Jump to content


Please note: You can easily log in to MPN using your Facebook account!

Let the Punishment Fit the Crime


Recommended Posts

I'm hearing that some people are paying $10,000 and more in fines to the RIAA for downloading files. Now, y'all know how I feel about intellectual property. But look at fines for various infractions...that seems out of whack.

 

Now, the people who pirate software and sell it on web sites -- sure, hit 'em where it really hurts. But if some 14-year-old is on Kazaa or something, a five-figure fine seems excessive.

 

Think about it...if you're going 75 in a 45 MPH zone and the cop lets you off with a warning and a citation for going only 20 miles over the speed limit, you're going to be grateful and I bet you're going to drive a LOT more carefully for at least a while. But if the cop beats you up and puts a baseball bat through your car window, you're going to carry around a real grudge.

 

I never thought the day would come when listening to music would be criminalized...again, let me emphasize that intellectual property should be respected, and downloading music you want to listen to without compensating the artist is very far from fair. But I think a $10,000 fine isn't quite fair, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Replies 196
  • Created
  • Last Reply
I doubt any of the artists that were downloaded in any of these situations will ever see a dime of any of that money.I personnaly think the fine should be on a per-song basis,and paid directly to the artist with a surcharge to cover the RIAA's court costs,otherwise the RIAA turns out to be bigger theives than the downloaders.
"A Robot Playing Trumpet Blows"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Currently, the punishment fits the warnings and not the crime.

 

It is the assumption that if 100,000 see 10 or 40 paying an exorbitant amount of fines, it will serve as a deterrent.

 

We may as well have public beheadings for having sex while on duty in fire houses.

 

NYC Drew

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Anderton:

I never thought the day would come when listening to music would be criminalized...

Hehe, remember Joe's Garage? Maybe it will not be exactly that, but the way everything is monetized, controlled, communicated, produced and forced to mediocrity...mmmm it has a lot of that nightmare.

And my first income is made by music copyrights, so I can't be suspected to favour illegal downloads..but...

 

I think that all the music scene and business could benefit of some freedom. Today's achievable quality is by far superior to the common CD, let alone the compressed formats. The good move should be to leave the compressed formats as a sort of free advertising, and offer to the customers kicking-ass products, not convenient and practicable as downloadables.

Instead, the short minded policy reminds the clueless efforts of drug prohibition, that only keeps illegal $$$$ rising every year, or the idea that salaries should be lower to be competitive with asian countries, instead of a product diversification to fit the luxury needs of the new markets....

Industry wants to keep selling super cheap(in prod. costs) CD's that deteriorate after 15 years on a ridiculous audio standard not too different from the compressed files at a ridiculous high price...how can they think that they will stop downloads? It's like prohibiting sex. Ridiculous.

Guess the Amp

.... now it's finished...

Here it is!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by alfonso:

Originally posted by Anderton:

I never thought the day would come when listening to music would be criminalized...

Hehe, remember Joe's Garage? Maybe it will not be exactly that, but the way everything is monetized, controlled, communicated, produced and forced to mediocrity...mmmm it has a lot of that nightmare.

And my first income is made by music copyrights, so I can't be suspected to favour illegal downloads..but...

 

I think that all the music scene and business could benefit of some freedom. Today's achievable quality is by far superior to the common CD, let alone the compressed formats. The good move should be to leave the compressed formats as a sort of free advertising, and offer to the customers kicking-ass products, not convenient and practicable as downloadables.

Instead, the short minded policy reminds the clueless efforts of drug prohibition, that only keeps illegal $$$$ rising every year, or the idea that salaries should be lower to be competitive with asian countries, instead of a product diversification to fit the luxury needs of the new markets....

Industry wants to keep selling super cheap(in prod. costs) CD's that deteriorate after 15 years on a ridiculous audio standard not too different from the compressed files at a ridiculous high price...how can they think that they will stop downloads? It's like prohibiting sex. Ridiculous.

