Here Today... Gone To Hell!

I just read an article on Rolling Stone about the RIAA and their lawsuits:
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/_/id/7380412/?pageid=rs.Home&pageregion=single1

---

By the Numbers:

A year and a half after the RIAA began suing downloaders, it is estimated that twice as many people are now using peer-to-peer software like Kazaa. Here are some figures (according to the RIAA, BigChampagne) from the music industry's courtroom efforts to stop downloading:

Number of peer-to-peer users in August 2003, the month before the lawsuits began: 3.85 million

Number of peer-to-peer users in April 2005: 8.63 million

Number of people sued by the RIAA to date: 11,456

Number of people who have settled with the RIAA to date: 2,484

Maximum amount you can be sued per song: $150,000

Average settlement: $3,600

---

So what's your stance on this issue?  Is downloading music 100% wrong and responsible for declining sales?  Or do you think the RIAA is clueless to the fact that good music isn't being released and they are just hurting the industry more with these lawsuits?

(And just out of curiosity, how many downloaded songs do you have on your computer?)

I don't think it's a bad thing if you actually own the album or buy it later. The problem they and the artists have is that they work and get paid for making music and selling albums. If people download for free then never buy the album then the artist does work with no pay. Would anyof us here like to work and not get paid? not likely.

Basically any songs I may have downloaded are either live tracks or songs I already own the record for or if I'm just previewing the cd before I buy it. that's just me though.

Its bad if u download the stuff, like it, and don't buy it

Its good if u download stuff you think u might like and then buy it later, having used downloading just to sample

In a world where only cheesy pop gets any radio or tv time its harder than ever to find out if the new album by (insert band) is any good - downloading helps

And bands insist on having so many b-sides and live tracks they refuse to put out in a form people can realistically get - how else are we to get Crash Diet?!

I download songs, but I've never downloaded a whole album. Most of the songs I download are songs that I can't find in record stores.  I have 135 songs saved to my computer.

 

I don't see the rpoblem in downloading music, the artists are rich enough already. Bite me, Metallica  :P

Theoretically, downloading music is wrong. Everyone involved in the process of making a record does you a service, and they should be payed for that sevice.

  But in my country (Romania), for example, a CD costs about 70 lei, and the average salary is around 500 lei, so you can imagine that not many people can afford to buy the music they want.

i dont know how they can justify sueing you like 100,000's of ?/$. Id say they should only be allowed to sue you up to about...say ?15. Dont know how much in dollars.

I think downloading music is good if you want to get old, or rare things.

Think about that one again ::)

If u dont own it or dont buy it, that is stealing.

Justify it any way u want, If u have downloaded music on your computer that u have never paid for, u are a thief.

that being said I am a thief and dont give a fuck because music sucks these days and CD prices are too high.

Now if they keep em at 9.99 Id buy CDS but Im not paying that for one good song.

I dont feel bad DL Bon Jovi,GNR,or Prince since Ive owned every cassette and CD about 3 times over a piece.


but I know it makes it hard for new bands who arent rich to build a career when People steal from them and decrease their record sales to the point they get dropped from their label.

U do work, u get paid

how would u like it if u worked for 2 weeks and didnt get a check?

im reading it and your still making no sense izz-man. :o

$15 for a brand new CD? give me a break. im not paying that much for a new cd. thats my logic exactly, D.

It was good in the fact you could check out an album that maybe you weren't wuite sure about before you buy it .

If I donload something and I like it ,I'll go and buy it .

If I don't like it I'll delet of my hard drive and don't buy it.

THey say that downloading hurt cd sells.Anf it very well might of had a little amount to do with the low cd sells.The main thing that hurt cd sells was the amount of shit that is gettting passed as music today.

CDs are actually cheaper than they used to be. I remember back in '97 I was going through a phase of buying a cd every Tuesday. Back then the average cd was $17.99. Most new releases today are $13.99.  Best Buy and Wal-Mart are good places to purchase cds, because they're the cheapest.

Back in the day CD's a tapes cost the same to record on: One Dollar. Probably even less these days.

I don't think they should be suing people. That is beyond fucked up. To sue a 15 yr old kid is greedy and will cause a backlash (for the record industry) in the long run if you ask me. I'd be more inclined to DL songs after hearing that kids are getting sued.

I'm not sure what I think about this overall though.

The industry creates CD burners, yet doesn't want anybody to burn their CD/DVDs. Uh....ok.

When I was a kid (back when wheels were square) we'd just tape tapes for one another. Taped movies too. All day long, we traded tapes for one another. How is this really any different? Impossible to track, or ever know, but I doubt they put a huge dent in the sales. That carries over into today, where I doubt much of this file sharing cuts into sales.

I think the record companies are greedy bastards, that is what I think.

That being said, I have no DL'd songs on my computer. Just not something I'm into doing.

