PDA

View Full Version : RIAA awarded 871 Federal subpoenas for music swappers. RIAA...


MacBytes
Jul 19, 2003, 08:56 PM
Category: Peer to Peer
Link: RIAA awarded 871 Federal subpoenas for music swappers. RIAA taking more action. (http://www.andpop.com/article/2577)

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)

MrMacMan
Jul 19, 2003, 11:27 PM
BRING IT BABY!

I will counter sue for price jacking.

Man they are crazy with prices.

arn
Jul 20, 2003, 03:38 AM
Originally posted by MrMacman
BRING IT BABY!

I will counter sue for price jacking.

Man they are crazy with prices.

See.... I still don't think the cost is the issue that people make it out to be. Yes, CD's aren't cheaper than they used to be... but so what? Who cares if in materials, a CD is only $0.01 in raw materials... you aren't buying the CD for the CD itself. If you are, I can tell you that you can get blank CDs for free after rebate from a number of places.

You're paying for the music. Just like a Book is worth $0.01 in paper and ink, you are paying for the words... not the materials.

Sure, the record labels make a cut -- but they also put up big $$ to promote people... that's why getting a record deal is still something that many bands "want" -- because it means they have a financial force behind them.

arn

Jerry Spoon
Jul 20, 2003, 09:14 AM
Originally posted by arn
See.... I still don't think the cost is the issue that people make it out to be. Yes, CD's aren't cheaper than they used to be... but so what? Who cares if in materials, a CD is only $0.01 in raw materials... you aren't buying the CD for the CD itself. If you are, I can tell you that you can get blank CDs for free after rebate from a number of places.

You're paying for the music. Just like a Book is worth $0.01 in paper and ink, you are paying for the words... not the materials.

arn
I think you're right arn, but the big thing that gets people wailing about CD prices is just what you wrote... people can go get blank cd's for free...and make an incredibly high quality COPY of the original. Book materials are cheap too, but you can't easily buy the paper and binding yourself and make a copy yourself unless your a monk and have months or years to spend. You could buy blank cassette tapes, but when you copied a tape, there was the quality loss. People are willing to pay for the quality, but when they can get it free (or near free) by their own means, that's when they feel like they're getting cheated spending $12, $14, $16 or more on a cd.

arn
Jul 20, 2003, 01:17 PM
Originally posted by Jerry Spoon

People are willing to pay for the quality, but when they can get it free (or near free) by their own means, that's when they feel like they're getting cheated spending $12, $14, $16 or more on a cd.

well - I agree that the ease is why people do it.... but you don't see people screaming bloody murder when Unreal Tournnament 2003 costs $50, and is the same economics in terms of duplication.

arn

nuckinfutz
Jul 20, 2003, 02:01 PM
If you download a song and listen to it frequently with the intent of never purchasing the song legally then you have stolen from that artist and to subpoenaed is a fair consequence.

I don't like the Price of BMW and Mercedes but that doesn't give me the right to steal their products. I will openly admit that I use P2P and I am very happy to have the service because it makes my choice of actually purchasing the physical CD easier. I've found many good artists this way and to ensure that they receive the financial backing I must either purchase the CD or if their on iTMS I will need to support them so the studio knows they have a fan out here.

We as consumers must do the right thing. Sure we don't like the RIAA and Industry in general but we mustn't steal we must beseech them to change and we're doing that with iTMS and others. We're asking to be able to compensate the artist and Distributor without purchasing the full album. What they fear is that they will lose sales but that's not true. Single Track purchases are great for the crossover hits.

There really is no counter arguement that will suffice in court. If you are found to be sharing copyrighted material and you end up in court ...kiss your fanny goodbye because they have you dead to rights.