Very very well said and thought out. I could not agree more!! :thu:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Anderton:

I'm hearing that some people are paying $10,000 and more in fines to the RIAA for downloading files. Now, y'all know how I feel about intellectual property. But look at fines for various infractions...that seems out of whack.

 

But if some 14-year-old is on Kazaa or something, a five-figure fine seems excessive.

 

I never thought the day would come when listening to music would be criminalized...again, let me emphasize that intellectual property should be respected, and downloading music you want to listen to without compensating the artist is very far from fair. But I think a $10,000 fine isn't quite fair, either.

Craig,

 

Can't agree here. But I love some of your lines...

 

"But if some 14 year old kid is on Kazaa or something..."

 

"I never thought the day would come when listening to music would be criminalized."

 

Craig, the RIAA is not out there busting kids who have tens or even hundreds of shared files in their libraries...they're out their busting the people (of all ages) who have tens of thousands of shared files AND CONTINUE TO ACTIVELY SHARE THEM AFTER HAVING BEEN FAIRLY WARNED TIME AND TIME AGAIN.

 

I know a college girl, who, back in the Napster days, downloaded what honestly seems to be the entire recorded history of music. She has very literally nearly everything...what would you like to listen to...Beatles? John Fogerty? Nick Lowe? Duran Duran? Village People? Donna Summer? Aretha? Prince? Whatever it is, she most likely has it. Her library consumes thousands of gigs worth of music in mp3 format. (Before running off to class everyday, she'd just locate a huge library, hit "download all" and come back later to sort out the titles, etc.). NOW, in her case, she did this for her own enjoyment and does not have "sharing" turned on in her computer. However, imagine if she were to turn on that little pref and open up that library for anyone to take anything at any time. If she were to do that, in my mind, a $10K fine would not be enough. And believe me...since it was very very easy (if time consuming) to put together this library back in the day with Napster, LOTS of people have done the same thing. And some of these people seem to think that it's just fine and dandy to open up that library to the entire world for free on a 24/7/365.

 

Obviously, such acts hurt everyone involved in the music making process...songwriters, publishers, engineers, producers, labels, support staff, artists, producers, studios, blah, blah.

 

Sorry Craig. While I'm NO fan of the RIAA in general, and while I would agree that the major labels are basically full of sh*t in many, many ways...someone should be cracking down on the people flagrantly violating all moral and legal principles by sharing tens of thousands of "free" audio files.

 

$10,000.00? That's the price of 1,000 albums from iTunes. Doesn't seem that far off to me.

 

pOPstAR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What scares me is that no one, to this point, has challenged the RIAA on their tactics, in front of a judge or jury. We don't even know if what the RIAA is doing, is even legal. We don't even know if the raid squads they use are nothing more than a vigilante lynch mob. We don't know if $10k suit is a misuse of the courts. No one is standing up to the RIAA's diamond lawyers. I can't say I blame them. I wouldn't challenge them with some crappy $300/hr. ambulence chaser either, but that's all I'd be able to afford.

 

Meanwhile, the RIAA can clearly do WHATEVER they want, with NO regulation. I supported them in the beginning, but it's slipping as I watch them man handle the system.

Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to reform.

Mark Twain (1835-1910)

--------------------

Reporter: "Ah, do you think you could destroy the world?" The Tick: "Ehgad I hope not. That's where I keep all my stuff!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part 2.

 

The iTunes Music Store is up to offering a library of what, 1 million songs now? That's the equiv of about 100,000 albums. And there is still a LOT of stuff not up there.

 

Now let's imagine that a person is on the net "sharing" just 10% of the iTunes library...that's easy to imagine, no? OK...dude is offering up 10,000 albums. Now, is fining that guy $1.00/album an unfair amount? After all, he may have "shared" thouands if not millions of copies of said files.

