We Must Not Allow The Riaa To Do This!!!

[Psycho]

On September 8, the major record labels sued 261 music fans and customers for using filesharing programs. These lawsuits are a desperate act by a failing industry. There is little evidence that filesharing has anything to do with the decline in record sales over the past three years and the record industry's effort to eliminate filesharing has been a pathetic attempt to slow innovation so they can continue to force bad deals on musicians and music fans. On Friday, October 17, the RIAA sent letters to 200 more families demanding that they pay settlement costs or face lawsuits.

The vast majority of those sued are families with young children. Many of these people are big music fans who've bought hundreds of CDs from the same record labels that are now attacking their families. For most, mounting a legal defense against 5 corporate giants is financialy out of the question, and the $3,000-$10,000 cost of settling the lawsuit presents an enormous financial burden. The cost of settling will force many families into debt.

The major record labels think they can push Americans back into record stores by financially attacking families. Unless we speak up now, these lawsuits will continue. We need to tell the major labels that their new strategy of bullying families is wrong and must end. Companies like these don't pay any attention to the public voice until it starts costing them sales. With this boycott, we can send a strong message in language the major labels will understand: "Stop suing families, or you'll start losing customers."

For more information go to www.stopriaalawsuits.com This is the main page of the "Coalition Against RIAA" wich includes over 100 websites and growing. It has links to all 100+ websites,and if you own or run a website of any kind (including this one) you can join this coalition.

Another site thats better for just average internet users (that don't have a website) is www.downhillbattle.org it is a member of the coalition but i thought i would mention it too.

Also the FEE has a petition on their site against the lawsuits.

People give me feed back and their opinions please.

Psycho

 

[MrMacphisto]

I've got an even easier way to fight them...

Psycho, thanks for bringing up this important issue. The RIAA is full of shit, and for that reason, I don't buy albums anymore. I download them off of MIRC. It's a very simple program to use, and due to the brilliance of one particular piece of legislature that Clinton and Congress passed in the 90s, the RIAA can't sue people for using MIRC for so-called piracy. You can find entire albums, movies, video games, and software on MIRC. It's all for free, and if you have a cable connection, you can download most things within a few minutes or hours.

 

[sceej56]

The hypocrisy of the artists!

Generally, I understand and support the concept that the "pirating' of copyrighted materials is harmful to civilized society - sure everyone loves "free" stuff, whether it's downloaded or "fell off the back of a truck" but most people understand that nothing is truly free and that illegally taking either drives up costs for theose who legally purchase or dries up supply as producers of material lose oney or simply quit. It's certainly a topic that comes up frequently on this board as regards professionally produced tickling pics/vids etc being made available for free.

What kills me is the heavy handed approach of the music industry/artists and the hypocrisy. Lars from Metallica alternately whining and threatening at congressional hearings. And the worst of all was Madonna with her little "trojan horse" - download what you think is my music and instead get a lecture from me about "stealing" - this from a person who boasted freely about how she shoplifted during her "starving artist" days - now that she's a multi multi millionaire, she's going to lecture people? And the message is it's ok to rip off the grocver who's busting his/her ass to make a living but not the millionaire "artist" - give me a fucking break! And on that topic, why is it considered taboo among artists to complain at all about "sampling" - taking whole riffs/lyrics out of another person's work and simply adding them to a new song/rap? For the most part, it's permissable among the artists themselves to violate copyright - Sting falls all overhimself complimenting Puffy for sampling "Every Breath She Takes" into "I'll Be Missing You" ... just don't let the "little people" try it or they get slapped with a lawsuit.

 

[Limeoutsider]

What I dont understand is why the industry thinks people want to pay $18-$28 for a CD for one ot two good songs 😕

 

[Neutron]

Let Me Ask You This...

If you do an honest days work don't you expect to be paid for your efforts? Just wondering...


Tron

 

[Mimi]

I'm with Sceej on this one. I was one of the very first internet file sharing users to get a notice in the mail of a lawsuit.

I used to be an occassional user of Napster, when it was still up and running. My main purpose in using it was for finding songs I could not purchase at the record store because the albums they were featured on were "out of print" or no longer produced. I had no other option than to turn to other internet users who may HAVE the album that featured the song I was looking for, and were kind enough to make an MP3 of it. I also sometimes used Napster to listen to a few UNRELEASED songs of an album of a group I liked, in order to determine if I wanted to blow the $15-$20 on the entire CD. If other songs on the CD not currently being played on the radio were good, I would fork out the funds for it.

