Teen Accuses Record Companies Of Collusion

[Grimlaking]

Personally I want a judge that is going to order the charges to the illegale downloader/distributor to pay exactly what the artist would get to the artist themselves if they want it. Not to the RIAA.

 

[seanbear]

They're suing people for thousands, and TENS of thousands of dollars per song. o.0 Am I the only one who doesn't see that adding up? Or was my collegiate math education sadly wasted?

I can't say for sure, but I think thats not simply the cost of the IP (Intellectual property) but punitive damages as well. In other words, fining them extra as a punishment in an effort to curb such behavior.

As for arguments about who gets how much money per performance, I'm not sure thats relevant to the discussion. They want X amount for their music and either you pay or take it without paying. Personally, I think thats morally and ethically wrong.


Regarding the disposition of this particular case, as I've said before, everything that I've seen lies in the kids favor.

 

[seanbear]

Personally I want a judge that is going to order the charges to the illegale downloader/distributor to pay exactly what the artist would get to the artist themselves if they want it. Not to the RIAA.

The RIAA doesnt get a share of profits form proceeds of musical sales. The RIAA is suing on behalf of these artists, not the industry. Now the artist may indeed receive a smaller percentage compare to what the people who promote and produce them do, but they still lose money.

 

[LeTUOtter]

They want X amount for their music and either you pay or take it without paying.

True dat. That's just about capitalism in a nutshell right there. But I'm thinking of agreeing with the guy who suggested just DLing the album and mailing a ten-spot to the artist. It's creative, subversive, and morally steadied, even if not entirely stable.

 

[seanbear]

True dat. That's just about capitalism in a nutshell right there. But I'm thinking of agreeing with the guy who suggested just DLing the album and mailing a ten-spot to the artist. It's creative, subversive, and morally steadied, even if not entirely stable.

Not really. Companies spend money finding, promoting, and producing these artists. They deserve not only to recoup their losses, but to turn a profit.

Just as a disclaimer: I ain't no lawyer and I don't work for the RIAA.. If I disagree with your stance, please understand its not a personal attack.

 

[wtburnette]

As for arguments about who gets how much money per performance, I'm not sure thats relevant to the discussion. They want X amount for their music and either you pay or take it without paying. Personally, I think thats morally and ethically wrong.

Thankfully I can live with that, personally.

True dat. That's just about capitalism in a nutshell right there. But I'm thinking of agreeing with the guy who suggested just DLing the album and mailing a ten-spot to the artist. It's creative, subversive, and morally steadied, even if not entirely stable.

Not really. Companies spend money finding, promoting, and producing these artists. They deserve not only to recoup their losses, but to turn a profit.

Just as a disclaimer: I ain't no lawyer and I don't work for the RIAA.. If I disagree with your stance, please understand its not a personal attack.

The problem is, there's not much in the way of competition for music. Most recording companies offer their products (CD's) at the same ridiculous prices, usually with DRM on the disk that may or may not ruin your listening experience and that may or may not curb your free use rights. Your alternative is to go to any of the total shit download services and pull down a lossy piece of crap with even worse DRM built in, or a price that's just as bad in reality. Yeah, when the legal download services came out, I was all over them. In the last couple years, I'd gone from only buying a few CD's in the last 15 years as my form of protest, to buying a hundred or more songs from download services. I used MusicMatch and Napster 2.0 and was happy to be able to "cherry pick" the songs I wanted. Problem is, I realize just how lossy these pieces of crap are and I'm still basically paying the price of a regular CD (at a buck a song, 15 songs which is around normal for a CD is still $15). There may be a bit of a discount, but the lossiness of the songs more then make up for that. If the recording industry would take some good ideas from "that russian site", I'd be happy. If they offered a MUCH broader array of songs, with better or no DRM, for less money and offered it to us at a better bitrate, I'd be buying hundreds of dollars worth of music a year. As it is, I haven't bought a single song in the last 6 months and probably won't for the next 6 unless things change. I listen to Pandora on the computer, plus XM in my car, or some of the CD's I already owned or have burned. /rant

Oh yeah, go kid...

 

[LeTUOtter]

The problem is, there's not much in the way of competition for music...Your alternative is to go to any of the total shit download services and pull down a lossy piece of crap with even worse DRM built in, or a price that's just as bad in reality.

Yeah, I agree that the industry really needs a revamp. Unfortunately, in my opinion, it's at the end of a much longer list of things that really need more oversight in the pricing (internet access? anyone else pissed about paying 5x as much for 1/3 of the bandwidth other countries get?).
Personally, I've gotten almost all the songs I own from the iTunes store, and I'm not so much of an audiophile that I could really tell the difference, nor do I own the equipment that would allow me to make such a distinction. Also, since I do agree that $10 may still be higher than I would like for a CD (even though that's half retail), the real coup de grace there is the ability to choose single songs if you so desire. Oh yeah, and DRM sucks. Fair use, my ass... *grumbles*

 

[LeTUOtter]

Not really. Companies spend money finding, promoting, and producing these artists. They deserve not only to recoup their losses, but to turn a profit.
If I disagree with your stance, please understand its not a personal attack.

Oh yeah, no attack felt, man. I love the ability to disagree. That's kinda why America works, after all.

And you are right, the people doing the work DO deserve to get theirs for it. Unfortunately for us, the market is dictated by the motto of American industry: "Get what you can". Until people actually DO stop buying CDs and music, there's not going to be a change. And even if they were mass boycotted, I'm sure they'd find a new reason to blame, and go sue THAT.
No one likes to be told they're wrong, and the people who are DLing music, especially from russian MP3 sites and the like, are telling the industry exactly that. Instead of trying to find a middle ground, they got all defensive and went and pissed off the world. *shrugs* I dunno, though. I hope things go well for the kid, not because he's "innocent", but the tactics of the RIAA and others really do need to be leashed.