RIAA To Bend Over Maybe

FrgMstr

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
2FA
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
58,683
Even though Steve is not here today, it just would not seem right to let a week go by without posting a story about the RIAA. In this case it looks as though picking on the wrong person could leave the RIAA with egg on its face very possibly.

During that discovery phase, the RIAA could be forced to release potentially incriminating details about its techniques for investigating alleged file sharers. This information will likely be held under a confidential seal, but if lawsuits over mold, tobacco, and asbestos are any indication, the RIAA's secrets will likely leak out into the legal community at large, potentially culminating in a class action suit.
Click to expand...
 
If they actually get to the phase that would be great. I myself am against music and movie pirarcy and think the people should have some type of punishment handed out. But I don't think they go about doing it in the correct manor.
 
when the artists actually see the money i'll be more sympathetic to the industry, until then...raise the jolly roger!

as for movies, there is such a small percentage that isn't mindless mainstream drivel designed to entertain and distract with flashy effects and simple trite plots, that i can easily afford the odd movie that comes out and is worth owning
 
RIAA defense: You mean hacking into people's systems and installing viruses, rootkits, and spyware is illegal for finding downloaded music?
 
"RIAA To Bend Over Maybe"

Best title ever!!

I wouldnt mind there dirty secrets getting leaked to the internet. Maybe finally people will take a stand against them.
 
benw17 said:
HAHAAHA ROFL!!!

didnt sony do this too?
Click to expand...

yeah but even sony said sorry after a while... and thats the company that called the broken square button and screen in the first run of psp's a "feature"

the RIAA just breaks the law and then sues you for "making" them do it
 
Manaknight said:
when the artists actually see the money i'll be more sympathetic to the industry, until then...raise the jolly roger!

as for movies, there is such a small percentage that isn't mindless mainstream drivel designed to entertain and distract with flashy effects and simple trite plots, that i can easily afford the odd movie that comes out and is worth owning
Click to expand...

QFT. And even when a movie comes out, if it wasn't something I just -had- to see in the theater, I'll wait until there's a sale price on it.
 
I just think the lawmakers, RIAA, MPAA, and the like are just stuck in an archaic idea of copy protection.

Digital Copyright is an oxymoron. There are methods to make huge sums of money here while becoming a part of the 21st century. They're just too shortsighted to see that. MP3 will always be the preferred music format because it's free of DRM and has relatively good quality for a file size in the day and age of 1TB drives that can only be considered minuscule.

The fact people still buy physical CDs astounds me.
 
Really, is the RIAA Monitoring your Traffic or actually indruding in to your system?


If its the latter, that would make it a criminal act.
 
TheBluePill said:
Really, is the RIAA Monitoring your Traffic or actually indruding in to your system?
Click to expand...
This is like a mini slashdot. Read the complaint in the link. :p The RIAA hires "investigators" (licensed?) to see who is sharing files.

Regardless of the merits of the RICO complaint, there are some good questions there: how much is the RIAA paying lawyers (how much does it cost the RIAA for the a lawsuit), why does it choose to settle prelitigation for $3-$4K, and probably the biggest question: does it pay the investigators a percentage of the money paid (illegal in several states, including NY).

The "intrusion" claim was something brought up by an early defendant because MediaSentry was copying lists of files from the user's public share information on Kazaa. Of course that defense didn't work since it was open to the public.
 
i do not pirate music or movies, but i sincerely hope that his lawsuit goes through! i think those questions are legitimate ones that need revealed!
 
DrVal said:
I just think the lawmakers, RIAA, MPAA, and the like are just stuck in an archaic idea of copy protection. Digital Copyright is an oxymoron. There are methods to make huge sums of money here while becoming a part of the 21st century. They're just too shortsighted to see that.
Click to expand...
Sorta true. I think they are a bit smarter than that. They have an archaic business model. They have that music industry ecosystem that needs to keep going. I think they are aware that the so called pirating has nothing to do with actual lost sales but they found a way to exploit the system and it's working. They are more than likely making a nice sum of money from their efforts. They won't stop until they are forced to.

DrVal said:
MP3 will always be the preferred music format because it's free of DRM and has relatively good quality for a file size in the day and age of 1TB drives that can only be considered minuscule.
Click to expand...
It's a decent compromise for the general public.

DrVal said:
The fact people still buy physical CDs astounds me.
Click to expand...
The fact that you are astounded by that astounds me. When DRM free lossless files become the standard then I will be surprised when folks with access to decent bandwidth continue to buy CDs. For the folks that have no experience with quality sound and were raised on this compressed garbage sure MP3 will suffice. But for the rest of us who care about getting the best quality sound when we are paying for our music and know what uncompressed music sounds like, we're not going settle for lossy formats. We want true CD quality sound and at the prices we're paying we want our physical media, jewel cases and liner notes.

I keep my CDs in a few binders that get stored in a cool dry place and I haven't touched them in ages. I would love to see the CD go away, but only when a lossless format becomes the standard, I can retrieve my music from the distributer in case of data loss without having to pay any additional fees, and I'm not tied to any silly ass DRM. The price needs to come down a bit as well.

I miss Tower Records.
 
tesfaye said:
For the folks that have no experience with quality sound and were raised on this compressed garbage sure MP3 will suffice. But for the rest of us who care about getting the best quality sound when we are paying for our music and know what uncompressed music sounds like, we're not going settle for lossy formats. We want true CD quality sound and at the prices we're paying we want our physical media, jewel cases and liner notes.



