Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Music industry ends mass lawsuits against file sharers, stealing music off internet, combat online music piracy, legal assault, breach of contract, Napster, RIAA headquarters
After years of suing thousands of people for allegedly stealing music via the Internet, the recording industry is set to drop its legal assault as it searches for more effective ways to combat online music piracy.
I have my doubts re the legality of the RIAA requesting that my Internet ISP reduce the level of my service or terminate my service at the sole discretion of the RIAA and my ISP. I have a contract with my ISP for X number of months to provide Internet service a X speed downstream, and X speed upstream for the duration of the contract at the quoted rates in effect at the beginning of my contract term. IMO, I would have a "breach of contract" issue with my ISP for reduced service and/or termination of contract simply due to my making music files available on peer-to-peer file sharing networks. I am not taking any direct action in the acquisition of files from my computer by other users on a file sharing network made up of individual users that are not controlled nor connected to a central server as was the old file sharing protocols (Napster) and file servers.
Bout time. The only thing that makes me madder then the RIAA is bush and his crime family and the rest of the American govt for that matter.
Those crooks at the RIAA has taken small children to court and raped their parents of homes, cars, valubles...anything of value. Because little Johnny recorded a song from the internet. That is not even an extreme example. And no one stoped them.
Now can Napster and all those 35,000 citizens who were sued sue right back to recover?
I miss Napster even though new better music sharing sites are out there.
And your also right that they have no right to tell your server whom you paid for a specific service, to limit you. Who do they think they are? Your government?
Why cant the terrorists drop a few bombs on the RIAA headquarters? America would be a better place without them. Poor RIAA, no one buys CDs, tapes or records like they used to. Poor babies.
Hmm . . . I actually read that more as "The music industry can no longer afford the costs of taking people to court"--hardly a surprise in the present economy.
It might not suggest that the big companies are closer to going out of business (although I really don't think that would be a bad development at this point--I'd like to see the playing field leveled more, as I have a vested interest in that), but it at least suggests that they have to watch their budgets much more closely, and they can't afford to go throwing money all over the place when it really gives them no return.
Personally, I think that the music industry would be better off if they took another look at their tactics. Currently, they inspire more illegal downloading with all of the fuss.
Personally, I have always felt that an artist should at least provide their latest release music for free online, while allowing P2P sharing of new and old releases. Build the fanbase. Still sell CD's in the store for those who want the physical CD. Make up the costs of the downloads by having ads on the site (like how City-Data pays for itself), slight increase ($3 or $4) in concert prices, and a slight increase in merchandise costs.
As it stands, the RIAA just ticks off the customers - who in turn will purposely steal music as a "haha" and spit on the music industry..
Not to mention on the downloading part, some people would rather hear the entire track list before deciding to purchase a CD for however much they cost nowadays.
Personally, I have always felt that an artist should at least provide their latest release music for free online, while allowing P2P sharing of new and old releases. Build the fanbase. Still sell CD's in the store for those who want the physical CD. Make up the costs of the downloads by having ads on the site (like how City-Data pays for itself), slight increase ($3 or $4) in concert prices, and a slight increase in merchandise costs.
If we'd just switch over to my economic and political system, then musicians wouldn't have to worry about making money from their music . . . although they might have to work at another job for one year (40 hours per week) out of every four--maybe doing things like helping to build houses, produce food, etc., but also maybe doing things like teaching music, building instruments, etc.
The musicians who are very popular would likely not have to do even that, as people would be willing to give them all the things they need/desire.
Personally, I think that the music industry would be better off if they took another look at their tactics. Currently, they inspire more illegal downloading with all of the fuss.
Personally, I have always felt that an artist should at least provide their latest release music for free online, while allowing P2P sharing of new and old releases. Build the fanbase. Still sell CD's in the store for those who want the physical CD. Make up the costs of the downloads by having ads on the site (like how City-Data pays for itself), slight increase ($3 or $4) in concert prices, and a slight increase in merchandise costs.
As it stands, the RIAA just ticks off the customers - who in turn will purposely steal music as a "haha" and spit on the music industry..
Not to mention on the downloading part, some people would rather hear the entire track list before deciding to purchase a CD for however much they cost nowadays.
Good points you make. You did a far better job of remaining calm then I did. Those people make my blood boil. They are the real criminals.
Where is the ACLU when you need them? All the victims of the RIAA should sue them back.
Almost no crimes can a juvenile be procecuted by the law. Yet the RIAA succeeded in every single case against juveniles just for downloading a stupid song.
Artists should get fair pay for their work, talent, music,,, but the RIAA is not IMHO looking out just in their interests, they've gone extremely way too far in their actions. This, for better/worse, is not the 'old' days, its a new digital internet age, items will be shared, transferred, stored, etc. in ways not imagined years ago... and business needs to not just recognize that, but work WITH the public, the masses who have a desire to hear, see, experience, share, enjoy, work with these files, this data, this music, etc. in this new fashion.
I think I have read various theories about how much money record companes & artists could make if they offered music to download legally at a very low price, say, $.05, without any restrictions on the file. If a song was readily available at $.05 to download legally, would you pay that or still seek it out fully free & illegal? I already am willing to pay $.09 at this Russian music site I use. To me, that is reasonable...and if I am not crazy about the album, well I am only out $1 or so.
Instead, they have dug their heels in the ground and want to live in the past. They need to accept that people do not value the CDs at the prices they are sold at. $.99 is too much for a song.
It's seven years old now, but Pete Townshend's take on this is still relevant.
Excerpt:
"My son regarded what we did as illegal. He kept saying it was wrong to steal the music. I told him we were listening to it, just that. When we were finished we could trash it if he preferred. If he wants to fight for my rights he could call up BMI and ask them why my broadcast-related payments were so low during the years The Who were in the top 10 AOR playlists. He might ask them why during the 1989 Who tour, when we paid a huge sum of money to BMI for the right to perform songs I had written, they eventually paid me (after a lot of complaining from my manager) a tiny portion of that sum, excusing themselves because their main payout area that year was Nashville."
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,754,704 times
Reputation: 3587
In 20 years the "music industry" is not going to be around anymore. With the internet artist get mass distribution of their stuff on line- no middle man needed. And few artist really give a crap about the labels anyway because about 95% of what an artist makes is made on the ROAD. Artist make very little from the record company because the record company deducts a massive amount of expenses like promotion, distribution, advertising, studio time, production cost before the artist sees a CENT of money from a record. Then, after that, the artist gets about $1 on a CD that it sells to you for $13. The average artist has to sell about 1.2 million records before they get anything. That is why they are on the road all the time. That is where they make their money. Have you noticed that there are artist that have not made a new record in 30 years but are still touring and packing concert venues (Chicago, Doobie Bros, Allman Bros)?? There is a reason they don't make new records. They didn't make any money off the old records and they don't need to make new ones!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
