RIAA site hacked
- Thread starter hiphop
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
sharky
New Yorker
saw it, laughed my ass off. stupid riaa
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
I'm an idiot. I can't figure out what the hackers did to the site now. I guess they fixed it, huh?
BigMacPhisto
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2002
- Messages
- 6,351
Ah! I would have loved to see this. Could you give me the rundown of what was on it?
daisybean
Rock n' Roll Doggie, FOB
what did they do?
OP
OP
hiphop
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
It is still being controlled by the crew.
Second approach is more subtle... some don?t realize
Click www.riaa.com, then news, then "a new vision for the recording industry"... its neat.
quote:
A New Vision for the Recording Industry
The past year has been one of the worst in the previous decade for the music industry. While factors beyond our control, such as the down-turn in the American economy, have no doubt contributed to this, the industry itself can certain not completely escape blame. In an attempt correct this, representatives from our member labels recently met to discuss ways of reforming the industry. The result of the meeting was a set of changes to current policies, outlined below, which, when implemented, we hope will pull the industry out of its current slump.
Our member labels will halt all plans to sell copy-restricted CDs. Restricting the use of CDs devalues the product, reducing the incentive for consumers to buy them. Also we believe that as time goes on, the public will realize, as we have, that due to the viral natural of distribution through file-sharing networks copy-restriction will never be effective at preventing online piracy but rather is indented to force our customers to buy the same music on multiple media.
We also vow to stop pursuing the companies behind file-sharing networks in court. In light of studies by reputable pollsters that have shown that most users of file-sharing networks reported that their music purchases increased in frequency, there seems to be little reason to continue spending millions in an attempt to shut down these services. Instead, we plan to propose to settle out of court in exchange for a royalty system based on a fraction of profit (only fair, given that these profits are derived in part from our products).
We will also stop lobbying politicians to impose draconian copyright laws on the American people. Last June, Rep. Rick Berman, who received more campaign donations from the entertainment industry than any other Congressperson, proposed legislation that would exempt rights-holders from anti-hacking law in order that they might exact vigilante-style justice on file-sharers. Initially we were thrilled at the display of the political might of our money, but later were sickened as we realized the implications for democracy in America. Morally, we cannot continue this manipulation of the political system.
In addition to the reasons just given, we also are doing both of the above, halting the lawsuits against the companies file-sharing services and stopping our coercive political contributions, in an attempt to restore consumer confidence in the music industry. Our customers will know longer will feel guilty after buying a CD, now knowing that the proceeds from their purchases will not be used to support causes that harm them and their peers.
To further convince consumers that the proceeds from their music purchases are well spent, we will be attempting to treat our talent more fairly. At the core of this effort will be the halting of collusion between labels on recording contracts. While overlooked by anti-trust law, the elimination of competition caused by collusion is just as harmful to the producers of content as it is to the consumers. No longer will artists be forced into signing contracts which reduce artist''s royalties for a multitude of arbitrary or antiquated reasons for if any label attempts such abuse, they''ll be certain to lose their talent to a competitor. We believe that this can be undertaken without damaging industry profitability. Firstly, the previously mentioned reduced legal and political expenditures will help to offset the cost. Secondly, we plan fix the sobering statistic that nine out of ten industry ventures end up failing recovering their costs. This figure would be unacceptable outside the entertainment industry and, while it was viable inside it due to the abuse of artists, there is no reason it should not be possible to vastly improve upon it.
Finally, we promise to stop trying to brainwash the world into thinking of music as property, something that an artist has an innate right to control, even after the media that embodies that music has changed hands. Rather, we will recognized only the original goal of copyright law in America, to benefit the average citizen by creating a incentive to produce creative works. We will also launch a publicity campaign to remind the public of this principle, unknown to many. We hope that upon learning that the true purpose of copyright law is to benefit them, average citizens will be more likely to respect it.
It is our hope that these policy changes will revitalize the industry and make it deserving of the unique place it holds within American culture.
Second approach is more subtle... some don?t realize
Click www.riaa.com, then news, then "a new vision for the recording industry"... its neat.
quote:
A New Vision for the Recording Industry
The past year has been one of the worst in the previous decade for the music industry. While factors beyond our control, such as the down-turn in the American economy, have no doubt contributed to this, the industry itself can certain not completely escape blame. In an attempt correct this, representatives from our member labels recently met to discuss ways of reforming the industry. The result of the meeting was a set of changes to current policies, outlined below, which, when implemented, we hope will pull the industry out of its current slump.
Our member labels will halt all plans to sell copy-restricted CDs. Restricting the use of CDs devalues the product, reducing the incentive for consumers to buy them. Also we believe that as time goes on, the public will realize, as we have, that due to the viral natural of distribution through file-sharing networks copy-restriction will never be effective at preventing online piracy but rather is indented to force our customers to buy the same music on multiple media.
