RIAA demanding college students pay $3000 because of downloading - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Lemonade Stand > Lemonade Stand Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-09-2007, 07:06 PM   #16
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,016
Local Time: 12:54 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Utoo
I don't think anyone's challenging the fact that it's illegal...just the notion that it should be illegal
i think Lara Mullen is just pointing out that since it is illegal (whether we like it or not) it shouldn't come as a shock that people get prosecuted over it
__________________

__________________
“Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.”
~Frank Zappa
Salome is offline  
Old 03-09-2007, 07:29 PM   #17
Blue Crack Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 17,927
Local Time: 06:54 PM
I'm saying that the way they are doing it- singling out a handful of people here and there in sporatic witch hunts of college students and random cable customers- even arresting grandparents for a song their grandkids downloaded when they didn't even know it because the account was in their name- is a BAD tactic and isn't going to stop downloading or file sharing. You can see the 'destruction' of Napster only made people more determined. Like some have said, it's NOT going to go away, like it or not, so they might as well deal with it instead of targeting a handful of people here and there in a medieval attempt to scare everyone. (it's not even working) And as was mentioned above, the piracy laws are now outdated and won't work. They need to find a new way, there is no way the past is coming back.
__________________

__________________
U2Kitten is offline  
Old 03-09-2007, 07:54 PM   #18
I serve MacPhisto
 
unforgettableFOXfire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 2,053
Local Time: 06:54 PM
How much does 'cd sales being down' relate to music downloading, and how much does it have to do with the quality of music production? For that matter, what factors aren't being looked at re: those statistics? There are a lot of factors that go into sales statistics. Economic status and unemployment rates (luxury items go down during economic uncertainty), currency value, alternative media -- if you start releasing music on dvd/acd/bluray/new vinyl/online, of course cd sales are going to drop when you've divided your category of sales into four categories. I've read statistics suggesting a 4% net decline, all media considered; so what if cd sales are down by 50% if they're still making a killing elsewhere? It's not like the industry is suffering a 50% loss in income just because they're suffering a decline in CD sales. 50% loss in cd sales doesn't mean that half of the industry has had to close it's doors.

Yes, it affects aritsts who make less money most of all, I'm not disputing that. New artists have always received crap-all from cd sales. Artists are receiving less than aforementioned 'crap-all' now since there's less money to go around. True, not everyone is rich in the music industry, but the music industry has never treated all its constituent members in a way that those people have deserved. It's a business, and it's being run like it's stakeholders don't matter and the industry can do whatever it wants without consequences. Suing people who have kept the industry afloat for decades, suing people who represent the future consumers of that business' products, hurting their bread & butter by laying them off so that executives can continue to roll in $2 million annual salaries in executive positions when they're clearly not competent given these reactions to market trends.

Something else that has to be considered is what music is being downloaded. I would hazard a guess that it isn't all top 100 new music. What about cds that you can't find at your local retailer? Are you going to go without, or are you going to download? How do used CD sales factor in? Traditionally, this has been an area of pure profit for retailers, not the industry; to their sales figures, what does it matter if someone downloads music that's 15 years old if they would have just bought the cd used anyway? It isn't a factor at all, by my judgement. That's not to say it isn't nonetheless illegal, but I find it difficult to believe that such activity can account for a sharp decline in sales/profitability. Only big albums from big artists are going to be sitting in the racks at retailers, where less known, more obscure music isn't going to be carried -- and it isn't layoffs that are responsible for that, it's supply and demand. Retailers aren't going to keep inventory that they aren't going to sell when that disc takes up space that a cd they could be selling for profit would otherwise be occupying -- this is why retailers sell off old inventory at wholesale.

I just don't buy it that downloading is the bane of music. The industry doesn't know how to use opportunities that are presented to it, because they haven't been faced with any sort of logistics challenge before. They want things to go back the way they used to be because it was easier than trying to accomodate, but they don't have that option.
__________________
unforgettableFOXfire is offline  
Old 03-09-2007, 10:41 PM   #19
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:54 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by ~unforgettableFOXfire~
How much does 'cd sales being down' relate to music downloading, and how much does it have to do with the quality of music production? For that matter, what factors aren't being looked at re: those statistics? There are a lot of factors that go into sales statistics. Economic status and unemployment rates (luxury items go down during economic uncertainty), currency value, alternative media -- if you start releasing music on dvd/acd/bluray/new vinyl/online, of course cd sales are going to drop when you've divided your category of sales into four categories. I've read statistics suggesting a 4% net decline, all media considered; so what if cd sales are down by 50% if they're still making a killing elsewhere? It's not like the industry is suffering a 50% loss in income just because they're suffering a decline in CD sales. 50% loss in cd sales doesn't mean that half of the industry has had to close it's doors.

