Login:
Password:
Lost Password?
Print this article  |  E-mail this article  |  Comment on this article

RIAA Tries to Combat P2P Networks

By Ed Oswald, BetaNews

September 15, 2005, 2:19 PM

Several of the most popular peer-to-peer file sharing networks are being asked to take action against users who are participating in sharing copyrighted materials, the Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday.

The Recording Industry Association of America sent cease and desist letters to the companies controlling programs such as LimeWire, WinMX and BearShare, asking them to remove RIAA member files from their services.

None of the targeted companies were commenting on how they would respond, however several have added features to try and discourage the downloading of illicit files.

For example, the newest version of LimeWire now pops up a warning if it believes the file may not be legal or the company does not have a license for the file requested. But it appears such actions are not sufficient for the RIAA.

"Companies situated similarly to Grokster have been given ample opportunity to do the right thing," a RIAA spokesperson said, saying those who don't comply "do so at their own risk."

The RIAA has worked with two companies, iMesh and Mashboxx, to create legal P2P offerings. But it's not clear if such services will ever take off, as P2P users often cite the breadth of content available as a reason to continue downloading despite legal concerns.

Add a Comment (70 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By john watson

edited Nov 12, 2007 - 9:57 PM

Well as an old man of 60, i remember buying a collection of HITS on an album for a resonable price.So the RIAA is forcing young people to pay alot for 1 hit song on a CD as far as i can see.What happened to singles? Whats next? TV shows and soaps,who grandma's record on video & tivo? Should we inprison all the grandmothers? The RIAA has got to find marketable talent and stop blaming people who SHARE their high priced, low quality,cheap to make,owned property.As a kid we shared everything.Surely i am "the fool on the hill"?

Score: 0

By C.J.C

edited Jun 25, 2007 - 4:26 PM

I know this is an old thread but I just can't believe the extreme ignorance and arrogance on this subject. All Music has a copyright owner... you want to own that piece of work? you gotta pay for it. Period!!

There's no excusing yourself for the BS I've read here... "Oh.. if I can get it from the radio I can get it on the net for free too..." Hey! Nincompoop... when you record a crappy quality copy of a radio broadcast, you're getting something the proper recipients have already been paid for... as they should. It's just available for you to listen to for your enjoyment and of course as a promotional tool.

OWNING that product/material is a different animal all together. Like it is with any product available in the market. Why don't you buy a nice car and share it with your whole neighborhood for free? Oh... you won't do that because you're the rightful owner of that car...?

Hmm guess what, there's absolutely no difference when it comes to music. The owner of that copyright does not want you to (because it's illegal by the way) share his/her work with a million other fans of his/her music when it was paid for it maybe only once, and probably not even that.... Why? When you allow me to get your work for free the same way you do then fine, until then trust me, file sharing and this righteous stealing bulls*** is not going to fly. Mark my words. You're wrong and the RIAA is right and doing what they're supposed to.

If you're an advocate of this practice, you're stealing and that makes you a thief.

Score: 0

By moscow01

posted Aug 6, 2006 - 9:34 AM

If anyone is serious about protesting the RIAA moves I would suggest that you check out at http://www.allofmp3.com It's a Russian site and it's excellent. I know it's illegal outside of Russia but they have moved recently to address these issues and started paying royalties and increasing prices gradually to realistic levels. It's an excellent site and worth supporting in the hope that others will recognise the sense of the business model they are using. This is the music download model of the future.

Score: 0

By FallingStar

posted Jan 24, 2006 - 3:44 PM

The WinMX community is back, the files are back, and the users are taking a stand. Get Connected today at http://www.MXPie.com .

It is time for the RIAA to understand that they cannot destroy filesharing by intimidation any longer. They may be able to bully Corporations, but the users are not going to sit by and let it happen.

MXPIE at http://www.MXPie.com is an effort by the users and for the users, with an agenda of making WinMX at http://www.vladd44.com/mx/ a p2p network not only for the users, but maintained, organized and perpetuated by the people.

Come Join us, we believe that we can make a difference in this fight to take away our rights. We welcome all of those who are tired of going from one p2p network to another simply because the RIAA flexed its billions of dollars worth of muscles.

MXPIE at http://www.MXPie.com is quick, easy and free to use, it contains no spyware, adware or any other form of malware. We even provide a manual modification that allows you to see exactly what is being done that only takes minutes to do yourself.

Another site worth note is Computer Help Forum at http://www.gemini777.net , this site has also been at the forefront of this movement, and can help you with any general computer problem that may or may not be related to WinMX.

Check out MXPIE Website at http://www.MXPie.com for everything you need.

I hope to see you on WinMX soon! Realtime help is available for WinMX 3.53 users. Go to WinMX Channels at http://www.vladd44.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=6514 .

Score: 0

By TheBeastH6

posted Oct 4, 2005 - 11:02 AM

Buy it only if you want to help the creator... then again, games and music in particular have record companies/publishers that take almost all of the profit from the band/developers. And granted, that's another arguement altogether.