One CD I did that with was "Garage Inc" by Metallica. I knew I really liked "Whiskey in the Jar" and "Turn the Page" after hearing them, but at the time, the 2 CD set was brand new and selling for $35. That's a lot to spend on something you may only like two songs off of. So I tried out a few of the other songs on the CD's on Napster, liked what I heard, and went out and bought the 2 disc set. Yes, in support of Metallica and their music, and I went and dropped the $35 on the set. Once I owned "Garage Inc", I deleted the songs I had downloaded (since I had them on CD). However, I loved the song "Whiskey in the Jar" so much at that time, that I was constantly putting the CD into my disc drive just to listen to it. I got a little tired of doing that, so to make it easier, I just burned the song onto my hard drive, so I could listen to it anytime without having to go and dig the disc out of my ex's huge CD case (he's a DJ, and keeps all the CD's stored in a huge case for transporting purposes).

Apparently, that was a mistake.

About 4 months later, Metallica got a bee in their bonnets about their music being exchanged over the internet through the use of programs like Napster. So they decided to SUE their fans. Since I had "Whiskey in the Jar" burned onto my hard drive, I was named in this lawsuit, and received notification that I was involved in a pending lawsuit, that may result in legal action through means of fines and or jail time.

Lovely.

Nevermind the fact that I SHELLED OUT THE $35, and I OWNED THE CD. Nope. They were suing me because I burned one of their songs onto my computer, and therefore was making it available to other users on the internet.

I am not a vindictive person. Nor am I out to screw anyone over. Like sceej, I understand that a good portion of any artists income comes from record sales...and if an artist is not selling well at the store, they could conceivable lose their recording contract. So when I really like an artist or a group, I will gladly pay the money to own their CD. I know it is important to support them through purchasing their music...especially if I want this artist or group to stick around and continue providing music I enjoy.

But to SUE your fans? That is going way overboard. Needless to say, I have not since, nor do I ever again intend to purchase anything produced by Metallica. Perhaps it is spiteful of me, but threatening me with legal action through a lawsuit simply because I made the mistake of being a fan of theirs, is a quick way to lose me as a fan for the remainder of their career.

There are better ways to handle this than how the RIAA currently is choosing to do so. Suing the people who potentially keep music in business, is NOT the way to do it.

Mimi

 

[tklr5150]

Every piece of technology that existed in 1984 has been dramatically reduced in price from then to now.....except CDs, despite repeated promises from the record industry that they would be gradually marked down as they were integrated into the marketplace. I respect artists and will pay for their music if I enjoy it without hesitation. I have no respect for the RIAA and would gladly rob them blind and feel proud to do it. Sadly it's a catch-22. But like Mimi, I generally use downloads more as a way to decide to buy a CD or not, as evidenced by my 300-400 CD collection. I'll reward an artist's honest days work but I spit on the crooked work of the RIAA

 

[Neutron]

So What If...

You cruised into a website and you found someone giving away Jeffs or TIBs stuff for free? My guess is we'd see all sorts of moral outrage.
Sorry folks, whether the people are rich or poor, your idol or your enemy, theft is theft.

Tron

 

[TKpervert]

Tron has a good point but so does Lime.

My prediction?

The market will soon adjust, refusing to pay an 'artist' $20 million a year to dress funny, rat their hair, grab their crotch, and occasionally hit a note, after 15 takes in the studio,
lip-synching the piece forever thereafter in front of 10,000 watts of amplification.

The market will offer $2 million a year.

Now you can buy a CD for 4 bucks.

 

[asutickler]

lol


I love how the RIAA claims that it is going after file-sharing to protect the income of artists. They aren't. The RIAA is actually attempting to protect a specific format for music distribution: the CD. Compact discs, because they need to be manufactured and distributed, allow for record companies to reap massive profits from the sale of music. Mp3 and other such file formats require no middleman, and are therefore difficult for record labels to utilize to obtain a profit. Note the artists who are the most outspoken in favor of the RIAA's opinion on file sharing; acts such as Eminem, Dr. Dre, and Metallica. The vast majority of the artists who actively bash file sharing are also artists who have their own labels, and thus have a vested interest in the maintenance of the current CD-based music distribution system. The majority of artists (especially newer talent) see very little profit from their recordings, and make the majority of their income from concerts, merchandise, and endorsements. On VH1's "Behind the Music: TLC," one of the three members of the group TLC (I forget which one) revealed how much the group made from the actual sales of their multi-million selling first album: $150,000. Split three ways.

