Poll: Have the RIAA's lawsuits made you change your P2P habits? [Archive]

Waluigi

Jul 28, 2003, 12:10 AM

It just doesn't make sense for the RIAA to spend millions on legal fees, when they get pennies in return. Sueing downloaders is horrible for their image, and is not the right way to go.

I honestly hope that one day artists can have a direct contract through the iTMS and get 65 cents on every dollar they sell, rather then the 2 cents on the dollar they get now, while the rest goes into the pockets of the RIAA executives. The RIAA is fundamentally evil, and justice will prevail. This will only lead to more P2P activity, and better ways of hiding users. Power to the people is a good thing.

--Waluigi

MacManDan

Jul 28, 2003, 12:12 AM

I actually stopped using P2P software years ago, before I switched to Mac and before it really became "mainstream." And now, especially now that I'm using Mac, I don't want to "pollute" my hard drive with that sort of junk :) But to those who use it and love it, more power to ya ;)

Jerry Spoon

Jul 28, 2003, 12:55 AM

I'm suprised by the number of people (38% so far) that say they don't use p2p at all. My use is extremely limited and I can't remember the last time I used it (probably 6 months ago) but I wouldn't consider myself a non-user. I'd be interested to see if that percentage holds up as more votes come in.

Bunzi2k4

Jul 28, 2003, 12:57 AM

I just don't use kazaa, or anything like that, i use carracho and hotline now. But i think the riaa will go down... it might not be now, it might not be tommorow, but it's end is in sight, whether people go on a music strike and stop buying cd's ect. but who knows? untill then, i'm going to borrow my friends' cds :-D

Marble

Jul 28, 2003, 01:14 AM

Arrr, matey!

sacrilicious

Jul 28, 2003, 01:27 AM

The RIAA changed my habits only in that it shut down Napster and then Audiogalaxy. But, for the most part, P2P is worthless to me as I only want complete albums, and with a high bitrate.

tazo

Jul 28, 2003, 01:33 AM

not really. i never use them much as it is, but now it feels like i am doing something bad.

Nermal

Jul 28, 2003, 03:24 AM

I don't use P2P much, but I'm not in the US so I ignore everything about RIAA, DMCA, etc, and am continuing to use P2P just as I had before.

iDONTsteal

Jul 28, 2003, 03:35 AM

CRAZY!!

[SIZE=3] If a kid uses this silly argument, any good adult would help to teach them that good and right are NOT defined by how many people are doing it. YES, the RIAA pretty much bites the big Terd in the mud... but that's no basis to justify taking what isn't paid for BY THE TAKER (otherwise it would be called a purchase... not sharing or taking).

Of course you can share music... Simply play your favorite new stuff you've bought or sampled legitimately for your friends... they'll buy it if they think it's good && worth it -- and your favorite band will get some dough/success

Even if you don't believe that can or will happen... just go to dictionary.com and look up THIEF (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=thief)

Megaquad

Jul 28, 2003, 05:50 AM

I don't have to worry about RIAA either so I don't care. Also, iTMS isn't available outside US so p2p is how I get what I need.
I don't feel bad at all. :rolleyes:

P.S. iDONTsteal, you poor thing what have they done to you?

KLFloyd

Jul 28, 2003, 06:00 AM

I wasn't using the P2P programs very often, but since all of this have stopped all together. I just don't need another headache in life. I've since uninstalled all my programs and probably haven't done any file sharing in the last 4-6 months.

iTMS works great for my needs now, they still need to really bump up the number of tracks they offer but they're getting there.

j763

Jul 28, 2003, 06:09 AM

FACT: File Sharing is stealing and file sharers are thiefs.

but really... who gives a ****?

go posioned! :)

Squire

Jul 28, 2003, 06:40 AM

Originally posted by j763
FACT: File Sharing is stealing and file sharers are thiefs.

but really... who gives a ****?

go posioned! :)

I believe stealing only occurs if physical property is taken illegally. Downloading songs from a p2p network involves illegally COPYING songs and, therefore, would fall under the domain of copyright infringement.

And I think that's a fact. But you're right- Who cares?

Squire

eyelikeart

Jul 28, 2003, 06:50 AM

I didn't use Limewire that much, mostly because I couldn't get all that much from it. I have stopped though, the risk just isn't worth it IMO. If I need to get other music that cannot be downloaded from emusic.com or iTMS, I'll hunt down a friend who has it. ;)

scem0

Jul 28, 2003, 07:33 AM

not sharing files anymore.