Score: 0

By pcpuffycoat

edited Sep 30, 2005 - 9:09 PM

We are goin to be in deep s*** If we share so don't share ist for your own good . i kow some of you will think that your being a leech. But lets look at it this way. Be a leech or go to jail pick your favorite.

Peace
PcPuffyCoat

Score: 0

By Mattcor

edited Sep 29, 2005 - 5:17 AM

I think its disgusting that the free download sites have ceased to exist. Some people cannot afford to buy CD's & DVD'S all the time. I have downloaded lots of music and movies, but now i can't so my internet will not get used anymore.

Score: 0

By Burodsx

posted Sep 25, 2005 - 9:33 PM

I think the RIAA is just going to wind up losing more and more profits as more people protest them.

It's not the file downloading that is hurting them. Lots of people have found music from other great bands that they never knew existed and have actually BOUGHT cd's produced by those bands.

*High Priced CD's discourage people from buying.
*CD's with only 2 decent songs discourage people from buying.
*Lack of knowledge of the artists (Not recognizing the songs) discourage buying.
*RIAA's greed and corruption discourages buying, in fact creates protesting...

Other then that, If I own a cd of an artist and I want a certain song on my pc I could still be sued for downloading the song. So what's the purpose of even buying a cd for maybe 2 good songs? There is none... And If I want to fight it in court it'll cost me $1,000 in lawyer fees.

Score: 0

By psychosquirrel

edited Sep 23, 2005 - 12:01 PM

I believe this whole thing with the RIAA is stupid... If they really cared enough to stop piracy they would stand up change laws make new laws and such expanding their search for illegal copyrighted material.

Hey look at IRC for instance; yes many IRC networks like DALnet has frowned upon dedicated server channels for "leeching" of warez, movies and music. The concequences are an AKILL nickname getting suspened and channel forcefully dropped but file sharing still goes on privately on DALnet and they really have no way to stop such a task cause the files being transferred are directly to the user not through the IRC server... All IRC networks like DALnet can do is watch for proof of file sharing and try to stop it...

As I see it is not the individual song downloading that is a problem. Is where the entire album gets downloaded for free but as I keep saying, completely stopping the illegal downloading of music (or movies and warez) is almost impossible. There will always be people out there making the software that takes out the encoding of CDs to make them burnable and then copy them to a private FTP server or HTTP server then not get touched. if 1,000 or so people go in there and use the service wham RIAA steps in and says "look we found illegal file sharing"

Why dont RIAA go after the single user? if you stop the single user (not the company) you may get somewhere faster.

PsychoSquirrel

Score: 0

By hardluck

edited Sep 23, 2005 - 10:22 AM

I think that is a shame! I have got cd's/tapes of bands and paid $18.00 plus for them. I get them home and only one or two songs are worth it. Now lower the price of the cd's or bring back the singles like in the late 80's! I am not going to give our my credit card information online.
I have had enough of this crap. You pay and pay for music at a high price and then if you want to go see them live (Go to the bank and get a loan) You have to pay ungoddly price for the tickets and maybe a t-shirt. And they want to cry that they are going broke. Watch MTV's Cribs and see how much they have and I work 65 hours + a week on two jobs and I can not even put gas in my car. Come on now!!

Score: 0

By gmb

edited Sep 23, 2005 - 6:15 AM

I really tired of this. I am a semi-casual music downloader. I download songs that i would hear on the radio. (Songs that are legal to download, I assume, because i can tape them off the radio and then burn them to mp3) So why do i have to be inconvienced by lame associations who want to push people to download these same songs for $1.00?

If it's legal for me to download it off the radio, then it's legal for me to download it off the internet. (If they don't see that, then they are the ones in for the fight of their life.)

Don't get me wrong. I highly disapprove of going and getting an artist's whole album without paying for it. (If you like the artist enough to want their whole album, then pay for it.) But for a single song, that's free and readily available on the radio for download, why would i pay for it?

If it came right down to it, and all the free sharing networks were shutdown, i still would not use the pay per song network, I would download off the radio, then burn to mp3. (It's that simple.)

All the songs i listen to or would download are on the radio, and if i really like an artist i will go out and get the full album in store.

For a single song that's free on the radio, i will not be paying for it. I grew up taping songs off the radio, and there was no b/s about the innappropriateness of it all. So why can't i download said same songs off the internet and same myself a step? It's ridiculous and i will not be buying into this music recording industry b/s.

I think if enough people pointed this out or started a network that just shares songs that are available and free from the radio, then i would like to see what the music association would do?

I have just never understood the problem with this. If it's free on the radio to download, why is it not free on the internet? It's a crazy. One format is free and clear legally, but another format is not. I can't mentally contemplate the difference.

I guess i will start looking for nice new mediums. I will use services that let me record straight from internet radio to mp3, or from radio to mp3 format. Just like in Jurrassic park, life will find a way, and people who want to share music will find a way.

(But please do respect the artist and only get the songs that are free from the radio, if you like them that much then get the cd.)

But until they make downloading off the radio illegal then i don't see a need to pay for the same songs, because i get them from another medium, which is the internet.

(Thanks for hearing out my rant.)