 

Craig, I know you've been involved in quite a few software offerings for sale...like your Beat Mangling stuff and who knows what else. Would you mind sending me (privately of course) a copy of all of your works so that I can share them with the world on a 24/7/365 basis so that no one will ever need to pay for them ever again? Realizing that the value of your entire catalog of software is but a teeny tiny fraction of the 10,000 albums used above, then by your standards, a $10K fine will be WAY too much for me. I'm willing to offer you right now a $500.00 fine IN ADVANCE for the right to offer all of your software to the world absolutely free for a one year period.

 

Craig, that's fair, right? After all...a lot of the people I'll be sharing with are just 14 year olds on Kazaa. AND, have we really come to a world where using C.A. software can be criminalized? Take my $500.00 check and let's let the world be a better place, Craig! Let's SHARE the music!

 

ps

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by popstar:

Part 2.

 

The iTunes Music Store is up to offering a library of what, 1 million songs now? That's the equiv of about 100,000 albums. And there is still a LOT of stuff not up there.

 

Now let's imagine that a person is on the net "sharing" just 10% of the iTunes library...that's easy to imagine, no? OK...dude is offering up 10,000 albums. Now, is fining that guy $1.00/album an unfair amount? After all, he may have "shared" thouands if not millions of copies of said files.

 

Craig, I know you've been involved in quite a few software offerings for sale...like your Beat Mangling stuff and who knows what else. Would you mind sending me (privately of course) a copy of all of your works so that I can share them with the world on a 24/7/365 basis so that no one will ever need to pay for them ever again? Realizing that the value of your entire catalog of software is but a teeny tiny fraction of the 10,000 albums used above, then by your standards, a $10K fine will be WAY too much for me. I'm willing to offer you right now a $500.00 fine IN ADVANCE for the right to offer all of your software to the world absolutely free for a one year period.

 

Craig, that's fair, right? After all...a lot of the people I'll be sharing with are just 14 year olds on Kazaa. AND, have we really come to a world where using C.A. software can be criminalized? Take my $500.00 check and let's let the world be a better place, Craig! Let's SHARE the music!

 

ps

I see your point Mr Popstar but AS the copyright law states it needs to be a digital copy of the piece of music for it to be Illegal and MP3's are not perfect copies and you and I both know that and can hear that...So i'm sorry, but I can't see how sharing MP3's could be Illegal. Someone needs to stand up to the RIAA over this...Also, yuo can't turn back the clock and File Sharing is NOT going to go away..I'll always buy Packaged Albums because it's a tangible product wtih artword etc...I have downloaded from the Itunes store and I just do not get the same satisfaction..However, File sharing should just be looked at as Promotion..I certainly enjoy sampling an album before I invest..I dispute that file sharing has hurt anyone but the over-inflated budgets of the Big Record labels...I could be wrong there but only in a FEW cases...Either way, it's here to stay.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously, file sharing has somewhat taken the place of broadcast radio, which SUCKS, and has for a long time.

 

The nimrods in the recording industry are always the last to figure out new technology. A...L....W....A....Y....S. They've fought against the use of almost every new consumer medium that has come about in the last 50 years. So same scenario now, they'll bitch and moan, file lawsuits, totally treat their customers like shit, and five years from now they'll be making more money than they ever have, using the very medium they were fighting.

 

The only thing that might have changed this time is....a lot of people might not be willing to forgive their idiocy, and inability to keep up with the times. Fucking morons, I hope they all go out of business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by popstar:

the RIAA is not out there busting kids who have tens or even hundreds of shared files in their libraries...they're out their busting the people (of all ages) who have tens of thousands of shared files

Yes but the RIAA is keeping the money for themselves in all likelyhood and not distributing it to the artists who's work was freely taken.This makes them bigger theives than the people their suing.At least the downloaders weren't making any profit.
"A Robot Playing Trumpet Blows"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Flee to Canada, where you will enjoy absolute immunity from the heavy hand of the RIAA!