I don't really download songs all that often though - usually when I see an interesting artist I download a song or 2.

This Thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?threadid=33449) is more than relevant to this poll.

scem0

fixyourthinking

Jul 28, 2003, 08:09 AM

Originally posted by iDONTsteal

Of course you can share music... Simply play your favorite new stuff you've bought or sampled legitimately for your friends... they'll buy it if they think it's good && worth it -- and your favorite band will get some dough/success

Even if you don't believe that can or will happen... just go to dictionary.com and look up THIEF (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=thief) [/B]

Ask, Telepopmusik, The WiseGuys, and Gus Gus - who they attribute the success of their MULTI MILLION DOLAR selling singles to! Hint: It's people typing in "Mitsubishi Commercial" to P2P services

You just provided an arguement FOR the other side: Do you know how many people/friends of mine have bought the White Stripes latest album with 7 Nation Army on it? 4 I know of. I downloaded that song, yet I, personally, have caused 4 purchases!

I wish the people like yourself would read and understand the arguement for the other side. In my opinion, you are nothing but a drone saying what you think is the right thing, when in fact, it's not YOUR opinion at all.

1) People who don't buy music DON'T buy music. If they don't get it from the internet, they borrow it from a friend or even buy it used then sell it right back

2) P2P has done FAR more to help artists by free promotion and discovery than harm them by lost record sales

3) Do you speed? Ever? You are breaking an actual law! (Every day) - P2P isn't yet an illegal act - it's just paid off congressmen that are "allowing" the unconstutional behaviours of the RIAA.

4) Have you ever played a song at a party? Did you know if you had anyone bring a case of beer or a dinner item/condiment that can be considered an admission charge, therefore making you also be responsible for paying exhibition licensing fees?

Let's get off the high horses and keep making great alternatives like the iTunes store, make them as so ubiquitously searchable as LimeWire/Napster/Kazaa and then let's convince record producers that we want quality acts not quantity acts.

cubist

Jul 28, 2003, 08:37 AM

They haven't made me change my P2P habits. But they have made me change my CD buying habits: I don't buy any anymore.

Bear

Jul 28, 2003, 08:50 AM

Originally posted by cubist
They haven't made me change my P2P habits. But they have made me change my CD buying habits: I don't buy any anymore.
Most of the CDs I buy are from artists who aren't represented by the RIAA and therefore they get most of the money from the sale of their CDs. They also are usually small groups anyway.

However, the RIAA (as noted elsewhere) is trying to get money from songs they don't represent as well as the ones they do. This will hopefully kill the RIAA. The industry needs to be revamped anyway.

And as for P2P, I don't do P2P.

Freg3000

Jul 28, 2003, 10:15 AM

I have to admit that I have slowed down a little. Not to say that I am a crazy pirate downloading everything, but with the new RIAA lawsuit parade, and the iTMS, I haven't downloaded a song in a few weeks. I actually feel good.

Not to say that I won't start again.:)

pimentoLoaf

Jul 28, 2003, 10:49 AM

I never bought into any of this P2P thing because I didn't like the idea of opening up my hard drive to the outside world -- it seemed like to easy a vector for viruses and trojans.

<lame>
Closest I ever came to downloading an MP3 was when I was a subscriber to MP3.com: did it once about halfway, but with a crappy 28.x connect speed, I didn't feel like waiting.
</lame>

Bully for Apple iTunes, then, though I don't yet have an iPod -- just a Palm Tungsten T with an unbought MP3 option.

chanoc

Jul 28, 2003, 11:08 AM

Although I am still sharing files, I am sharing no music. With 30GBs of porn, there is no need to share any music. :D

*I literally get my music for next to nothing, by buying used CDs on Amazon, ripping to my hard drive, and resellling them on ebay. The cost is 0-5 per CD.

Flowbee

Jul 28, 2003, 11:43 AM

Originally posted by Squire
I believe stealing only occurs if physical property is taken illegally.

Squire

I think you're wrong about that. Stealing is taking someone else's property (be it physical, intellectual, or otherwise) without right or permission. Copyright infringement (as we're dicussing it here) is a form of theft.