Score: 0

By Jose

posted Sep 22, 2005 - 5:03 PM

no P2P anymore eh? hmmm well that must mean no one will ever copy anything ever again right? ... as if, oh well time to get out the old tape recorder and radio me thinks :)

Score: 0

By davidtb

posted Sep 19, 2005 - 12:17 PM

OOOH let me weigh in..
If I have CD at home, and Cassette in my car, do I have to buy 2 copies, or can I copy it to tape? Does buying the CD give me the right to copy to tape,Yes? Can I do it with Window? It's media on CD? Focus, Clarify!!!

Score: 0

By WadeV1589

edited Sep 18, 2005 - 3:36 PM

Recently I wanted the 10th Kingdom soundtrack so I downloaded iTunes and searched, it came up and was extremely fairly priced so I went to buy it....little did I realise I hadn't set my country yet and as soon as I did (set it to the UK from the USA) it would not let me download the album! There was absolutely no way for me to register with my credit card based on my home address to download that album because I wasn't in the states.

What did I do? Load up P2P and get the entire album for free! I didn't feel at all bad because I felt insulted that I was being limited on what I can download by country in the 21st century online.

Where do I fall in all of this? I genuinly tried to pay for it and got refused because of my country even though it was music and was bought online. Does this make me a pirate? Is it my fault I was discriminated against because of my country? It probably does make me a pirate but do I care? Not in the slightest. They ticked me off with that little thing where country should have no relevance.

Score: 0

By RationalCop

posted Sep 18, 2005 - 7:04 PM

You have NO RIGHT to there business. Your post suggests that you have some RIGHT to other people's songs, or some RIGHT to do business with iTunes. They have NO OBLIGATION to do business with other countries. The only RIGHTS you acquire to someone else's music (or any property for that) are those you purchase by VOLUNTARY MUTUAL TRADE with the appropriate business. That they choose not to do business in other countries at this point does not change that. It does not matter that you WANT to pay for it, it does not matter that you TRIED to pay for it, it matters whether you DID or DID NOT pay for it, and if you took it anyway, you were stealing.

If someone wanted to buy something that belonged to you, but you didn't want to sell it them for whatever reason, do they then acquire the right to take that property from you? According to your logic, yes.

What is the problem with Britain, not iTunes, that your own countrymen are not providing similar services and products? Since you seem to have to buy your tunes from America, there must be an under-developed market over there. If you have initiative, perhaps you can exploit that under-developed market and make tons of money the honest way.

But I guess getting ticked off over something is enough to justify anything.

Score: 0

By WadeV1589

edited Sep 21, 2005 - 7:15 AM

I think you totally missed the point iTunes is an online store to buy music and it does exist here (as I did state you can register and download music in the UK just fine), so DID that CD but of course it's no longer stocked (I tried 3 stores and none had it, one could get it but it would take then 3-4 weeks and would most likely be second hand) So they DO choose to do business here but seem to enjoy limiting what you can download.

Why is an online store where you download music restricting sales of something that has been available here but was withdrawn purely due to age? I thought the whole idea of the digital age was inter-connectivity and sharing of resources. Does anyone have an acceptable reason as to why those songs would be unavailable online to the UK when the service is available? I am online, I have a credit card, the songs are there and they have been sold in this country in stores so why am I not able to download it from iTunes?

I am a paying customer wanting to spend my money on songs that are not illegal or restricted in this country and for some reason the powers that be have decreed I am not allowed to get those songs. The fact is I feel grossly insulted by this.

I like the idea of saying if I didn't want to sell something but someone wanted to buy it they'd be entitled to it but alas the things I own are solid objects I cannot transport around the internet and those things on my PC I could give out I choose not to give details of (applications I made, graphics I designed) and so they are not up for sale, I do not publicise them but restrict their usage, I simply do not publicise them at all. This music IS up for sale but will NOT be downloadable in the UK when it HAS BEEN released here. There is no LOGICAL reason why I CANNOT download that song when OBVIOUSLY it has been DISTRIBUTED in the UNITED KINGDOM and so has no EXPORT LAWS.

Hope you don't mind me stealing your excessive capitalisation idea, just thought...well I just did it to show the irrelevance of doing it.

Score: 0

By RationalCop

posted Sep 26, 2005 - 8:45 AM

No point missing here.

Like I said, I guess getting ticked off justifies illegally downloading the music in your mind. Only it's called rationalization, not justification. However, I realize your going to do what you want any reasonable argument is merely an academic exercise.

All the other factors you mention DO NOT justify your illegally downloading music. The only thing they justify is you having the choice not to do business with them OR trying to contact / negotiate with them to change the practice because you think their business policies are whacked.

Score: 0

By PhoenixPath

posted Sep 19, 2005 - 8:57 AM

This would be mee avoiding thewhole copyright infringgement != theft issue....

But...

You are right, RC. For some reason folks think they have a right to music without paying for it, and their excuses range from the quasi-sensible to the absurd. This is just one of them.

Other, equally amusing excuses:

- RIAA screws the artist and the consumer.

- I don't care. I save money and no-one loses anything or gets hurt. It's just copying, for Christ's sake!