Jerry Spoon
Jul 20, 2003, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by arn
well - I agree that the ease is why people do it.... but you don't see people screaming bloody murder when Unreal Tournnament 2003 costs $50, and is the same economics in terms of duplication.

arn
I'm wondering if people justify it b/c they've heard so much about artists not making much of the money from record sales (I'm not talking about the Madonna million dollar album deals here) but instead make much of their money from touring. That's seen as not hurting the artist. That can't be said for the guys or girls who are creating these games. They make their money from their company who is selling the game they helped create.
Getting back to cost...where's that money going? Part of that $50 is going to the people huddled over their computer who created the game. In most people's mind, where's their $14 for a music cd going? To the record label. And with the reputation they've gotten over the last several years, they're the company that most people love to hate (along with HMO's). Your statement earlier of labels putting up $$ to promote is well taken, but that's not clearing up the bad rap they have.
Basically, if they FELT their music dollars weren't going to a bunch of suits, maybe people wouldn't be so hostile towards them.

Jerry Spoon
Jul 20, 2003, 04:04 PM
Originally posted by nuckinfutz
I will openly admit that I use P2P and I am very happy to have the service because it makes my choice of actually purchasing the physical CD easier. I've found many good artists this way and to ensure that they receive the financial backing I must either purchase the CD or if their on iTMS I will need to support them so the studio knows they have a fan out here.

Sure we don't like the RIAA and Industry in general but we mustn't steal
First of all, it sounds like you're talking out of both sides of your mouth here.

Second, saying you use P2P to make your music purchasing decisions easier to me is like saying it's OK to steal that Big N Tasty from McDonalds b/c it got you interested in buying their extra value meal later on. That might be true, but it doesn't justify the P2P (or that poor stolen burger:rolleyes: ) in the first place.

arn
Jul 20, 2003, 05:31 PM
Originally posted by Jerry Spoon

Part of that $50 is going to the people huddled over their computer who created the game. In most people's mind, where's their $14 for a music cd going? To the record label.

But this just isn't true. Programmers don't work on royalties. All the profits of a game/app goes to the company.

At least part of the $14 goes to the artist.

in the end I think people blame the industry since it makes them feel better. But it's just not rational.

arn

Jerry Spoon
Jul 20, 2003, 10:17 PM
Originally posted by arn
But this just isn't true. Programmers don't work on royalties. All the profits of a game/app goes to the company.
My point is that I don't think people make the connection between the money paid for a cd and the artist making money where they may accept a more 'general economic model' of a game company making money by selling a computer game and using revenue to pay employees. Maybe it's that most consumers don't see musical artists as "employees" of record labels, but that 'employee-employer' scenario is something that most people are comfortable with and use it to explain possibly more complex or different relationships.

Sorry. I didn't mean to imply that programmers work on any kind of royalties.

Originally posted by arn

in the end I think people blame the industry since it makes them feel better. But it's just not rational.

arn
Point well taken and I completely agree.

nuckinfutz
Jul 20, 2003, 11:44 PM
First of all, it sounds like you're talking out of both sides of your mouth here.

Second, saying you use P2P to make your music purchasing decisions easier to me is like saying it's OK to steal that Big N Tasty from McDonalds b/c it got you interested in buying their extra value meal later on. That might be true, but it doesn't justify the P2P (or that poor stolen burger ) in the first place.

No ...not really. If I was supoened I would realize that it was "my" fault for breaking the law. I'm talking about one side of my mouth because I'm not using anything regarding the RIAA as justification for using P2P. It's my own personal choice and if I'm to be eventually punished I have no one to blame but myself.

The second point is a poor analogy. Music is digital data that will remain tangible. Food is a consumable that will be gone once digested. They really don't relate.

Regardless of the justifications used one thing seems to be the common denominator. People simply do not perceive "value" with music CDs. Even at $10 for a CD you may only be looking at 15 minutes of repeatable good entertainment.

Personally I believe that it's more than just Filesharing that's hurting the industry. It's competition. DVDs have caught on like gangbusters and frankly I see people more enthused about collecting movies rather than music. Sure the RIAA will continue to blame P2P as they know that all you need to do is keep pounding on the ideal that P2P is destroying the industry and it will become fact. Very few Journalists even offer a dissenting view anymore. They simply say Music sales are down due to personal filesharing because they've been told to do so.

