RIAA demanding college students pay $3000 because of downloading - Page 4 - 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, 11:57 AM   #46
The Fly
 
Chris Martin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 105
Local Time: 03:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by trevster2k
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.
__________________

__________________
Chris Martin is offline  
Old 03-10-2007, 12:20 PM   #47
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
beau2ifulday's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Birmingham, UK
Posts: 5,512
Local Time: 03:36 AM
I don't see anything wrong with what the RIAA are doing. Nothing at all. I can make up any number of excuses to justify why I have downloaded songs illegally, but they're just that, really... excuses.
__________________

__________________
beau2ifulday is offline  
Old 03-10-2007, 12:32 PM   #48
Refugee
 
toscano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,032
Local Time: 08:36 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Martin
What kind of music is your son's band playing?
unfortunately, death metal. But he listens to a lot of other stuff, his first "real" concert was U2, I don't think he'll be doing that much longer. The other kids are hardcore maetal fans and ONLY listen to metal, he listens to a lot of other stuff and is actually serious about his playing - fingers crossed, as long as his grades remain good I'll keep paying.....
__________________
toscano is offline  
Old 03-10-2007, 12:37 PM   #49
Refugee
 
toscano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,032
Local Time: 08:36 PM
Theft of a milk carton doesn't hurt the milk producer, only the retailer. It's an analogy only to shoplifting.

Illegal downloading is stealing from multiple people. The retailer doesn't get a sale, the artist doesn't get paid, etc. Having said that, I'm as guilty as the next person. One can make the argument that the artist is getting more exposure, more likely to sell concert tickets, etc. But it's still illegal. Used to be Records/CD's were where money was made, and touring was to sell the records. Nowadays touring is where the money because they don't sell many CD's. Something to think about next time you gripe about ticket prices while downloading music you have no intention of paying for.
__________________
toscano is offline  
Old 03-10-2007, 01:03 PM   #50
Blue Crack Addict
 
Irishteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 29,624
Local Time: 04:36 AM
Some people need to realise that downloading a song from something like Limewire is a lot different from someone making a tape and sending it to you. If you're on MSN/AIM etc. and someone says "you've got to hear this song" and sends you a MP3, that is comparable to getting a tape, but unless the person who gave you the tapes, also gave tapes to thousands of others as well, then it is not the same.

I hear people tell me, their downloading doesn't affect the music industry, but it's not just them doing it, it's millions of people, it adds up because as someone pointed out a lot of people aren't just looking for a song they heard on the radio that was okay, they are trying to download entire albums and NEVER plan on buying them.

Oh and could people stop thinking the artists are rich enough, it's just jealousy , come on if you could make 2 million, 1 million, 10 thousand or nothing off something you done, which would you prefer? If you could sell 10 million albums, sell out 60,000 capacity stadiums wouldn't you want to? Or would you be thinking "No, I'm making enough money, no one should pay me for it"? eh no you wouldn't
__________________
Irishteen is offline  
Old 03-10-2007, 01:08 PM   #51
Refugee
 
adrball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Nightclub in Tripoli
Posts: 1,733
Local Time: 04:36 AM
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)
Quote:
Originally posted by adrball
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
Sharing with friends is NOT OK. Re... copying for personal use, I'm glad to say that this law has recently been removed in the UK.

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

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.
Quote:
Originally posted by adrball
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.
Same point.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally posted by toscana
I'd love to know how you came up with 50p (about 80c).
I hardly think that a mass producer of CDs will go down to their local Staples for blanks.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally posted by toscana

Theft of a milk carton doesn't hurt the milk producer, only the retailer. It's an analogy only to shoplifting.
A poor argument. Theft of milk prevents another person from obtaining it. Copying of music increases the amount out there for consumption and does not prevent another person from buying the music.

Sales of CDs have reduced at the same time that illegal downloading has increased. There may well be a very strong correlation between the two, but I seriously doubt that this is cause and effect to quite the degree the industry would like us to believe.



In the interest of clarity...I do not agree with illegal distribution/sharing. The RIAA have a just cause for prosecuting those that take part in unlawful activities. But I don't think that industry losses are that significant
__________________
adrball is offline  
Old 03-10-2007, 01:20 PM   #52
Refugee
 
toscano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,032
Local Time: 08:36 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by adrball





I hardly think that a mass producer of CDs will go down to their local Staples for blanks.
How did you come up with 50p ????

no, they won't get their blanks at Staples (neither di dI), nor did I hire expensive graphic artists to make th ecover, spend hundreds of thusands on studio time, publicity, advertising, printing, lawyers, managers, travel, etc.

Nor am I paying royalties to anyone.

