RIAA demanding college students pay $3000 because of downloading - Page 3 - 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 03-10-2007, 04:53 AM   #31
The Fly
 
Chris Martin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 105
Local Time: 08:20 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by adrball
Charging £15 for something that costs less that 50p to produce has always made me bitter.
ding, ding. We have a winner.

If the price of CDs, in stores or at Itunes, had ever been just slightly reasonable, this wouldn't be a problem at all. After all, who wouldn't want to be sure that the record they get is in the best possible quality? You never know for sure when you download on the net, not even if it's a flac you download.

Then some of you might say, but if you think a Mercedes is overpriced - do you steal it?

No - but there's a difference. If you steal a Mercedes you are immediately depriving some other person of his/her property.
The same thing can hardly be said when a 14-year-old downloads an album from the current "cool" indie band that everyone is talking about at school. An album that he couldn't afford with his pocket money.

There's absolutely no way the record industry can stop the illegal distribution of music that's happening on the internet. So the RIAA is fighting a war that they cannot win anyway. So yes, they HAVE to accept the new rules of the game.

I think most major artists today have realized that touring is where the money is.
__________________

__________________
Chris Martin is offline  
Old 03-10-2007, 07:32 AM   #32
Blue Crack Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 17,927
Local Time: 03:20 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Lancemc
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?
This is another point I tried to bring up. Most of what is downloaded would most likely never have been bought, anyway. Most people cannot afford to buy every single CD they want, and the ones they really want they're going to buy anyway. But it's fun to listen to stuff, as you would listen to it on the radio or borrow it from your friends, and send it to a friend like 'hey, check this out!' It's outrageous for the RIAA, or some of you here, to think that every single thing that's downloaded is 'stolen' from the pockets of some rich rock star or businessman. The vast majority of what is being listened to online is something that people would not have actually paid for anyway!
__________________

__________________
U2Kitten is offline  
Old 03-10-2007, 07:38 AM   #33
Blue Crack Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 17,927
Local Time: 03:20 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Martin
If the price of CDs, in stores or at Itunes, had ever been just slightly reasonable, this wouldn't be a problem at all.
This is another thing. The RIAA is complaining that record stores are going out of business and blaming downloading. Some chains, like Tower, have suffered lately but you know what hurts them more than downloading? Circuit City and Best Buy selling CDs for 12 bucks when they want 18! Now who, even if they CAN afford it, is going to pay that much more when they don't have to? Because those stores sell other stuff, more expensive stuff, they can afford to cut prices on CDs where record stores can't, because that's all they sell! Of course you're not going to get the selection at those electronics warehouses that you would at a record store, but those looking for more rare or obscure stuff usually turn to used record stores (how long before the RIAA shuts down Plan 9?), the internet, or ebay. THAT is what hurt those overpriced record stores, not downloading, though they like to blame it!

Quote:
14-year-old downloads an album from the current "cool" indie band that everyone is talking about at school. An album that he couldn't afford with his pocket money.
BINGO! Like I said, most downloading is done by people who wouldn't/couldn't afford to buy the record anyway, so the companies haven't lost anything!

Quote:
There's absolutely no way the record industry can stop the illegal distribution of music that's happening on the internet. So the RIAA is fighting a war that they cannot win anyway. So yes, they HAVE to accept the new rules of the game.

I think most major artists today have realized that touring is where the money is.
__________________
U2Kitten is offline  
Old 03-10-2007, 08:34 AM   #34
The Fly
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 40
Local Time: 03:20 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Lancemc
As a college student who HAS downloaded music, I need to say that the RIAA would do much better embracing the future instead of punishing it. Just look at what the iTunes music store and Napster have done. THAT is the way the industry is headed, but better or worse, and the recording industry is only going to start recovering when the big whigs pull their collective heads out of their asses and get with the program.

II do not think you understand. I think that are trying to get with the program. RIAA loves iTunes and the legal Napster. People who use these services pay for the music they download. What they don't like, are the people who download the music for free from illegal sources. Here are some other words that can describe what the RIAA does not like, “stealing” and “piracy”. We all know that the recording industry RIAA dropped the ball when it came to digital music, that they underestimated the technology...but that is not the point.

If you own an ipod, or download songs to your computer, take a look at the number of songs you have loaded on it. If you have 3,000 songs on your ipod, that translates to $3,000 worth of merchandise. You cannot argue that, music is valuable and 3,000 songs is worth $3000. Look at your ipod, what percentage of those songs were downloaded illegally?

I do not think it is crazy to try to get people to pay for music. Music is not “free”, it is not an entitlement. How would you feel if you made a really great album and half the people who want to listen to it, stole it. I think you would have a different perspective on things.
__________________
hughfan_1 is offline  
Old 03-10-2007, 08:46 AM   #35
The Fly
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 40
Local Time: 03:20 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2Kitten
I don't think they really are. When I was a teenager, before you had all the music on computers, we'd still share our songs by making each other tapes. We'd tape off of the radio. What downloading is really is nothing more than friends sharing with each other on a larger scale. I don't see any rock stars going around broke, people still buy CD's, they want the lyrics sheet and liner notes and cases. Most of the time when someone downloads, it's something they likely wouldn't have bought anyway. Let's face it, no one but rich people can afford to buy EVERY CD you want, so people have always shared songs and taped from the radio. It's no more stealing than taping a movie when it comes on TV. As long as you don't sell it what's the problem?

