 |
Search |
|
|
|
|
Classic 2 Guys |
|
10 Random Stories:
|
|
|
|
What the RIAA Means to Me |
|
 Well, the Recording Industry Association of America has done it again. They’ve managed to not only become the stupidest leader in anti-piracy but they have also proven just how ridiculous their claims are.
The recording artists say they aren’t getting their royalties. I say, let’s analyze this for a moment. Take Britney Spears for example. This year she is ranked at number one on Forbes’ list of Most Powerful and Influential People. Last year she earned a “measly” thirty-four million dollars. Next week, she will appear before the nation in a series of ads funded by the RIAA which are supposed to make us realize that downloading music illegally is a crime and a bad and evil thing to do. She is quoted as saying, "Would you go into a CD store and steal a CD? It's the same thing, people going into the computers and logging on and stealing our music." I’m sorry, but I’m finding it very difficult to give a damn. Let’s revert back up to our lovely fact about Ms. Spear’s yearly salary, which tops thirty-four million dollars. At this point in her career, she could probably take people downloading her music as free advertising for her concerts and other such money making things she does other then record CD’s.
Click image to enlarge
Are you curious as to just why exactly the RIAA is incredibly stupid? Well, to me the answer is quite obvious. They think that by simply cracking down on a few people, showing their ridiculously pathetic television ads, and waving their little white flags in the name of justice will successfully root out all illegal music pirating. I have news for them: they ain’t seen nothing yet. Already the most common program for stealing music is Kazaa, which boasts the ability to ward off any curious RIAA investigations. Also, anything the RIAA tries to pull will be brought down because there are so many people out there who are just tired of having to pay fifteen dollars for a CD which contains only one or two songs they like.
Of course, the RIAA is the good guy in this never-ending battle between music pirates and the recording industry. They are taking down pirates everywhere and raising their flags of truth and justice towards those whose salaries top anything I or anyone reading this could ever hope to achieve. I mean, come on folks, the RIAA is just a big excuse for todays artists inability to cope with the fact that times have changed and we have entered into a digital world. Now I know many of you will disagree with me, and of course, that’s a great thing. Your defense of the recording industry is truly a noble and honorable thing, but first, I’d like to check over each of your computers, just to be sure there isn’t a single ripped song on your machine.
|
|
August 8 2003, 11:24 AM EDT, by
 |
Comments:
|
| va1entino |
8/8/03, 12:00 PM EDT |
I used to steal music, but then I got a job. Now I just buy CD's and use the iTMS.
There is nothing wrong with using a P2P app to download a few of your favs to listen to. Seriously. It's not going to hurt anyone, it might actually help a few people. Ever hear of O.A.R.? People downloaded some of their music "illegally" off the Net, and then decided that it was pretty good. So they went to the record store to buy the full CD. Now they're a famous band.
Downloading music is not wrong. What the RIAA is doing IS wrong.
|
| disco stu |
8/8/03, 12:11 PM EDT |
I wonder if the RIAA is more or less simply attempting to justify it's own existence like any other lobbyist group. The RIAA seized this 'rampant downloading' opportunity to make the record labels and government think their group is terribly needed. Also, perhaps this 'crackdown' is a ruse to help usher in post-911 civil liberties grabs and the erosion of personal freedoms a la the 1984 big brother police state that bush's cabinet members secretely lust after.
|
| Attacker |
8/8/03, 12:49 PM EDT |
Disco Stu. Your a jerk plain and simple!!!! Show me the prof the President Bush wants to trun the United States into a police state?
Typical of talk form a kmow nothing problem pucking libral.
The real problem with the music industry is the record companies them selves. THe RIAA does not reprisent the artist it is a political machine of the bean counters at the record companies.