Man they sued a 12 year old girl ,They settled out of court for $2000

i download whole albums sometimes.

the way i look at it, i don't want to go buy a whole album for bloody $30 then come home to find its absolute shit with only one good song on it.

now i can download the album, and think "do i like this album,is this a good album, will i listen to it a lot". its what i did with the two mars volta albums and i love them.

if bands want my money to go to their records they have to make a good album or else i ain't giving them shit. they can't hide behind hype or anything anymore because people can download and preview their whole album so the music has to be good.

there are some exceptions to this, sometimes i might buy a mediocre album, full knowing its an average album, but do it because i support the band. (sorta like VR.......it was a solid rock album so i guess it was a good debut). ?

My feelings on this issue are somewhat complex.? I think that an artist is entitled to payment for the work they've created.?? The argument that "Metallica (or any other band) is rich enough" just doesn't hold water to me, should a band be penalized because they happen to make music that a large population happens to enjoy??

However, how is a consumer to know whether they like an album enough to buy it?? Radio and MTV aren't playing anything worth listening to these days.?

When you buy a painting, you get to view it first, so that you know if you like it enough to buy it and hang it up in your house.? You don't always get this luxury with music (I Know some stores allow you to listen before you buy, but usually this is only with the newest releases).

So what happens if I buy an album based on one song I might have heard on the radio, get that album home only to find that the one song is cool, but the rest of the album sucks ass?? Do I get a refund for my purchase?? No.? Do I get to sue the industry for producing a crap album, and then compelling me to buy it so that I avoid the threat of being sued for downloading the one decent song on the album?? No.? I am stuck with this piece of shit album, unless I decide to go to my pawn shop and hock it for 50 cents (after paying 15 bucks for it).?

I don't think that its fair that the industry is suing for such large sums of money.? If they are going to sue for the downloading of music, they should only sue for the amount that they would get for the sale of a cd (after taking out the profit margin for the retail outlet).

I think that downloading should be restricted to being able to "taste test" music to see if you like it, before you buy it.? If you like something enough to download and keep the music, then you should go out and buy the album, because regardless of whether or not you think that artist may have enough money, money IS the reason we work.? I wouldn't want to work without being paid... I don't care if I'm a burger flipper or a CEO of a huge corporation, I still am wanting that paycheck at the end of the week.

On another note, I think that we should all be allowed to sue the Black Eyed Peas for their terrible music.? If it's ok to sue people for illegal downloading, then there should be some kind of law against making music that totally sucks ass.

Sigh - so u think a gang that copy albums, sell them on and make millions would be detered by a ?15 fine - do u honestly believe that would work?!?

Do u honestly believe ANYONE would be detered by a ?15 fine? Would u be detered by a fine that small?
 
Give alittle more thought to ur posts

Exactly!

It was even easier in the past to copy this stuff on tapes - hell i was doing it as a kid, u just borrowed a tape, copied it, gave it back - hell tapes broke so often u had to do it! Yet 80's music sales look pretty good....



Charge ?/$5 an album and u'd destroy the problem overnight and sell far more albums -how much does a cd cost to make and distrubute it? - not much, they make a horrific profit - cd's over here are often ?17.99!!! (thats $32.60) :confused:



Last year in the UK more albums were sold than in any previous year

If sales are declining its due to quality and the fact nothing except Britnet Spears is promoted - of course album X doesn't sell if no one knew it was being released!

Clearly the problem isn't so great that its forced shops to substaintially lower there prices.

I don't understand how the RIAA thinks suing people is going to help them.  There is clearly a large number of people out there willing to buy music.  I remember last year Usher and Norah Jones both had first week sales of over a million copies.  The way I see it, there are three types of people downloading music:

1 - Computer literate music fans --- Like most of the people on this board, they are interested in finding good music and buying it if its worth their money.  I mean, we just had a thread on the importance of liner notes, we obviously want to go buy CDs (but only so many because they are overpriced).

2 - Computer literate non-music fans --- You know these people, "I've got 3,000 songs on my computer that I downloaded! Beat that!"  When really they barely listen to the music, and wouldn't be buying music either way (Maybe the industry loses $20 a year from each of these people).

3 - "Not so computer literate" music fans --- The people who aren't too good with technology but still manage to get on Kazaa and download the latest hit single (which is being overplayed on every friggin radio station anyways).

It appears as though they've slowed #3 by opening Itunes which was a really smart thing to do.  So who are they suing?  #1.... I don't get it.... we're the people they need a good relationship with, and they're trying to scare us off from finding music.  So what?  We can hear Britney's new song 40 times in a day and decide that we should buy her whole CD?

Bands have a good idea, just not a good enough idea.

What they need to do is put their entire album up on their website for viewing, but have it streamed so no one can keep the downloads, that way they can sample the album but if they want a copy they have to buy it.

35 second clips do more harm than good, most songs to really enjoy u have to hear the whole thing and listen to it 3 or 4 good times to really connect with that piece of music.