- I wouldn't have bought it anyway/it's not available in stores.

- The law is stupid, we should just not obey it.

- They have enough money anyway/they over-charge for it.

Score: 0

By Neolution

edited Sep 18, 2005 - 3:11 AM

Excuse me for being long winded but I need to get this of my chest...

This is a pointless debate that will not be solved any time in the near future. Individuals that are unwilling to pay for a product or service, will continue to find ways to obtain what they desire regardless of what the RIAA and other organizations do to prevent it. Technology is evolving too fast for any “real” control system. It was a problem that the entertainment industry has been dealing with for decades and is a problem that they are starting to lose. I personally feel that the industry needs to change its out-dated business strategies and evolve at the same rate as it’s customer base.

The rate that recording technology has improved is exponential. From the introduction of the phonograph record to the current technologies of digital media, the media has dramatically changed. In fact, we have seen the introduction of new products explode in the last three decades. For example: Approximately 20 years ago, audio tapes were the standard media for obtain music for personal use. But since then, the introduction of the WAV format, CD, MiniDisc, MP3 format, DVD and other technologies has allowed consumers to obtain a digital copy of want they want that is an identical to a master.

Consumers have quickly accepted these technologies and in some case, have improved upon them. The record industry has not been as fortunate. An example of this is how the industry handled the availability of recordable tapes and CDs. For years the music industry accepted the possibility of people copying music to tape or CD, and simply collected royalties from the manufacturer that produce products that were used to copy music. The industry received a small percentage of every blank tape and CD purchased by consumers. However, now the music industry has fell behind and is out of the loop. A person can download a song from a P2P and store it on various digital devices without a single cent going to the record industry. The same goes for the movie industry.

If the industry was more focused on developing talented artists and pioneering new technologies / innovations, instead of force feeding the public the same old regurgitated crap (i.e cloned “mickey mouse club” vocalists and one hit wonders, never-ending assault of movie remakes and sequels) or struggling to control the current over-aged system (i.e. monopolized media outlet, expensive and dragged out law suits); then people like Shawn Fanning would not have developed things like Napster to fill the empty void that the industry has left open for us.

I am not saying it is ethically right to obtain illegal music. What I am trying to say is... Pandora’s box is open! The media industries will never close it. If they could just pull their heads out of their arses and offered the consumer something equally useful in exchange. This would not be such a big issue. The industry needs to evolve with the demands of the consumer.

The RIAA represent thousands of artists and numerous business. Why is it that all these entities can easily come together under the RIAA umbrella for a lawsuit, but this same group can not come together online? Unlike products like Napster that provided the user a single source to download music from and the ability to listen to on virtually any media device, the industry solution is to have multiple sites (each requiring separate fees) and various copyright-protected formats that restrict use on tracks consumers have paid for. This is not an step forward, it is a frustrating step backwards. Apple’s iTunes is a move in the right direction, but still needs to evolve.... That’s my two cents!

*Neolution*
"Liberal? Conservative? All that matters is that you're wrong." - Stephen Colbert (Daily Show)

Score: 0

By gmb

posted Sep 23, 2005 - 6:47 AM

I read your post and several others, i really liked what you said in your post. I remember buying tapes, cd's getting them home, being all excited and getting 2 good songs, and the rest was filler music.

To avoid this i only purchased cd's where the artist had at least three good quality songs out, which meant waiting forever to buy a cd. Then music stores started letting you listen to the whole cd before purchase and that helped with the problem.

There are many artist who have one or two songs that i like, but i would not want to get the album, because it wouldn't be wholewhile. The songs that i would hear from these artist would be songs that i would come across on the radio anyways so if i really like them i would record from radio.

I think the music industry does have to focus on quality of artist and what they are outputting to the public. Then people would be more tempted to buying the cd's. (Which come with picutres, artist thoughts, and lyrics.)

There are worthwhile reasons to get the cd's, but quality of songs and the artist being produced will be the main drives, that's why no matter what goes on some artist continue to sell regardless of p2p sharing networks. Quality will always sell and be marketable.

Score: 0

By RationalCop

posted Sep 18, 2005 - 1:09 PM

You have added quite a large addition to something you view as a "pointless debate". Does that mean your response is pointless?

The proper market response to a product or service that one doesn't like is to stop supporting it with one's money. However, people who download music illegally take that a step further in theft. Therefore, the most effective strategy would be to not buy music from artists associated with RIAA, and not illegally download it either. Don't give ANY exposure or support.

Your argument amounts to, they aren't giving us what we want so we are going to steal what we want. There's really no reasoning with that kind of mentality. Those people have already justified in their mind the act of stealing. If the big labels produced more independent artists that they liked, THEY'D still steal those songs. Part of the problem with your logic is that a large segment of those downloads are the "regurgitated crap" that you mention, that apparently many people still like. Thieves are thieves because they don't like to pay for something when they can find a way to get it for free, not because they are fighting some noble revolution against the evil music empire.

Many of the artists that band together (under the banner of the RIAA) to protect their right to prosper, their right to the fruits of their labor, essentially, their right to life, do this because the do not wish to give the sanction of the victim (implied or otherwise) to people who do them harm. This is a proper moral response.