The truth is if it was not for swang swaping and yes it is concidedered a crime, many of the artists would never make any money. MTV and the record companies are a monopoly. Small time acts and group are forced to the way side and are fogaten. Then along came Napster and Kazaa and all the others. Well when the record companies got wind of this they start to cry and claim that this was killing their empire. No in my book it was only hurting the top acts they wanted to ram down our throuts. Another sad truth is now today I see MTV pushing suger pop punk boy bands or Nine Inch Nails wanna bees.
This is the problem with the music industry. They have not changed with the times but instead want to hold on to a depsrite old way of doing businees.
Suing a few kids over swaping songs is not going to end the problem. The truth is out that it only cost $3 to $5 dollors at the most make and promote a cd. Then the prices are jacked up so every body gets a cut. The facts had come out that at the hight of Napster album sales had gone up due to the fact that "new" music acts where discovered not down as the record companies are trying to make you think.
|
| Macinsider |
8/8/03, 12:54 PM EDT |
I think some people bring up SOME valid points. But justifying something illegal doesnt make it right. Attacker is right, no, its wrong to download music, but its impossible to punish everyone who downloads music. They need to find a way to get people to stop it, or find a way to kill the programs and promote legal ways, such as iTMS.
|
| bob |
8/8/03, 12:57 PM EDT |
Reply [off-topic, but onyl sort of]
" ...the 1984 big brother police state that bush's cabinet members secretely lust after".
Not very secret, really. That's the mesmerizinf beauty of it. You can watch as the train with cattlecars full of undesireables ambles toward us.
CNN. Aired December 18, 2000 - 12:00 p.m. ET:
"GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH (R-TX), PRESIDENT-ELECT: I told all four that there were going to be some times where we don't agree with each other. But that's OK. If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."
|
| angrymacguy |
8/8/03, 1:01 PM EDT |
Attacker, why should we even listen to you? You can't spell and your grammar sucks.
|
| Danger's Sidekick (author) |
8/8/03, 2:16 PM EDT |
Wow, you guys brought up some pretty good points that I hadn't considered; any other articles you want seen here that could help spark such serious and intelligent debate?
|
| Melangell |
8/8/03, 2:56 PM EDT |
Attacker, you sound like some undereducated 12 year old with atrocious spelling. Well, the spelling part is dead on and says much about you, especially in the days of spellcheckers. As a 39 year old Gulf War 1 tank company commander with a BA in History from The Citadel, I can assure you that your views on the chickenhawks of the Bush administration are dead wrong. Furthermore they show the same ignorance that the administration is trying so desperately to keep the people in. The fact is that Bush and his lot are the single biggest threat to the U.S. Constitution since its inception. I won't go into the fact that his blatant lies have gotten us into a war that has killed hundreds of American servicemen/women, wounded thousands more and killed thousands of innocent Iraqs. In contrast, President Clinton's (a "libral" as you would say) lie about the BJ cost no lives.
Grow up and get an education before you speak in public.
Your mispelled words in order: prof/trun/libral/them selves/reprisent/concidedered/way side/fogaten/throuts/depsrite/businees/swaping/ every body/hight
I can't even begin to correct your grammar...
|
| Jedbeck |
8/8/03, 3:20 PM EDT |
Whoa, when did this site become 2guys an English Teacher and a Spellchecker?
:)
|
| squirrel master |
8/8/03, 3:29 PM EDT |
if it makes anyone feel better...i like pants.
|
| Jonahan |
8/8/03, 3:30 PM EDT |
I love the debate here guys :)
My opinion is somewhere between MacInsider's and Danger's. Music swapping is rampant and it's wrong, but that shouldn't allow the RIAA to just subpeona whoever it wants and get info on anyone. Kudos to Pac Bell for standing up for their rights as well as their customers.
iTMS has been the only truly successful (legal) online music distro system, and if it does well when on Windows, maybe the music industry will help Apple strongarm Microsoft into including itunes with Windows.
I won't get into the political aspects of everything, as I just don't know enough about it ;)
|
| HTML Samurai |
8/8/03, 3:39 PM EDT |
Song swapping goes back quite a ways...
