RIAA making gains

[WithStamin]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,92351,00.html

People are getting in trouble. Traffic to kazaa is down 15%. Is this the end of file sharing, and is really the government's place to get involved in this?

[Patrick]

if they catch you do you get in hella trouble or what happens

[evil zach]

When the music industry can garuntee that when I plop $30 on the counter for a CD there is more then one good song on it, then I'll stop downloading music. But untill then, I'm gonna download music so I know that I'm paying for quality.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by evil zach
When the music industry can garuntee that when I plop $30 on the counter for a CD there is more then one good song on it, then I'll stop downloading music. But untill then, I'm gonna download music so I know that I'm paying for quality.


i second that emotion...

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by evil zach
When the music industry can garuntee that when I plop $30 on the counter for a CD there is more then one good song on it, then I'll stop downloading music.

30$ for a cd, wow!..............but in all honesty downloading music is theift, so i don't really have a problem with labels going after extreme downloaders........

[Charlito Cafe]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
30$ for a cd, wow!..............but in all honesty downloading music is theift, so i don't really have a problem with labels going after extreme downloaders........

The real theft is the music industry raping consumers. 20 bucks for 2 good songs and 13 shitty ones? When a CD costs like 50 cents? Screw that.

[WithStamin]

Originally posted by Charlito Cafe
The real theft is the music industry raping consumers. 20 bucks for 2 good songs and 13 shitty ones? When a CD costs like 50 cents? Screw that. True... they brought this upon themselves.

[evil zach]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
30$ for a cd, wow!..............but in all honesty downloading music is theift, so i don't really have a problem with labels going after extreme downloaders........
Yeah, CD's are expencive here, especally punk CD's. It dosn't help that I have to special order alot of them either

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by Charlito Cafe
The real theft is the music industry raping consumers. 20 bucks for 2 good songs and 13 shitty ones? When a CD costs like 50 cents? Screw that.

if you don't like whats being offered don't buy it..........i really cant believe your trying to justify stealing, because the product you chose to purchase didn't meet the standards you WISHED for.........

[Charlito Cafe]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
if you don't like whats being offered don't buy it

Then where am I supposed to get good music?

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by Charlito Cafe
Then where am I supposed to get good music?

i understand what your saying, but its still not right to steal because your unhappy with the product.........also i think it more has to do with the band and not the label, when a CD comes out that isn't very good.........

[evil zach]

The label makes a concious effort to market the CD and charge rediculus prices for it.

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by evil zach
The label makes a concious effort to market the CD and charge rediculus prices for it.

well the easest way to get around this is to buy music directly from the bands or make your own music personally..............

[Charlito Cafe]

Wow, 871. Looks like their winning.......damn.

They're cracking down... (http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/07/21/downloading.music.ap/index.html)

[kidinthecorner]

That's BS. I know there are people out there that don't buy CDs and make them all with a burner, but Kazaa and similar programs are what I use to find new music. If I like it, I buy it, if I don't, I delete it, or make the occasional mix. I haven't made a mix in a good 6 months, but I've bought prolly 20 cds. Now take away file sharing and I would have only your MTV music to go by. My friends don't know shit about music, so I've had to find it myself, and my only good outlet is the internet.

[yeat182]

the music industry has been ripping people off for years, and now that they are on the revieving end we are supposed to feel sorry for them? thats stupid. i'll download music to see if i like it, and i'll usually buy the cd, i don't burn a whole cd to get around paying for it, but i do download individual songs to get around paying 15 bucks for 1 song...

[Mobilize]

Originally posted by kidinthecorner
That's BS. I know there are people out there that don't buy CDs and make them all with a burner, but Kazaa and similar programs are what I use to find new music. If I like it, I buy it, if I don't, I delete it, or make the occasional mix. I haven't made a mix in a good 6 months, but I've bought prolly 20 cds. Now take away file sharing and I would have only your MTV music to go by. My friends don't know shit about music, so I've had to find it myself, and my only good outlet is the internet.


exactly the same thing I do and if you dont download that many I dont think its a big deal

[evil zach]

The artists are partly to balme to. The lables need to make the CD's more affordable, and the artists need to make something worthwhile. If the bands are putting out complete and utter filth, its unfair to just blame the lables

[yeat182]

Originally posted by evil zach
The artists are partly to balme to. The lables need to make the CD's more affordable, and the artists need to make something worthwhile. If the bands are putting out complete and utter filth, its unfair to just blame the lables

yeah, but the labels put a lot of pressure on the artists, and even at the prices they charge, the artists get a relativley small percentage of the gross sales.