So, where did you come up with 50p ??? It's a nice soundbite argument, but sorely lacking in any facts to back up.


Quote:
Originally posted by adrball


Theft of milk prevents another person from obtaining it. Copying of music increases the amount out there for consumption and does not prevent another person from buying the music.
theft of milk deprives only the retailer, unless there's a milk rationing program in effect. It does not take money from the milk producer. Ilelgal download takes money out of EVERYONE in the CD food chain, from artist on down to retailers.
__________________
toscano is offline  
Old 03-10-2007, 01:37 PM   #53
Blue Crack Addict
 
Lancemc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ba Sing Se
Posts: 17,665
Local Time: 11:36 PM
Just to clarify where I'm coming from, I don't download a ton of stuff. But my friends and I share a lot of music we discover individually, and the REALLY good stuff, I will buy legitimately. It's NO different from copying cassettes, which I bet nobody here had a problem with back in the 80's/90's.

And I never, NEVER said the RIAA was wrong in trying to stop illegal activity, I just said the way they're doing it sucks, and that if they ever want to get a real result, they're going to have to fully adapt and push the industry in the right direction, which is obviously digital distribution.

And listen, I spend WAY too much money on music. I spend way more than I can really afford on music. Because music is my passion, my life, and my career. So yeah, I have a lot of stuff I didn't pay for, but I still poured a shit load of money into the industry, probably more than most of you have done during the past year. And as a matter of fact, when I do get a free album from my friend, it's usually from an artist I've never heard of (so that I can discover them, and be like, Hey, yeah, these guys rock, now I'll go buy the rest of their albums and see them live and buy their overpriced merchandice at the show), or something like Radiohead's Com Lag EP, that you'd have to be a fucking moron to spend $40 on.
__________________
Lancemc is offline  
Old 03-10-2007, 01:57 PM   #54
Refugee
 
adrball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Nightclub in Tripoli
Posts: 1,733
Local Time: 04:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by toscano
How did you come up with 50p ????
http://edition.cnn.com/2001/SHOWBIZ/...ice/index.html

Quote:
Originally posted by toscano
theft of milk deprives only the retailer,
if the retailer can't sell the milk, then they won't buy it from the supplier...etc etc...and all the way back up the chain.

Quote:
Originally posted by toscano
download takes money out of EVERYONE in the CD food chain, from artist on down to retailers.
Only if I was going to buy it in the first place.
__________________
adrball is offline  
Old 03-10-2007, 01:58 PM   #55
Blue Crack Addict
 
Irishteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 29,624
Local Time: 04:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Lancemc
Just to clarify where I'm coming from, I don't download a ton of stuff. But my friends and I share a lot of music we discover individually, and the REALLY good stuff, I will buy legitimately. It's NO different from copying cassettes, which I bet nobody here had a problem with back in the 80's/90's.
I don't really think of this as a problem, what affects the music industry is not friends sharing amongst themselves but people sharing with millions of others on file-sharing sites, and you're right it is comparable to copying tapes.
__________________
Irishteen is offline  
Old 03-10-2007, 04:26 PM   #56
The Fly
 
Muminki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 86
Local Time: 04:36 AM
maybe my answer was not make sense ,

i meant say that i do not understand why people defending this industry. it is not supposed to be done. even if we hate that fact it is the truth and we can't skirt round the issue.
__________________
Muminki is offline  
Old 03-10-2007, 11:32 PM   #57
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,016
Local Time: 04:36 AM
have none of you ever encountered a person who - no matter what exactly you're looking or - is able to deliver any cd with artwork and all for a couple of euro, because this person downloads songs for free, downloads artwork or free and sells the entire package or very little?

cause I've met several people like that
I'm quite sure these are the people the RIAA would be most interested in in catching
and I do reckoned they go about it in a hal arsed way to catch these people, but I guess they've got to start something

I know most of us here use downloads as a way to discover more music to buy, but there's no denying the music business is in dire straits so someone somewhere must have less noble intentions
__________________
“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 03-11-2007, 06:00 AM   #58
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Canadiens1160
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
There is a technical reduction in sound quality, but not one that is noticed by most people. It is not the noticable reduction in sound quality you got with cassette taping.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 03-11-2007, 06:02 AM   #59
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by DaveC


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.




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.
Well, if someone was stealing the product or service you were selling, what would you do?
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 03-11-2007, 06:11 AM   #60
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Martin


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.
Most artist are not "major artist" that can make large sums or money on the road. Most new artist will struggle to make enough money to stay on the road. After the October tour, U2 made it back to Ireland with Paul McGuinness's credit card, which he had taken from him because he could not pay the bill. The decline in record company profits hits new artist in both album sales and their ability to tour.
__________________

__________________
STING2 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 10:36 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