 

Fines that high are ridiculous, and I don't see how they could possibly be legal. They can't just fine whatever amount they want, they need to prove their losses due to those files being shared, which is impossible to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is certainly an interesting discussion with varied opinions. Seemingly, gone are the days when it felt ok to borrow a friends album and record it to tape for your own use. File sharing supporters say that their sharing is nothing more than that.

Even though the RIAA tactics and the ensuing fines may be out of line, all in all, most of us agree that we should be paying something for copyrighted material.

So, that leads to a software piracy question. Do any of you use any pirated software at all? Even a screensaver, or maybe worse, Microsoft Windows or any other OS?

Sometimes it all seems rather unfair. You can buy a cheap computer from Gateway or Dell and get WinXP with it, but if you build a computer, and purchase your components individually, you get squat and are supposed to pay Microsoft a couple hundred dollars to make your computer work. Shouldn't an OS be bundled with every hard drive you buy?

Should you have to continually pay for OS software upgrades when the manufacturer should have made them more secure and trouble free to begin with?

I just finished upgrading my computer and re-formatted the hdd. I then tried to re-install a legit copy of Winxp. It would not allow me to activate it. I called Microsoft and had to sit through some goon not believing that I was re-formatting and instead flat out suggesting that I was trying to use a non-legit copy of the software. I was beginning to think that I was going to have to mail them the receipt of my original computer purchase when the guy gave in and gave me a new registration code. So now, everytime I re-format my drive, change a motherboard, etc, I have to go through the same thing.

Yea, there is something to be said for paying for copyrighted material.

bbach

 

Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Alndlnbot:

Yes but the RIAA is keeping the money for themselves in all likelyhood and not distributing it to the artists who's work was freely taken.This makes them bigger theives than the people their suing.At least the downloaders weren't making any profit.

DING DING! We have a winner! Actually, I think it's a stretch to absolve file sharers (SHARERS?!?!) from responsibility just because someone is acting worse. That never works on me as a parent, and it shouldn't be a viable legal defense. But I completely agree that I have seen ZERO evidence that any of the dollars collected in this debacle, make its way back to the artist; which makes the record companies lower than low.

 

I'm sure they'd counter with the argument that their legal bills are astronomical, which I'm sure they are, but they've also undermined their entire stance of ripping off the artist, by keeping all the cash for themselves.

 

Originally posted by Jeebus:

... I don't see how they could possibly be legal. They can't just fine whatever amount they want, they need to prove their losses due to those files being shared, which is impossible to do.

Ah, but as long as no one ever challenges them, in front of a judge, they need prove nothing, sue for whatever dollar amount suits them, and validate none of their tactics. Why do you think the fines are so high? To maximize the risk of someone fighting it. If the fines had been in the realm of $500, you'd have seen the RIAA in court, several times by now, getting thier proverbial vigilante asses handed to them. You'd have seen a maximum damages level set, and a certain procedure established by the courts in which they are allowed to operate.

 

Why would the RIAA want that to happen?

Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to reform.

Mark Twain (1835-1910)

--------------------

Reporter: "Ah, do you think you could destroy the world?" The Tick: "Ehgad I hope not. That's where I keep all my stuff!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Hendmik:

What scares me is that no one, to this point, has challenged the RIAA on their tactics, in front of a judge or jury. We don't even know if what the RIAA is doing, is even legal. We don't even know if the raid squads they use are nothing more than a vigilante lynch mob. We don't know if $10k suit is a misuse of the courts. No one is standing up to the RIAA's diamond lawyers. I can't say I blame them. I wouldn't challenge them with some crappy $300/hr. ambulence chaser either, but that's all I'd be able to afford.

 

Meanwhile, the RIAA can clearly do WHATEVER they want, with NO regulation. I supported them in the beginning, but it's slipping as I watch them man handle the system.

That's just not true. You may not be aware of what's going on in the courts, or the efforts against the RIAA, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Everything the RIAAA has been doing has been through the courts! What do you think they do, just bust into people's houses?!
Dooby Dooby Doo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

THE SKY IS FALLING!!!