[Edit: Ok, there's this:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33520
But I've never been one to let facts get in the way of my opinion.:D ]

blogo

Jul 28, 2003, 11:46 AM

Don't copy that floppy :rolleyes:

katchow

Jul 28, 2003, 12:31 PM

boy, i wish i had such wonderful powers of rationalization so that i could feel guilt-free about downloaded all this music without the record companies (or more importantly the artists) seeing a red cent...

i've heard a lot of weak arguments and wacky analogies trying to legitimize taking music w/o paying for it...

not that i don't do it...but i'm not going to fool myself into believing theres nothing wrong with it...i have gotten better though, the majority of music i get is from emusic (still haven't figured out how they can be very profitable)...

but if i'm itchin to hear a new album thats a little too mainstream for eMusic i definately hit the p2p's...

don't get me wrong, i cant stand the riaa and their refusal to get with the program...but now i think it will be near impossible for them to compete with p2p's...

sacrilicious

Jul 28, 2003, 12:41 PM

Originally posted by chanoc
Although I am still sharing files, I am sharing no music. With 30GBs of porn, there is no need to share any music. :D

*I literally get my music for next to nothing, by buying used CDs on Amazon, ripping to my hard drive, and resellling them on ebay. The cost is 0-5 per CD.

30gb? Criminy. You've got me beat.

Realistically, I have slowed down buying CDs in the last few years, but that's because I have encoded everything I own, and I don't like a lot of new music. That, and I've spent about $3k in the last year on vinyl to support my DJ habit. :confused:

MrMacMan

Jul 28, 2003, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by chanoc
Although I am still sharing files, I am sharing no music. With 30GBs of porn, there is no need to share any music. :D

*I literally get my music for next to nothing, by buying used CDs on Amazon, ripping to my hard drive, and resellling them on ebay. The cost is 0-5 per CD.

haha.

Yeah I respect people who buy CD's at a low cost, if you don't P2P atleast lower the cost.

BTW -- ARN You left out my Category 'No, I'm Sharing MORE then I was before'

What gives and am really sharing more...

jadariv

Jul 28, 2003, 02:58 PM

Makes me feel good to see how many people do not use P2P. Kind of voids the whole "everybody does it" argument. It's the exact same kind of argument that drug users use to justify their actions.

And speaking of drugs. Aren't these P2P services just like those supposed tobacco pipes and bongs. Everybody knows that these things are for illegal drugs under the guise of tobacco use. Just like P2P is supposed to be for legitimate file sharing but everyone knows that people use it to illegally download music and software.

herr_neumann

Jul 28, 2003, 03:21 PM

They make me "want to" DL more music.....

The RIAA is basically just another lobbist. From what I have seen bands can more than make their living off of touring. They would just be filthy rich, instead of filthy stinking rich.

PawnTrader

Jul 28, 2003, 04:03 PM

I've started making it a point lately to fire up LimeWire whenever I leave the house, to try to make up for those who've stopped using P2P software. I seldom bother searching for anything myself, and when I do it's more often than not television episodes (Futurama, etc.).

The RIAA can bite whatever shiny metal parts of me they can subpoena. A couple times a week I go to http://riaa.org/ and search for "Artificial Scarcity" in the hopes that someone, somewhere, sees that term showing up in the logs.

And for the record, sharing/downloading/whatever is NOT "theft." It's copyright infringement. Argue the morality all you want, but at least get the terms right.

Nermal

Jul 28, 2003, 04:22 PM

Not really related to P2P, but I'll ask anyway. :)

I often download streaming music using a stream ripping app (which unfortunately only runs on Windows). Is this illegal? Is it any different to recording a radio station onto a tape? I'm not sharing what I've recorded.

iLilana

Jul 28, 2003, 05:22 PM

Could someone check into the suggestion that the RIAA gets a fee from all signed artists as part of their contract deal?

I could never figure out why the RIAA claim artists loss on product that would have never sold anyway. People live anad consume within their means. This just means that the actual public has a say in who is crap and who is not. Media moguls have less control over what we hear/see/do. They dug their own hole by crying foul and making it even more popular in the first place. Let them die.

To the people who claim p2p is stealing:
People who buy music will continue to do both. Everyone with an internet connection has downloaded at least once. If they deny it I believe they are lying.

besides... I use mlmac. Or if I want I use my messengers.

iDONTsteal

Jul 28, 2003, 05:30 PM

Originally posted by iLilana
Could someone check into the suggestion that the RIAA gets a fee from all signed artists as part of their contract deal?