If u stared at a painting for 10 seconds I dont think u could totally appreciate the depth of the work, and u sure as hell can appreciate the depth of a song with a shitty 35 second clip.

Best buy had NIN's new CD for 9.99, i didnt hesitate buying it and u all know how i use to bash NIN's.
now had that CD been 20 bucks? I wouldnt have bought it. Granted it is worth 20 but I wouldnt have gave them a chance at that price.

Streaming is a good idea, but the trouble is - would people just use the streaming to hear the songs and still not buy it?

Maybe if it logged ur IP and then gave u x number of listens or a month of unlimited listens?

That would be a good Idea izzy.

I think they should have album streams.THough I think the one thing that would stop them is that probably after a week or so some one would hack it.

They dont make millions.(well uk anyway) Its normally indian people that sell them super cheap and probably lose more than they earn. But think though, 1 person downloads one track and they charge that much money as a fine. Its pathetic really. Anyways if the music industry dislikes it that much then why dont they just drop prices. Pretty simple. They would make more money that way since more people would beleive it worth buying a original cd.

I mean u could only listen on your computer, have it up for only a limited time, like maybe two weeks or something, if u wanted to hear it in your car or on your home stereo you wouldhave to buy it.

if an album is good Ill buy it.

artists who have one ]or two good songs  on a cd, i download.

like i said i honestly dont have any trouble downlaoding music and i wont loose sleep over it. they have enough money.



the ironic thing is i want to go into the music business..... :-\

at least i pay for music. i use allofmap3.com and u pay about $1.50 to download and album. i think downloaded may destroy music. eventually record companies wont have enough money and they will only sign crappy pop bands and no real rock n roll.

kind of what  is happening now eh?

record labels arent gonna risk money nowadays to release something risky and different.

Taking candy from a baby!

Of course they don't ::) And u have the reports to disprove my statement which is common knowledge - oh wait - no u don't


Oh wonderful!

Ur a rascist too! Its all those immigrants isn't it, white people don't do that - fuck u

If they were losing money they wouldn't do it.....do u honestly believe they do this as a service to others? Geez, guess u didn't ace ur economics exam


They don't fine any one for one track - they fine people who have thousands and often tens of thousands of copied songs



Ur forgetting its all the 'coloured's' fault.? ::)


So u write a dubious reply - then conclude with what i said but phrase ur posts as a counter? Okay....

I thought ud just made a mistake - but now i realise ur a total loon


I can't believe u said that.

I notice ur 14 - so maybe ur just imature as opposed to stupid. I suggest if u do reply to try a little harder - and don't use racist language - for all u know i may be Indian

Well, we already know how confused u r - of course u don't have any trouble downloading music, you are immoral as ur praise of Hitler demonstrates all to easily

So i could steal ur wallet and justify it by saying - 'oh he's got enough money already, he won't miss a few thousand!'

Funny - when it happens to u i doubt u'll be so understanding

Ever thought that maybe the reason they have this money is through album sales?

how the fuck was what i said racist. Indian is not a racist word, that is there classification. I dont see why you had this stupid outburst at me since the question of this thread is whether you think it is good or bad.

Most the time when your at a market it is indians doing it. And i dont give a fuck whether you are indian, white or whatever.

*bows* praise izzy the law abiding citizen.

That u can't even recognise what u've said as wrong is really very saddening - okay one more go then i'll leave u to ur ignorance

Lets briefly summarise what u've said so u can work it out : ok:

U believe a ?15 fine MAXIMUM is sufficient to deal with the problem of piracy, that it would stop the organised gangs and the regular downloader

U believe this illicit trade is largely carried out by Indian people...

U believe these gangs, these Indians, are so stupid they do it at a loss - that they actually use up there money to give this stuff away!

The u write this


Are we slowly getting there?

Ur writing rubbish - if u don't believe me go ask someone else if piracy is all these 'evil' Indian people and a ?15 fine would stop them - go on. I'll be here waiting

im not calling them evil. I have no problem with them, im saying the percentage of all markets dudes that sell them are indians. Who cares, well you obviously.

You have completely blown this thing out of proportion. To be honest i dont care about piracy, people have been doing it since like the 60's when it comes to music. And i really dont care about these "organised gangs" that are making "millions".

The way I see it the Riia should only be able to charge people  99cents per song download on these lawsuits .

tour revenue, they get payed ever time their song is played on the radio, recodring studio deals, but ya your right, it mainly comes from record sales.

Who dares me to ask if Izzy is for or aginst!!!!! :hihi:

The problem I have with downloading music , is I can only listen to it for so long, I'll get tired of the music so much faster. Like when we first bought our computer , all I did was download music , I wouldn't of had bought a cd in such a long time. 6 months later I had a bunch of cd's with music I downloaded on them , I didn't listen to though. But the regular albums I just bought a very long time ago,I still listen to them  and they sound like I got them yesterday. So I think what my problem is or maybe others , when I get music for free out of a machine , I don't appreciate it as much as actually bought albums.