As soon as a non label-owning, established act wises up and begins releasing material directly to fans via the internet, the RIAA is effectively FUBAR. The RIAA is struggling to prolong their control of the industry by suppressing technology which circumvents the need for the distribution of music on CDs.

The RIAA's "moral" stance against those who are "stealing" music is an absolute joke. A year or so ago, the major labels behind the RIAA quietly settled a MASSIVE price-fixing lawsuit brought by the attorneys general of 43 states, commonwealths and territories. Why did they settle, you ask? Because they were in for the pounding of their smarmy little lives should the suit have gone to trial. In a previous post, tklr5150 said: "Every piece of technology that existed in 1984 has been dramatically reduced in price from then to now.....except CDs, despite repeated promises from the record industry that they would be gradually marked down as they were integrated into the marketplace." This was not unintentional, nor did it happen through natural market economics. The members of the RIAA acted in concert to artificially inflate the retail prices of CDs, essentially stealing money out of the pockets of consumers who paid said artificially inflated prices for CDs.

The RIAA is not merely an advocacy group. It is an organization which facilitates the illegal cooperation of its members, so that those members can conspire to both fix prices and squeeze out competitors... simultaneously. In short, the RIAA are thieving jackals, and the sooner they're out of business, the better. Fortunately, although they can try their weasel-y best, the RIAA lacks the power to halt the advance of technology. Soon the CD will go the way of the phonograph record, 8-Track and cassette tape... and as the CD goes, so shall go the RIAA.

I doubt they'll be missed.

 

[Traveler]

I agree with Neutron.I will agree though that some of these people are pinheads but,they do the 12 to 15 hour video shoots.They,do the relentless hours of studio mixing singing and resignig to get it right.They travel and do the shows,they have to pay the people to set up the shows,take them down.There is alot that goes into a cd then just singing and going on mtv.So,if they should get something for their hard work don't you think that's ok.Just my opinion though.🙂 🙂

And if you say well that's their job,well that's the point

 

[MrMacphisto]

Neutron and Traveler

You guys are totally missing the point... The majority of the income from a CD goes to a recording company. The artist sees only a small portion of it, since most record deals give the artist the short end of the stick. The RIAA is vigilant in its cause because it is the voice of the 5 main recording companies, which have become a massive oligopoly. They control the market by setting the price of CDs well beyond what they should be. Have you ever wondered why a soundtrack is often more than a DVD of the same movie? It's because the music corporations aren't nearly as smart as the movie ones. Movie corporations understand that people won't pay ridiculous amounts of money for movies, so that's why DVD prices are often comparable to CD ones. Paying $20 for a movie is ok, but paying the same for an album is ridiculous when you consider that an album is typically only an hour long with no visuals, while a movie is between an hour and a half and 3 hours with visuals.

If you wanna support an artist and not just the recording company, go to a concert. Artists see far more money from tickets than albums. Buying CDs mostly supports the recording companies, which are definitely NOT hurting for money.

 

[kis123]

Re: Neutron and Traveler

You guys are totally missing the point... The majority of the income from a CD goes to a recording company. The artist sees only a small portion of it, since most record deals give the artist the short end of the stick. The RIAA is vigilant in its cause because it is the voice of the 5 main recording companies, which have become a massive oligopoly. They control the market by setting the price of CDs well beyond what they should be. Have you ever wondered why a soundtrack is often more than a DVD of the same movie? It's because the music corporations aren't nearly as smart as the movie ones. Movie corporations understand that people won't pay ridiculous amounts of money for movies, so that's why DVD prices are often comparable to CD ones. Paying $20 for a movie is ok, but paying the same for an album is ridiculous when you consider that an album is typically only an hour long with no visuals, while a movie is between an hour and a half and 3 hours with visuals.

If you wanna support an artist and not just the recording company, go to a concert. Artists see far more money from tickets than albums. Buying CDs mostly supports the recording companies, which are
definitely NOT hurting for money.

Thank you, someone finally hit the point on the head! Just because artists (for lack of a better term) get in front of the tv telling consumers not to steal their music, doesn't mean that they're getting any benefit from it.

The record companies take most of the money from record sales. The artists get their money from tours, personal promotions, and other ventures like clothing lines, restaurants, and others.

I do not allow my children to download music because it is theft, plain and simple. However, I do not approve rich record companies using agencies to shakedown teenagers either. There must be some other way.

 

[Psycho]

I agree with all of you. Yes downloading is illegle, but not everything that is against the law is morally wrong. For instance you can't pray or display the 10 commandments in a public place like a school or courthouse but that doesnt mean its wrong to do it. What about people who cant afford the HUGE price of a cd. What about people who want to here more than just whats sold by the RIAA. No matter where you stand on this however you must agree suing working families into bankrupcy and poverty isnt right. This is why I say boycott them. If you want to buy a RIAA album just go on to Amazon and buy it used that way we wont be supporting lawsuits against the innosant. By the way Mcphirsto where would the MIRC site be located?

Psycho

 

[natural tickler]

You guys are missing the point. Stuff like that shouldn't be free. You are taking advantage of the artist who has put in time to come up the finished product. You are taking money out of the artist's pockets, for what you're really doing is stealing. Period.

 

[Psycho]

I disagree natural, but even if you are right does that give the RIAA the right to do what its doing. Sueing working families for up to 150,000 for EACH song. They are taking everything some people own. Taking away their income their property and their futures without any warning before they are randomly sued. Not to mention the ILEAGLE invasion of privacy that everyone agrees that these supenas are. (sorry if I spelled something wrong because I am pretty shure that I did) So basically they condemn people to poverty because they downloaded one song. People here songs on the radio for free and you never hear them complain about people recording radio to audio tapes.
They might not have even known that downloading is against the law. The bottom line is that even if you are against downloading two wrongs don't make a right, and trust me the RIAA's wrong is way worse than a person downloading the Nelly song that they heard on the radio.

Psycho

 

[MrMacphisto]

I'm not even going to comment about the simplicity of natural tickler's logic on this one....

Psycho, if you wanna use MIRC, then go to mirc.com and download the program. Then you can use sites like Packetnews.com to search IRC for whatever files you want. It will take you a little while to learn how to use IRC, but mirc.com has a bunch of pages that show you how to use it.

 

[Psycho]

Thanx man.

Psycho

 

[kis123]

You guys are missing the point. Stuff like that shouldn't be free. You are taking advantage of the artist who has put in time to come up the finished product. You are taking money out of the artist's pockets, for what you're really doing is stealing. Period.

It's very unusual that me and NT agree on certain issues. But, NT is right on this one. Even though the record companies suck and the "artists" are making obscene money, this is their property to do with as they wish. We should'nt be recording it without their permission. If you do, then it is considered stealing or pirating, and you're subject to the consequences. I don't always agree with their tactics, but they're going to win in court, which is what matters. I'd rather see folks obeying the law than to end up in court costing relatives thousands of dollars they don't have.

 

[Psycho]

Yall havent heard a word that ive said have you.

Lets say I make this set of 10 toy cars. I sell hundreds of them. This kid buys five of them. Then he trades them to another kid for some different cars that he wants. Now I have the right to charge these kids 150,000 per car that they traded because I made them? Same thing just with music.

If any of you have downloaded one or more songs made by one of the hundreds of record labels that the RIAA controls in the past three years then you WILL be sued without warning and will have to pay up to 150,000 per song. Sound outrageous? Well thats because it is. They arent right legally or morally. I know that before they are finished that I will be sued. How many of you will be? There is no way to stop it. Unless we get them to stop the lawsuits. Its unfair and injust.

Psycho

 

[Limeoutsider]

Id counter sue, personally

 

[kyle]

If I think it's a great album i'll buy it. But like Lime said, no one wants to buy the whole damn thing for 2 good songs. Plus I like stealing from alot of those whining, liberal bastards.

 

[Limeoutsider]

Id be worried about being sued, but my comp crashed and I lost everything, so I have nothing

 

[Psycho]

It doesn't matter. For about 3 years they have had people watching downloads on the former Napter, Kazaa, Morpheos,and 2 or 3 others.

Psycho

 

[kis123]

If I think it's a great album i'll buy it. But like Lime said, no one wants to buy the whole damn thing for 2 good songs. Plus I like stealing from alot of those whining, liberal bastards.

Your honesty is appreciated! 😉 However, they're the ones with the lawyers and big bucks. It's better not to put onesself through it over a downloaded song.

Yes, Psycho, I heard you. All the more reason not to download. I am not in agreement with the tactics of the RIAA or the record companies, but........(refer to previous posts to finish sentence)🙂