At one point my friends and I copied cassette tapes (pre-cd technology) and recorded songs off the radio. This is the high-tech evolution of that. Plain and simple. It was illegal then, and it is illegal now. This is about money! But why now?
I don't want to pay $15 for a CD just to get 2 good songs and 10 crappy ones! But that is not the RIAA - its lazy artists, plain and simple.
Gimme iTMS for Linux or gimme death!
I apologize for any spelling or grammatical errors. :)
|
| Jack |
8/8/03, 3:52 PM EDT |
Hey guys, the only reason it is "wrong", is because the RIAA was at the table with their lobbyists when the copyright laws were written. If we the citizens had a seat at the table, we could have called music sharing "free promotion or brand awareness" for the bands, their CD's, concerts and other revenue streams.
|
| person |
8/8/03, 4:28 PM EDT |
Lets not forget at one point there was no recorded media. The artists performing live shows considered recorded media as end to live music. For an interesting book which touches on these sentiments read: Gigs: Jazz and the Cabaret Laws in New York City by Paul Chevigny. My point is that the music industry faced this kind of crisis before. I think the industry just needs to adapt to the technological changes. (Sorry, I know I have terrible grammar and spelling)
|
| MacBuddy |
8/8/03, 5:06 PM EDT |
That's Free Promotion AND Brand Awareness.
Do the RIAA have a problem with us 'consumers' buying t-shirts and posters of Britney Spreads, Christina Areyouleerin or Ricky Fartin. Paying to advertise their product.
If Coca-Cola paints their logo all over my car, they atleast give me a small monthy cheque. Otherwise, I have to pay to buy a Coca-Cola ballcap or HotWheels-style car. Huh?.
So I guess the RIAA sees the prudence in suing the kids who promote their product - for free - as criminals. That seems logical. Not!
|
| iKen |
8/8/03, 5:36 PM EDT |
Well, I know that downloading music is wrong, but that never stopped me. But now that I have iTunes, I would rather just pay 99 cents for a good recording, and forget all the problems with downloading from P2P services. The RIAA really needs to focus on getting people to use legitimate services like that, rather than filing law suites IMHO.
|
| Toby Topu |
8/8/03, 6:24 PM EDT |
Dear file swappers. How long do you think they're going to keep producing CDs when the copying is this rampant? There is no free lunch. Stealing is stealing. It is not up to you to decide if the artist is gettting enough of the cut. They signed the contract with the music company, not you. It is not up to you to set the retail prices on CDs. If you think they are to high, do not buy them. That is called supply and demand. Trying to rationalize stealing is pointless. Stealing is stealing is stealing is stealing is stealing......
|
| Genie |
8/8/03, 6:30 PM EDT |
here's a great solution!!!
Why don't people do this?!!!!!!
http://www.nilssonmedia.org/troy/mpfree.html
|
| Doubting Dude |
8/8/03, 8:45 PM EDT |
If I can record a song off the radio or from my digital cable box, then why can't I download a song file shared by someone who bought it and wants to share with me?
The entire issue here is copyright vs. fair use. Read the United States Copyright Law as it stands today, it's scarry. Did you know that under the law as it stands today, it is legally questionable for YOU as the "OWNER" of a series of CDs to copy some the tracks and make a new CD and listen to it. It is OK to copy the ENTIRE CD, but not parts of it.
The RIAA (Really Idiotic [edited]naughy word[/edited] Association) [sorry about the A-word] is in this to keep the status quo. To keep the control of what you can listen to in the hands of the "Recording Industry".
Oh, and By-The-Way, do you remember what happened to the group Destiny's Child? With all the hits, concert tours, promotions, etc., the band members all had to declare bankrupcy to get out of debt because the record companies STOLE ALL THIER MONEY.
The Record Industry today is scared because they are loosing control. Bands can promote themselve on the Internet, sell records directly, and tour without the "THEIR" help.
