Music Happy Holidays - See You In Court

One of the kids at a college over here got a huge law suite and ended up settling, he had to quit school so he could pay it off. The bad thing is their suing kids as well. Its not hurting the musicians really, people are still buying CDs, its just that everyone doesnt have 17 bux to spend on a CD

 

[RIAA's (devil's) advocate mode]
"its just that everyone doesnt have 17 bux to spend on a CD" well tough. Not everyone has hundreds of thousands of dollars for a ferrari, but that doesn't entitle them to take one. [/RIAA's (devil's) advocate mode]

Of course taking a song doesn't prevent someone from selling it, unlike a ferrari. It's a dumb analogy. There is some truth to it though.. There is no universal human right to be able to have any music you want. If you don't have $17, too effing bad. If you don't have money, you generally don't get food either, at least not good food.

Do I think filesharing hurts the music industry? No, not as much as they claim. Do I think filesharing helps gain awareness for some bands? yes. Do I think the RIAA is overreacting/being too harsh? yes. Do I think that filesharers are sometimes hypocritical or mistaken in their arguments? Yes.

There are so many shades of grey in this mess, it's ridiculous.

 

that's not really the same, it costs the record companies a few pence to make each cd, and they make dollars back for every penny they spend

if they charged less, they wouldn't have this problem. it's their own problem for creating such a flawed system, and sticking with it even when it is clear it cannot work.

 

"...among 802 Americans age 10 and over..."
I don't think that's a good way to poll people. Ages should be split up between children, teenagers, and adults, cuz generally kids don't know as much as everyone else.

The RIAA don't have any control over foreign music, right? Asian music industries probably aren't as frightening as the RIAA with regards to illegal file-sharing.

 

I said it was a dumb analogy

If people didn't somehow think that music was necessary for life, they wouldn't have this problem. What entitles people to music anyway? Sure the RIAA got themselves into the mess. People should be voting with their wallets and not buying the overpriced crap. However going out and breaking the law doesn't give the consumer any moral high ground. You don't like the RIAA's prices, you do without their product until they see the error of their ways and lower prices. Downloading music is nothing but being a cheapass who can't either spend some money or take a stand and avoid the music.

Guess again. The numerous arrests :glazed: of japanese users of WinMX spurred the creation of Winny, a p2p program with strong encryption and anonymity measures. Despite these measures, two users of Winny were recently arrested. The RIAA has sued people in civil court, but hasn't had anyone arrested and tried in criminal court yet. In this way, the Japanese entertainment industry is far harsher. Count your blessings you live somewhere where you can use a p2p program without anonymity measures and not get thrown in jail.

Before I get flamed too badly here: I hate the RIAA and I rather like filesharing. Attempts to justify it are doomed though. It isn't hurting the RIAA (at least not more than they deserve), but it still isn't technically 'right' and I think we all know it.


:glazed: :glazed:

 

Thanks for the input. I was wondering what was going on with the Asian music industry scene, cuz I never hear about them much. Plus, there are lots of websites I used to go to where I could download entire albums' worth of mp3's, merely days after the albums are released in stores! (I don't do that anymore cuz I just don't have time). Compared to downloading, I actually do buy music at about one CD per 2 to 3 albums-worth of mp3's I've downloaded (in the past year or two). I think that's not so bad, right?

My musician friend told me how he understands how the system works. He says that musicians themselves don't really lose money if we only download their songs. It's their recording company that loses money. Musicians earn only some money through album sales; they also earn through live performances, concert tours, commercial endorsements, and other performance deals. It's with independent bands/artists that people should most respect and buy their music to support them. Like when my friend's band created mp3 versions of their original song creations, they made sure not to give our any of their mp3's to anyone, for fear of having them file-shared.

 

no problem

*IMHO disclaimer for the following*
re: buying a CD only helps the recording label and not the artist -
If an artist's CD doesn't sell, label doesn't give him as fat a contract. One way or another, less sales of CD = hurting the artist (especially the indies, as you pointed out)

And before I forget, filesharing does have its good sides (obviously).. even for the music industry. Sorta. P2P exposes people to bands they never would have heard of before, and often, people will buy something of theirs they wouldn't have otherwise. This doesn't help the big artists like Britney and other crud the labels push on us, but it does wonders for smaller artists. Say what you will about the White Stripes being good or bad, but they've received a lot of exposure through p2p.

Closer to home, I love The Pillows. Without p2p I really wouldn't know much about them. Now, I've bought stuff of theirs, including a DVD. Wouldn't have happened otherwise. On the other hand, I was going to buy their latest album but then didn't because I found it online. So much for supporting them eh? Damn.

Sampling is cool; nothing different from listening to the radio. A far more diverse radio. When that gives way to downloading whole albums and never supporting the artist, it's not so good. Attemping to justify that (CD's too expensive, RIAA sucks, doesn't hurt the artist) is untenable.

****

OK.. too much grey area in all this. I think I've said my bit the best I can (basically: there's crap on both sides).