The only thing the RIAA is teaching is how big business can influence government officials to allow them(RIAA) to extort money from the people who voted for them(government officials) in the first place.

Label *SONY* Music : "don't stole music"

...

I've a CDRW *SONY* in my computer

I have a question for RIAA - who is getting this money they are fleecing from all these 'pirates'??

Am sure its not the artists your all talking about as most are so deeply locked in thier contracts any major gains from this kind of activity wont benefit them one bit.

RIAA is self perpetuating at this point while sending small gains back to the various record companies that support them - it would appear that suing folks has become big business.

I challenge RIAA to prove me wrong on this - I doubt that ANY artist has recieved one dime from these activities and probably never will...so who is getting the money I wonder?

Will they ever learn?

I speak for my self when I say this; I only download music that I know I'll never buy in a store. I very rarely feel the urge to buy mainstream music. Half the time they don't even see the $15.00 that you spent on the CD.

Know don't get me wrong b/c I do buy CDs every know and then but they are more of the non-mainstream groups that I know I could only buy in stores or at concerts.

I just think they're loosing control of the phenomenon... But I mean, it's not as bad as what they are saying. Music stars are quite wealthy and popular nowadays huh? People keep buying tickets for their show, T-s***s, etc... The industry must think of something else...

Anyway, when I like an artist, I just buy his CD instead of ripping it...!

Where does RIAA come off thinking they are entitled to money and being Music Police?

Heck, when you go to a library, (the oldest "file-sharing" medium in the world) you are essentially doing the same thing: reading a book..which is tantamount to a form of "downloading" the information, storing it on a "drive"...(in this case, your memory).....and then sharing that information via discussion of the content, and then someone else goes and reads the same book, ....and on and on it goes. Yet, the authors are not reimbursed every time the book is borrowed/read......AND, most importantly, the book, like a music CD, was already BOUGHT AND PAID FOR, at one time.....for which the author and publisher was compensated.

This whole idea that RIAA thinks it is entitled to money in perpetuity, is assinine.

I STILL download music and share my music files, and if RIAA has the capability of sniffing me out and sueing me, ...let 'em!....I will not stop my activity, nor will I pay any fine or other treble damage awards. Simple fact of the matter, is that they cannot get blood from a stone.

Seriously, it's like arresting drunks and saying that that solves the alcohol problem. Sure, buying singles off of the Internet will help the RIAA, but if P2P still exists, than they are indeed fighting a losing battle. Face it: if you like 1 song on a CD, you're not going to shell out $15 bucks for it. The RIAA needs to do something besides trying to intimidate users of P2P programs by filing suits against these "criminals" (and I use the term loosely).

"Seriously, it's like arresting drunks and saying that that solves the alcohol problem."

While this may not solve the problem, there are certainly less people driving drunk now that they know that they can be arrested for drunk driving--this arrest of 761 people is not going to help significantly. Rather, it is a warning to other people that you can, indeed, be arrested for pirating music. Remember that there has not been a large number of arrests involving this in the past, and RIAA hopes this may encourage other "pirates" to stop. Honestly though I agree with your statements--I don't think this will be very helpful in the long run.

I am not condoning illegal file swapping; I am asking what is it? According to some of my friends it’s downloading, music, movies, TV shows and or movie trailers!! I don’t think that’s right. So, off to RIAA.org, Nice site, told me nothing. How about MPAA.org, nice site again, told me nothing.
To create undefined rules and then not explain or at least have a list of things you can/cannot do, it’s nonsense.

Terrorism,
n: the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear.

Violence is the lawsuits, goal Is economic, the method is intimidation and coercion and instilling fear.

I personally have decided to boycott the “ Media Terrorists”, and “terrorism media’s propaganda” by not buying, watching or otherwise using in any form, movies, radio, musical venues and or movie theaters, not renting movies, and not buying movies.

I just hope that someday we can see the media terrorists go broke, not from piracy, but from there own stupid decisions and lack of coherent copyright rules.

yes i agree, perhape they should look at the rip of prices, for a bit of plastic with a song on it, goes for all soft ware as well,when you think you can get oem xp pro for $50 instead of the $250 exsaple

also free ware is just as good if not better thanks to all those out their who belive

Being a music artist is all about ripping of people. Or rather, hauling in the cash. If it were about "artwork" and sharing, it wouldn't cost so much. Then again, look at society today: everyones a music artist. Everyone speaks, you learn by listening to people speak. Now you have to pay to listen.