Another By-The-Way, did you know some bands are currently suing because major and minor concert venues are have been TOLD not to allow them to perform or else lose the right to have the REALLY BIG names promoted by the record companies.
It's all about control. Have you heard about Super-Audio CDs and Audio DVDs? Just you wait...
|
| hownowcb |
8/8/03, 9:31 PM EDT |
Most here are too young to remember reading the small print on the back of a vinyl record album back in the day. The owner/purchaser of such an album could make a reproduction (tape recording, reel-to-reel originally, cassette only later) of the work for one's own enjoyment in a different location/device. After having done so, there was never any prohibition on "giving the original vinyl album" away to a friend or relative and keeping the copy for one’s own use and enjoyment. The critical issue when these copyright laws were written had to do with curtailing someone from making an illicit profit from selling the copies! I’ve had numerous copyright/patent/trademark law classes, so you’re going to have to trust me here…or go look up case law yourselves. (And have fun!) Remember dual cassette tape decks? Duh…why do you suppose they were made and sold? They were, and remain, legal devices TO MAKE COPIES! I know this because I remember my father purchasing the very first Sony high fidelity, stereo, home, reel-to-reel tape deck. I considered the principles discussed here before I purchased my own first dual cassette deck (only moments before the cassette format became obsolete). Attending college as an aspiring writer, I had an obvious interest in how one MAKES A LIVING by creating unique works, and consequently, my interest in copyright law. Now for the dirt -- I used to give my now college-aged son crap about downloading music on the internet because of my concern for the concept of an artist being entitled to earning a living by creating “unique works of art”. And earning any deserved royalties. Now, however, I find myself downloading like mad nearly every night. And why? I’m merely making “copies” of songs I’ve purchased during my lifetime for my listening enjoyment in a “different location/device”. I wish the RIAA the best of luck, because THEY’RE THE ONES who have to prove that I’ve never purchased the music that currently resides on my computer. Oh, so I’m expected to have kept the receipt for the 45 rpm single of “26 Miles Across The Sea” by the Four Preps that my older brother or I bought back in the 1960’s?!!!!!! Yeah, right! Guess what, folks…it doesn’t matter where or how I got the copy…the fact that I paid for it ONCE IN MY LIFE makes the copy on my computer legal. And the RIAA has the duty to prove otherwise. Good luck in court, assholes! Now I know, most people don’t fit into the rather unique circumstances I’ve painted here, but who the hell is the RIAA to assume otherwise? And how do they expect to prevail in court, considering the current copyright laws on the books? I think most artists are fine with downloading, because it does lead to purchasing. Steve Jobs has the right idea with the iTMS, and I have bought several individual songs there. Yes, I suppose there are those out there who have no interest in ever paying for anything, be it music or food or gasoline, but I submit that these jerks comprise the minority of downloaders. Can I be the only one who is actually downloading legally? No. But does the RIAA want to put us in jail for what we’re doing? Hell yes. Just say “NO”, folks, to the RIAA, that is. And tip your favorite musician the next time you attend a live performance!
|
| JT |
8/9/03, 12:02 AM EDT |
When I can walk into my local music store and find music I like (Japanese Anime soundtracks in their native language, and obscure live classical performances from Eastern Europe, Russia, etc.), I'll be happy to plunk my money down for it. Otherwise I download what I can find. The music that is readily available here in the US that I want to listen to is already in my CD rack, the rest I could not care less about listening to, much less purchasing.
Yes, I do find the Anime soundtracks once in a while, and I have purchased them, and yes I have found some really neat old live recordings of Turkish and Mongolian interpretations of Bach's Brandenberg Concertos that I bought as well.