[.&$]

major record companies(which are run by massive corporations which have buiness in other ventures besides music) are only concerned with one thing, making a profit. to these guys, artists are no different than refridgerators or cars, simply products to make money off. so its expectant that they'd be against somone stealing their product. and its also unlikely that a dramatic price drop in albums will occur anytime soon, when you think about how much money goes into producing albums.

[ReFuSeD!]

Originally posted by .&$
major record companies(which are run by massive corporations which have buiness in other ventures besides music) are only concerned with one thing, making a profit. to these guys, artists are no different than refridgerators or cars, simply products to make money off. so its expectant that they'd be against somone stealing their product. and its also unlikely that a dramatic price drop in albums will occur anytime soon, when you think about how much money goes into producing albums.

I forget where I read this, but the cost to manufacture a CD (this includes shipping it) is under $3. Then, the store selling it will usually jack the price up so they can make a profit as well. Either way, CD's should be sold for around $10.

I have been downloading music since the Napster days and since then I have bought well over 200 CD's...all at prices around $20. Do the math...thats roughly $4000 I dropped. Thats a fucking lot of money. I dont feel like it was money wasted though because I downloaded these CD's first and listened to them. If they were good, I bought them...if they were bad, I would delete the bad songs and keep the 1 or 2 good songs on the CD.

Overall, downloading music has allowed me to discover countless new bands that I like. If it was not for music I would be buying 80% less CD's and it would all be MTV junk probably.

What kind of business strategy is it to sue your own customers anyways? Sure, some of these people might be stealing music, but I know for a fact that alot of people buy the music they download. They are sueing their fucking customers.

They shold have realized now that its impossinle to stop music sharing. There are millions upon millions of people who do it everyday and that wont change. Sure, they might scare away the few (thats just what they want), but there will always be people who will continue. If they were smart they would not have sued Napster. Instead, they would have made Napster give a monthly pay to the record companies. In return, Napster could have made a subscription servce. For instance, everyone pays $5 a month and you can download unlimited music and have it burnt. There are subscription services available now, but its roughly $1 to download a song, and they CANNOT be burnt to a CD. What good is that to me?

Its time the RIAA gets their head out of their asses and begin to learn how to take advantage of music downloading, as opposed to trying to stop the impossible.

/end rant

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by ReFuSeD!
since then I have bought well over 200 CD's...all at prices around $20. Do the math...thats roughly $4000 I dropped. Thats a fucking lot of money.


its people like you who cause the prices of cd's to be so high, i mean what idiot pays $20 for a cd? (shop at the mall alot?) Paying this price just shows, the labels and stores, that some consumers are willing to pay any price they post.........stand up to them, buy from indie stores, or online or at shows...........

[BustaNutz]

I have a question, they said you would be able to see if you were on the list at a certain website, does anyone have that site's address?

[yeat182]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
its people like you who cause the prices of cd's to be so high, i mean what idiot pays $20 for a cd? (shop at the mall alot?) Paying this price just shows, the labels and stores, that some consumers are willing to pay any price they post.........stand up to them, buy from indie stores, or online or at shows...........

isn't downloading and sharing a better way to stand up to them?

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by yeat182
isn't downloading and sharing a better way to stand up to them?

no because thats stealing, the things i posted aren't.......

[yeat182]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
no because thats stealing, the things i posted aren't.......

you can't stop progress, the record companies made their bed and now they have to lie in it. they've overcharged their customers for far too long, and now people have found a better way (legal or not) of getting the music they want with out paying for the music they don't want...and now, in an attempt to gain back the profits they've lost, they are going to alienate the very customers they are trying to win back.

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by yeat182
you can't stop progress, the record companies made their bed and now they have to lie in it. they've overcharged their customers for far too long, and now people have found a better way (legal or not) of getting the music they want with out paying for the music they don't want...and now, in an attempt to gain back the profits they've lost, they are going to alienate the very customers they are trying to win back.

don't think that im defending the "music" industry in any way...but you dont win a battle by ignoring the law....but thats me......

what if gas was more then you were willing to pay for and the oil companies have been keeping the price high for years....would you just one day get up and decied to steal it, or "buy" it from someone else who stole it.......

[yeat182]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
don't think that im defending the "music" industry in any way...but you dont win a battle by ignoring the law....but thats me......

what if gas was more then you were willing to pay for and the oil companies have been keeping the price high for years....would you just one day get up and decied to steal it, or "buy" it from someone else who stole it.......

honestly, if the guy down the street went to the gas station, bought a few gallons, and then offered some to me for free, i would definatly take it...and i think we all would.

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by yeat182
honestly, if the guy down the street went to the gas station, bought a few gallons, and then offered some to me for free, i would definatly take it...and i think we all would.

i didn't say he bought it.....i said he stole it......

[yeat182]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
i didn't say he bought it.....i said he stole it......

yes, but most songs that are shared, were bought originally by someone and ripped to their computer...and even if the guy stole the gas, and was gonna give it to me for free, i probably still take it

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by yeat182
yes, but most songs that are shared, were bought originally by someone and ripped to their computer...and even if the guy stole the gas, and was gonna give it to me for free, i probably still take it

...oh i get ya....but its still stealing...read the back of any cd, other then asian man records albums.....and you'll see a warning asking (telling) you to not copy or duplicate........but what you do is up to you, but i think you now have to be less critical on other people who steal, because your doing it and your justifing it in the same way that they do.......

[yeat182]

Music-Sharing Subpoenas Target Parents




Thursday, July 24, 2003

WASHINGTON — Parents, roommates — even grandparents — are being targeted in the music industry's new campaign to track computer users who share songs over the Internet, bringing the threat of expensive lawsuits to more than college kids.

"Within five minutes, if I can get hold of her, this will come to an end," said Gordon Pate of Dana Point, Calif., when told by The Associated Press that a federal subpeona had been issued over his daughter's music downloads. The subpoena required the family's Internet provider to hand over Pate's name and address to lawyers for the recording industry.

Pate, 67, confirmed that his 23-year-old daughter, Leah Pate, had installed file-sharing software using an account cited on the subpoena. But he said his daughter would stop immediately and the family didn't know using such software could result in a stern warning, expensive lawsuit or even criminal prosecution.

"There's no way either us or our daughter would do anything we knew to be illegal," Pate said, promising to remove the software quickly. "I don't think anybody knew this was illegal, just a way to get some music."

The president of the Recording Industry Association of America (search), the trade group for the largest music labels, warned that lawyers will pursue downloaders regardless of personal circumstances because it would deter other Internet users.

"The idea really is not to be selective, to let people know that if they're offering a substantial number of files for others to copy, they are at risk," Cary Sherman said. "It doesn't matter who they are."

Over the coming months this may be the Internet's equivalent of shock and awe, the stunning discovery by music fans across America that copyright lawyers can pierce the presumed anonymity of file-sharing, even for computer users hiding behind clever nicknames such as "hottdude0587" or "bluemonkey13."

In Charleston, W.Va., college student Amy Boggs said she quickly deleted more than 1,400 music files on her computer after the AP told her she was the target of another subpoena. Boggs said she sometimes downloaded dozens of songs on any given day, including ones by Fleetwood Mac (search), Blondie (search), Incubus (search) and Busta Rhymes (search).

Since Boggs used her roommates' Internet account, the roommates' name and address was being turned over to music industry lawyers.

"This scares me so bad I never want to download anything again," said Boggs, who turned 22 on Thursday. "I never thought this would happen. There are millions of people out there doing this."

In homes where parents or grandparents may not closely monitor the family's Internet use, news could be especially surprising. A defendant's liability can depend on their age and whether anyone else knew about the music downloads.

Bob Barnes, a 50-year-old grandfather in Fresno, Calif., and the target of another subpeona, acknowledged sharing "several hundred" music files. He said he used the Internet to download hard-to-find recordings of European artists because he was unsatisfied with modern American artists and grew tired of buying CDs without the chance to listen to them first.

"If you don't like it, you can't take it back," said Barnes, who runs a small video production company with his wife from their three-bedroom home. "You have all your little blonde, blue-eyed clones. There's no originality."

Citing on its subpoenas the numeric Internet addresses of music downloaders, the RIAA has said it can only track users by comparing those addresses against subscriber records held by Internet providers. But the AP used those addresses and other details culled from subpoenas and was able to identify and locate some Internet users who are among the music industry's earliest targets.

Pate was wavering whether to call the RIAA to negotiate a settlement. "Should I call a lawyer?" he wondered.

The RIAA's president wasn't sure what advice to offer because he never imagined downloaders could be identified by name until Internet providers turned over subscriber records.