Score: 0

By Neolution

posted Sep 19, 2005 - 6:43 PM

I stand corrected and should be careful with the words that I use. This is not a “pointless” debate... it is an “ENDLESS” debate with no clear right or wrong answer!

*Neolution*
"Liberal? Conservative? All that matters is that you're wrong." - Stephen Colbert (Daily Show)

Score: 0

By RationalCop

posted Sep 26, 2005 - 8:48 AM

The right answer is quite clear to me. If you didn't pay for it, it's not yours and you have no right to it.

The answer is only unclear to those who wish to rationalize illegally downloading music and not paying for it.

Score: 0

By twosheds

posted Sep 19, 2005 - 12:57 AM

RationalCop, if you're not working for 'The Man', I'll buy a hat and eat it.

Score: 0

By RationalCop

edited Sep 19, 2005 - 3:29 AM

[sarcasm]It wasn't the "Cop" in my nick was it? I'm thinking if you ever want a job in investigations, you're got what it takes. I've never seen such astounding deductive skills![/sarcasm]

However, I'm not really concerned with you dietary selections.

Score: 0

By PhoenixPath

posted Sep 19, 2005 - 9:02 AM

Funny how anyone who promotes other's personal responsibility, logical thought processes get flamed for being 'The Man'.

Must be their way of saying, "I can't really find anything to argue with in that post, but since I'm still downloading that crappy music I'm gonna flame him anyway."

I love that argument.. It's crap. it's regurgitated drivel.

Welcome to the Pepsi Generation, folks. You buy it, they make it. Amazing how that works, eh?

Score: 0

By twosheds

posted Sep 19, 2005 - 12:51 PM

Take it easy PhoenixPath; I think anyone with an interesting point of view should be in the debate, 'The Man' or not. Wasn't really a serious comment.

FYI I don't download music, legal or otherwise.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Sep 19, 2005 - 3:54 PM

???

He didn't say 'The Man' wasn't allowed to post. He said ...

Oh forget it. If you can't read I ain't gonna 'splain it.

Score: 0

By plumlipstick

posted Sep 16, 2005 - 11:00 PM

There is an aspect that I think is being overlooked in this debate. From my point of view, lack of availability seems to drive a lot of file sharing. The record labels have allowed a lot of the older music I prefer to go out of print. They do own the copyright but will not offer the songs in any current retail venues. I've spent literally hundreds of hours sifting through piles of old records and tapes at flea markets to find some of what I'm looking for. If the recording labels would open their catalogs to fee-based services for this music, I would happily pay for it. Until that happens, people will continue trading and sharing what they have. Are they pirates? Possibly so.

Score: 0

By PhoenixPath

edited Sep 19, 2005 - 9:08 AM

Are they pirates? Possibly so.

No, they correct answer is, "yes."

What makes them think they have a right to it? What makes them think they are entitled to it? When did this cease to be something left to the discretion of the copyright *owner*??

If they seriously thought they'd make money off of it, they'd do it. Either you haven't been petitioning the labels in question, or you are only one of very few people in sceanario.

Either way, it gives no-ne the *right* to post or download these files.

Score: 0

By znonymous

edited Sep 16, 2005 - 6:24 PM

You Guys Are Being PLAYED LIKE PAWNS!
P2P as a distribution system is bigger than than Music, the RIAA, and the Internet as we currently suscribe to it.
Did you ever stop and think what makes an album a hit? It's the numbers of sales they throw at you in Billboard or reported by MTV.
When you search for an album on any p2p network you can see EXACTLY what is and is not popular.
Don't you see why the MAA and RIAA flood the networks with fake files with "popular" song and movie titles? It doesn't stop the spread, it creates fake popularity, what they've been doing thru other channels of media all along!!!!
THINK AND BE FREED

Score: 0

By PhoenixPath

posted Sep 19, 2005 - 9:10 AM

freed from rationality and logic, for sure...

Score: 0

By rpavl

posted Sep 16, 2005 - 6:25 AM

Im in agreement with eunichman....I HATE THE RIAA....I worked as a songwriter for a record label for several years....RIAA IS THE BIGGEST BUNCH OF CRYBABY VULTURES ALIVE. LET THEM DIE A SLOW DEATH.

Score: 0

By Mr M

edited Sep 16, 2005 - 6:18 AM

Im not a fan of any particular music I use P2P do Download legal stuff like Linux distros and openware so shutting down a whole network for a small aspect of a p2p network is highly illogical.
Besides I think most people who use P2P for music do so because they havent the means to buy tracks i.e. they have no credit card and since theres no other method of online purchases what else can they do.

Score: 0

By RationalCop

posted Sep 16, 2005 - 1:41 PM

There's no indication in THIS article that they want to "shut down the whole network". What they want is to have the companies runnng those networks remove artists files from the network that are under their domain. I suspect in the long run, those companies would be best served to make honest efforts to comply. The NEXT step down the road may well be closing down networks, if they choose to continue to let this activity run rampant.