We also vow to stop pursuing the companies behind file-sharing networks in court. In light of studies by reputable pollsters that have shown that most users of file-sharing networks reported that their music purchases increased in frequency, there seems to be little reason to continue spending millions in an attempt to shut down these services. Instead, we plan to propose to settle out of court in exchange for a royalty system based on a fraction of profit (only fair, given that these profits are derived in part from our products).
We will also stop lobbying politicians to impose draconian copyright laws on the American people. Last June, Rep. Rick Berman, who received more campaign donations from the entertainment industry than any other Congressperson, proposed legislation that would exempt rights-holders from anti-hacking law in order that they might exact vigilante-style justice on file-sharers. Initially we were thrilled at the display of the political might of our money, but later were sickened as we realized the implications for democracy in America. Morally, we cannot continue this manipulation of the political system.
In addition to the reasons just given, we also are doing both of the above, halting the lawsuits against the companies file-sharing services and stopping our coercive political contributions, in an attempt to restore consumer confidence in the music industry. Our customers will know longer will feel guilty after buying a CD, now knowing that the proceeds from their purchases will not be used to support causes that harm them and their peers.
To further convince consumers that the proceeds from their music purchases are well spent, we will be attempting to treat our talent more fairly. At the core of this effort will be the halting of collusion between labels on recording contracts. While overlooked by anti-trust law, the elimination of competition caused by collusion is just as harmful to the producers of content as it is to the consumers. No longer will artists be forced into signing contracts which reduce artist''s royalties for a multitude of arbitrary or antiquated reasons for if any label attempts such abuse, they''ll be certain to lose their talent to a competitor. We believe that this can be undertaken without damaging industry profitability. Firstly, the previously mentioned reduced legal and political expenditures will help to offset the cost. Secondly, we plan fix the sobering statistic that nine out of ten industry ventures end up failing recovering their costs. This figure would be unacceptable outside the entertainment industry and, while it was viable inside it due to the abuse of artists, there is no reason it should not be possible to vastly improve upon it.
Finally, we promise to stop trying to brainwash the world into thinking of music as property, something that an artist has an innate right to control, even after the media that embodies that music has changed hands. Rather, we will recognized only the original goal of copyright law in America, to benefit the average citizen by creating a incentive to produce creative works. We will also launch a publicity campaign to remind the public of this principle, unknown to many. We hope that upon learning that the true purpose of copyright law is to benefit them, average citizens will be more likely to respect it.
It is our hope that these policy changes will revitalize the industry and make it deserving of the unique place it holds within American culture.
Last edited:
daisybean
Rock n' Roll Doggie, FOB
Popmartijn
Blue Crack Supplier
whenhiphopdrovethebigcars said:
The sad thing about this statement is that, while it was put on the site by some crackers, it is largely true. Only, the music industry is still not accepting that they are destroying their own investments! As reported, file-sharing (Napster, Gnutella, Kazaa, Morpheus, etc.) does increase music spending (2000 was the year Napster went in overdrive. It was also the year the music industry had its highest revenue). Nurturing talent does create a longlevity and constant stream of revenue to a label and has more success than trying to hit it big with some manufactured pop act (Coldplay were signed on expectations of selling around 50,000 copies of their debut album. Parachutes has sold more than 5 million). And many are generally more willing to pay for music if they know the artist gets his share of royalties and if they (= the consumers) are not treated as criminals.
Still, I'm addicted to buying CD's...
C ya!
Marty
Despite the poor economy, I do think that file sharing hurts the music business and that consumers who use file sharing simply want to find anyway to justify their actions which are essentially stealing. I have friends that no longer by CDs anymore because they can get perfect digital copies of the CDs they want with no reduction in sound quality. They can also print out the art work for the album cover and everything and essentially make a virtual copy of what you would buy in the store. Bottom line, there is no incentive for them to buy CDs at the store anymore when they can get them for free. Its easy to see how this will hurt artist who are struggling to make it in the industry. The only way the industry will survive long term is through CD encryption.
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
OMG, there's no way the RIAA would actually write this.
sharky
New Yorker
The original hack also included links to file sharing sites.
As for the file debate, what's the difference between copying a song off the Internet and sitting in front of your stereo with a blank tape constantly taping songs off the radio.
If the record industry is hurting so much, how were they able to sell 4 million copies of Avril Lavigne's album? 5 million 8 Mile soundtracks? The record industry cares way to much about making a quick buck and not enough on cultivating an act. And when the boy band phenomenon starts to fizzle, they blame file sharing.
And what if I want to buy a CD and transfer it in to MP3 for my own personal use like an MP3 player.
Two cases to consider:
Sony Corp. vs. Universal City Studios (1984) which stated that if you buy a VCR and want to record a show to watch at a later time you have a right to, even if the show is copyrighted by a studio.
The case
The second case involves a teen that hacked the copy protection on DVDs. A court ruled that once he bought the product, he could do what he wanted with it, including hacking the copy protection code to view DVDs on a Linux-based computer for his own purpose.
the story
As for the file debate, what's the difference between copying a song off the Internet and sitting in front of your stereo with a blank tape constantly taping songs off the radio.