"It's not a scenario we had truthfully envisaged," Sherman said. "If somebody wants to settle before a lawsuit is filed it would be fine to call us, but it's really not clear how we're going to perceive this."

The RIAA has issued at least 911 subpoenas so far, according to court records. Lawyers have said they expect to file at least several hundred lawsuits within eight weeks, and copyright laws allow for damages of $750 to $150,000 for each song.

The AP tracked targets of subpoenas to neighborhoods in Boston; Chicago; St. Louis; San Francisco; New York and Ann Arbor, Mich.

Outside legal experts urged the music industry to carefully select targets for its earliest lawsuits. Several lawyers said they were doubtful the RIAA ultimately will choose to sue computer users like the Pate family.

"If they end up picking on individuals who are perceived to be grandmothers or junior high students who have only downloaded in isolated incidents, they run the risk of a backlash," said Christopher Caldwell, a lawyer in Los Angeles who works with major studios and the Motion Picture Association of America.

The recording industry said Pate's daughter was offering songs by Billy Idol, Missy Elliot, Duran Duran, Def Leppard and other artists. Pate said that he never personally downloaded music and that he so zealously respects copyrights that he doesn't videotape movies off cable television channels.

Barnes, who used the Napster service until the music industry shut it down, said he rarely uses file-sharing software these days unless his grandson visits. The RIAA found songs on his computer by Marvin Gaye, Savage Garden, Berlin, the Eagles, Dire Straits and others.

Barnes expressed some concern about a possible lawsuit but was confident that "more likely they will probably come out with a cease and desist order" to stop him sharing music files on the Internet.

"I think they're trying to scare people," Barnes said.

[BustaNutz]

750$ to 150,000 damages per song. That is absurd and it makes me sick. You know what would really stick it to the RIAA? It's if smaller bands launched a counter-suit against the RIAA saying that this lawsuit is hurting their own business because fans can't discover their music.

[Charlito Cafe]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
but you dont win a battle by ignoring the law....but thats me......




Ghandi did. The Civil RIghts movement in the 60s sure ingnored a lot of laws. Hell, the American Revolution started by people breaking laws.

It's called civil disobedience, and it works.

[BrandNewDream]

Originally posted by BustaNutz
750$ to 150,000 damages per song. That is absurd and it makes me sick. You know what would really stick it to the RIAA? It's if smaller bands launched a counter-suit against the RIAA saying that this lawsuit is hurting their own business because fans can't discover their music.

The cost of a cd is generally around $20, and they want $750 a SONG?! Where they get the grounds for charging that much is beyond me.

[ReFuSeD!]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
its people like you who cause the prices of cd's to be so high, i mean what idiot pays $20 for a cd? (shop at the mall alot?) Paying this price just shows, the labels and stores, that some consumers are willing to pay any price they post.........stand up to them, buy from indie stores, or online or at shows...........

You're a dumbass for several reasons.

1. I do buy almost all my music online! Its pretty damn hard to fine most of my favorite bands in a store. Go to the websites...most CD's are generally $13 USD. Well, since I live in Canada, calculate the difference, add shipment and customs. Easily $20. You try and find any of my CD's and get them to me for under $20 and then you can call me an idiot, you ignorant fuck. I do buy the odd CD's from shows as well, but living in a shit town of 200,000 with no major city within 6 hours is kind of hard. Trust me, the scene here blows.

2. Check out the labels that belong to the RIAA. I dont buy mainstream music and all my favorite bands are in indie labels. Even the popular punk labels (fat, epitaph, etc) are not part of the RIAA. If the RIAA catches us sharing those songs they wont sue us cuz bands on those labels are not part of the RIAA.

3. I dont have a problem paying $20 for some of the CD's. Sure, it's alot of fucking money, but atleast I'm supporting a band who deserves it. Not some MTV shit bands in it for the cash.

[BustaNutz]

Originally posted by ReFuSeD!
You're a dumbass for several reasons.

1. I do buy almost all my music online! Its pretty damn hard to fine most of my favorite bands in a store. Go to the websites...most CD's are generally $13 USD. Well, since I live in Canada, calculate the difference, add shipment and customs. Easily $20. You try and find any of my CD's and get them to me for under $20 and then you can call me an idiot, you ignorant fuck. I do buy the odd CD's from shows as well, but living in a shit town of 200,000 with no major city within 6 hours is kind of hard. Trust me, the scene here blows.