I could never figure out why the RIAA claim artists loss on product that would have never sold anyway. People live anad consume within their means. This just means that the actual public has a say in who is crap and who is not. Media moguls have less control over what we hear/see/do. They dug their own hole by crying foul and making it even more popular in the first place. Let them die.

To the people who claim p2p is stealing:
People who buy music will continue to do both. Everyone with an internet connection has downloaded at least once. If they deny it I believe they are lying.

besides... I use mlmac. Or if I want I use my messengers.

Amazing that an assumption like this makes sense to some poeple. Just because you have stolen something (tangible/physical/copyrighted/trademarked or not) DOES NOT mean that everyone else has... and certainly DOES NOT mean everyone else is. <that is unless you are debating what the definition of 'is' 'is.'

Call P2P "music sharing" or whatever you like... theft, copyright infringment, or 'sharing'.... regardless of which, these rationalizations have to be quite signifigant to believe it is "OK."

fred

Jul 28, 2003, 06:08 PM

Typical American thinking....have to monetize everything... why does downloading a song and enjoying it have to lead to feelings of guilt.....it's art and art should be free for the taking. Musicians should make their money performing and copyright for recorded music should be abolished. All these spurious arguments about musicians not producing music if they aren't protected by copyright is baloney ! Did copyright exist when Bach, Beethoven et all produced their seminal music ? NO! Copyright has become an abusive system and must be severely curtailed if not abolished. The RIAA and MPAA's use of the terms "theft" and "pirating" in connection with copyright infringement is an abomination...

visor

Jul 28, 2003, 06:12 PM

where is the
"Yes, i'm using file sharing even more than before"
Button?

Sun Baked

Jul 28, 2003, 08:35 PM

The RIAA is defending companies with lousy track records with regard to the consumers.

Losses like this won't help out the recording industry's image.Charges Held in Three Tenors Price Fixing (http://news.findlaw.com/ap_stories/f/1310/7-28-2003/20030728104502_07.html)

By DAVID HO Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Federal regulators upheld charges Monday that two companies illegally fixed prices when they joined forces to sell recordings of the opera stars known as The Three Tenors.

The Federal Trade Commission rejected an appeal by subsidiaries of French corporation Vivendi Universal and supported a June 2002 ruling by an administrative law judge who ordered the companies to stop anticompetitive practices.

The case involves 1998 recordings of the tenors Luciano Pavarotti, Jose Carreras and Placido Domingo performing at the World Cup soccer finals in Paris.

In 1997, Warner Communications Inc. formed a joint venture with PolyGram Music Group, which was later acquired by Vivendi. Warner was to distribute the recordings in the United States, while PloyGram would handle overseas distribution.

The FTC said the two companies feared videos and albums of the 1998 concert wouldn't sell as well as those from the trio's first two World Cup appearances in 1990 and 1994. So the companies agreed to restrict discounts and advertising for the older performances before and after the release of the 1998 recordings, the FTC said...

[delete to end]Of course P2P gets around all the industry BS that keeps prices high.

And the way they are going after the consumer right now really does look bad.

bbarnhart

Jul 28, 2003, 09:27 PM

I was actually thinking of starting because we now have a PC at home (an old one) and we also now have a DSL line. But, after considering everything, I realized I don't have time to mess with it and whatever music I did download would probably not be encoded to my preference. It's just easier to buy the CD from Amazon.com.

I wasn't planning on using it to build a library of free music, but to see if I like the CD.

macFanDave

Jul 28, 2003, 11:19 PM

Yes - I'm going to download and share MORE to piss off those RIAA jackbooted thugs!

With the heavy-handed Gestapo tactics of the RIAA using our legal system to persecute, oops, I mean prosecute, petty theft as if it were capital murder, P2P sharing is being transformed from being a petty offense like 10 mph over the limit speeding into civil disobedience.

Rosa Parks broke the law by not going to the back of the bus. Henry David Thoreau went to jail for not paying taxes to support war. Surely, we broke many laws when we declared independence from England!

The music industry has been very abusive to music fans for many years. They've been price-fixing for years (Vivendi just got nailed today), cranking out formulaic garbage and allowing only a little bit of talent get into the spotlight.

The whole record/radio/concert promotion complex is force feeding us the same slop year after year. And how fans get treated at concerts? Don't get me started!

The government rarely steps in on the side of the consumer, so if the RIAA is able to pervert the legal apparatus to lay the smack down on petty criminals, I say let's screw the bastards!

(Man, that's some damn fine rationalization!)