 

Originally posted by Anderton:

I'm hearing that some people are paying $10,000 and more in fines to the RIAA for downloading files. Now, y'all know how I feel about intellectual property. But look at fines for various infractions...that seems out of whack.

What are the circumstances for the $10,000 fine?

 

Originally posted by Anderton:

But if some 14-year-old is on Kazaa or something, a five-figure fine seems excessive.

Is this true? What do you actually know about a five-figure fine against a 14 for downloading? What are the circumstances?

 

Originally posted by Anderton:

I never thought the day would come when listening to music would be criminalized...

I never thought the day would come when Craig Anderton would make something up just to emphasize his point!

 

I'm not sure anyone is attempting to criminalize music listening in America. I know that in Afghanistan, under the Taliban, listening to music was criminalized, and after the Taliban were overthrown, one of the first (and very moving) things the people did was take to the streets and play and sing music.

 

But I'm not aware of anyone in the U.S. proposing to criminalize music. I did see a woman wearing a Burkha in a store the other day, and thought "gee, that's kind of strange" so maybe something insidious is going on that I'm just not aware of.

 

I think I understand what you're trying to say, but is a 'Henny-Penny' aproach to journalism the best way to make the point? Someone could read this thread and now say, to use your words, "I'm hearing that the RIAA is trying to criminalize music listening."

Dooby Dooby Doo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Hendmik:

What scares me is that no one, to this point, has challenged the RIAA on their tactics, in front of a judge or jury. We don't even know if what the RIAA is doing, is even legal. We don't even know if the raid squads they use are nothing more than a vigilante lynch mob. We don't know if $10k suit is a misuse of the courts. No one is standing up to the RIAA's diamond lawyers. I can't say I blame them. I wouldn't challenge them with some crappy $300/hr. ambulence chaser either, but that's all I'd be able to afford.

 

Meanwhile, the RIAA can clearly do WHATEVER they want, with NO regulation. I supported them in the beginning, but it's slipping as I watch them man handle the system.

Hendmik,

 

You wrote...

 

"no one, to this point, has challenged the RIAA on their tactics, in front of a judge or jury."

 

" We don't even know if what the RIAA is doing, is even legal."

 

"Meanwhile, the RIAA can clearly do WHATEVER they want, with NO regulation."

 

Yes, like duddits pointed out...WHAT ARE YOU THINKING? These cases are all being fought in court, under the full guidance of the US Judicial system. I mean, it's not like the RIAA is showing up at someone's house in the middle of the night and saying "hand over the 10K or we kill you".

 

 

popsTAR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hendmik and others...

 

Man, I don't know where to start with you losers. As mentioned, the sharers targeted in these suits are those with HUGE collections open for the taking and who HAVE BEEN REPEATEDLY WARNED.

 

If dude has 10,000 albums for sharing, is not $1.00/album a reasonable fine?

 

In regards to the "big bad RIAA fricking morons" keeping "all that money" for "themselves" rather than doing the "noble thing" or giving it back to the artists...stop, guys, and think about how ridiculous your statements are. The RIAA is a trade organization which represents the major labels in issues like this. I wonder if any of you guys has ever been in a lawsuit? Do you guys have a clue as to what a good legal team costs? Lawyers at that level can easily reach $500/hour. MEANING, that the $10K potentially taken in by the RIAA (which, by the way may incorrect...the early suits were settled for $2500, but perhaps as time goes on, the fines will increase), for the most part goes for the legal fees. Who gets the money? As always, the FRICKING LAWYERS! The RIAA gets basically nothing or very very little for their effort, as most of the cost goes to the legal team.

 

NOW, having said that...we ALL have heard about people being busted for rampant file sharing. SO, would YOU decide today to devote an entire server for the purpose of sharing with anonymous people around the world WHEN YOU KNOW YOU MIGHT BE SUED AND WHEN YOU'VE BEEN WARNED AND WARNED AGAIN THAT YOU ARE VIOLATING LAWS? And IF you stupidly decide to get that server up and running and IF the RIAA or the US Justice System or the Motion Picture Association slaps you with a lawsuit, do you really have a reason to sit and whine about it?