"Forget P2P, use our servers!" ~ wannabe-monopolising-association
"They remind music fans about the law and provide incentives to university administrators to offer legal alternatives."
> Don't hit the baby, HIT THE BABY! That method always detered the other babies from sitting on the lawn. (What's wrong with sitting on the lawn? A: We own it, you don't!)
"A total of 761 file sharers"
> That's a lot of people, for a 5km radius in any small city. The remaining millions must be on the edge of their seats.

*BAN TCP/IP, heck, thats what's founding P2P Networks from the bottom up; not that TCP/IP or P2P are used for anything else than illegal mp3 downloads(sarcasm).

I don't give a rats A** about them. I'll download as much as I see fit.

They're going to keep doing this until someone out there organizes a REAL buycott. I download music, I admit - but if half the album is to my liking, I'll buy the CD. I'm beginning to change my mind on this. Seeing them sue parents of kids, kids themselves if possible, University students. This predatory tactic is getting old fast. 3/4 of people that download music go out and buy the CD, they just don't like the idea of losing money on singles (who's gonna buy My Prerogative anyway????, esp. for 7 dollars!?!!!) and thats where they DO lose money, because noone in their right minds wants to buy a CD with 4 songs or worse, 1 or 2 and then some filler crap for 6 or 7 dollars. They also do not like the 1/4 that now downloads and burns and are satisfied with that; of that 1/4 about 1/4 exist who sell the music and THAT'S who I agree they should be targetting, not normal people that download and then go buy the CD or download singles.

Don't you just love it, now the RIAA is "educating" people. People need to start educating them right back and stop buying their crap music, otherwise they're most likely going to eventually try to sue the entire solar system.
I haven't bought a CD since i was 19, and never will again from any major label. I suggest everyone starts doing the same. It's the only way to cut off their grip. Of course i dont really think that will happen, but ahh it would be nice.

yes go to a car boot sale you will be able to buy real music, from the better earler years than the crap thats produce today, and it dose not cost you an arm and a leg,

Yes thank you, the losses are not because of file-sharers, but it's because the music is elementary garbage. It's all been done before.

I'm 21 years old and there hasn't been anything worth listening to in a long time besides the every once in awhile good album that's extremely rare. I mostly listen to my albums from the past. But really how much money can you make on one artist? There is no limit, and that's why the industry sues consumers to profit themselves and pay for the production of ever growing crappy artists of today.

When you have a world of programming minds against the RIAA, the RIAA is bound to lose. They had the chance to really take this technology and embrace it and do things such as releasing the same singles we hear on the radio on P2P or something of the sort. They blew it and now have to fight some of the most persistent, stubborn people in the world.

What kind of crack is RIAA smoking now?

"That's exciting news for the university, students, and all those involved in the creative chain of making and distributing music. The lawsuits are an essential educational tool. They remind music fans about the law and provide incentives to university administrators to offer legal alternatives."

Exciting news? Reminded about the Law? Whow are they kidding - instead of going after the folks 'sharing' this music, why don't they try to figure out what makes these people do this in the first place?

Could it be that the music these people are trading would otherwise be obtained legaly if they could buy it a'la carte at an affordable price with no bull limitations on if they can use it in there car, mp3 player or PC (unlike the current offerings that limit it to your PC where you downloaded the file).

I love this comment "According to the RIAA, "November data from Ipsos-Insight showed the percentage of Americans who have paid a fee to download music off the Internet has climbed 150 percent since late 2003." - of course its on the rise - it wasnt widely available much before 2002 and the offerings that were sucked.

I guess this is more of a rant as nothing we do or say will make these folks stop this madness.

Is the RIAA and MPAA trying to actually inspire epic negative movies and music through their new military like attitude towards people?