Yes, it affects aritsts who make less money most of all, I'm not disputing that. New artists have always received crap-all from cd sales. Artists are receiving less than aforementioned 'crap-all' now since there's less money to go around. True, not everyone is rich in the music industry, but the music industry has never treated all its constituent members in a way that those people have deserved. It's a business, and it's being run like it's stakeholders don't matter and the industry can do whatever it wants without consequences. Suing people who have kept the industry afloat for decades, suing people who represent the future consumers of that business' products, hurting their bread & butter by laying them off so that executives can continue to roll in $2 million annual salaries in executive positions when they're clearly not competent given these reactions to market trends.

Something else that has to be considered is what music is being downloaded. I would hazard a guess that it isn't all top 100 new music. What about cds that you can't find at your local retailer? Are you going to go without, or are you going to download? How do used CD sales factor in? Traditionally, this has been an area of pure profit for retailers, not the industry; to their sales figures, what does it matter if someone downloads music that's 15 years old if they would have just bought the cd used anyway? It isn't a factor at all, by my judgement. That's not to say it isn't nonetheless illegal, but I find it difficult to believe that such activity can account for a sharp decline in sales/profitability. Only big albums from big artists are going to be sitting in the racks at retailers, where less known, more obscure music isn't going to be carried -- and it isn't layoffs that are responsible for that, it's supply and demand. Retailers aren't going to keep inventory that they aren't going to sell when that disc takes up space that a cd they could be selling for profit would otherwise be occupying -- this is why retailers sell off old inventory at wholesale.

I just don't buy it that downloading is the bane of music. The industry doesn't know how to use opportunities that are presented to it, because they haven't been faced with any sort of logistics challenge before. They want things to go back the way they used to be because it was easier than trying to accomodate, but they don't have that option.
The quality of music production has never been better, the quality of the actual music being produced is open to debate, but its always the anti-industry types who claim they are not selling because the artist and music are not up to some vague prior standard.

The strength of the economy just drives home the point even further. Unemployment is just as low as it was during the biggest boom times in the industry. Wages are up, and GDP growth is solid. The economy is probably in the best shape it has ever been in its history, but the music industry is falling.

Based on what new artist are experiencing, the 50% drop is having the major impact most people would assume that it would. Bono was not talking out of his butt when he mentioned that U2 would have been dropped in the current environment with either their first or second album. You can try to work an arguement around the numbers, but the numbers here tell the truth of what is going on. A 50% decline in sales probably means that 40% of the industry has had to close up since the year 2000. 50% of record stores in many area's have closed down.

No business is going to protect someone with a 2 million dollar pay check unless they feel its absolutely necessary to keep their position. When downsizing begins because the profits are no longer there, all options are on the table.

I'm not sure that suing these people is an effective tactic, but the people being sued are definitely not people who support the music industry are had any attention of supporting in the future. A person who has obtained over 300 albums for FREE is not about to go out and start buying albums. So if your going to target anyone, thats the person you want to go after.

Catalog sales, sales of music that is over 2 years old is not what is impacting the music industry. Its the sale of current product, where the industry has always received the vast majority of its money from, where FREE music is having the most impact on the business. Obviously catalog sales are impacted, but the industry has never been dependent on catalog sales. Only very successful veteran artist have successful catalog sales, while the vast majority of other artist will eventually see their albums go out of print, especially if the album in question never went platinum.

The difference between 1999 and 2007 is the number of people with the ability to either download or burn their music at no reduced quality for FREE. ANY business would be heavily impacted if people could obtain the service or product they were selling for FREE. Its that simple.

How many people would stop to buy a hotdog at a particular stand, if 10 feet away you could get the same hotdog for free? Downloading and CD burning has had a very negative impact on the music industry that has been noted by BONO, someone who is essentially immune to its negative effects.