 

When you exceed the speed limit on the freeway by 50mph, and you get a ticket...are you going to say

 

"No one stands up to these loser cops because they have a gun and a baton"

 

"That is SO unfair...imagine a $400.00 ticket just for putting other drivers' lives at risk!"

 

"Car manufacturers should support me because I'm showing how nicely their autos work at high speeds...it's PROMOTION"

 

"Just because they caught me doesn't mean that speeding is going to go away. NO, speeding is here to stay!"

 

Really, guys, your arguments hold not a single drop of worth. Flagrant file sharers (no, NOT the 14 yo trading half a dozen files with her friends) are breaking the law, they clearly know that, and yet they take the risk. A few of them get popped and you guys all get your panties bunched up with outrage. If you do the crime, you gots to do the time.

 

How clear and clean cut could an issue be?

 

popSTAR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only group that suffers at all through file sharing is the "popstar" garbage that these labels try to shove down peoples throats on a daily basis. Maybe the RIAA should go after radio stations for "sharing" these files with the general public.

What's the difference? I can fire up my computer or cd burner and record the radio all day long.

And guess what? I do just that. I make it a point to have my burner ready to go for my favorite radio programs. So, in essence, the radio is sharing these files with me. And guess what? The RIAA got royalties twice on that deal. They got royalties from the station broadcasting and they got royalties from the blank media I purchased.

So, the problem isn't file sharing, it's the ommision of royalties in file sharing.

The solution? All digital storage should have built in royalties. Just as cdr's have royalties built in, so should any other digital storage medium. The digital storage medium is what makes file sharing possible.

The other solution, ISP's should also have royalties built into the price of internet service.

Once this is done, then the internet becomes just like the radio. Just another broadcast medium that has royalties built in to offset the losses of the promotional benefit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Popstar and Duddits,

 

Craig's assertion at the start og this is that $10,000 is an exorbitant fine. You both strongly disagree, it would seem.

 

I'd like to know from both of you, individually, what amount you would consider to be appropriate. Let's say someone is caught with 500 songs on their HD that have downloaded from Kazaa. What amount of money is the right amount to deter them from their heinous crime (and allow the artists to be properly compensated for their creativity and hard work)?

 

Please advise.

 

- Jeff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by stranger:

The only group that suffers at all through file sharing is the "popstar" garbage that these labels try to shove down peoples throats on a daily basis. Maybe the RIAA should go after radio stations for "sharing" these files with the general public.

What's the difference?.

 

So, the problem isn't file sharing, it's the ommision of royalties in file sharing.

 

The solution? All digital storage should have built in royalties. Just as cdr's have royalties built in, so should any other digital storage medium. The digital storage medium is what makes file sharing possible.

The other solution, ISP's should also have royalties built into the price of internet service.

Once this is done, then the internet becomes just like the radio. Just another broadcast medium that has royalties built in to offset the losses of the promotional benefit.

Stranger, well your post started off sounding like just another dumb*ss idiot rant of "popstar garbage-bashing". Especially when you said "what's the difference (when I record off the radio)? Well, the diff there is that it is a LEGAL use. That's like driving WITHIN THE LEGAL SPEED LIMIT WHERE YOU ARE NOT BREAKING THE LAW.

 

Yes, of course the answer is to get ISP's collecting a small and reasonable fee and/or the peer to peer network building a fee in or whatever. Something FAIR for everyone.

 

Stranger, you're not a total dweeb.

 

PoPStaR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

------------------------------

Originally posted by Anderton:

But if some 14-year-old is on Kazaa or something, a five-figure fine seems excessive.