I would like to buy songs off the iTMS, but I haven't found what I want to hear yet...hopefully when more indie labels show up.
|
| MacSchlong |
8/9/03, 3:59 AM EDT |
Well, I have 12GB mp3 and I won't ever buy a CD or DRMed mp4 or whatever! RIAA can french kiss my ass! Long live to Kazaa and Hotline!
|
| Jonathan |
8/10/03, 1:59 PM EDT |
The RIAA will never stop it anyway. There will always be sharing of music all they can do is make it a little more difficult. There are just way to many one hit wonders out there these days it makes me want to puke.
|
| stickman67 |
8/11/03, 12:12 AM EDT |
This is kind of old, but it's interesting to see people justifying what is, after all, theft. No ifs, ands or buts.
For example, Britney might be earning squillions of clams a year, but there are many, many, many more artists out there who aren't, and who struggle for their art, and who most of you would probably prefer to listen to than to Britney anyway. And every illicit transaction that takes money out of their pockets is hurting them much more than it is the major artists, yet none of you seem to make a distinction. "Britney earns squadrillions, so it's OK to steal any musicians work"? Logical? Hmmm!
We can probably all agree that the RIAA is a large, quivering butt-sphincter of the most crusty and cankered kind. Their methods are revolting, archaic, largely ineffective, and apparently quite desperate. They probably should swing with the times, get with the program, etc. etc. etc.
But it isn't only them you are taking from when you take this music without paying for it.
I always manage to come out of this looking like a crusty old Dudley Do-Right, but I can't help burring up whenever I read all of these self-serving justifications for something that is, after all, illegal, and also morally wrong.
If you're going to do it, just do it. Quietly. Secretly. And every now and again, you might spare a thought for the small artists, the strugglers, who really are hurt by the illegal trade in music.
|
| Danger's Sidekick (author) |
8/11/03, 2:33 AM EDT |
You brought up a good point stickman67, but the sole purpose of me using Britney Spears was because she stood up and took an active role in filming pro-RIAA commercials, while she earns millions of dollars and gains free advertising. I thought that her side would make a good and ridiculous story. I do feel for the "small" artists; however, my article was focused more on how ignorant the RIAA is and how pathetic Britney Spears is. Plain and simple.
|
| ZackMac |
8/11/03, 9:02 AM EDT |
[quote]If you think they are to high, do not buy them. That is called supply and demand.[/quote]
I think the prices of CDs are too high. Therefore, I do not buy them.
I originally used P2P downloads to discover new music, as I'm into the underground electronica scene. The only way to discover songs in that genre is to hang at the clubs (which I'm not into) or hang with the DJs, which I know very few of. Also, most underground electronica is released on vinyl, and most underground electronica that's ripped to mp3 is ripped from a vinyl record.
My point is (do I have to have a point), without the P2P services, I wouldn't be able to disover new music in the genre of music I enjoy.
And again, I don't buy CDs because they are too expensive. If I happen to download a song that is available on CD, I wouldn't have bought the CD anyway because I feel the CDis too expensive. My point here - NO MONEY LOST. I wasn't going to buy the CD one way or another, but I got the song; no money exchanged hands one way or another... so how did someone lose money? How did I steal?
Nothing physical was taken from the other person, they didn't lose anything (I wasn't going to pay them in the first place), so no wrong or harm done! Plain and Simple!
*All gramatical errors are copyright ZackMac, some rights reserved.
|
| macinsider |
8/11/03, 9:26 AM EDT |
Zack, thats like saying...well i wasnt intending to purchase a car...then i saw one i wanted and stole it instead. So noone really lost money.
BS. Theft is theft. Im glad you discovered this music. But music isnt there soley for the entertainment of you. It is a means of artists to support themselves. And music theft, despite what ANYONE HERE THINKS does hurt artists, and i have seen this happening. Record companies have had to scale back contracts because of the amount of money they are losing.
Do i think CD's are overpriced? Yes. Do i think that P2P and music theft is the right way to do it? No. Do i think the industry needs to shift how they work? Yes.
But dont give the argument that no money is lost when it is shared. Many people fail to see the true economics of this problem because they see it as "faceless trading".
|
| HTML Samurai |
8/11/03, 9:57 AM EDT |
Hmm....