The fact that people can't afford music or have not means to buy it online does not ipso facto give them the right to otherwise steal it. This is more rationalization.

Score: 0

By PhoenixPath

posted Sep 16, 2005 - 9:14 AM

1.) You're the "small aspect", not the pirates. most P2P filesharing is illegal. Sorry, they ruined your service. Not RIAA's fault.

2.) If they cannot buy it, they need to learn restraint and live without. If enough people are unable to purchase, and the demand exists, other means of retail will make them available. Lack of means is no excuse for pirating.

Score: 0

By UTAKER

posted Sep 16, 2005 - 4:58 AM

bad thign for artists, noone will listen to your stuff before buying so less buying and listening to music and more time in other things if RIAA mess alot

Score: 0

By PhoenixPath

edited Sep 16, 2005 - 9:12 AM

Ever hear of that nifty invention called a radio? I hear they even have a version of it on the internet and you can basically listen to any type of music you want...anywhere in the world.

Yeah, that's gotta suck for those artists.

Score: 0

By eunichman

posted Sep 16, 2005 - 2:23 AM

I say all independant artists who ARENT part of the RIAA should puill together as a class action and file a cease and desist order against the RIAA for barring their legal distriubution channels

Score: 0

By iamtux

posted Sep 16, 2005 - 9:29 AM

Bravo!
I thought I was going to fall out of my chair b/c I was laughing so hard when I read your comment. Very well said!

Score: 0

By PhoenixPath

posted Sep 16, 2005 - 9:10 AM

If they are independant, and *not* under RIAA's umbrella, they can do what they want. RIAA is *not* going to waste money on them that it could be spending on artists signed to labels under the RIAA's protection.

Score: 0

By Digital_Reactive

edited Sep 15, 2005 - 5:55 PM

Speculate, Speculate, Speculate.

If you really want to know what goes on in the p2p comunity then you need to visit their forums. You can surmise all you want but the facts are diffrent from what you think.

In a recent sutdy at P2PUnite (http://www.p2punite.org/?q=node/206), you'll discover that most p2per's don't just sit around and download free music all day.

The poll shows 62% of those who downloaded music went out and bought the cd amongst other products.

Most want a sample of what the content of the cd before they buy it. I know someones going to say see Launch.com or something but that does not give you the full spectrum of whats on the cd. How many of you can attest to buying a cd to only find 2 good songs on it? The record companies use songs called fillers to complete a cd just to get those 2 songs on the market at cd prices.

The formost part of what you find on a p2p forum is the the music industry, now named the cartel by the news media, is acting like organized crime members in their tactics of robbing the consumer as well as the artist themselves. Google Dawnell Leadbetter and Patricia Santangelo to get a better grip of whats truly be done by the RIAA. It a shame this stuff doesn't hit the major network news but if you did your homework you'll find that the news media is owned by the cartel so your only going to hear that p2p is piracy.

Score: 0

By RationalCop

edited Sep 16, 2005 - 1:41 PM

A poll is hardly factual information. The manner in which people post on a forum has no explicit weight as evidence either. Most people who illegally download music have rationalized to themselves that it's not theft. I'm sure that they can then rationalize the use of dishonesty on a forum or in a poll.

Score: 0

By PhoenixPath

posted Sep 16, 2005 - 9:08 AM

From your precious poll:

"This is by no means a scientific study."

C'mon....can't you do any better? They have no way of verifying any of the conclusions made, or wether, in fact, any of those polled were actually telling the truth.

Sample the content? Listen to the radio...visit the bands site...download iTunes... There are so many legal alternatives to this it's ridiculous.

Comparing RIAA to the Mafia? That's funny. I gotta remember that one.

Score: 0

By jjdavis

edited Sep 15, 2005 - 5:46 PM

Here's a question... I've found I can buy an album on eBay (a used album, out of which the RIAA doesn't get a cent), rip the music to MP3, then sell the CD back on eBay again for the same or sometimes more. And once again, the RIAA doesn't get a cent from the sale.

Really, how's that different than sharing music via P2P? But the eBay thing is legal ... or am I wrong? And if it's illegal, does that mean that the RIAA has the right to come down on eBay like it did with the P2P companies?

Score: 0

By PhoenixPath

posted Sep 16, 2005 - 8:51 AM

If you keep the files after selling the CD, you've broken the copyright and are then keeping them illegally.

Does no-one here understand copyright law?

Score: 0

By matt___

edited Sep 18, 2005 - 7:34 PM

You dont seem to understand the doctrine of first sale either once a CD is sold the copyright licence is only aplicable to the first buyer .Thats why used CD and record stores exist ...

Score: 0

By PhoenixPath

posted Sep 19, 2005 - 9:11 AM

That has nothing to do with buying it for the sole purpose of copying it and reselling it.

Also, "First Sale" is a joke. It used to be a truism, but the courts, rather recently, have worn that away. You're hanging onto a rope that snapped quitesome time ago.

