Fuck The RIAA

The BBQ Pit
81

Oh, for fucks sakes! You’re so RIGHT! I never thought of that! Thanks for the enlightenent! <smacks self on forehead> :rolleyes:

Listen, fuckstick - I know a closer anology would be software piracy or photocopying a set of 1982 encyclopidias. I was not even attempting to make the anaolgy to equate stealing hard goods with intellectual property. I was making an anology about artificially inflated prices.

Here, let me spell it out so you just might catch it this time: IMHO [sup](In My Humble Opinion - just incase you didn’t know what it meant)[/sup], theft is WRONG. Period. Regardless of the “victim” knows about it or not, “misses” the “item” or not. Yes, You’re correct, I’d suspect the vast number of of RIAAs susepected sales losses are so fucking skewed its ridiculous. I know not every “download” of a song equates to a lost sale. I think everyone on the planet (save possibly RIAA execs) are aware of that… even before you decided to enlighten the world.

IT’S NOT THE POINT!

82

Then why are the record companies complaining about falling sales?

In the Washington Post article cited earlier this thread:

**I don’t particularly care what’s causing the drop in sales, whether it’s piracy or whatever, but it seems pretty clear that sales are dropping. In other words, people aren’t willing to pay $15-$20 for CD’s. The demand is dropping, but the price is staying the same.

Monopolies aren’t price takers, you see. They set the price where they want, and right now it seems to me that the price they set is a bit high.

83

OK, so what is the point? If the company and the artist don’t lose any money due to my intellectual property theft, then what IS it that makes it “WRONG. Period.”?

(Actually, I buy a fuckton more CDs now than I did before I started downloading music. I also go to a ton more concerts. And buy merchandise. If you accept that both the RIAA and the artists have gained money from my intellectual property theft, then that makes your assessment of the situation even stranger.)

84

Yes and it’s ok for me to call black people niggers, because my best friend is black. :rolleyes:

85

Your insightful analogy has added a lot to the thread.

A better one would be: If I could somehow further the cause of tolerance between races by calling black people niggers, and I therefore started to call black people niggers - would it be fair to call me a racist?

86

Let’s try this again because you don’t get it. You are implying that the reasoning above makes it ok to download intellectual property, and we both know that’s not true.

Ok?

87

If you even forget the fact that its illegal, it’s just plain wrong. The songs, quite simply, aren’t yours to take.

Heck - Why are so many people even downloading songs they allegedly don’t even want?

FWIW - While I dislike RIAA with a passion, I dislike outright theft even more.

88

The biggest reason record sales have fallen is probably Napster. Back when Napster was up record sales were up 15% and it simply dissapearing was a big blow to record sales.

And I’d say that downloading mp3s is wrong. It is wrong on the same level that listening to a cd with other people in the room who haven’t bought the cd is wrong. It is stealing and it is wrong.

89

Well, it is a pretty weak moral argument. The fact is, had you bought the Kriss Kross music, the artist would have received a royalty payment on your purchase. They did not make a dime, because you downloaded the file without paying for it. Exactly how does that equate into being a victimless crime? Morally, if you haven’t paid for something, what makes you think you have the right to own it?

I love it when people rationalize by saying “I wasn’t going to buy it anyway” Great, don’t buy it. You have that right. But to say " I still have the right to have it" is such utter bullshit. You think CD’s are overpriced? Then don’t buy them. Nobody is forcing you to. And if more people refused to pay the admittedly high prices, the industry would be forced to re-examine their price structure. Thats a perfectly acceptable way of making your voice heard. But the minute you turn around and say “Therefore I am going steal something I don’t have the right to own”, your argument loses all of its weight. Stealing music is not a victimless crime.

Morally, you should have gone with option #1

90

quote:

originally posted by CanvasShoes
A good example, one routine has TLC’s “Push it”. Now, I went ahead and bought the darn thing (at a pawn shop for 5 bucks thank goodness), because I needed that one song for a collection of similar music for a routine.

Salt n Pepa, wasn’t it? Or is this a different Push It?

yes, Salt n Pepa!! Dang it! I always get those two mixed up (I’m old). I only have two CDs of that genre of music, one by TLC, which contains “Waterfalls” and brings up ANOTHER point, I did buy that CD at full price just for that song and then found out it wasn’t the same version that is played on the radio, but is the one that has the girls break into a ridiculously chipmunk sounding “rap” about 3/4’s of the way through the song. It’s a great “training tune” (it’s slow and has a nice solid beat so beginner dancers can learn), but it also cracks everyone up to the point of not being able to continue when it gets to the “chipmunk rap” part.