-----------------------------

 

<

 

I said "If!" For some more info on the five-figure fine against someone who had hundreds (not thousands) of downloads on his hard drive, check out this article:

 

http://www.latimes.com/business/custom/cotown/la-fi-suits21au g21,1,4685616.story?coll=la-headlines-business-enter

 

quote:

------------------------------

Originally posted by Anderton:

I never thought the day would come when listening to music would be criminalized...

------------------------------

 

<

 

I'm not sure anyone is attempting to criminalize music listening in America.>>

 

Not in the sense of the Taliban, no. And please, remember that I am AGAINST illegal downloads, pirated software, all of that. I also think that the theft of intellectual property should not be tolerated; we're already down enough of a slippery slope with respect to morals and ethics.

 

But here's what bugs me. A lot of people swap music that's not available anywhere else, like out of print recordings. Yet sharing these is put in the same category as stealing a CD. I see only benefits from sharing out of print music -- it keeps the artist in circulation, opens up the possibility of a re-issue, and maintains a fan base. As no legit version exists, no one would be able to get money from the tunes anyway. Hopefully something like iTunes will provide a legit channel, but until then, it seems wrong to say "You can't listen to this music that apparently no record company wants anyway."

 

Another issue is that, and this is something I never see emphasized, people tend to fall into two polarized camps: "File-sharing is letting people steal music, and preventing artists and record companies from getting their fair share" and "File-sharing is turning more people on to music, which is why independent labels as an aggregate now have the second-largest market share." But BOTH are true. There are some people who are responsible in downloading music: They use it as a substitute for radio, and if they like something, they buy. There are others who are just blatantly ripping off artists and record companies left and right. I don't know if the RIAA is making this distinction, but if not, they should. If they are, great.

 

<>

 

Wouldn't be the first time I've been quoted out of context .

 

And here's the final issue. I think the goal should be to create a climate where people respect intellectual property, and understand the need to pay for it. I honestly believe that these heavy-handed tactics, done as a sort of extra-legal vigilante operation, undermine that goal. They seek to punish instead of educate.

 

Now, whether it's possible to educate people into a stronger moral code is something I'm not prepared to debate because it's a gray area -- some people are susceptible to logic and education and will change their ways; some aren't open to logic and education. But as someone who STRONGLY DEFENDS the concept of the value of intellectual property, I think what the RIAA is doing is creating negative PR for that concept. Ultimately, my concern is that this approach will exacerbate the problem, not ameliorate it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by popstar:

Originally posted by stranger:

The only group that suffers at all through file sharing is the "popstar" garbage that these labels try to shove down peoples throats on a daily basis. Maybe the RIAA should go after radio stations for "sharing" these files with the general public.

What's the difference?.

 

So, the problem isn't file sharing, it's the ommision of royalties in file sharing.

 

The solution? All digital storage should have built in royalties. Just as cdr's have royalties built in, so should any other digital storage medium. The digital storage medium is what makes file sharing possible.

The other solution, ISP's should also have royalties built into the price of internet service.

Once this is done, then the internet becomes just like the radio. Just another broadcast medium that has royalties built in to offset the losses of the promotional benefit.

Stranger, well your post started off sounding like just another dumb*ss idiot rant of "popstar garbage-bashing". Especially when you said "what's the difference (when I record off the radio)? Well, the diff there is that it is a LEGAL use. That's like driving WITHIN THE LEGAL SPEED LIMIT WHERE YOU ARE NOT BREAKING THE LAW.

 

Yes, of course the answer is to get ISP's collecting a small and reasonable fee and/or the peer to peer network building a fee in or whatever. Something FAIR for everyone.

 

Stranger, you're not a total dweeb.

 

PoPStaR

Popstar, what about my assertation that MP3's do not constitute an exact digital copy so therefor they are not subject to copyright law as it is written? I'm mean come on man, the RIAA gets royalies on all the fucking blank media we buy...They are getting their fair share and the artists usually get very little of it....And you must know that....I Maintain that it could easily shown in a court of law that an MP3 is NOT an Exact digital copy....
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...