MrMacMan

Jul 29, 2003, 12:41 AM

Originally posted by visor
where is the
"Yes, i'm using file sharing even more than before"
Button?

Exactly what I said!

Originally posted by macFanDave
Yes - I'm going to download and share MORE to piss off those RIAA jackbooted thugs!

Woo, go US!

Originally posted by iDONTsteal
Amazing that an assumption like this makes sense to some poeple. Just because you have stolen something (tangible/physical/copyrighted/trademarked or not) DOES NOT mean that everyone else has... and certainly DOES NOT mean everyone else is. <that is unless you are debating what the definition of 'is' 'is.'

Call P2P "music sharing" or whatever you like... theft, copyright infringment, or 'sharing'.... regardless of which, these rationalizations have to be quite signifigant to believe it is "OK."

Voting has begun to Officially Call 'iDONTsteal' into 'THE RIAA'

You are BLINDED by the RIAA, you are almost their... Puppet.

People who are getting sued are being sued for Copy Right infringment, not stealing.

And BTW nice use of All of the Styling Keys -- you used all of them and made your text big, very very good way to get your point across, too bad only the RIAA itself will speak on your behalf...

So Far One Vote To Rename *
Its a Joke, yada yada, I have no real power.

katchow

Jul 29, 2003, 07:26 AM

talking about Rosa Parks and p2p's in the same sentence...how embarrasing...

also, geesh, artists should just give their music away for free and hope to make some money from touring? that's just silly...

this also allows for anyone to re-use anyone's songs for whatever...can't wait to see John Lennon's Imagine selling laundry detergent :)

macFanDave

Jul 29, 2003, 12:08 PM

talking about Rosa Parks and p2p's in the same sentence...how embarrasing...

You don't like how I co-opted the civil rights movement, conscientious objection and representative democracy to elevate P2P sharing to a noble cause?

I'm thinking of Renaissance, holy war and Armageddon-like references for my next push against the RIAA!

iDONTsteal

Jul 29, 2003, 03:46 PM

kudos to the Davemeißter!

I can so often think you're full of $h|zzle... but when it comes to 'stirring the proverbial pot,' you're the mostest - always finding the right sticks. :D

Perhaps I really meant the WRONG sticks... either way 3 out of 4 made up statistical people believe you hit the head on the nail hee hee

WinterMute

Jul 29, 2003, 06:32 PM

never used P2P, never will, the audio quality of MP3 and attendant compression schemes makes music all but unlistenable at the kind of rates usually bandied about. I'm not crazy about .aif and red-book CD audio quality, why would I want to listen to coding artifacts all day?

My iPod runs 192k AAC which is cool through earbuds on the Tube, but which is rough in a quiet room or through speakers. Still, it's a step in the right direction.

I have no moral stance on P2P, I think the record industry has to adjust to the new technology or it will simply be over-run.

The RIAA are a temporary blip, now the box is open, there's no closing it.

Wrock

Jul 31, 2003, 05:41 PM

I'm kind of curious as to how many people use P2P to sample music, instead of just grabbing it and running.
I've given up on radio to find new stuff I like. If it weren't for Napster and AudioGalaxy, I'd have never found a couple of my favorite bands. What did I do when I found a cd that I liked? I went out and bought it. If the stuff is no good, it usually hits the trash can in a day or two.
I refuse to buy a cd unless I know I'm gonna like it. Now with ITMS, I can finally buy that one song that I like on an otherwise boring cd.
So, I'm gonna continue using P2P exactly as I have before

Bunzi2k4

Jul 31, 2003, 05:52 PM

ya know? wrock has a good point, some musical bands wouldn't have been found if it weren't for p2p. but yea thats true, it is sorta like stealing, but if you buy it the next week, i don't see a problem there. and don't you guys think that Music should be free to download!? they should make money from concerts so instead they make just a tad less money (about 2 cents per cd) but the whole riaa thing will be gone! I mean if people make music for the money, they shouldn't be making music at all. They should make music because they want to make music.

Squire

Jul 31, 2003, 07:53 PM

I've downloaded a lot of stuff only to later go out and buy the CD. Also, I have a little personal rule: If I find that I have a fair number of downloaded tracks (say, 10) from a band but I don't own one of their CDs, I go out and buy one. For example, I have a dozen or so Weezer tunes but no legal stuff. Next time I make it to my favorite record store, I'll pick up a Weezer CD. Any recommendations?

Squire