It would be nice if some way could be found to return things to the way they were and are for just about any other business. If people want the product or service you are selling, they PAY for it.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 03-09-2007, 10:48 PM   #20
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Canadiens1131's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,363
Local Time: 07:54 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


But taping things on the radio or from another cassette, CD or record, onto a cassette always involved a noticeable reduction in sound quality. With file sharing, other downloading, and CD burning, there is no noticeable reduction in sound quality which is one of the reasons it is so popular.
There is absolutely a reduction in sound quality. If someone listens to music on anything more than laptop speakers, there is an obvious sound quality issue between music encoded at different bitrates. A 128kb/s MP3 file sounds like shit compared to a variable bit rate encoded file or even a 192kb/s encoded mp3.

Right clicking and copying an Mp3? Sure, there is no reduction in sound quality. But when a friend burns you a CD of music, and you rip that copied music to your PC or another CD, the compressed files on there are being compressed again and lose a substantial amount of quality. It's the exact same thing as dubbing a casette tape to another in a cassette deck
__________________
Canadiens1131 is offline  
Old 03-09-2007, 10:52 PM   #21
Blue Crack Addict
 
DaveC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: illegitimi non carborundum
Posts: 17,415
Local Time: 06:54 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
I'm not sure that suing these people is an effective tactic, but the people being sued are definitely not people who support the music industry are had any attention of supporting in the future. A person who has obtained over 300 albums for FREE is not about to go out and start buying albums. So if your going to target anyone, thats the person you want to go after.
Fair enough, but the people who are downloading tens of thousands of songs are not the people the RIAA is going after. People are being sued over just a couple of songs.


Quote:
It would be nice if some way could be found to return things to the way they were and are for just about any other business.
Well, it's not. Ever. The RIAA seems to be completely unable or unwilling to accept that. They've been suing people for almost a decade now, and yet every single year the incidence of music downloading keeps going up.

If I've been trying to stop something for nearly 10 years and it keeps increasing despite what I'm doing, I'd take a clue and realize that what I'm doing isn't working.

Maybe that's too much logic for record industry execs, though.
__________________
DaveC is online now  
Old 03-09-2007, 10:55 PM   #22
ONE
love, blood, life
 
MrBrau1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Verplexed in Vermont
Posts: 10,436
Local Time: 06:54 PM
doing the same thing over and over and over and expecting different results= insane.

The RIAA are insane.
__________________
"If you needed my autograph, I'd give it to you." Bob Dylan
MrBrau1 is offline  
Old 03-09-2007, 11:00 PM   #23
Blue Crack Addict
 
Lancemc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ba Sing Se
Posts: 17,665
Local Time: 07:54 PM
I just sent my friend the new Peter Bjorn and John album. Why, I am such a terrible criminal, contributing to the demise of the already fucked and outdated record industry! Someone call the RIAA! Now she's never going to go out and pay for this album that she NEVER would have even heard of has I not given it to her for free!!! What will the world do?
__________________
Lancemc is offline  
Old 03-10-2007, 12:18 AM   #24
ONE
love, blood, life
 
indra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 07:54 PM
I don't understand what is so damned difficult to understand about the music isn't your's to give away.

Think of products other than music (or movies etc) and answer these questions:

Is stealing only bad when the victim is someone you like? Is it acceptable to steal from someone who's rich? Is it acceptable to steal stuff because you can't afford to buy all the stuff you'd like? Is it acceptable to steal stuff because you'd never buy it? Would you mind if someone stole stuff that was your's -- for whatever reason?

The people who say the record companies are going after their customers by doing this make me laugh. Once someone starts stealing from you they aren't your customers. Do you think a bank would not press charges against a robber who had a savings account with them? Do you think a convenience store wouldn't press charges against a robber who bought a soda from them?