Score: 0

By UTAKER

posted Sep 15, 2005 - 5:04 PM

shutdown the internet of the world and be happy you RIAA whatever, there are legal things ppl download and share too including music and programs etc

Score: 0

By cousinkix1953

posted Sep 15, 2005 - 3:17 PM

I remember just a handful of P2P software programs during Napster's heyday. There are many more now and we keep hearing about new ones regularly. It doesn't take a genious to know that some are based overseas. Not much the frigging RIAA can do about the distribution of freeware in somebody else's backyard.

I was never into using those which requested too much information like email addresses. This could have been a sting operation...

Score: 0

By p0rt1s

posted Sep 15, 2005 - 2:57 PM

It's not the price, we are only doing it to piss RIAA off.

Score: 0

By twosheds

posted Sep 15, 2005 - 2:48 PM

It's the price, stupid.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited Sep 15, 2005 - 3:09 PM

They're spending billions on lawsuits to fight illegal downloads. Yeah, I'd guess prices are going to go up to cover that.

I've never known a company to begin lowering prices in response to folks getting their products without paying for them.

"Gee, we're losing money, let's lower prices."

hmm, nope. Never seen it happen.

They may have overcharged to begin with, but only because the consumer paid it. If the demand had slowed, prices would have dropped. Now we have a situation where demand has nothing to do with pricing because it's being fed illegally through P2P.

P2P threw off cost vs. demand, not the legit consumer, and not RIAA nor the Labels.

The companies had not even bothered working on DRM (it wasn't even a consideration) until P2P became a problem.

In short:

It's the pirates, stupid.

Score: 0

By twosheds

posted Sep 19, 2005 - 1:22 AM

If you have never seen a company respond to competition with lower prices, I can't imagine what companies you've been watching.

['They may have overcharged to begin with, but only because the consumer paid it.']

Well, a big thanks to the constituent companies of the RIAA for plucking us like turkeys when we didn't know any better. This isn't the 1960s/70s anymore. We KNOW we're being MASSIVELY overcharged now, and you can't put that genie back in the bottle.

All this harping on about the immorality of pirates is a bit galling when you consider the immorality of the pricing structure that got the RIAA's companies used to a life of luxury that they are now struggling to defend. Let THEM show restraint now that they've enjoyed their 40+ years of scalping us. Let them sell us their product at a fair price - it'll be the first time it's happened since the age of sheet-music.

Score: 0

By RationalCop

posted Sep 19, 2005 - 7:02 AM

A "fair" price is one that is mutually agreed upon. If they are too expensive for you, a person who has own unique set of values, then you don't have to buy it, but in choosing not to buy it, stealing is still wrong. Other people, with different sets of values find the the price "fair" and pay it, which is why the price remains what it is.

This is my last post on the issue. I'm confident with the argument I have laid out, and people who are thieves are going to steal anyway. I'm also relatively confident that even if the thieves aren't caught, they will suffer in their self-esteem for failing to live as man (the species, not the sex) qua man. Such a poor existence.

Score: 0

By twosheds

posted Sep 19, 2005 - 12:58 PM

Sorry you won't be reading this, RationalCop. We have many organisations and institutions devoted to preventing unfair, usurious and monopolistic business practices.

We cannot have one set of standards for your 'thieves' and another for usurers. Why don't they set the moral example and charge a fair price? When WE set the example and paid over-the-odds for music for thirty+ years, it had no advantageous moral influence on the music industry, alas. Perhaps they needed some other form of persuasion.

Score: 0

By PhoenixPath

posted Sep 19, 2005 - 9:12 AM

Competition does not include theft.

Score: 0

By sjc001

posted Sep 15, 2005 - 4:52 PM

It takes around 5000 downloads to affect the sale of one song. Downloading alone isn't cutting into their profits and there are studies which prove this.

Score: 0

By RationalCop

posted Sep 16, 2005 - 1:32 PM

Please tell me the source of this gem of information?

It takes 5000 d/l's to affect the sale of one song? (as if each one of thos 5000 d/l's doesn't incremental make a difference until it gets to the magic number of 5000)

This is the ultimate in rationalization.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Sep 16, 2005 - 9:54 AM

No, but the cost of legal action to try and put a stop to it does. Did you read the above post, dude?

Score: 0

By n1ckn4m3

edited Sep 15, 2005 - 4:08 PM

Actually, you are incorrect.

Most people (not all) who pirate music would pay a small amount for that music. I am a self-proclaimed ex-music pirate. Thanks to the wonders of purchasing a single song for $0.99, I have happily begun purchasing the specific songs I want and am amassing quite a large LEGAL mp3 collection.

Your post is misleading on that front.

The music industry responded by working with iTunes, Wal-Mart, eMusic, MP3.com, and myriads of other micropayment based sites to provide what the consumers want -- freedom of choice in music.

P2P hasn't increased the cost of CDs. A Metallica CD I bought in 1993 was $15.99. A new CD from any one of the craptastic bands of this generation? ... $15.99.

On the other hand, the music industry has seen fit to provide this music at a lower price -- usually about a buck a song or ten bucks for an album. Throw in the blank CD to burn it and the CD costs you $11. Yeah, you don't get the fancy printed sleeve (unless you've got a hella nice printer), and yeah, you don't get the fancy label (see previous comment about printer), but you only paid $11. That's a reduction in price that was derived because people were pirating music.