If the record industry is hurting so much, how were they able to sell 4 million copies of Avril Lavigne's album? 5 million 8 Mile soundtracks? The record industry cares way to much about making a quick buck and not enough on cultivating an act. And when the boy band phenomenon starts to fizzle, they blame file sharing.
And what if I want to buy a CD and transfer it in to MP3 for my own personal use like an MP3 player.
Two cases to consider:
Sony Corp. vs. Universal City Studios (1984) which stated that if you buy a VCR and want to record a show to watch at a later time you have a right to, even if the show is copyrighted by a studio.
The case
The second case involves a teen that hacked the copy protection on DVDs. A court ruled that once he bought the product, he could do what he wanted with it, including hacking the copy protection code to view DVDs on a Linux-based computer for his own purpose.
the story
OP
OP
hiphop
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Funny, I didn?t expect the start of a file sharing debate here.
STING2: File sharing doesn?t hurt the MI at all. It could have been the ultimative promo.
STING2: File sharing doesn?t hurt the MI at all. It could have been the ultimative promo.
#1 Home taping with cassettes either from radio or CD or other cassette cannot be compared to the file sharing and burning of CDs which does not suffer from any degradation of quality in the process. Thats the key difference and a major reason why its so popular and having an effect on the music industry. Album sales are down by 10% from last year, a massive drop. The fact that there are artist that are immune out there to these effects at this point is not relevant. It is easy to see what could happen if things continue in this direction.
This is about the right of someone to be able to sell and profit from a product they have created. If I were able to duplicate any product or service on the planet and then offer it for free, I would have the capability to destroy any business on the planet.
Thats not fair and will hurt new music. What incentive will new artist have to try and make it in the music business if there is a dramatically smaller possibility that they will be able to make any profit.
I don't wan't to see gifted musicians and people robbed of the profits of their hard work. If you think that the new music that comes out now is bad, wait to you have 10 years of file sharing with nothing to defend against it. There is no point in most people going out and purchasing a product if in a few years at the click of a mouse, they can get it for free. There is no point in new musicians and artist pursuing a career in the music business if there is no profit. The result will be that new talent will dry up and will be left with a group of popular older artist who are immune from everything and have large devoted fan bases who will buy anything their favorite artist come out with. But even they will sell less than they use to.
The recording industry has played a vital role in bringing many great artist over the years to millions of people. There is no substitute for their ability to promote and finance and distribute and artist around the world. Without the help of Island Records, we may never of had the opportunity to hear U2.
This is about the right of someone to be able to sell and profit from a product they have created. If I were able to duplicate any product or service on the planet and then offer it for free, I would have the capability to destroy any business on the planet.
Thats not fair and will hurt new music. What incentive will new artist have to try and make it in the music business if there is a dramatically smaller possibility that they will be able to make any profit.
I don't wan't to see gifted musicians and people robbed of the profits of their hard work. If you think that the new music that comes out now is bad, wait to you have 10 years of file sharing with nothing to defend against it. There is no point in most people going out and purchasing a product if in a few years at the click of a mouse, they can get it for free. There is no point in new musicians and artist pursuing a career in the music business if there is no profit. The result will be that new talent will dry up and will be left with a group of popular older artist who are immune from everything and have large devoted fan bases who will buy anything their favorite artist come out with. But even they will sell less than they use to.
The recording industry has played a vital role in bringing many great artist over the years to millions of people. There is no substitute for their ability to promote and finance and distribute and artist around the world. Without the help of Island Records, we may never of had the opportunity to hear U2.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
Sting,
I was a wee boy in the 60s, I remember the 70s, 80s and 90s very well.
I have always liked and listened to music. As a boy 9,10 years old I would take my dad?s radio he used to listen to the Dodgers, (Sandy Kofax and Don Drysdale were his favorites) to bed with me to listen to early rock.
There is some truth in many of the things you say. As more time goes on the labels become less and less relevant. CD sales are down because they are offering us crap.
Avril is crap, she is the next big thing? There was once a need for labels they have made themselves obsolete.
Give Gordon Sumner an acoustic guitar and let him sing in Roxanne or Spirits in a Material World in a coffee house in L. A or N. Y. That is all it would take for him to be on his way being a number one artist.
Why? Not because of marketing by labels, but because his music is that powerful.
This actually is a true story, for Beck Hanson (Beck)
If artist want to make the big bucks they should do soundtracks like Randy Newman, Danny Elfman.
They can license their songs for commercials for the almighty dollar, also.
If they want to make money from CD sales they should give the customer more than mp3s can.
Cds suck, the packaging everything about them. They are way overpriced. The artist does not get very much of the money.
Two labels gave something like 30 million and 50 million to Mariah Carey? What the f*ck for?
These are the people we should be grateful to? Their day is over!