This will most likely ultimately end these organizations, the backlash has not reached its peak, and the way will fall back on the consumers side, which in turn would create more lawsuits suing the RIAA and MPAA for damages to the citizens of this country caught in this non-fictional battle between the wannabe Gods(RIAA and MPAA and companies that support them) and the people who this technology really belongs to, all of us.

Gentlemen:

The issue shouldn't be the RIAA or anybody else. it should be, how do you feel about stealing from a person you admire?

That is what you are doing when you download music. You like their music, you take it, don't pay for it, your stealing.

That's the only issue.

I agree. Lets also not forget that if you admire them enough to buy the music at the cost mandated by the companies that supply the music, in consent of the artist then, you should.

I can't think of an artist that diserves my money. So, i won't buy. I won't support them or RIAA.. or the MPAA, but, lets look at good films... like "Bubba Hotep", independent film. i Bought that. Indeed! "Suan of the dead" i will buy that too! as well as "wonderfalls the dvd collection", but i will not pay 7.00$ to see or 22.00$ to buy, "mulan" the special edition.

a full out boycott is needed. But, a conservative "buy"ing plan is a good deal. don't steal, but don't pay for things that are crap. and it is up to you to decide what is and isn't crap.

Boycotting buying music is just plain stupid. Your stealing hardwork from some artist. Now lets say you made this wonderful device that would make millions, you worked hard on it for a year. The next month you turn on the tv and see it on a info commercial you would be pissed. But there response was I found the blueprints on the internet so screw you. I only download music if it has only a couple of songs on it I like if its more than half the cd I like I'll go buy it. But if people start boycotting artist say bye bye to downloading becuase artist wouldn't make money thus go out of bussiness.

I don't believe artists deserve millions of dollars in this present time.....

Being a future director and hoping to create films.....I understand the changing form of media today.

I could give the last damn how much money I make, I'd live in someone's basement for the rest of my life it meant providing entertaining films to the public to see, that's the important thing.

Same goes for music, everyone is worried about their career nowadays and not worried about the outcome of the album. I mean, I don't mind paying for entertainment, but what the MPAA and RIAA is doing is supremely ridiculous and should be halted immediately. People should control the music, THE PEOPLE! Not a few guys in an office and a man with a gavel.

Actually the bigest hurt we put out by "not pating for" music is not the artists that are out now, but the artists that are trying to get out there.

Record companies do not want to sign new artists because they know that their music will be distributed mainly via online and unpaid for...

Honestly, the current artists don't care as much because they are already rich. New artists can't sell CDs because of the "priacy" (TIME OUT: piracy is used so loosely by so many people. The real pirates are those who make hundreds or thousands of copies of Music and software and then resell them at near free prices) that good and fresh new music is hard to find.

The big answer is that the RIAA and its record companies need to cease to exist. the artist need a new way to publicize their talent and market their music. Currently that is only possible mainly through big name record companies. When such a system is implemented then that is whenyou'll see so much music available that paying for music will probably not even exist. Instead I think that if you like the music that bands will receive donations from their fans... in the form of band merchandise, concert tickets, etc.

I hate to say it, but the concept of living in somneones basement is insane. You must be very young and live at home. When you have a family, you will come to a different reality.

"Gentlemen:

The issue shouldn't be the RIAA or anybody else. it should be, how do you feel about stealing from a person you admire?

That is what you are doing when you download music. You like their music, you take it, don't pay for it, your stealing.

That's the only issue."

Sorry, it is not stealing. It is copyright infringment. It is not theft, it is NOTHING of the sort. Go read about it.

In Canada, it is perfectly legal to share MP3s. It has been ruled by the supreme court. They have artists, too.

And before I ignite the "CANADIANS ARE MORONS ANYWAY", I'd like to say that maybe, to you, it's stupid to protect the people, but not companies. If you sue every potential customer you have, chances are you'll close shop pretty fast.

The music is being copied because the prices are OUTRAGEOUS. You disagree? $15 is fine? What am I talking about? Where am I?

If you can give me 1 (read, _*_ONE_*_) reason why CDs are more expensive than cassettes, then you win, and the RIAA is righteous.

Problem is, there arent any. And if you think you came up with one to defend the RIAA, you're wrong. The RIAA admited it. THEY FIXED THE PRICES OF THE CDS. "But the quality of the music on the CD is better".. You buy the license/rights to listen to the music on the medium, and CDs are much cheaper to produce than tapes nowadays.

