A Win For The RIAA

To many ads? Support ODJT and see no ads!
They won't get the money. It ain't there.
 
see and it could have been a Dj......
 
While yes, the downloading is illegal, the two biggest issues I have:

The ISP turning over personal data on its customers.

The whole concept of a blanket "John/Jane Doe" warrant rubs me the wrong way.
 
Fortunately, the RIAA has had some very serious losses lately and has been caught faking some of their evidence.

I'm not sure who they are trying to impress. The vast majority of music lovers get their tracks legally and are terribly put-off by these actions.

All these media stories about moms, dads, and grandparents being sued becuase their (minor) kids were file sharing is going to come back to bite the music industry in the A$$ very hard.

Illegal downloads really have nothing to do with a decline in music sales.

More importantly, music sales have NOT actually declined. Sales have simply NOT continued to GROW at the frantic pace they had after the introduction of CDs.

The most significant reasons:

1. People have already replaced their old record & tapes with CDs and aren't seeking out the old titles anymore

2. The audio/video industry is more obsessed with "digital" quality than the general public

3. A variety of other catered music sources like satellite radio etc. means you can hear what you like without actually owning it

4. There are more resources to hear and sample and album before you buy it, making it unnecessary to "gamble" on what you're getting.

5. Too much product, too little quality, and too much objectionable content.

I give the music industry a HUGE Thumbs-Down !!!!
 
The RIAA may have shot themselves in the foot on another front as well by threatening to start charging radio stations for playing their music. The NAB which is the radio industry's mouth piece has fired back with the suggestion of starting a Congressional investigation into the whole recording industry.

I posted a link earlier:

Rehr: Congress Should Look At The Labels - Our DJ Talk - DJ Help and Resources Chat!
 
Which brings up the question...

I'll post this out on the main fourm...but, I's like to hear about all of the legal download sites. Check my post for further details...
 
Wow this lady is in deep doo doo....

http://apnews.myway.com//article/20071006/D8S3D5CG1.html

Funny though even if they do garnish her at 36,000 a year they'd only get 9000.00 a year out of her so that 222,000.00 dollars would take 24.66 years to pay off... assuming she doesn't claim bankrupsy.... which is a distinct possiblity.

Altho I don't know if you can put a judgement like that into a banckrupsy can you?
 
The fine can ~ and quite likely will be ~ appealed. It's a classic David vs. Goliath story.

A 222 grand fine for moving digital music files is nonsense. Methinks this person is being used as a guinea pig.

Bob's right. It's gonna come back around to bite 'em in the ass.
 
How about a five dollar kick in the A$$ campaign?

I bet if we asked anyone in the country who would like to give the music industry a kick in the A$$ to do so with just a $5 donation - we could pay this lady's entire legal bill.

Then at least the RIAA would know that this "fine" is being paid care of 50,000 A$$ kicks!
 
Proformance said:
How about a five dollar kick in the A$$ campaign?

I bet if we asked anyone in the country who would like to give the music industry a kick in the A$$ to do so with just a $5 donation - we could pay this lady's entire legal bill.

Then at least the RIAA would know that this "fine" is being paid care of 50,000 A$$ kicks!
Click to expand...

I don't think the DJ community or any community bailing her out is going to send a positive message to the illegal downloaders...do you?

No, she made her bed now she needs to lay in it. Helping her with money would serve no purpose. Besides, what is the likely hood that they'll really get the money anyway. I mean really she ain't got the money it'll be like getting blood from a turnip.
 
If any money is gotten at all, I'd be interested to know how much of it goes to the songwriters.

After all, the songwiters and musicians are supposed to be paid a royalty for every shipment of recorded music. A digital, online transfer is still a shipment.
 
...send a positive message to the illegal downloaders...
Click to expand...

There are right ways and a wrongs way to address every problem. The music industry has clearly chosen a very greedy wrong way to address the file -sharing problem.

Most of the "lost revenue" the RIAA refers to is imaginary.

They are equating individual file-shares with sales of CDs, which is entirely mis-representative of the impact file-sharing has on the music industry.

A careful study of the market by a Harvard University group revealed that only about 1 sale is affected in 100,000 downlaods, and that is slightly more than offset by new purchases triggered as a result of music first heard in a shared file.