Any questions?

Score: 0

By twosheds

posted Sep 19, 2005 - 1:26 AM

["A Metallica CD I bought in 1993 was $15.99. A new CD from any one of the craptastic bands of this generation? ... $15.99."]

American and English posters maybe shouldn't participate together in forums like this, because we're just not on the same page. Go to amazon.com and comapare CD prices to amazon.co.uk and you'll see what I mean.

Score: 0

By PhoenixPath

posted Sep 19, 2005 - 9:15 AM

It doesn't matter what country you are in. Labels determine prices, consumers either pay it or go without.

What makes you think anyone has the right to pirate it just because it's too expensive? Cast your vote by not buying it, don't throw it away by downloading it; You lose all credibility once you do that.

Score: 0

By twosheds

posted Sep 19, 2005 - 1:05 PM

PhoenixPath, read the post: who said I was pro-piracy? I was just telling all the people whoa re quoting 'legit' CD prices that they're way off regards the UK.

Score: 0

By PhoenixPath

edited Sep 15, 2005 - 4:33 PM

-quote
"Most people (not all) who pirate music would pay a small amount for that music."

They could have chosen to simply not purchase the music. Thus lowering the demand, causing the labels to lower prices or go out of business. Instead, they downloaded the music illegally breaking the demand/cost cycle and screwing everything up. (think of this as pre-Economics 101)

If they thought it was too much to pay, they shouldn't have bought it or downloaded it. Prices would have corrected themselves. Instead they've just caused this huge problem and now there's DRM on all my content.

Thanks.

You pay for your music, great. You aren't one of the people forcing RIAA to DRM my music. Thank you. I have no problem with you.

It's the people whine about cost and then pirate it. It is only going to serve to limit tmy rights regarding what I can do with my music, and cause the Labels/RIAA to throw more money away fighting them.

-just a nit here, but iTunes, Wal-Mart, etc...aren't a solution, or at least, not a complete one. There are many songs (older or not as Top 40) that simply cannot be had via legit online routes. The only option there is to hunt down the CD/vinyl version, which is gonna cost ya. (or pirate, but to me, that is *not* an option)

Score: 0

By itanshi

posted Sep 15, 2005 - 3:00 PM

meh stupid argument, people b**** about the price all the time, but never realize that what they are paying is not a lot be it music or video. Free just sound slike a better price and the ease of it all spoils them silly. I'm guilty lala, but i dun download those files anymore so so what. heck my router hates winmx now and i can find crap on shareaza. So yeah, the RIAA is evil, but ripping em off by downloading for free is ludicrous. Listen to net radio, thats legal and they play stuff i couldn't find on p2p programs.

Score: 0

By twosheds

posted Sep 15, 2005 - 3:02 PM

Coherent answer - what, is there a cat on your keyboard?

Yes it is the price - you live in the UK, where CDs and DVds cost more than twice what the USA pays...?

Score: 0

By Spenser

edited Sep 15, 2005 - 5:27 PM

Has the mighty RIAA been able to stop individuals from downloading music from Russian sites mp3search.ru and allofmp3.com? The prices are very cheap to download singles or whole albums. Has anyone tried them yet?

Score: 0

By swimfan79

edited Oct 3, 2005 - 1:19 AM

I am waiting for iTunes to become available in country - I believe it is an acceptable way to download music, at about $1 a song. Mp3s are indeed very cheap to buy, the only problem with most sites is they require a credit card payment which I can't give them. I bet most people are reluctant to use their credit card online anyway, let alone for purchasing of mp3s. I don't know about other online music suppliers - but iTunes has the option of buying a prepaid card with money on it in order to download songs from the iTunes store. You can just walk into an apple centre and get one, much like a cell phone recharge card. That's a good way to go if people want to download songs onto their iPod or Mp3 players legally.

Score: 0

By TheBeastH6

posted Oct 4, 2005 - 11:06 AM

I advise it too. And iTunes actually emulate a track from an album, a lot of songs have cut parts or little quality.

Score: 0

Aug 7 - 7:10 PM ET Mozilla Labs considers grafting IM onto Firefox

Aug 7 - 6:04 PM ET Ubuntu attracts the lion's share of LinuxWorld's smaller crowds

Aug 7 - 5:25 PM ET IBM VP urges open source devs to make Linux less like Windows

Aug 7 - 5:18 PM ET LinuxWorld shows off the latest data center-in-a-truck

Aug 7 - 4:58 PM ET Toshiba doubles its embedded flash capacity to catch up with Samsung

Aug 7 - 3:57 PM ET Merged Sirius XM sees growth for sat radio, despite low stock price

Aug 7 - 3:35 PM ET BitTorrent calls reports of staff layoff 'inaccurate'

Aug 7 - 3:29 PM ET How did Dell get 'carbon neutral?'

Aug 7 - 3:01 PM ET Could open source be the solution to the e-voting debacle?

Aug 7 - 12:56 PM ET Report: Unhackable e-passports hacked within minutes