I was a wee boy in the 60s, I remember the 70s, 80s and 90s very well.
I have always liked and listened to music. As a boy 9,10 years old I would take my dad?s radio he used to listen to the Dodgers, (Sandy Kofax and Don Drysdale were his favorites) to bed with me to listen to early rock.
There is some truth in many of the things you say. As more time goes on the labels become less and less relevant. CD sales are down because they are offering us crap.
Avril is crap, she is the next big thing? There was once a need for labels they have made themselves obsolete.
Give Gordon Sumner an acoustic guitar and let him sing in Roxanne or Spirits in a Material World in a coffee house in L. A or N. Y. That is all it would take for him to be on his way being a number one artist.
Why? Not because of marketing by labels, but because his music is that powerful.
This actually is a true story, for Beck Hanson (Beck)
If artist want to make the big bucks they should do soundtracks like Randy Newman, Danny Elfman.
They can license their songs for commercials for the almighty dollar, also.
If they want to make money from CD sales they should give the customer more than mp3s can.
Cds suck, the packaging everything about them. They are way overpriced. The artist does not get very much of the money.
Two labels gave something like 30 million and 50 million to Mariah Carey? What the f*ck for?
These are the people we should be grateful to? Their day is over!
bonoman
Refugee
Well the RIAA wont accept the fact that this is best thing to ever happen to them. They cant see past that people arent buying their cds. This is such a great means of publicity, and for them not to try to utilze it is dumbfounding.
I d/l music, and i burn cds. Though i would have NEVER bought any of these cds regardless if they were free or for sale. I have found alot of music that i love in the past few years but i wouldnt have ever found them going out and buying a cd for 20-25 dollars because i dont have the money to buy the cds. But now that i know whats on them and i know i love that music i go and buy the cd. I have bought the whole catoulogs of led zeppelin, rolling stones, Simon and Garfunkel, beatles, tom petty, pink floyd. Though not many of these artists still put out records they are great.
You know why the music industry had a 10% loss last year. Because the music industry is shit and there isnt any artists out there worth paying 20$ for. I am sorry but music is to commercialized and way too watered down. Maybe if they were to relize this and change it the music industry would still make gains every year. Avril will only make another albulm then see will get replaced. They have to try and make a artist to be appealing for years and years. Bon Jovi, Rem, U2 these are only a few that made it out of the 80's, and they wonder why sales decline. They need to take care of artists and bands and put them on the path for long carrers so their fan base get very big.
Dont blame us we dont want to buy the shit your selling, we want one or two songs from your album and we arent willing to pay 20$ for it. Go out and make records we want to listen to again and again and meybe we'll buy some.
I d/l music, and i burn cds. Though i would have NEVER bought any of these cds regardless if they were free or for sale. I have found alot of music that i love in the past few years but i wouldnt have ever found them going out and buying a cd for 20-25 dollars because i dont have the money to buy the cds. But now that i know whats on them and i know i love that music i go and buy the cd. I have bought the whole catoulogs of led zeppelin, rolling stones, Simon and Garfunkel, beatles, tom petty, pink floyd. Though not many of these artists still put out records they are great.
You know why the music industry had a 10% loss last year. Because the music industry is shit and there isnt any artists out there worth paying 20$ for. I am sorry but music is to commercialized and way too watered down. Maybe if they were to relize this and change it the music industry would still make gains every year. Avril will only make another albulm then see will get replaced. They have to try and make a artist to be appealing for years and years. Bon Jovi, Rem, U2 these are only a few that made it out of the 80's, and they wonder why sales decline. They need to take care of artists and bands and put them on the path for long carrers so their fan base get very big.
Dont blame us we dont want to buy the shit your selling, we want one or two songs from your album and we arent willing to pay 20$ for it. Go out and make records we want to listen to again and again and meybe we'll buy some.
sharky said:
Isn't that the truth? The fall of Britney Spears and the boy bands both rose and fell much like their ill-fated predecessors (remember New Kids on the Block?) in the days before the commercialized internet and file sharing. File sharing is just a convenient scapegoat for the fact that music has fallen flat in terms of talent and creativity.
Melon
sharky
New Yorker
Bonoman has a point which the recording industry picked up on surprisingly. There are some New artists that the labels have tried to promote by selling their CDs for $9.99. In the case of The Vines, it put them within the top ten album sales its debut week and it was the band's debut album. People will buy albums when they are priced reasonably.
As for ripping CDs, if I want to transfer a CD to MP3 files to make it easier to transport music on a laptop during a business trip or an MP3 player when I ride the subway, why shouldn't I have that right? I bought the copyrighted product for my own use.
And as for ripping off artists, that's the label not me. If you look at a band's assets, you will see that artists don't make money off of their CDs. In fact, in some cases they only get a penny a song which would be 15 cents an album. [the rest goes to the record company]. Bands make most of their money touring when they take a larger chunk of profits from the sale of tickets and shirts that the label doesn't have a hand in.