So while file-sharing is a real issue - it is NOT responsible for the massive hemorrage of revenues the music industry would like you to believe.

File sharing expanded the exposure of the music but did not significantly impact is desirability with regard to sales. The majority of downloads simply did not represent music people would be willing to pay for.

Economically, illegal file-sharing is akin to trash picking: (picking-up someone else's worthless stuff so you can throw it away yourself).

As it turns out, when people find something they like they are more than likley to buy a new one of their own!
 
Proformance said:
There are right ways and a wrongs way to address every problem. The music industry has clearly chosen a very greedy wrong way to address the file -sharing problem.

Most of the "lost revenue" the RIAA refers to is imaginary.

They are equating individual file-shares with sales of CDs, which is entirely mis-representative of the impact file-sharing has on the music industry.

A careful study of the market by a Harvard University group revealed that only about 1 sale is affected in 100,000 downlaods, and that is slightly more than offset by new purchases triggered as a result of music first heard in a shared file.

So while file-sharing is a real issue - it is NOT responsible for the massive hemorrage of revenues the music industry would like you to believe.

File sharing expanded the exposure of the music but did not significantly impact is desirability with regard to sales. The majority of downloads simply did not represent music people would be willing to pay for.

Economically, illegal file-sharing is akin to trash picking: (picking-up someone else's worthless stuff so you can throw it away yourself).

As it turns out, when people find something they like they are more than likley to buy a new one of their own!
Click to expand...


I'm sorry but I'd have to respectfully disagree with you on illegal file sharing being aken to trash picking... an haveing little affect on CD sales... wrong is wrong plain and simple and there is no way that the above statements justify that fact.

And that's exactly all that drival was a justification for illegal activity, period.
 
Well... there is a measure of truth to this.

True CD-quality files are too large to be easily transferred. So music files are smalled down and lossy for ease of transfer.

If ya like what ya hear on the DL and want the real thing, get the CD. CDs are available used all over the Internet. Ain't got to buy 'em new.

Maybe it's me but I don't care for the lossy sound of downloaded tracks. They lack the depth and tone and just can't compare to the CD.
 
Fred Stewart said:
Well... there is a measure of truth to this.

True CD-quality files are too large to be easily transferred. So music files are smalled down and lossy for ease of transfer.

If ya like what ya hear on the DL and want the real thing, get the CD. CDs are available used all over the Internet. Ain't got to buy 'em new.

Maybe it's me but I don't care for the lossy sound of downloaded tracks. They lack the depth and tone and just can't compare to the CD.
Click to expand...

It's funny but the same was said about going from vinyl to CD years ago... that CD's lacked the quality that vinyl had... and I think they had a point too... at the time CD audio equipment couldn't acurately reproduce what was on the CD's....

Now, looking at it from that point of view sure the stuff that is available on the illegal sites could be considered trash... from a listening point of view by professionals...

Not sure if that's what he was driving at though...

I'd have to disagree about comparing high quality digital music to CD though... the percieved lack of depth may be as much a function of the medium as the equipment used to reproduce it. Assuming that the digital medium was done at the highest possible level of conversion. But, I don't want to sink or even hijack this thread into a CD vs MP3 argument....

As for the RIAA's win in this case... us professionals and or private individuals comming to her aide right or wrong still sends the wrong message to the theves that will undoubtedly continue business as usual no matter what the possible reprocusions are.

I have no sympathy for this lady... and if she was truely sharing 1700 plus tracks she should count her lucky starts they only went after 24 of them.
 
jokerswild said:
... As for the RIAA's win in this case... us professionals and or private individuals coming to her aid right or wrong still sends the wrong message to the thieves that will undoubtedly continue business as usual no matter what the possible repercussions are.

I have no sympathy for this lady... and if she was truly sharing 1700 plus tracks she should count her lucky stars they only went after 24 of them.
Click to expand...
You'll hear no arguement from this corner, my friend. I agree. :)

People will continue to do what they've always done, illegal or no. It's human nature to presume that the odds are against them being nailed. It's always "someone else" who gets nailed.

I agree. The defendant was nailed and should deal with the consequences of her actions. Bailing her out with donations would do more harm than good in this old dog's humble opinion. If she has no ability to pay the settlement, it won't be paid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back