So they admited it.. prices are still high? Hmm.. That's weird, I thought they said the prices were too high/fixed (and they got sued for it, too.. and lost, badly). So why arent they going down?

I bought a lot of CDs in my life, but I can tell you that much: I'm done. The only albums I buy come from small labels.

Now, resellers are another story. Resellers are the worst kind of f**ks. They are stealing, but not from the RIAA, from the people they sell their stuff to.

So long story short, the RIAA needs to die, teh intarnet will eat it. (leet talk on purpose)

EDIT:

The redistributing is illegal. As far as I remember, people cannot be sued for downloading files, but only for uploading them, and the RIAA cannot start uploading files to users to catch them downloading anyway, it just wouldnt work, they'd end up suing their own departments.

And what prevents me from listening to the radio and record a song? Nothing. It is perfectly legal for personal uses (same goes for TV). Think about it..

"Boycotting buying music is just plain stupid. Your stealing hardwork from some artist. Now lets say you made this wonderful device that would make millions, you worked hard on it for a year. The next month you turn on the tv and see it on a info commercial you would be pissed. But there response was I found the blueprints on the internet so screw you. I only download music if it has only a couple of songs on it I like if its more than half the cd I like I'll go buy it. But if people start boycotting artist say bye bye to downloading becuase artist wouldn't make money thus go out of bussiness."

That is a very flawed/bad/sad/wtf way to look at it. If people stop paying, music will cease to exist? Gosh, thats a broad statement, don't you think?

Some people (I call them artists) are not in it for the money. If not buying albums anymore means that only the REAL artists will create music, I don't see anything wrong with that. Point is, the RIAA wants everybody to believe that it's all about money, but it's not. Artists (you know Picasso wasn't in it for the money, right?) do not care about money. An artist expresses himself thru songs, paintings, movies: ART.

The ONLY reason why they cost something is because people are willing to pay for it. I can assure you that if nobody buys music albums from now on, there will still be music. Especially now that its easy for anyone to get advertised on the net.

Taking blueprints and making money off of someone else's idea is the same as downloading music on the internet? I *think* you're wrong.

Question: If vendors start charging outrageous amounts of money for cars, SHOULD people start stealing them? Granted there is alot more money involved, but what's the difference? Downloading copywrighted music, by the way, is stealing. Think of music as a peice of computer software. In order to "own" the software, you have to have a license. It differs a little in that you can reproduce or copy the music for your own personal use, but obtaining music from someone else has always been illegal. If I copy a CD to a cassete tape and give the cassete to my friend I am violating the copywright infringement laws. This was the earliest way to "share" music with others. I remember the big deal with this when CD's first came out, and how record companies were trying to make stricter laws against copying cd's to tapes, etc., it has been similar in many ways to the attempts to thwart P2P file sharing. I digress, but the bottom line is that nothing will prevent pirating of music, both sides will never be satisfied. But it is important to at least deter others from pirating music rather than encourage it, and that is what this "educational tool" is designed to do.

"Question: If vendors start charging outrageous amounts of money for cars, SHOULD people start stealing them? Granted there is alot more money involved, but what's the difference? Downloading copywrighted music, by the way, is stealing."

Answer: A new car dealer will spawn, its called competition. The music industry does not have competition, the RIAA is a cartel of the biggest music companies in the world, and they also control the medias.

Also, if you could "copy" a car, then it would be the same thing. Stealing is NOT the same as copying damn it.

Downloading music is not stealing. Stealing is when you take something AWAY from someone else. Unless the song disapears from the CD, it is not stealing. You can read about it on the net, they've been pushing it as "stealing" for a long time now, but it really isnt. Stealing is when you go to the store, take a CD and leave with it. The store has a LOSS for that CD that you've taken. Downloading MP3s are pure speculation when it comes to losses. So you can't even say "you're stealing money", because even if I had not downloaded the MP3s, it doesn't mean I would have bought the CD in the first place.

Again, it is NOT stealing, it is copyright infringment. There is a huge difference, its not only "different terminalogy for the same act".