As for ripping CDs, if I want to transfer a CD to MP3 files to make it easier to transport music on a laptop during a business trip or an MP3 player when I ride the subway, why shouldn't I have that right? I bought the copyrighted product for my own use.
And as for ripping off artists, that's the label not me. If you look at a band's assets, you will see that artists don't make money off of their CDs. In fact, in some cases they only get a penny a song which would be 15 cents an album. [the rest goes to the record company]. Bands make most of their money touring when they take a larger chunk of profits from the sale of tickets and shirts that the label doesn't have a hand in.
Hawk269
Acrobat
sharky,
You made some very interesting points. People often do not realize that selling CD's is not very profitable for the artists. Record companies keep most of the profits, which is why we often see artists suing their labels after they feel slighted.
Your point about touring being the real money maker was exactly right. Even U2, who happen to have an amazing record contract with Polygram, makes far more money from the $150 Gold Circle tickets than any $15 CD. There has to be a fundamental shift in the paradigm of the music business, where artists view touring as their primary revenue source, instead of the quick dollar from the hit single. Online music destroys the incentive to utilize just one catchy pop song to launch a career because when an artist has only one good song, people will simply download it, instead of wasting their money on a CD with 12 tracks of filler.
Also, to have a great live act, an artist must be able to offer more than one great song and the musical talent to be able to perform without excessive studio production. Thus, such a shift toward touring would result in both a better overall musical product (i.e., a CD with more than one good song is of higher value and more worthy of the price), and more money for talented artists who are able to play well live.
Ultimately, a live show experience cannot be duplicated, no matter how well the recording equipment functions. There is an element of presence that even virtual reality cannot yet match.
It is my hope that the current trend toward online music forces the business to move in the direction of touring, lowering CD prices, and promoting bands with real talent.
AJ
You made some very interesting points. People often do not realize that selling CD's is not very profitable for the artists. Record companies keep most of the profits, which is why we often see artists suing their labels after they feel slighted.
Your point about touring being the real money maker was exactly right. Even U2, who happen to have an amazing record contract with Polygram, makes far more money from the $150 Gold Circle tickets than any $15 CD. There has to be a fundamental shift in the paradigm of the music business, where artists view touring as their primary revenue source, instead of the quick dollar from the hit single. Online music destroys the incentive to utilize just one catchy pop song to launch a career because when an artist has only one good song, people will simply download it, instead of wasting their money on a CD with 12 tracks of filler.
Also, to have a great live act, an artist must be able to offer more than one great song and the musical talent to be able to perform without excessive studio production. Thus, such a shift toward touring would result in both a better overall musical product (i.e., a CD with more than one good song is of higher value and more worthy of the price), and more money for talented artists who are able to play well live.
Ultimately, a live show experience cannot be duplicated, no matter how well the recording equipment functions. There is an element of presence that even virtual reality cannot yet match.
It is my hope that the current trend toward online music forces the business to move in the direction of touring, lowering CD prices, and promoting bands with real talent.
AJ
Royalty rates vary widely. U2 makes 25% of the marked list price, so its not true that artist only make a penny per song. Some might, but most make more than that.
I don't like most of the music out there as well, but I think thats besides the point. The Music business did not start to decline until 2001. That was the first year that the music industry failed to sale as much or more albums than the prior year in nearly 20 years.
CDs are not overpriced unless you think CDs, and before that records or cassettes, years ago were overpriced. When adjusted for inflation, your 20 dollar CD today cost just as much as it did in 1988 when you adjust for inflation.
I agree that powerful music is strong enough to survive and there are certainly some artist that would be strong enough to get by with just their live show, but they are the lucky exception and not the rule. There is a lot of talent out there that simply won't be able to break out of their local area no matter how good they are without a record deal and record company support. Concerts are important but there is really no substitute for radio and distribution, helped with or provided by record companies.
Honestly though, I would hope that the two could co-exist. I think though that the record companies will succeed in encrypting current product and will be able to maintain their profit and ability to sign and distribute more artist.
There is nothing they can really do about file sharing and product that is already out there, but in 5 years, I think all CDs will be encrypted so you will not be able to make duplicates or perhaps it will be a copy that is of a much reduced quality.
They have to find a way to protect their product, otherwise the music industry will disappear. The vast majority of people who get a product for free through the interenet, are not about to then run to the store to buy the same thing at list price. For most people that would not make any sense. Thats why the record industries days are numbered if they don't encrypt new product.
I don't like most of the music out there as well, but I think thats besides the point. The Music business did not start to decline until 2001. That was the first year that the music industry failed to sale as much or more albums than the prior year in nearly 20 years.
CDs are not overpriced unless you think CDs, and before that records or cassettes, years ago were overpriced. When adjusted for inflation, your 20 dollar CD today cost just as much as it did in 1988 when you adjust for inflation.