Even if they stop filesharing...the industry has done harm to it's image and people will spend their money elsewhere. I don't expect a recovery anytime soon.

tazo
Jul 21, 2003, 12:34 AM
i have heard that one can *help* protect themselves by removing files from their shared folders. Has anyone else heard this?

BTw, is it obstruction of justice if say i destroyed a hard drive with the media, should i get a subpoena?....
\

jbomber
Jul 21, 2003, 01:17 AM
Originally posted by tazo
i have heard that one can *help* protect themselves by removing files from their shared folders. Has anyone else heard this?

BTw, is it obstruction of justice if say i destroyed a hard drive with the media, should i get a subpoena?....
\

again, all only illegal if you get caught.

make sure you wipe that drive down before smashing it into pieces, burning it and sending the ashes to the 4 corners of the earth.

tazo
Jul 21, 2003, 04:17 AM
Originally posted by jbomber
again, all only illegal if you get caught.

make sure you wipe that drive down before smashing it into pieces, burning it and sending the ashes to the 4 corners of the earth.

if the thing is taken apart and then burned, they cannot get the data, so what is the use of woping the hard drive?

meh...

Sun Baked
Jul 21, 2003, 07:59 AM
Firm sleuths out illegal file sharers
BayTSP tracks down IP addresses, IDs of music downloads (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/07/21/BU289815.DTL&type=business)

When Manni Nagi typed in the name "Eminem" on his computer screen, he came up with a list of 87,974 copies of songs by the rap star within minutes.

With each song was a list of screen names and Internet Protocol, or IP, addresses of individuals who were offering it for file sharers around the world to download.

Nagi wasn't looking for a free copy of "The Eminem Show" CD. Instead, the project manager for BayTSP Inc. of Campbell was demonstrating how his company uses its Internet sleuthing technology to help major record companies and movie studios hunt down copyright infringers.

The information supplied by BayTSP is part of the arsenal that major record companies are using in their escalating war on Internet file sharing, which the recording industry blames for a three-year downturn in CD sales.

[delete to end]

FILE SHARING FRENZY Table (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2003/07/21/BU289815.DTL&type=chart)That table of the top 10 movies available for download in June is HUGE numbers.

Can sort of see why they are going a little insane over the number of copies available online.

But it seems like BayTSP is out to get you...BayTSP's computers turn up about 1.2 terabytes of data each day, which its computers sift. (A terabyte is 1,000 gigabytes.) A team of employees also looks through instances of potential copyright violations to make sure they aren't tagging a file that is being legally offered for sharing.

"We find 1.5 million to 2 million bad guys per day, Ishikawa said.

Jerry Spoon
Jul 21, 2003, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by nuckinfutz
No ...not really. If I was supoened I would realize that it was "my" fault for breaking the law. I'm talking about one side of my mouth because I'm not using anything regarding the RIAA as justification for using P2P. It's my own personal choice and if I'm to be eventually punished I have no one to blame but myself.

The sad thing here is that laws are put into place when large numbers of people make poor social or ethical decisions. The ultimate hope is that it stops the behavior, but I don't think that will work here. Too many people have the attitude that they'll pay the price IF they're caught, banking that they won't be.

Originally posted by nuckinfutz
The second point is a poor analogy. Music is digital data that will remain tangible. Food is a consumable that will be gone once digested. They really don't relate.


The point of the analogy is that the end doesn't justify the means. That holds true whether the stolen item remains tangible or is consumable in some form.

Originally posted by nuckinfutz
Even if they stop filesharing...the industry has done harm to it's image and people will spend their money elsewhere. I don't expect a recovery anytime soon.

I agree that the industry is not taking steps to recover that work WITH the consumer and I don't see any positive recovery in any form any time soon either.