2. Check out the labels that belong to the RIAA. I dont buy mainstream music and all my favorite bands are in indie labels. Even the popular punk labels (fat, epitaph, etc) are not part of the RIAA. If the RIAA catches us sharing those songs they wont sue us cuz bands on those labels are not part of the RIAA.

3. I dont have a problem paying $20 for some of the CD's. Sure, it's alot of fucking money, but atleast I'm supporting a band who deserves it. Not some MTV shit bands in it for the cash.

I don't agree with what Justin said, but how much of a prick do you sound like? He didn't personally attack you, so don't personally attack him. He was making his case, you were making yours. Leave the name calling out of it.

As for you concepts, do you listen to LTJ? Saves The Day? The Ataris? or Midtown? They're all signed with large labels who are a part of the RIAA. And the RIAA isn't being checked by any higher-up agency. The goverment is letting them run their lawsuit freely as of right now, so they can sue you for downloading any type of song, even if it's not from a band that is part of the RIAA. They're probably not even going to be checking what you have, more how much. So the odds are if you have plenty of music, you're at a high risk, regardless of what the music may or may not be.

As for your CD quandry, go to a music exchange store, they're all over. You can get cd's for very cheap, and some will even let you exchange old cd's towards new ones. I've bought countless cd's for 5 or 6 dollars there.

And last, even if a band is on MTV it doesn't mean they don't deserve it. Less Than Jake is on MTV, so are the Ataris, so was Nirvana, so was Sublime. All of those bands deserve it, so I think those blanket statements are a little unfair.

[ReFuSeD!]

Actually he did attack me by calling me an idiot. I''m also sorry for being an ass towards me as well. Ignorant people just get on my nerves alot.

I do listen to Sublime and Nirvana. I have had their CD's for a long time. But as far as I know its not on my computer or being shared.

Also, we have a few music exchange stores, but alot of them suck. I find alot of good 7", but not alot of CD's. Most of the CD's they do sell are very expensive ($26), and I always download my music before I buy it, so I have no shitty CD's that I would like to trade. Kinda sucks, but oh well :(

[BustaNutz]

Originally posted by ReFuSeD!
Actually he did attack me by calling me an idiot. I''m also sorry for being an ass towards me as well. Ignorant people just get on my nerves alot.

I do listen to Sublime and Nirvana. I have had their CD's for a long time. But as far as I know its not on my computer or being shared.

Also, we have a few music exchange stores, but alot of them suck. I find alot of good 7", but not alot of CD's. Most of the CD's they do sell are very expensive ($26), and I always download my music before I buy it, so I have no shitty CD's that I would like to trade. Kinda sucks, but oh well :(

Oh I totally know what you mean. I never buy a CD unless I've downloaded a few tracks. But the RIAA is really being ridiculous about this.

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by Charlito Cafe
Ghandi did. The Civil RIghts movement in the 60s sure ingnored a lot of laws. Hell, the American Revolution started by people breaking laws.

It's called civil disobedience, and it works.

the difference is theres nothing wrong with copy right laws....both Ghandi and the AR were against unjust, or criminal, laws, people are down loading music, on the other hand because, its cheap or easier, not because they heve a problem with copy right laws.........

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by ReFuSeD!
You're a dumbass for several reasons.

1. I do buy almost all my music online! Its pretty damn hard to fine most of my favorite bands in a store. Go to the websites...most CD's are generally $13 USD. Well, since I live in Canada, calculate the difference, add shipment and customs. Easily $20. You try and find any of my CD's and get them to me for under $20 and then you can call me an idiot, you ignorant fuck. I do buy the odd CD's from shows as well, but living in a shit town of 200,000 with no major city within 6 hours is kind of hard. Trust me, the scene here blows.

2. Check out the labels that belong to the RIAA. I dont buy mainstream music and all my favorite bands are in indie labels. Even the popular punk labels (fat, epitaph, etc) are not part of the RIAA. If the RIAA catches us sharing those songs they wont sue us cuz bands on those labels are not part of the RIAA.

3. I dont have a problem paying $20 for some of the CD's. Sure, it's alot of fucking money, but atleast I'm supporting a band who deserves it. Not some MTV shit bands in it for the cash.

how exactly does that make me a dumbass? also if you had said you live in canada or that the 20$ was in canadian funds i wouldn't have been so quick to jump on your bad buying habbits........here try this site if you need a place for cheap music... http://www.smartpunk.com/

[yeat182]

Originally posted by BustaNutz
750$ to 150,000 damages per song. That is absurd and it makes me sick. You know what would really stick it to the RIAA? It's if smaller bands launched a counter-suit against the RIAA saying that this lawsuit is hurting their own business because fans can't discover their music.

that would be great

[yeat182]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
the difference is theres nothing wrong with copy right laws....both Ghandi and the AR were against unjust, or criminal, laws, people are down loading music, on the other hand because, its cheap or easier, not because they heve a problem with copy right laws.........

isn't there something unjust about trying to over charge intentionally for a product that isn't worth what you claim it is?

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by yeat182
isn't there something unjust about trying to over charge intentionally for a product that isn't worth what you claim it is?

it may be "unjust".......but i dont think its a crime.........and just cause you feel that the quality of the music being offered isn't up to par......doesn't mean that everyone else will feel the same.....so that can make any claim they want about the music and its quality.....

[ReFuSeD!]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
how exactly does that make me a dumbass? also if you had said you live in canada or that the 20$ was in canadian funds i wouldn't have been so quick to jump on your bad buying habbits........here try this site if you need a place for cheap music... http://www.smartpunk.com/

Maybe not so much as dumbass as ignorant. It says I live in Canada right under my avatar. Do you suggest I mention I live in Canada in every other post I make?

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by ReFuSeD!
Maybe not so much as dumbass as ignorant. It says I live in Canada right under my avatar. Do you suggest I mention I live in Canada in every other post I make?

sorry didn't see that........but it still doesn't really change anything, other then your bitching about a cd price that really isn't that high at all...........isn't $20 canadian like 13 or 14 dollars USA?........

[ReFuSeD!]

Well not all CD's are $20, some are around $23. Usually when I buy 2 CD's at once it comes to just under $50 (that inclued tax). So when its all paid for, I probably paid about $16 USD for each CD. That is, infact, a great price if I get a great CD. But if I end up with some shitty CD, $20 is a lot of fucking money to blow. Thats the beauty of downloading music! If I wasnt able to hear these bands before I bought their CD I would have wasted soooo much money on CD's.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
it may be "unjust".......but i dont think its a crime.........and just cause you feel that the quality of the music being offered isn't up to par......doesn't mean that everyone else will feel the same.....so that can make any claim they want about the music and its quality.....

thats true, but don't the numbers speak for themselves, if the majority of people were happy with the way the record companies did stuff they wouldn't be suing anyone

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by yeat182
thats true, but don't the numbers speak for themselves, if the majority of people were happy with the way the record companies did stuff they wouldn't be suing anyone

i think we kind of run this topic into the ground........but i still feel that the labels have every right to sue becaue there product is being stolen.......but i also feel that this will bite them in the butt when people get fed up with there actions, so i think a better idea would be for them to go after the providers of the "share" sites, not those that have downloaded music...........

[yeat182]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
i think we kind of run this topic into the ground........but i still feel that the labels have every right to sue becaue there product is being stolen.......but i also feel that this will bite them in the butt when people get fed up with there actions, so i think a better idea would be for them to go after the providers of the "share" sites, not those that have downloaded music...........

i think i would have less of a problem with it if it was the artists themselves were suing for their product being stolen, that would have some legitimacy to me, since they are the ones that created it, the labels just profit of them and now their profits are down...

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by yeat182
i think i would have less of a problem with it if it was the artists themselves were suing for their product being stolen, that would have some legitimacy to me, since they are the ones that created it, the labels just profit of them and now their profits are down...

but the artist don't own the music.......the labels do..........

[yeat182]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
but the artist don't own the music.......the labels do..........

it depends what kind of contract you sign...

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by yeat182
it depends what kind of contract you sign...

........i would bet that on the labels that are suing for downloading, the artist HAVE to sign there music over.........but who knows...........i remimber the offspring tried to put there music up for downloading adn Columbia put a stop to it..........

[yeat182]

yeah, you'd need to be a lawyer to figure the specifics of any of those contracts...who knows

[BustaNutz]

Well actually after reading up on it. When they cell blank cd's, there is a hidden tax on the discs (part of the reason they can cost so little to make and so much to buy). Some of the money made off that sale goes to the RIAA to distribute amongst labels to distribute amongst bands. The problem is the RIAA doesn't give the money to the labels all the time. In fact the money from the tax hasn't gone to any labels since Feb. of 2001.

[hot damn!]

Hey uhh Hitler, if you want to find out if you've gotten subpoena-ed by the RIAA....heres the website:

http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/riaasubpoenas/