I agree that powerful music is strong enough to survive and there are certainly some artist that would be strong enough to get by with just their live show, but they are the lucky exception and not the rule. There is a lot of talent out there that simply won't be able to break out of their local area no matter how good they are without a record deal and record company support. Concerts are important but there is really no substitute for radio and distribution, helped with or provided by record companies.
Honestly though, I would hope that the two could co-exist. I think though that the record companies will succeed in encrypting current product and will be able to maintain their profit and ability to sign and distribute more artist.
There is nothing they can really do about file sharing and product that is already out there, but in 5 years, I think all CDs will be encrypted so you will not be able to make duplicates or perhaps it will be a copy that is of a much reduced quality.
They have to find a way to protect their product, otherwise the music industry will disappear. The vast majority of people who get a product for free through the interenet, are not about to then run to the store to buy the same thing at list price. For most people that would not make any sense. Thats why the record industries days are numbered if they don't encrypt new product.
Hawk269
Acrobat
Sting,
As long as there is a digital output, no amount of encryption can prevent the online distribution of music. As long as I flow the super encrypted CD through my stereo, it can be copied into an MP3 file, whiich can be traded all over the net. Record companies can try to slow down the alleged problem, but their attempts are likely to be futile and their victories Pyrrhic.
They must think about the future with these realities in mind.
AJ
As long as there is a digital output, no amount of encryption can prevent the online distribution of music. As long as I flow the super encrypted CD through my stereo, it can be copied into an MP3 file, whiich can be traded all over the net. Record companies can try to slow down the alleged problem, but their attempts are likely to be futile and their victories Pyrrhic.
They must think about the future with these realities in mind.
AJ
Last edited:
First off, you can't encrypt a CD. That would require changing the player to decrypt the CD, and since existing ones don't have decrypters, it won't happen. Any copy protection on CD-DAs will fail flat out--the marker on the edge is a perfect example.
If they wish to have encryption, they'll have to convince us all to migrate to a new medium, such as DVD audio.
Melon
If they wish to have encryption, they'll have to convince us all to migrate to a new medium, such as DVD audio.
Melon
Last edited:
bonoman
Refugee
You guys said it. No matter how much encrypting there will always be a way or a way will be found to break it.
Sting your comparison with U2 getting 25% isnt very good. How many bands out there still make cds and have a following like U2. I would estimate upwards of 15-20 acts can demand what U2 demands. You saying that our 20$ now is worth what a cd or record ws worth ten or twenty years ago is correct but in my opinion the quality of music is nowhere near comparisson. The music industry today is filled with one hit wonders and short carrer spans.
Though 20$ isnt that expensive they must react to the market. If the market is not willing to pay that much because the product can be aquired for cheaper then you have to respond. Such as U2 offering a DVD accompainingment. This is reactionary, what the MI must do is be pro active rather then what they have done in the last 5-7 yrs. They should seen this problem coming and prevented it but they waitied till it got out of hand and are only now trying to abolish it.
Without a doubt in my mind file-sharing will never stop. The record compainies have waiting too long to react and now they will suffer financialy. What they must do now is turn their marketing stratagies around and use the internet to get artists known to the prospective buyers.
And the old arguement that ppl in MI get paid too much can be attributed here as well. The RIAA says that its not about money its about copyright, well if they really mean this then why do they not drop prices to 10$ a cd? If your product isnt in high demand you must drop your price. I'm sure we all familar with supply and demand, well maybe the RIAA should look at this again instead of looking like a stubborn old man.
Sting your comparison with U2 getting 25% isnt very good. How many bands out there still make cds and have a following like U2. I would estimate upwards of 15-20 acts can demand what U2 demands. You saying that our 20$ now is worth what a cd or record ws worth ten or twenty years ago is correct but in my opinion the quality of music is nowhere near comparisson. The music industry today is filled with one hit wonders and short carrer spans.
Though 20$ isnt that expensive they must react to the market. If the market is not willing to pay that much because the product can be aquired for cheaper then you have to respond. Such as U2 offering a DVD accompainingment. This is reactionary, what the MI must do is be pro active rather then what they have done in the last 5-7 yrs. They should seen this problem coming and prevented it but they waitied till it got out of hand and are only now trying to abolish it.
Without a doubt in my mind file-sharing will never stop. The record compainies have waiting too long to react and now they will suffer financialy. What they must do now is turn their marketing stratagies around and use the internet to get artists known to the prospective buyers.
And the old arguement that ppl in MI get paid too much can be attributed here as well. The RIAA says that its not about money its about copyright, well if they really mean this then why do they not drop prices to 10$ a cd? If your product isnt in high demand you must drop your price. I'm sure we all familar with supply and demand, well maybe the RIAA should look at this again instead of looking like a stubborn old man.
OP
OP
hiphop
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Man, STING2, your post sucks.
No fucking musician ever gets time to develop his art over a few albums no more.
mp3s have lower quality than CDs, so they suffer degradation. compare the way data is stored, and you know what I mean. Home taping can be compared, bc when THAT started off, ppl didn?t care about hiss.
