrl** » Thu Sep 25, 2003 7:20 pm

I think it's funny that the industry blames P2P for the decline in CD sales, and not the fact that 95% of the music out now blows big chunks.

Post by **miftah** » Thu Sep 25, 2003 7:24 pm

Actually there's tons of new stuff out this year that's really great. I think the Industry and artists are starting to realise the importance of quality. But at the same time, now that Clear Channel and a handful of other media outlets own the majority of the airwaves in the U.S., they haven't the proper means to have it promoted.

It'll turn, but it's gonna be a slow reversal of momentum.

Post by **bio** » Thu Sep 25, 2003 9:11 pm

jc wrote:...my logic is that if i introduce someone to new music they might be tempted to go out and buy it.

I, for one, have purchased a ton of CD's since napster (and it's various replacements) first hit the scene. Band's I'd have never heard of and who don't get airplay in this two mule, olive pit of a town were suddenly made available to me.

Personally... I think p2p sells albums. There will always be those who only download and never buy, but those are the same people who would find a friend who had the CD and make a copy.

As for lost record sales... has the recording industry heard that we're in a recession? Do they not notice the unemployment rates (13% in Spokane). Every industry is taking it in the ass. When it comes down to buying music or buying food for your family, I think most people eat first.

AsaJay · Post by **AsaJay** » Fri Sep 26, 2003 10:58 am

I wish I could find the link again. . .

I read recently, an article that interviewed some of the best selling artists, regarding this whole RIAA stuff. I think I found the link on /. last week.

Most artists acknowledged the RIAA isn't representing artists, they are only representing big companies, like Sony, Arista, etc. Artists hardly get any royalties from records sold. They basically don't care much about sales numbers. I think it was Sammy Hagar (sp) who said he doesn't see --any-- royalties from his records with Van Halen anymore at all.

The artists make money from going on tour, and any other linked sales. The record labels make all the money from record sales. So the artists right now, don't really care. They really see this whole RIAA lawsuit thing as hurting the industry.

Most artists who appeared in the article recognize the internet is the next big thing for music, and they think the RIAA is turning a blind eye to it. They cite instance of some artists who have jumped off the label bandwagon and gone internet; supplying song downloads themselves through their own websites.

It's the coming rage. If the RIAA would see the writing on the wall and take advantage of the technology and social trend, they would probably make a lot more money, than they will by suing people. They need to open their eyes.

It appeared the artists were more intelligent than the RIAA. Maybe the RIAA should listen to it's constituents. ya think?

Post by **bio** » Fri Sep 26, 2003 11:21 am

AsaJay wrote:It appeared the artists were more intelligent than the RIAA. Maybe the RIAA should listen to it's constituents. ya think?

The rocks in my yard are more intelegent than the RIAA.

If the music industry had embrased the whole mp3 thing from the begining, treating it as free plubicity rather than a crime, they would have a far more positive following than they do now (positive feelings = revenue).

Suing the very people who are your customers leaves a bitter taste in the mouths of consumers.