.
Click to expand...

Amen Brother
 
Its about time we get this information out of the RIAA. Its ridiculous that they RIAA was protected from releasing this information in previous cases.

I wonder how much they've already tried to bribe her to drop the countersuit.
 
The fact that you are astounded by that astounds me. When DRM free lossless files become the standard then I will be surprised when folks with access to decent bandwidth continue to buy CDs. For the folks that have no experience with quality sound and were raised on this compressed garbage sure MP3 will suffice. But for the rest of us who care about getting the best quality sound when we are paying for our music and know what uncompressed music sounds like, we're not going settle for lossy formats. We want true CD quality sound and at the prices we're paying we want our physical media, jewel cases and liner notes.
Click to expand...

Lol... been listening to any popular music recently? :p.
 
As an amateur musician, I am against the illegal duplication and redistribution of copy-protected material.

As a consumer, I am against the industry that expects me to buy 2 CD's if I want a copy in my car and in my home stereo. I have paid for the "right" to listen to the music, I should have the "right" to make a backup copy to keep in my car.

I also believe it should be the ARTIST'S choice whether or not their material is permitted to be file-shared or downloaded.
 
Arcygenical said:
Lol... been listening to any popular music recently? :p.
Click to expand...
Lol, not much of it. I'm not a Top 40 man but I listen to the radio when I'm forced to. I tend to find music through friends, shows, and indie music sites. I listen to a wide variety of music.

I want to see the RIAA numbers. I'm surprised they've gotten this far without being exposed. I hope this woman at least gets through discovery.
 
TheBluePill said:
Really, is the RIAA Monitoring your Traffic or actually indruding in to your system?


If its the latter, that would make it a criminal act.
Click to expand...
Monitoring traffic is a huge crime, called invasion of privacy.
 
im all for the riaa* spending a nice eternity in a hot place ;)

*mpaa too :D
 
DrVal said:
I just think the lawmakers, RIAA, MPAA, and the like are just stuck in an archaic idea of copy protection.

Digital Copyright is an oxymoron. There are methods to make huge sums of money here while becoming a part of the 21st century. They're just too shortsighted to see that. MP3 will always be the preferred music format because it's free of DRM and has relatively good quality for a file size in the day and age of 1TB drives that can only be considered minuscule.

The fact people still buy physical CDs astounds me.
Click to expand...

Why? The CD still has superior audio quality over MP3 (which a $600 attempt at a hi-fi can prove). MP3 is portable, but is a step backwards as well. Lossless formats save very little if any space compared to CD-DA, so there's no real purpose to use them for any high-fidelity listening.
 
mustang_steve said:
Why? The CD still has superior audio quality over MP3 (which a $600 attempt at a hi-fi can prove). MP3 is portable, but is a step backwards as well. Lossless formats save very little if any space compared to CD-DA, so there's no real purpose to use them for any high-fidelity listening.
Click to expand...

I think you proved his point. MP3 is portable.

There's a difference between those who care about high-fidelity and those of ease of use. Can you tell a difference between a high quality production CD and an MP3...sure, but the difference most of the times is so subtle that most people won't care. MP3's are easy, CD's can be a pain in the rear.
 
Way back in the day as they say there was a huge controversy about people using a VCR to copy movies if for no other reason then time shifting. The VCR was destined to kill the movie theater we had all come to know and love and pay $5.00 for a coke and $5.00 for the worst popcorn ever not to mention the optional $.50 shot of a butter like substance.

Prior to that everyone of the music studios not only did nothing about but actually encouraged people to buy a Cassette Recorder so you could record play your records in your car and eventually the boom box on your shoulder and your walkman.

It all worked, movie theater attendance went up the popcorn got worse and more records and blank tapes sold like mad.

The truth is the consumer consumed more and the supporting industries surrounding the record and tape and HIFI business as well as the record companies made more money.

Digital recording and the computer along with high speed access changed all the rules. Now the movie theater, the sales of CD’s and DVD’s are on a downhill profit swing and everybody knows it’s all the fault of pirates.

There is no chance in hell the music the studios are releasing on CD’s today for the most part not only suck but are way over priced. There is no chance similar problem go along with the DVD, poor quality and over pricing not to mention really poor movie scripts.

Add to that what once used to be a nice big enjoyable movie theater has been replaced by 5 theaters in the same space with a much smaller screen and crap digital copies of movies brought in by satellite feed. The price of the ticket has gone up again popcorn costs even more now and the mystery butter like stuff could probably qualify as a drug to promote blood clotting. And you can’t hear a damn thing in the theater because nobody can control their kids.

Now the big problem. A copy of Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon still sells for $15.00 to $17.00 and if my recollection is right the band makes $.50 or less per copy. The dealer selling you the disk makes between $3.00 and $5.00 dollars profit. So, worst case out of your $15.00 purchase we can account for $5.50. Yes, there is studio time and engineer time and cost of production, but did the costs come to $9.50 per each and every disk sold? I’m pretty sure the studio time has been paid as well as the sound guys etc a long time ago. So, who is getting that $9.50 today?

As I have said before, I don’t advocate piracy, however the piracy here in pure dollars is going…………….well, you guess where.:rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top