Album sales aren?t down bc there is file sharing, but bc the industry is managed by idiots, except of a very few, and they go off the majors and do their own labels.
Music thats put out today sucks and sounds all the same (except for U2 and a handful of other artists, i mean generally). This is why ppl don?t buy CDs no more. CD prices should be around 10$, then sales would rise. The Internet is the very best way for new artists to promote themselves.
New music is put on the net everyday. Without that possibility, 90 percent new music wouldn?t be out there. Look at the roster of major labels. A very small part of artists gets a rec contract, and that is not decided upon talent - 20 years ago it was, now its about who sucks which dick.
How come that the gifted musicians you?re talking about actively promote their internet sites where you can download their creations.
I agree that there is a copyright problem w file sharing/ income for the composer, but we can?t change that no more and future will tell what new forms of copyright or salary or protection can be implemented without hurting the artists/ composers rights. Sure enough everyone thinks that copyrighted CDs suck big time, don?t affer any solution for the future (just use a marker).
There is no substitute for the majors ability to distribute, right, w promo its a tough game anyway... every time a song is played on the radio, payola, which can be deducted from the artists or composers profit bc those invests are recoupable from future profits in standard recording contracts.
If U2 were a new band in todays music scene, they wouldn?t get a contract, thats for sure. Not streamlined, bubblegum, pop enough. Not enough sex and sex sells, the lyrics having a message... duh! Every A&R would take a step back. U2 would probably have their own website or an independent.
When U2 were discovered, the MI was way different. Chris Blackwell is/was one of the greats in this industry, because he?s got ears. The industry is deaf.
Compare it with a company that wants to produce contact lenses, but 95% of its employees are blind.
Stuck in a moment.
About everyone knows the arguments I am bringing up. its boring, so i will not engage in this discussion anymore. If you have any creative idea, I would be happy to hear about it.
No fucking musician ever gets time to develop his art over a few albums no more.
mp3s have lower quality than CDs, so they suffer degradation. compare the way data is stored, and you know what I mean. Home taping can be compared, bc when THAT started off, ppl didn?t care about hiss.
Album sales aren?t down bc there is file sharing, but bc the industry is managed by idiots, except of a very few, and they go off the majors and do their own labels.
Music thats put out today sucks and sounds all the same (except for U2 and a handful of other artists, i mean generally). This is why ppl don?t buy CDs no more. CD prices should be around 10$, then sales would rise. The Internet is the very best way for new artists to promote themselves.
New music is put on the net everyday. Without that possibility, 90 percent new music wouldn?t be out there. Look at the roster of major labels. A very small part of artists gets a rec contract, and that is not decided upon talent - 20 years ago it was, now its about who sucks which dick.
How come that the gifted musicians you?re talking about actively promote their internet sites where you can download their creations.
I agree that there is a copyright problem w file sharing/ income for the composer, but we can?t change that no more and future will tell what new forms of copyright or salary or protection can be implemented without hurting the artists/ composers rights. Sure enough everyone thinks that copyrighted CDs suck big time, don?t affer any solution for the future (just use a marker).
There is no substitute for the majors ability to distribute, right, w promo its a tough game anyway... every time a song is played on the radio, payola, which can be deducted from the artists or composers profit bc those invests are recoupable from future profits in standard recording contracts.
If U2 were a new band in todays music scene, they wouldn?t get a contract, thats for sure. Not streamlined, bubblegum, pop enough. Not enough sex and sex sells, the lyrics having a message... duh! Every A&R would take a step back. U2 would probably have their own website or an independent.
When U2 were discovered, the MI was way different. Chris Blackwell is/was one of the greats in this industry, because he?s got ears. The industry is deaf.
Compare it with a company that wants to produce contact lenses, but 95% of its employees are blind.
Stuck in a moment.
About everyone knows the arguments I am bringing up. its boring, so i will not engage in this discussion anymore. If you have any creative idea, I would be happy to hear about it.
STING2 said:
OP
OP
hiphop
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
For those who care: the original hack ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Search] This site contains nothing worthily to search for ;p
? RIAA - 0wn3d by.... ;p
? oooh riaa want's to hack Filesharing Users / Servers ? - better lern to secure your own server...
