RIAA demanding college students pay $3000 because of downloading - 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, 12:59 PM   #1
Blue Crack Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 17,927
Local Time: 08:57 AM
RIAA demanding college students pay $3000 because of downloading

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070309/...g_music_ohio_u

When are these A-holes going to just leave people alone? I don't even download, don't even know how. But every college kid does and it's not fair to make an example out of some just to scare everyone else in a Spanish Inquisition way. I think this will only make them less likely to want to buy CDs(which will hurt artists and more likely to find sneaky ways to download (been very succesful so far)

The RIAA is desperate. They realize that the recording industry as it was in the 20th century is dying a slow death. They cannot stop all downloading forever. With all the technology out there, people don't even need recording studios, or record companies to get CDs out. About the only people who need record companies are American Idol and boyband and pop diva types who can't get popular without the massive media campaigns the big industry is so good at. But it's only a matter of time. They are running scared, scared of losing their gold mine, but in the future I see many more self supporting independent artists, and more downloads. What do you think?
__________________

__________________
U2Kitten is offline  
Old 03-09-2007, 01:01 PM   #2
Blue Crack Addict
 
Lancemc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ba Sing Se
Posts: 17,664
Local Time: 09:57 AM
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.

__________________

__________________
Lancemc is offline  
Old 03-09-2007, 02:52 PM   #3
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
randhail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Outside Providence
Posts: 3,557
Local Time: 08:57 AM
So that's why my brother asked me for 3 grand the other day. It all makes so much sense now.
__________________
randhail is offline  
Old 03-09-2007, 02:59 PM   #4
Blue Crack Addict
 
Laura M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 18,932
Local Time: 02:57 PM
Re: RIAA demanding college students pay $3000 because of downloading

they are doing something illegal, i don't really see how you can say that there is something unfair about it.
__________________
Laura M is offline  
Old 03-09-2007, 03:16 PM   #5
Blue Crack Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 17,927
Local Time: 08:57 AM
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.
__________________
U2Kitten is offline  
Old 03-09-2007, 03:46 PM   #6
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Utoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lovetown
Posts: 8,343
Local Time: 09:57 AM
The real sign of this policy's impotence: Who here is going to stop downloading because of this article? My guess---no one.
__________________
Utoo is offline  
Old 03-09-2007, 03:55 PM   #7
Blue Crack Addict
 
DaveC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: illegitimi non carborundum
Posts: 17,388
Local Time: 08:57 AM
guyz

i am so scurrd of the riaa

that i'm gonna stop downloading tunes

and immediately send a cheque to every artist who's music i've ever downloaded

u2 and pink floyd are getting poor

the riaa has shown me the light

by suing college students and 12 year olds

the riaa are pr geniuses

for busting these heinous criminals

the courts are empty, there are too many judges and lawyers sitting idle

good on the riaa for giving them some important cases to work on

[Dave mode]

Wow, this is asinine. They're still trying to stop downloading? That's like trying to stop bears from shitting in the woods.
__________________
DaveC is online now  
Old 03-09-2007, 03:56 PM   #8
Blue Crack Addict
 
Irishteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 29,624
Local Time: 02:57 PM
I think they are going about this the wrong way, for me anyway being able to download music was one of the main things that led to me buying more of it, and getting fined 3,000 by the RIAA would discourage me from actually buying music rather than downloading.
__________________
Irishteen is offline  
Old 03-09-2007, 04:37 PM   #9
I serve MacPhisto
 
unforgettableFOXfire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 2,053
Local Time: 08:57 AM
The laws surrounding music and piracy are obsolete and need to be reworked. Corporations lobbying the government to support them only really serve to interfere with legitimate democratic process, and they do this to serve themselves -- yet if they really got down to it, they'd realise they're costing themselves more money by resisting a change that's already happened and not reworking their plans to capitalize on the new mode of doing business. The RIAA is a joke, and the laws it tries to defend are archaic and don't apply to contemporary living in the digital world.

And what are they really trying to punish? Love of music? People who want to know what they're getting before they spend $20 on it? Smart consumers? Seriously. Who spends $20 based on one single, when you're getting 10 other songs along with it? If people were willing to pay $20 per single, they'd have stuck with releasing singles -- but, not suprisingly, that venture proved unprofitable, even when they tried selling them for $5/disc.

The fact that the vast majority of bands earn a pittance through cd sales, only making their millions by touring, the industry is trying to protect its right to exploit artists. It isn't that the cost-of-doing business is increasing, it isn't that profits are decreasing, they continue to make a killing every year and they continue to report growth every year. This nonsense needs to change. I don't download music, even though in Canada I can do so without penalty as long as I don't upload (the RIAA can't touch me, so lol at them), but if I lived in the US I'd probably download all the time just out of spite for them. They're really the pot calling the kettle black when they call people criminals for 'taking money out of their pockets' when artists bust their asses to make decent albums and then the producers take 90% of their money. Hmph.
__________________
unforgettableFOXfire is offline  
Old 03-09-2007, 05:16 PM   #10
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:57 PM
Re: RIAA demanding college students pay $3000 because of downloading

Quote:
Originally posted by U2Kitten
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070309/...g_music_ohio_u

When are these A-holes going to just leave people alone? I don't even download, don't even know how. But every college kid does and it's not fair to make an example out of some just to scare everyone else in a Spanish Inquisition way. I think this will only make them less likely to want to buy CDs(which will hurt artists and more likely to find sneaky ways to download (been very succesful so far)

The RIAA is desperate. They realize that the recording industry as it was in the 20th century is dying a slow death. They cannot stop all downloading forever. With all the technology out there, people don't even need recording studios, or record companies to get CDs out. About the only people who need record companies are American Idol and boyband and pop diva types who can't get popular without the massive media campaigns the big industry is so good at. But it's only a matter of time. They are running scared, scared of losing their gold mine, but in the future I see many more self supporting independent artists, and more downloads. What do you think?
Not true at all. Every artist needs a record company if they want to sell enough albums to crack the top 100 of the Billboard charts in any given week.

