How to buy new album without giving money to RIAA?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
S

szuchy

The Fly
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Messages
78
I want to buy the new album and Itunes Box Set. But I don't want to give any money to the RIAA to potentially fund lawsuits against me and the people I know who download music. How can I compensate U2 for their efforts without doing this? Do they accept donations or checks at a certain address? I would much rather send them a check for $200 and download both items illegally if it means the RIAA can't profit from it.
 
Last edited:
szuchy - Just so you know, there are REAL people that work in the music industry, more behind the scenes, like me. Thanks for downloading and making it more difficult every day to make a living - I really appreciate it. It's not all multi-millionaire superstars in this business. The RIAA is just upholding laws that have always existed (albeit random and stupid at times).
 
womanfish said:
szuchy - Just so you know, there are REAL people that work in the music industry, more behind the scenes, like me. Thanks for downloading and making it more difficult every day to make a living - I really appreciate it. It's not all multi-millionaire superstars in this business. The RIAA is just upholding laws that have always existed (albeit random and stupid at times).
Click to expand...

:lmao: come on, the music industry is doing fine..... more albums are being sold now than 5 o 10 years ago, regardless of piracy.
 
grbounds said:


:lmao: come on, the music industry is doing fine..... more albums are being sold now than 5 o 10 years ago, regardless of piracy.
Click to expand...

Really... I thought it was doing worse...

Seriously though, people over-simplify things. RIAA, music industry, etc... there maybe the greedy artists, agents, lawyers, etc... however they all work for a living and also have underlings and other workers who work hard and don't make boatloads of money but depend on these organizations for their livelihood. Piracy does affect them with either lower wages or no jobs at all b/c companies care about the bottom line and being profitable.
 
Womanfish, thanks for the heads up. Honestly I had no fucking idea that real people worked in your field. I thought the music industry was run entirely by robots and farm animals.
 
Last edited:
szuchy said:
Womanfish, thanks for the heads up. Honestly I had no fucking idea that real people worked in your field. I had previously thought the music industry was run entirely by robots and farm animals.
Click to expand...

So what is your point... somebody who works in human resources or advertising or is a secretary for the RIAA or big corporate music label should be laughed at or the effect of priacy on their lives not be considered?
 
Piracy is not right, but neither is suing people for stupid reasons. All I know is that piracy does not necessarily take money from the record companies (because the downloader may never have bought the song anyway), but the lawsuits do take $3,000 dollars out of someone's pocket.

Not to mention both the lawsuits and the profit loss could have been avoided if the recording industry had taken its head out of its ass and realized that technology is changing the way people get their music. Obviously it's too late for them to do that now, but it's not too late for them to be a man about it and suck it up.
 
Last edited:
szuchy said:
Piracy is not right, but neither is suing people for stupid reasons. All I know is that piracy does not necessarily take money from the record companies (because the downloader may never have bought the song anyway), but the lawsuits do take $3,000 dollars out of someone's pocket.

Not to mention both the lawsuits and the profit loss could have been avoided if the recording industry had taken its head out of its ass and realized that technology is changing the way people get their music. Obviously it's too late for them to do that now, but it's not too late for them to be a man about it and suck it up.
Click to expand...

I think the suing thing is overdone but within their right and IMO it probably has affected the whole download culture to some degree. The RIAA aren't really losing anything when they sue, if I understand correctly...

Business is business. labels and manufacturerers have a lot invested in the current system that they have (CDs, DVDs, etc). To change the industry in such a huge way isn't as easy as it seems, otherwise the CD would have been replaced by another form digital media a long time ago in the United States.

Hell, take that same logic to people who work in manufacturing or are a part of labor unions, see how it pans out.
 
It's within their right to sue people for downloading music, but it's also within my right to avoid giving money to an industry that messed up, and then took out its woes on the little guy. That is why I want to buy U2's music without giving anything to the RIAA.

Will that make it harder for behind the scenes workers like womanfish to make a living? Yes. But much like the behind the scenes workers in the horse & buggy industry who got screwed by the advent of the car, there's not much you can do about it. I have sympathy for people like womanfish up until the point when they realize they are part of a dying industry, yet do nothing about it. Leave and find another job. If you are a talented musician, then you will have no problem putting food on the table. If you are just doing desk work, then you can find something that requires similar skills, outside of the music industry. If you refuse to do this, then you are in denial, and I have no qualms about making your life more difficult.
 
Last edited:
But U2 and almost every band you hear on the radio and even those you don't support the current system, which is the RIAA... Be it whole heartedly or half-heartedly. People rail against the system but it is in place IMO b/c established artists do not want to unite against it (benefit from it) and don't give a shit.
 