? Sorry Admin - had to deactivate ur accounts - they'll be reactivated after 2 hours
? greetz : Rage_X, BRAiNBUG, SyzL0rd, BSJ, PsychoD + all the others who want to stay anonymous :]
Recommended File Sharing Tool - selected by Riaa.org
# Program Name OS Rating
1 EmuleeMule is a open source filesharing client which is based on the eDonkey2000 network but offers more features than the standard client. Features- Download resume- Multisource downloading DOWNLOAD / sponsored by www.riaa.org Win32 1 2 3 4 5
Overall XXXX
Content XXXX
Users XXXX
Speed XXXX
2 ShareazaShareaza, the newest gnutella client with more features then you would expect from a gnutella client containing no ads, no spyware, no adware. DOWNLOAD / sponsored by www.riaa.org Win32 1 2 3 4 5
Overall XXXX
Content XXXX
Users XXXX
Speed XXXX
3 WinMXWinMX remains the most powerful OpenNap file sharing program. With the recent release, WinMX has included multi-source downloading from only WinMX clients running V3.1 or higher. DOWNLOAD / sponsored by www.riaa.org Win32 1 2 3 4 5
Overall XXXX
Content XXXX
Users XXXX
Speed XXXX
4 KaZaA LiteKaZaA Lite is an advertisement free KaZaA. In the latest release, KaZaA Lite removes CyDoor and the Brilliant Digital 3D Projector, an annoyance to many P2P users. DOWNLOAD / sponsored by www.riaa.org Win32 1 2 3 4 5
Overall XXXX
Content XXXX
Users XXXX
Speed XXXX
5 eDonkeyeDonkey2000 doesn't rely on one central server yet searches are quick and your client doesn't get bogged down with endless search requests. DOWNLOAD / sponsored by www.riaa.org Win32 1 2 3 4 5
Overall XXXX
Content XXXX
Users XXXX
Speed XXXX
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Do not open the recommended sites, I am not responsible for any of the content above.
OP
OP
hiphop
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Maurice Gibb, RIP
deep said:
i love gordy. 
i can't believe this happened AGAIN!!! when i saw it the other day (i didn't see it till after they took it down, but someone did a screen cap and such) i cracked up. adding the file sharing programs TO the website was the midas touch.
btw, does anyone remember the previous hackings, like in the summer? when they happened, their site didn't even have a password to change the html documents! what morons the riaa are!
HIPHOP,
People did care about the degradation back when home tapping came out which is why it was never viewed as a substitute for going out and buying the album.
The ability to download and burn to CD, a perfect undegraded copy of the music is what is starting to hurt the industry.
People here I think are missing the point. There is no incentive for a consumer to go out and purchase a product that they can get for free without leaving their house. Charging 1982 prices would today simply be unprofitable and would not change the minds of people that are getting the product for free.
People did care about the degradation back when home tapping came out which is why it was never viewed as a substitute for going out and buying the album.
The ability to download and burn to CD, a perfect undegraded copy of the music is what is starting to hurt the industry.
People here I think are missing the point. There is no incentive for a consumer to go out and purchase a product that they can get for free without leaving their house. Charging 1982 prices would today simply be unprofitable and would not change the minds of people that are getting the product for free.
STING2 said:
Actually, I would say that this is incorrect. Looking back to the 1970s and 1980s, the dominant media for music were vinyl and cassettes. To make a copy of an album via cassette was certainly as acceptable as the vinyl or original cassette; all were analog media anyway.
Secondly, to imply that MP3s are "undegraded" copies of CDs is wrong. Quality is degraded; an MP3 is not the same as the 16-bit stereo sound of a CD, as it is a loss compression standard. Certainly ask the SHN (a lossless compression standard) people what they think of MP3s versus CD audio, and they'll resoundingly hate MP3s.
Piracy ultimately outlines that if an industry is anti-competitive (it is my view that the music industry operates more like an oligopoly), people will always find a way around it.
Melon
Popmartijn
Blue Crack Supplier
STING2 said:
I don't have time to counter all the arguments (have to finish a thesis... now!). Over the last I've collected some links/articles about downloading and (what's wrong with) the music industry. I suggest you take a look at them (this includes the viewpoint of a relatively well-known artist).
- Study: File sharing boosts music sales
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-898813.html
- Janis Ian: "THE INTERNET DEBACLE - AN ALTERNATIVE VIEW"
http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html
- Janis Ian: "FALLOUT - a follow up to The Internet Debacle"
http://www.janisian.com/article-fallout.html
- The Recording Industry is Trying to Kill the Goose That Lays the Golden Egg
http://www.bricklin.com/recordsales.htm
Especially the second article by Janis Ian gives a nice viewpoint. After she started offering free downloads on her site her merchandising (including albums) rose with 300% (in a single month). Oh and she confirms that most artists always needed to tour to make money (not from selling CD's)
C ya!
Marty
P.S. On my laptop at work I had two other interesting articles. One reporting that the year after Napster the RIAA had the same revenues as the year before Napster (but this article has become a bit obsolete by the Goose and Golden Egg article above). The other article (or rather, now-broken link) was about how a record company (IIRC Warner's) spend $2 million to create another teeny popper artist, only to sell only 600 copies of her debut album. (Interesting follow-up on a message board: the week after the article was published in the Wall Street Journal she still only sold 128 copies).
P.P.S. Got that Napster article!
http://slashdot.org/articles/02/02/27/0213252.shtml
OP
OP
hiphop
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Yes, Popmartijn, the article "The Interent Debacle" is great.
Great to see you?re working on your thesis.
Great to see you?re working on your thesis.
Similar threads
- Sticky