The old days and old ways are gone. You can't stop file sharing, so as Lancemc said, they should be capitalizing on it instead of hanging onto an archaic system that is no longer going to work.

I don't think anyone who downloads should be a criminal. I mean, hardly anyone robs a bank or shoots a person, maybe less than 5% of the population, yet I'd say 90% or more of college kids are downloading. You can't fight a tidal wave by tossing a couple of sandbags at a few in defiance.

Further proof that you can't stop downloading is that even AFTER the massive witch hunt and sueing and shutting down of NAPSTER, downloading returned, and more popular than ever.
90% of people do it? That does not meet it is the right thing to do. Copying your friends cds is not stealing. That is ok, it is on the mass level that is a problem. Do your friends have every cd you want? Walking into your friends house, is not like walking into a cd store. These illegal downloading sites are like a cd store. I agree downloading music is the future. I think the RIAA has come to this conclusion. However, downloading music for free will change the business as we know it forever. If Muscians need to work full-time just to support their family, the world will miss out on a lot of great music. These people deserve to get paid for their art. Period, end of discussion.
__________________
hughfan_1 is offline  
Old 03-10-2007, 09:22 AM   #36
Refugee
 
adrball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Nightclub in Tripoli
Posts: 1,733
Local Time: 09:20 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by hughfan_1
Copying your friends cds is not stealing.
Correct...but it is unlawful distribution.

But where the industry get it wrong is where they think they are losing out. Most people (I guess) do not copy/download to avoid buying - they're simply getting access to some music that they would never have bought in the first place.
__________________
adrball is offline  
Old 03-10-2007, 10:52 AM   #37
Blue Crack Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 17,927
Local Time: 03:20 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by adrball


Correct...but it is unlawful distribution.
So is sharing with friends ok or not? And what about copying a CD you already own onto an extra to take in the car, because you don't want your good, storebought one ruined in the car? And what about if you put your own storebought CDs onto the ipod? (I don't even have an ipod, just wondering)

Quote:
But where the industry get it wrong is where they think they are losing out. Most people (I guess) do not copy/download to avoid buying - they're simply getting access to some music that they would never have bought in the first place.
THIS is the main point that the industry really doesn't get. They're not losing something they never would have had anyway. So if they add up 3000 songs they think they 'lost', they didn't, because the person wasn't going to buy them anyway. Also no one (that I know of) burns CDs to sell. If they did, that WOULD be illegal piracy. But that's not the same as just listening in your own home while you do your homework, which is what most of the downloads are.
__________________
U2Kitten is offline  
Old 03-10-2007, 10:59 AM   #38
Refugee
 
toscano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,032
Local Time: 01:20 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by adrball
Charging £15 for something that costs less that 50p to produce has always made me bitter.

I'd love to know how you cam eup with 50p (about 80c).

My son's band just recorded their first demo of 4 songs.

$300 for the studio time+producer (4 hours).

I got blank CDs at Frys at a rate of 9c each

My wife did the artwork on the PC

Color copies at Staples, 39c each

Slimline jewel cases, 5c each at Fry's

My time to burn copies, priceless.

Seriously, we're looking at 55c of just raw materials

No publicist, no distribution, no art designers to pay, no adertising, no hundreds of hours of studio time, mastering costs, technicians, publishing royalties, delivery costs, lawyers %, managers %, etc. How DO you come up with 50p/CD ???

I download, a LOT. If I like something, I buy it, typically used or through discounted chain like Best Buy or Amazon. I'd love to have always used Tower, but they were just too expensive.
__________________
toscano is offline  
Old 03-10-2007, 11:05 AM   #39
The Fly
 
Chris Martin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 105
Local Time: 08:20 PM
What kind of music is your son's band playing?
__________________
Chris Martin is offline  
Old 03-10-2007, 11:10 AM   #40
Blue Crack Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 17,927
Local Time: 03:20 PM
Quote:
If Muscians need to work full-time just to support their family, the world will miss out on a lot of great music.
The day I see Bono or Beyonce flipping burgers down at my McDonald's is the day I'll believe downloading harms stars. They're all still millionaires with plenty of 'bling' and sickeningly overpriced homes, cars, jewelry and clothes.
__________________
U2Kitten is offline  
Old 03-10-2007, 11:21 AM   #41
The Fly
 
Muminki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 86
Local Time: 09:20 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2Kitten

THIS is the main point that the industry really doesn't get. They're not losing something they never would have had anyway. So if they add up 3000 songs they think they 'lost', they didn't, because the person wasn't going to buy them anyway. Also no one (that I know of) burns CDs to sell. If they did, that WOULD be illegal piracy. But that's not the same as just listening in your own home while you do your homework, which is what most of the downloads are.
so it would be okay for me to go into a shop and steal a few cartons of milk every day if i didn't intend buying it. thy are not losing it anyway, are they? using your logic people should be entitled to steal everything in sight if they weren't going to buy it so the shop isn't losing out. i don't follow what your argument is. you can't defend theft.
__________________
Muminki is offline  
Old 03-10-2007, 11:21 AM   #42
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Canadiens1131's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,363
Local Time: 04:20 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2Kitten


So is sharing with friends ok or not? And what about copying a CD you already own onto an extra to take in the car, because you don't want your good, storebought one ruined in the car? And what about if you put your own storebought CDs onto the ipod? (I don't even have an ipod, just wondering)
Making a backup copy of a CD, or using purchased music in a home video for personal viewing is considered fair use and is legal, for sure.
__________________
Canadiens1131 is offline  
Old 03-10-2007, 11:34 AM   #43
Blue Crack Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 17,927
Local Time: 03:20 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Canadiens1160
Making a backup copy of a CD, or using purchased music in a home video for personal viewing is considered fair use and is legal, for sure.
I'd think so too!

And to the previous poster, that's a real stretch. Come on. Really, how is recording a song from online any different than waiting for a song to come on the radio and taping it, like I did when I was a kid? Did I 'steal' it that way? I taped songs off the radio instead of buying them!
__________________
U2Kitten is offline  
Old 03-10-2007, 11:45 AM   #44
Blue Crack Addict
 
onebloodonelife's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 15,106
Local Time: 03:20 PM
Yes, I download. Yes, I know that it's illegal. Think about this: college students in the U.S. are paying thousands of dollars a year to go to school and don't have money to buy CDs, especially at $15-$20 a pop. When I do buy CDs, it's at a used record shop in my hometown because I can't afford to buy a regular priced CD, so the artist isn't getting any money from my purchase either.

Also, I don't buy from iTunes often because their download quality is shit. I believe the songs are 128kb/s, which is not a good quality bitrate at all. I'm not going to pay $1 per song for something that is not the best quality out there. I can go onto a torrent site and get songs encoded at 192kb/s at the least, and going all the way up to 320kb/s. Now, really, which one am I going to choose?

Downloading has introduced me to so many bands that I would not have heard otherwise. I never would have picked up a Flaming Lips CD at a store and bought it without downloading it first. However, now that I do have some of their music, when their next CD is released, I'm much more likely to go out and purchase the CD.
__________________
onebloodonelife is offline  
Old 03-10-2007, 11:52 AM   #45
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
trevster2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 4,330
Local Time: 04:50 PM
One unusual aspect of the "theft" of a song vs the theft of milk or a soft drink is that the song is still there. It wasn't stolen, it was copied. If one stole a carton of milk, it would have to be replaced by another carton.

What the RIAA fails to grasp is that we live in the 21st century. Consumers are more aware of the workings of the recording industry and the profit sharing with musicians. Consumers have more options on which to spend their disposable income compared to 1989 with things like cellphones, computers, videogames, pay per views, dvds and so on. When I was a teenager, music was it, no internet, no dvds, no computers, videogames were crappy but owning an album was exciting. Their market share has definitely seen a reduction just from this change alone. Real estate is the single highest expenditure for people now so that affects disposable income. Education costs are significantly higher today than in the past too.

Combined with the fact that radio stations are monolithic drones playing the same mix cds day after day until the new Beyonce single makes you want to pull out your teeth isn't helping. The internet with places like myspace are the only way for people to find new and interesting music. And then as mentioned, if you want to find that particular cd, you can't since no one sells the damn thing.

History repeats itself as the entertainment industry condemned the sales of recording devices called betamax and VHS. It was the loss of revenue, stealing programming, blah, blah, blah. Well, guess what, 30 years later, the very recording technology they tried to shut down has led to bigger and greater profits, not less. DVD sales sometimes account for more money than the box office for some films. TV series reproduction on DVD is now a popular product among consumers. These studios have embraced what they once abhorred.

Many services provided by record companies like recording, distribution, marketing and funding are being rendered irrelevant by technology. This is why they are dying. Many of today's independent artists don't need the big conglomerates to make a living. The recording industry is a dinosaur which doesn't know it's about to go extinct. Successful bands like Arcade Fire and the Stars and so on don't even get played on mainstream radio. Independent artists are why music is interesting today not Nickelback or Beyonce. I don't even download that garbage nor would I purchase it.

One last point, I remember when Napster was this subtle thing on the internet which some people knew about and used. Average person had no clue but then the RIAA started bitching about it to the mainstream media. What happened next? It went from 10 million to 60 million users almost overnight and then kept growing. They were one of the catalysts for it's growth, not the people downloading. Downloading of music has had some effect on sales but it is hardly the single reason for the decline.

End of rant.
__________________

__________________
trevster2k 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 03:20 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