I have just one more comment on this. Let's say I'm walking dow the street, I see 3 kids wearing t-shirts for a band called "Spooge Nuggets." And I heard half of a song of theirs on the radio - the part I heard was ok, but not too exciting. And then I see their CD at Wal-Mart for $15.95. There is no way in hell I am paying that much for that CD until I find out what else is on it. I am going to "illegally" download a few songs from it, if I like more than 4 songs on it (yeah right), I will prolly buy it, if I like 8 of the songs on it, I might see them in concert the next time they are in town (at which I may buy a t-shirt if the show is any good).
Now, how did my downloading the music hurt any one? Worst case scenario, I have 1 song that I downloaded that I liked and saved $15.95 on not buying 12 other songs that sucked on an over-priced CD of a band that 3 punk kids and 1 radio DJ liked.
A lot of bands are starting to realize that this is what is happening, and they are getting used to it. Some are even starting to embrace it.
|
| ZackMac |
8/11/03, 10:16 AM EDT |
I hate analogies.
Me 'stealing' a $.99 song (value at iTMS) has nowhere near the clout or legal ramifications of grand theft auto, valued in the thousands of dollars.
Theft is not just theft. Stealing is not just stealing.
Frankly, it's not as black and white as people try to put it.
And by saying that my discovery of music (my original use of P2P) doesn't harm the music industry or the artist, I am correct.
I cannot speak for the thousands or perhaps millions of others who participate in faceless trading.
Most of my style of music is rarely available on Kazaa, Gnutella or any of the eDonkey networks. I use KDX and Hotline to mainly grab this stuff from communities of like-minded users, often even from the producers of the tracks themselves.
I would go as far to say that none of my artists that I've 'stole' music from are even members of the RIAA.
Comparing downloading a 4 minute recording of music from a P2P network is the same as grand theft auto (a felony, no less), is absurd.
Sharing music is not black and white illegal, it's quite grey.
I agree with you here, Macinsider: The industry needs to shift how they work.
|
| ZackMac |
8/11/03, 1:04 PM EDT |
Here's a quote from Charles W. Moore of AppleLinks.com fame; I'm only quoting him because I feel he articulates my point about music sharing much better than I did.
If someone steals a CD from a store, the store owner is the victim, not the artist or the record company, who have already been paid. In online file sharing, the artist and record company don't get paid, but they haven't necessarily lost anything either in the majority of cases because the downloader likely wouldn't have bought the album with the song on it anyway, and nobody has lost real property.
These realities don't make song-sharing (hands-on or online) legal, but song-sharing is simply not the same thing as shoplifting (or grand theft auto, macinsider).
|
| Jonahan |
8/11/03, 1:18 PM EDT |
Something needs to be done, plain and simple. I freely admit I stole most of my muic before the iTunes Music Store was on the scene. Give Windows/Linux folks a good alternative and many will use it.
As an aside, I've never heard of the Spooge Nuggets, but I do like Ass-Rockets of Doom (better known as A.R.O.D.), but they're not available on the Music Store yet. ;)
|
| macinsider |
8/11/03, 3:30 PM EDT |
Im sorry, but i just dont buy the intent argument. Just because you didnt intend to get it makes it ok for you to steal it. That argument, no matter who says it makes no sense.
Also, the truth of the matter, despite what everyone tries to say is that most people dont download music to discover new artists. They are most like my roommate who is too lazy and cheap to buy a cd of an artist he likes, so instead, he downloads all of them and never does one thing to support them.
Sure, some people have discovered artists usint p2p. Thats fantastic. Buy their albums and support them. See them in concert. Fact is there has to be a better, less gray way to do it. I cant believe any justification for doing something thats against the law.
Do i wish i could get all my music for free? Yes, i do. Does the fact that stores charge insane amounts of money for albums piss me off? Yes it does. Does that entitle me to go around the issue and obtain the items i wanted in an illegal manner? No, not by a long shot.