Its true some artist can make a living selling CD's over the internet on their own website or at shows, but its unlikely they will ever become widely known or rich. But this has been always true to a certain degree. For the most part though, such artist will remain unknown to the vast majority of the general public unless they sign with a major label.

CD burning and various forms of internet downloading where the artist music is obtained without any noticed decrease in sound quality, is heavily cutting into the record industries sales. The technology has cut the number of albums that are being sold at all levels by almost 50% in only 6 years! The artist that are most hurt are not the veterans, but the new artist who are trying to develop. The veterans will continue to sell albums because they have a fan base, typically an older fan base that is use to going to the store and purchasing an album.

Bono at the Rock Hall Of Fame awards said that U2 would not have made it past their 2nd album if they were starting out today. Its tougher to make it in the industry today and if an artist has sales like U2 did initially for the October album, they get dropped from the record label. Profits are down and there simply is not enough money to give support to many of the artist that need the money, time and other resources to establish themselves in the business.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 03-09-2007, 05:23 PM   #11
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:57 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.
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.

Cassette taping did not impact the music industry, it continued to grow and grow. CD burning, File sharing and other forms of downloading have cut the music industry in half in only 6 years time.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 03-09-2007, 05:27 PM   #12
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:57 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irishteen
I think they are going about this the wrong way, for me anyway being able to download music was one of the main things that led to me buying more of it, and getting fined 3,000 by the RIAA would discourage me from actually buying music rather than downloading.
That may be the case for some people and dedicated fans, but most other people don't buy something that they can obtain for FREE.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 03-09-2007, 05:29 PM   #13
Blue Crack Addict
 
Laura M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 18,932
Local Time: 02:57 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2Kitten
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?

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.
there is a difference between getting tracks illegally and downloading through a site where you pay for the tracks though, isn't there?

i'm not saying what they're doing is going to make any difference and i'm not talking about rock stars being broke or how many cds people can and can't afford.

the article you gave the link to was talking about illegal downloading, so i don't understand how can you disagree with that fact and say it isn't really illegal and unfair that some people are punished
__________________
Laura M is offline  
Old 03-09-2007, 05:32 PM   #14
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Utoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lovetown
Posts: 8,343
Local Time: 09:57 AM
I don't think anyone's challenging the fact that it's illegal...just the notion that it should be illegal
__________________
Utoo is offline  
Old 03-09-2007, 05:41 PM   #15
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:57 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by ~unforgettableFOXfire~
The laws surrounding music and piracy are obsolete and need to be reworked. Corporations lobbying the government to support them only really serve to interfere with legitimate democratic process, and they do this to serve themselves -- yet if they really got down to it, they'd realise they're costing themselves more money by resisting a change that's already happened and not reworking their plans to capitalize on the new mode of doing business. The RIAA is a joke, and the laws it tries to defend are archaic and don't apply to contemporary living in the digital world.

And what are they really trying to punish? Love of music? People who want to know what they're getting before they spend $20 on it? Smart consumers? Seriously. Who spends $20 based on one single, when you're getting 10 other songs along with it? If people were willing to pay $20 per single, they'd have stuck with releasing singles -- but, not suprisingly, that venture proved unprofitable, even when they tried selling them for $5/disc.

The fact that the vast majority of bands earn a pittance through cd sales, only making their millions by touring, the industry is trying to protect its right to exploit artists. It isn't that the cost-of-doing business is increasing, it isn't that profits are decreasing, they continue to make a killing every year and they continue to report growth every year. This nonsense needs to change. I don't download music, even though in Canada I can do so without penalty as long as I don't upload (the RIAA can't touch me, so lol at them), but if I lived in the US I'd probably download all the time just out of spite for them. They're really the pot calling the kettle black when they call people criminals for 'taking money out of their pockets' when artists bust their asses to make decent albums and then the producers take 90% of their money. Hmph.
Profits are down and the number of CD's being sold at every level in almost any given week has been cut in half in just 6 years. The ability to obtain new music for FREE hurts new artist the most. Typcially, only veteran artist make huge sums of money on the road, while new artist struggle to pay for the tour without going into debt.

Back in 1982, U2's record label did not put up any money to support the spring leg of their tour in the USA. This forced them to be a support band for the J. Geils Band on their Freeze Frame Tour. U2 had no money at the end of the tour, and were only able to get back to Ireland with Paul McGuiness's Credit Card which he was unable to pay off as well. Hell, guess who payed for The Edge's wedding at the end of the War Tour, The Edge's father in law. U2 did not start to make money in the industry until 1984.

New artist had it tough back then, but there was enough money to continue to give them another try if the previous album failed to sell, or only had marginal sales. Today, if your first or second album does not sell, you get dropped from the label, period.

The whole idea that these people are ALL rich and the industry does not need any more money is total rubbish. Its a business. Like any other business, when you experience such a sharp decrease in sales, profits drop, people are laid off, and artist get cut from the roster. Like at any business going through lay offs, its usually the new people that are the first to go. The Veterans with a proven sales track record are retained.
__________________

__________________
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 08:57 AM.


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