Anyway sorry, I digress, and then Salt n Pepa which was only 5 bucks and contained “Push it,” I really wish I could find a local (well Kenai Peninsula) band’s version of “Push it” it knocks spots off Salt n Pepa any day of the week (but I haven’t lived there for several years and can’t remember the band name).

As to whomever said “use all (or most) of your songs for a routine from the same album”? Please. A little variety is a bad thing? I’m not the only one wanting this (otherwise, why would “Monster Mix” type CDs be so popular?). I am only in a semi-unique position of needing or wanting several different songs of different genres/bands on one CD.

Bar/Dance Club DJ’s, other dance instructor/aerobics instructors like me, just plain old people putting together a workout CD to take to the gym (though thank goodness the BF bought me an mp3 player so I don’t have to burn workout CDs anymore), LOTS of people want to make personalized mixes.

Anyway, my point (which seems to have skewed off into territories unknown and certainly NOT meant by me) was that I would be GLAD to pay for the priviledge of d/l’ing the songs that I want as opposed to buying whole CDs, for many reasons.

And, sorry I didn’t mention this before, but OBVIOUSLY, that one of those reasons would be, simply that it’s fair to pay the artist for their work. At this point I do not find enough full CDs that are worth it to me to pay the full 20 bucks. If and when I do, I gladly plunk down my 19.99, just as I do for DVD movies that I want.

I don’t understand why this concept (that of paying for one or two songs as opposed to being forced to buy the whole CD) is so repugnant to people or hard for people to grasp.

After all, back in the day, it was so common to buy a 45 which contained only 2 songs. Paying for the priviledge to buy only one song from an artist or paying a monthly fee for a d/l service is the same thing. It’s buying the hamburger w/out being forced to pay for the fries too, if you don’t happen to like fries.

91

Yes, I have on numerous occasions.

'Course my band was the ones doing the recording at the time.

92

RickJay, I think there’s one big difference between your situation and the situation of most of the other posters in this thread. You say you live in southern Ontario. I live just across the border in Western New York. If I want to buy a CD, I’m going to go across the border to buy it, because the same CD costs less in Toronto or Hamilton than in Buffalo. (Average price of a new CD in Canada is about $19.99 CDN, or about $13 US. In Buffalo, that CD would be $15-$17 US.)

I think the bigger beef here is the RIAA’s attempt to put a levy on blank CD-ROMs. After all, blank CD-ROMs have legitimate uses outside of burning music. Why should my employer have to pay extra to make a hard copy backup of our database? That’s a bit like saying we’ll have to pay extra for pens because some people are using them to write fraudulent checks.

93

The point is that you are a self-centered, self indulgent prat who thinks that you are entitled to break the law simply because you think you can rationalize the illegality away with a lot of gibberish and twiddle-twaddle.

Fact # 1: You are a prat. Do something to change that.

Fact # 2: The company and the artist do lose money due to your intellectual property theft. Actually, throw out the intellectual part. It’s property theft, plain and simple.

And simply because you say that you “…buy a fuckton more CDs now than I did before I started downloading music. I also go to a ton more concerts. And buy merchandise.” that is nothing more than mindless gobbling which tries to draw attention away from the fact that you are nothing more then a scummy thief.

How can this statement be true:"…both the RIAA and the artists have gained money from my intellectual property theft."?

Answer: It can’t. You seem to think that the RIAA makes money off of a artists merchandise and concerts, which shows how intellectually vapid you really are.

The RIAA makes money off of the sales of albums, singles and radio airplay.

It does not make any money off of “filesharing=theft.”
:wally

94

Ad hominem, mutherfucker, do you speak it?

Property theft? Saying something doesn’t make it true. No property is stolen. All that has been violated is COPYRIGHT, which means it’s intellectual property. And if you’re going to throw out the “fact” that the company and the artists lose money when I download music, then BACK IT UP. Don’t just say “they lose money and you’re a thief” without providing any kind of arguments. Please.

Bollocks. No self-respecting scummy thief would pay hard-earned cash for the things he steals.

I also included that I buy many more albums, which you conveniently ignored. If I’m allowed to listen to a few songs a few times before buying, I’ll buy more albums. MORE ALBUMS MEANS MORE CASH FOR THE RIAA. I included the part about concerts and merchandise because percentage-wise, the artists get more from those than from album sales. WHICH MEANS MORE CASH FOR THE ARTISTS, TOO. I’ve been accused of stealing from the RIAA and from the artists, remember?

But if filesharing leads to an increase in SINGLES SALES and ALBUM SALES, then filesharing does indirectly lead to more money for the RIAA. No, of course it doesn’t gain any money instantly if I download a song. But how the fuck is that relevant?

95

The RIAA is obsolete. That’s all there is to it. Complain all you want, call people thieves if it makes you feel better, but it is over.

A cd is simply not worth what they are charging. It’s not a hard concept. People want the song. They no longer need a cd, a case, liner notes, distribution, etc. They no longer have to deal with the price fixing and other shenanigans, because they have an alternative to dealing with the RIAA monopoly. Sad for the monopoly, good for the people.

Just the fact that people are stealing intellectual property, rather than going to stores and stealing physical cds, should tell you something. People want the intellectual property, and they know that it should not cost anywhere near what is being charged for it.

Eventually, someone will start selling what the people so obviously want. And the artists, with the exception of the artists who are puppets for the RIAA, will make more than they ever have before, because the RIAA will be phased out of the process.

Right now, the RIAA is trying to use its power to prevent itself from being phased out, despite the fact that it is obsolete. In return, the people are using their power (file-sharing) to phase them out against their will. We’ll see who wins.

96

Well, since it’s by definition a luxury, a CD is worth what someone will pay for it.

Clearly, the RIAA isn’t obsolete, that’s silly. The business model that major recording industry firms use is beginning to creak. But the RIAA is just an industry lobbying firm. Again, no one complains about the 9 Billion other associations in Washington.

This focus on demonizing the RIAA really just reveals the demonizers need for an easy target and a lack of understanding of how industry (any industry) lobbying works.

As for this:

It’s not like this is new. These same levies exist (and have existed) on cassette tapes and other recordable media for (literally) decades. Where were all the whiners then? It’s the lack of complaints prior to the advent of file sharing technology that makes me think the ‘it’s the extra tax on CD R/W’ argument is a red herring. Hell, if I recall correctly there’s a similar levy on all cassette decks and CD R/W drives as well.

And this:

I think it much more likely that the spike in unemployment and an uncertain economy led to the drop in sales. In hard times luxuries take it in the back first. During Napsters heyday times were good and people were flush and that led to increased purchasing. So I don’t think this argument has any gravitas to it.

97

In the days of the cassette, blanks were used for almost nothing but recording music, new or commercial or copies. (Unless you had a tape drive for your Commodore. :smiley: )

However, in these days where CDs are used to record all manner of nonmusic or noncopyrighted data- I personally go through them like water backing up my sites and business records- why are we still paying a percentage for the possibility somebody might record music on one?

The only reason I can think of is that the huge multi-lawyered corporations got such concessions without much public input.

I don’t have a dog in the “piracy” fight, but it could then be argued that such corporations are actively “stealing” from us as much as we are from them.

For example, I’ve probably used thirty blank CD-Rs already this year, transferring data (E-mails and business records, archives of my websites, etc) between my various boxes or just as backups, so I’ve already paid the RIAA hard cash without any return.

It’s a stretch, I know, but with the RIAA demanding payment for each and every bit of intellectual property used- for each service rendered- it’s ironic that I’ve been forced to pay for services I have not nor am likely to use. Or even recieve were I to ask for them.

98

The difference, Jonathan, is that, while CD-ROMs have legitimate uses for business and industry computer storage, the same cannot be said for cassette tapes. (OK, OK, I know that several old-timey computers like the TRaSh-80 used cassette-tape storage. But they weren’t your bog-standard cassettes that you’d copy a Styx album onto.)

As for “no whining about the proposed levy”–you should know that these levies have been enforced for some time in several EU countries, and they are being hotly contested by, not music thieves, but by the computer industry. In Greece, for example:

It is quite possible that the proposed levy on CD-ROMs in the US and
Canada will also be challenged in the courts by manufacturers. And if the computer industry takes on the music industry in court…well, I’ll leave it to the reader to figure out who will win that fight.

99

Well, either way, it was a pretty shitty analogy. As I pointed out.

Always? Let’s look at an extreme. If a poor Iraqi stole a loaf of bread from Saddam Hussein’s kitchen, would this be wrong?

But then I wouldn’t have the song. Kriss Kross weren’t getting money anyway. How are they helped by me not having the song, when either way, they don’t get money?

100

You denied them a potential market for their music. And that’s what this is about.

The whole ‘I wouldn’t buy it anyway’ thing doesn’t fly. Clearly you wanted the tune, you just didn’t want to pay for it.

I leave it to you where that leaves you.