Just because best buy charges more money then the public thinks is NOT A VALID REASON to steal music. Its not. Yes, it is black and white, zack. "Sharing" is just painting a happy face on blatant copyright infringement.
People have gotten to complacent with this since burners and broadband has come available. Just because you can do something doesnt mean you should.
|
| ZackMac |
8/11/03, 6:48 PM EDT |
Actually, I'm not making an argument about intent... I'm making an argument about loss.
And to further clarify what I mean by music sharing isn't black and white illegal, here are some very gray examples:
1) The Klaatu album I purchased in 1986 that is scratched. I'd buy it again, but it is no longer in print. A CD is not available (that I've found). However, I did find a guy on KDX that was sharing 4 songs from the album that he ripped himself, and I downloaded them. Explain to me how that is black and white illegal? Explain to me how what that individual was sharing me broke any laws?
2) I hear a new dance mix at Club Liquid on Thursday night. I recognize it as DJ Icey, and I ask the DJ what the name of the song is. Turns out it's a new song by Aziddo Da Bass. So I check Amazon.com. Nope, no luck. I check the iTunes Music Store. Nope, not there. I check my local vinyl shop... says "Yep, had it. Only 4000 copies were pressed" (this happens often in the underground electronica scene btw). So I log onto Kazaa on my work PC. Viola - what do ya know... someone has ripped it off a _live_ recording, so I download it. Again, explain to me how this is black and white illegal. Explain to me how someone who shared something that the producer/label/artist only intended to have 4000 people have broke the law by giving me a copy? How did I take from someone else? What did anyone physically lose?
I could come up with example after example of situations like this, all true examples that I've experienced.
And I can only speak about my experience. None of us have performed surveys of the public to determine what most of the people use a P2P network for. We can only assume by saying "Well, my lazy, cheap roomate does this." Or "this guy at work does that." And on and on. This is not clear, beyond a shadow of a doubt evidence as to what the general public does with P2P.
I justly defend the usage of P2P networks, and I stand up for our rights. We have the right to share music, especially in the many gray situations I described above.
I am firmly against any law that attempts to paint music sharing with a black and white brush that labels all particpants law breakers, regardless of intent or usage. Or any law that allows organizations like the RIAA to pry into our digital lives and slap our service providers with subpeonas to gain our personal, private information to then slap us with individual lawsuits.
|
| stickman67 |
8/13/03, 9:17 PM EDT |
Intent, loss, shades of gray ... But someone still loses somewhere along the line -- including the artist. And the law is still the law. Not all laws are good, and not all laws are smart, but I, for one, am pleased we have them all the same.
I'm dipping out of this argument now, because neither side can ever really win it. And I guess that's why it ends up in court. But perhaps solutions like those offered by iTMS and the other companies who've followed in its footsteps will make the music cheaper and more accessible, and render the extent of the theft problem (call a shovel a shovel) so much smaller that the RIAA will stop having kittens about it and get on with their fat, well-paid lives, and leave us all alone to get on with ours.
Breathe deep, seek peace, children ...
|
| ZackMac |
8/14/03, 1:14 AM EDT |
[quote]"But someone still loses somewhere along the line -- including the artist.[/quote]
Actually, in the two examples I noted above, noone lost anything (including the artist), and no laws were broken by the music sharing I participated in.
|
| Wasabe |
8/26/03, 10:22 PM EDT |
The biggest problem I see is that ego maniac britney spears type people want all the money they can get, and when some people start to get their [doodoo] for free, then they cry wolf. Mean while some REAL singers who actually know how to play a musical instrument or two, are struggling to get a few gigs at local bars.
And please don't yell at me for grammer and spelling. I'm here at NMMI (new mexico military institute) and I don't have time to be propor.
|
This article is archived, so you may not comment on it.
(The good news is there's always the shoutbox, the forums or the contact form if you're socially-inclined at the moment!)
|