You can avoid any money going to the RIAA if you buy an actual copy of the new album, not a download of it, from any foreign country. You can get the UK pressing from HMV.co.uk or Amazon.co.uk, A Canadian copy from HMV.com or an Australia copy form Soundworld or other online companies. By doing this, none of you money will go to the RIAA and you also avoid having that ugly FBI warning stamped on the back of your cd cover. I noticed Pearl Jam avoided having this on their new greatest hits cd by having the FBI warning only as a sticker on the plastic wrap.
 
It used to be the industry that set the standards. When the industry started selling cd's people started bying cd-players and so on. Nowadays the industry try to sell cd's, when everyone else has moved on to mp3-players. A sleeping giant, they have been.
 
szuchy said:
It's within their right to sue people for downloading music, but it's also within my right to avoid giving money to an industry that messed up, and then took out its woes on the little guy. That is why I want to buy U2's music without giving anything to the RIAA.

Will that make it harder for behind the scenes workers like womanfish to make a living? Yes. But much like the behind the scenes workers in the horse & buggy industry who got screwed by the advent of the car, there's not much you can do about it. I have sympathy for people like womanfish up until the point when they realize they are part of a dying industry, yet do nothing about it. Leave and find another job. If you are a talented musician, then you will have no problem putting food on the table. If you are just doing desk work, then you can find something that requires similar skills, outside of the music industry. If you refuse to do this, then you are in denial, and I have no qualms about making your life more difficult.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, I guess I'll go and record and mix albums for my local bank. LOL.

I agree that the music industry needs to grow and change, and it is slowly starting to move. I am in a position where I have no choice to "do something about it". I don't work at a label or distribution company where choices for how to get music to the people takes place. I just help get the music on tape, and hopefully make it sound good.

It just bothers me that people have the mindset that it's ok to steal cause they can get away with it. I don't care if people download to check out new stuff and discover new bands. But to download an entire album that you know you would normally buy if it weren't available for free, then it does hurt everyone in the business, but especially the ones at the bottom, foundational level.

So I'm glad you want to get money to U2, I understand not liking RIAA. I hope that you do support the bands that you like. Hopefully there will be more sensible ways in the future to uphold the laws protecting the art.
 
Last edited:
If I may say something ?

If the RIAA wants to stop file sharing to a limited amount as a consumer this is what I see as steps.

1#LOWER YOUR PRODUCT PRICE!(I mean you go into a target and pay 12 to 14 for a cd ok but you go to Virgin 20 dollars or more sometimes! the same way with ITUNES and other legal mp3 sites 1.99 a bit high for a single mp3

2#If you half to go after file sharers usually you scan the files to see what program was used to rip it etc that and if the mp3 is new enough that say it hasnt been available for legal dl yet.

Sadly there is not any real way to get money to the band and skip over the RIAA.
 
You can purchase the CD in Canada, we don't have an RIAA. In fact, it's not illegal to copy music for personal use and/or sharing. It's only illegal to resell the copies.
 
Womanfish: Is your salary based on the number of sales for a CD or are you paid salary by a company who would be hurt by piracy and therefore possibly lay off workers as a result?

I can't imagine the bottom employees in the music industry see any difference in pay if an album their company releases sells 2000 copies or 5 million copies (with the exception of layoffs resulting from poor sales of course).

My knowledge of the employee heirarchy of the music industry is squat though.
 
Noopie said:
Womanfish: Is your salary based on the number of sales for a CD or are you paid salary by a company who would be hurt by piracy and therefore possibly lay off workers as a result?

I can't imagine the bottom employees in the music industry see any difference in pay if an album their company releases sells 2000 copies or 5 million copies (with the exception of layoffs resulting from poor sales of course).

My knowledge of the employee heirarchy of the music industry is squat though.
Click to expand...

I know this isn't always the case but who wants to work at a company that isn't doing well and just picks up a paycheck. Generally, the better a company does, the better chances for promotions, larger bonuses, higher salary... company does shit... layoffs baby - especially for huge companies...
 
Why not protest the RIAA in ways that your voice can actually be heard? Write letters, start a website, or join other advocates out there and meanwhile buy from Canada or overseas. It may not feel like your voice is being heard, but it's sure more proactive than just complaining here!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MrsSpringsteen
Bono Wants One Campaign To Be NRA For The World's Poor
Replies
2
Views
607
lazarus
lazarus
LemonMelon
Desert Island XI - QUARANTINE ISLAND - Group 2 Listening Thread
4 5 6
Replies
175
Views
6K
namkcuR
N
A
The little stranger Chapter 6
Replies
0
Views
550
annj
A
A
The little stranger chapter 10
Replies
0
Views
675
annj
A
A
The Little stranger chapter 1
Replies
0
Views
979
annj
A

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom