RIAA offers file-sharers amnesty! - Page 4

Rogan Josh · September 10, 2003, 02:35

I don't think it was brilliant. Stubborn old gits like me will now be more likely to fileshare tracks than before just to make a point. I haven't done it much in the past, but maybe now I should make a real effort.

Hear that RIAA? Come and get me, if you think your hard enough! (hey, this is like being at school again)

Dr. A. Cula · September 10, 2003, 03:28

Here it is, the RIAA Personal File-Sharing Amnesty Application Form (tm)

!

Q Classic · September 10, 2003, 06:53

Quote:

I dont know about that. Besides someone would buy the extras and put it onto the filesharing program and then people can download that for free too.

besides, it seems as if plenty of people are now starting to buy music dvds, chock full of extras.

Quote:

The whole thing about p2p is that is free, and I dont see how people are use to getting music and software for free would now want to pay for it. Copy right protection on software is not full proof.

no duh. piracy will always exist. are we just going to roll over and sue them? or are we going to fight back and up the ante?
people are used to getting windows for free--but they still pay for it. people can get office, or 3ds max, or photoshop for free. adobe and microsoft's pockets aren't hurting.
i know copy protection isn't fool-proof. but if copy protection is difficult enough to circumvent, your average user will not and cannot be bothered to circumvent it.

SpencerH · September 10, 2003, 07:09

Quote:

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Strategically dumb. I'm not going to buy any more CDs from them. I may change my mind in time, but I buy a lot of music -- that's right, buy, not download -- and in the meantime, they will lose those dollars.

I'm not alone, either.

The RIAA will just continue to blame file sharing for their losses. After all, it has nothing to do with an overpriced product that has dropped in (music) quality over the years.

They are performing the ostrich maneuver, logic plays no part in what they are doing. Maybe they should sue the makers of the CD burners? OOPS, one of their biggest, if not the biggest, members of the RIAA (SONY) makes them (and has announced that they will start an online system for downloading music).

Q Classic · September 10, 2003, 07:27

turns out cd sales have fallen over 50% in the seven weeks since they started this legal blitz.

this is compared to the 6.5% decline before...

Harry Seldon · September 10, 2003, 08:33

Here's a good one. Twelve year old girl settles with RIAA out of court. Good job, guys!

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...c_11&printer=1

Ned · September 10, 2003, 09:05

Once upon a time, the original radio broadcasters, briefly considered renting receivers to citizens and suing people who had illegal receivers. Well, they never did, but still made loads of money by selling advertising. With the change in emphasis, the broadcasters did everything in their power to widen their audience, not restrict it.

I am thinking that the music industry will have to rethink its revenue model and adopt something similar to the broadcast industry's.

However, having said this, I am at loss as to exactly what the recording industry could do that would make it money even while it gave it's product away for free.

JohnT · September 10, 2003, 09:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Q Cubed
turns out cd sales have fallen over 50% in the seven weeks since they started this legal blitz.

this is compared to the 6.5% decline before...

Do you have a cite? I keep reading quotes like the following:

Quote:

How such actions will affect the CD-buying public is unclear. CD sales are projected to fall 50 percent this year when compared with CD sales in 2000, and revenues are down 14 percent.

SlowwHand · September 10, 2003, 09:08

Good job, guys?
I think they're punk-ass bastards who worry about the wrong things, including picking on a little kid.

lord of the mark · September 10, 2003, 09:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
Once upon a time, the original radio broadcasters, briefly considered renting receivers to citizens and suing people who had illegal receivers. Well, they never did, but still made loads of money by selling advertising. With the change in emphasis, the broadcasters did everything in their power to widen their audience, not restrict it.

I am thinking that the music industry will have to rethink its revenue model and adopt something similar to the broadcast industry's.

However, having said this, I am at loss as to exactly what the recording industry could do that would make it money even while it gave it's product away for free.

"I get by with a Diet Coke from my friends"

"Im leaving, on Southwest Airlines, dont know when I'll be back again"

"She came in through the bathroom Windows-TM"

Q Classic · September 10, 2003, 09:28

johnt, don't bring that nasty straight dope habit of citing here.

but yes, i do have a cite: in my riaa thread which got locked, i linked to a wired article which stated it.

Quote:

what's more interesting is that in the past several weeks, with the threat of litigation people have shared and downloaded less. however, during that same period, the bottom seems to have fallen out of cd sales: rather than the pre-threat decline of 6.1%, it's now at 54%, at least according to this wired article.

JohnT · September 10, 2003, 09:28

LOTM:

Harry Seldon · September 10, 2003, 09:28

Quote:

Good job, guys?
I think they're punk-ass bastards who worry about the wrong things, including picking on a little kid.

Maybe my sarcasm was too dry on this one...

JohnT · September 10, 2003, 09:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Q Cubed
johnt, don't bring that nasty straight dope habit of citing here.

Had to. Believe it or not, I had to reassure my wife this morning that playing a downloaded song does NOT alert the RIAA that you have downloaded songs on your computer. To that end I quoted your stat (which made her overjoyed), but then decided (on my own) to verify it.

Q Classic · September 10, 2003, 09:31

huh. i misread it, actually. the decline accelerated 54%, not the actual amount that it declined.

Sava · September 10, 2003, 10:10

JohnT

I'm not falling for the RIAA's fear mongering... it's a shame so many people are. One of my friends' mom ordered him to destroy the 27 mp3's he has on his computer (despite the fact they were all ripped from CD's). And he lives at his own apartment at Northern IU. Needless to say, I had to educate her.

JohnT · September 10, 2003, 10:12

Quote:

Needless to say, I had to educate her.

5 hard inches at a time, I'm sure.

SlowwHand · September 10, 2003, 10:17

A) Sorry Harry, but that humor was dry as Texas sand.

B) Sava "educating" is a scary thought.

Harry Seldon · September 10, 2003, 11:00

Quote:

B) Sava "educating" is a scary thought.

I thought he meant he smacked that ho in her mouth and told her she better straight trip before he went ghetto on her ***** ass.

Oerdin · September 10, 2003, 11:09

Word up, Gee!

Harry Seldon · September 10, 2003, 11:34

Tru dat, mug.

Urban Ranger · September 10, 2003, 11:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Ted Striker
However at a tactical level this lawsuit is still brilliant. It shows these suits have TEETH. And that ANYBODY, anywhere, can get in trouble.

I disagree. That's the most moronic thing they have done so far. For one thing, the law suit can easily be interepreted as saying the RIAA is wimpy, they can't go after anybody other than kids and old folk. For another thing, this generates more disgust and loathing than fear, making people boycott them in response.

Boris Godunov · September 10, 2003, 11:48

Crap, monkie-- DG is RIAA. They list it as "DGG" instead of Deutsche Grammaphone or the more common DG. Shifty bastards!

Q Classic · September 10, 2003, 11:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Ted Striker
However at a tactical level this lawsuit is still brilliant. It shows these suits have TEETH. And that ANYBODY, anywhere, can get in trouble.

that's like saying barbarossa was a brilliant move on germany's part.
sure, it'll win them quite a few battles, but it'll leave them in the end utterly defeated.

The Mad Monk · September 10, 2003, 12:37

DEATH TO MUSIC TYRANTS!!!

The Mad Monk · September 10, 2003, 12:56

http://www.boycott-riaa.com/

Harry Seldon · September 10, 2003, 13:48

The only bad thing about boycotting is that some of the more understanding artists can get hurt, too. So while I'd like to see the Metallicas and Dr. Dres go down in flames, I'd hate to see the Tom Pettys do the same.