It doesn't matter how much profit the record companies or artists are or are not making; it doesn't matter if you like to check out an album before buying it; it doesn't matter that you can't afford to buy every album you want; and it doesn't matter if you or your friend would never have purchased a particular album anyway. What matters is only the people with the legal right to distribute the music have the right to distribute it whether or not they profit from it (and let's face it, you are profiting if you don't have to spend money to buy something).
__________________
indra is offline  
Old 03-10-2007, 12:55 AM   #25
Blue Crack Addict
 
Lancemc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ba Sing Se
Posts: 17,665
Local Time: 07:54 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by indra

It doesn't matter how much profit the record companies or artists are or are not making; it doesn't matter if you like to check out an album before buying it; it doesn't matter that you can't afford to buy every album you want; and it doesn't matter if you or your friend would never have purchased a particular album anyway. What matters is only the people with the legal right to distribute the music have the right to distribute it whether or not they profit from it (and let's face it, you are profiting if you don't have to spend money to buy something).
Actually, ALL that stuff you mentioned does matter. It matters because that's how the business has evolved, whether the companies like it or not. The same principles simply don't apply anymore, and until the record companies adapt to the new market, this is the way things are, for better or for worse. Just look at what Wilco did with YHF. They realized that it's a new ball game and started to play by the new rules. They probably wouldn't be as successful as they are right now if they had done things differently.
__________________
Lancemc is offline  
Old 03-10-2007, 01:20 AM   #26
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Canadiens1131's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,363
Local Time: 07:54 PM
You will burn in hell, Lancemc.
You and your music stealing hippie friends.
__________________
Canadiens1131 is offline  
Old 03-10-2007, 01:23 AM   #27
ONE
love, blood, life
 
MrBrau1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Verplexed in Vermont
Posts: 10,436
Local Time: 06:54 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Canadiens1160
You will burn in hell, Lancemc.
You and your music stealing hippie friends.
He's only going to hell if he didn't by the album his sig represents.

http://www.slowdance.com/index2.html

Buy it. They're good guys. I met them. Poor as fuck. Best $12 you'll ever spend.

Edit: What do you know. They're busted up.
__________________
"If you needed my autograph, I'd give it to you." Bob Dylan
MrBrau1 is offline  
Old 03-10-2007, 03:10 AM   #28
ONE
love, blood, life
 
indra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 07:54 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Lancemc

Just look at what Wilco did with YHF. They realized that it's a new ball game and started to play by the new rules. They probably wouldn't be as successful as they are right now if they had done things differently.
Wilco had been dropped by their label and had bought the album back from that label. So when they decided to put the songs online for fans to download they had the legal right to do so. That is entirely different than you (or anyone else) deciding to distribute music you do not have the legal right to distribute. Likewise you also don't have the legal right to download that leaked music.

It doesn't matter if you think your idea is better. It doesn't even matter if your idea is better. You do not own the songs and have no legal right to either distribute or take from someone else who is illegally distributing them.

Is digital delivery of music here to stay? Yeah. But that does not give anyone the right to steal it. And stealing it is exactly what you are doing if you illegally download songs no matter how much you try to shift the blame to greedy record companies who just don't get it.
__________________
indra is offline  
Old 03-10-2007, 03:58 AM   #29
Blue Crack Addict
 
Laura M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 18,932
Local Time: 12:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by indra
I don't understand what is so damned difficult to understand about the music isn't your's to give away.

The people who say the record companies are going after their customers by doing this make me laugh. Once someone starts stealing from you they aren't your customers. Do you think a bank would not press charges against a robber who had a savings account with them? Do you think a convenience store wouldn't press charges against a robber who bought a soda from them?

It doesn't matter how much profit the record companies or artists are or are not making; it doesn't matter if you like to check out an album before buying it; it doesn't matter that you can't afford to buy every album you want; and it doesn't matter if you or your friend would never have purchased a particular album anyway. What matters is only the people with the legal right to distribute the music have the right to distribute it whether or not they profit from it (and let's face it, you are profiting if you don't have to spend money to buy something).
__________________
Laura M is offline  
Old 03-10-2007, 04:41 AM   #30
Refugee
 
adrball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Nightclub in Tripoli
Posts: 1,733
Local Time: 12:54 AM
People that download and share music when it's commercially available really annoy me. There has to be some reward for the musicians that created it.

That said, the music industry have had it far too easy in the past. Prohibiting owners to take a copy for their own use (eg for in the car or to protect original from being damaged) was a joke. Charging £15 for something that costs less that 50p to produce has always made me bitter.

Whilst I don't agree with authorised distribution, it is somewhat funny that the music industry have finally got what comes round.
__________________

__________________
adrball is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com