Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 35
  1. #1

    Online File Sharing

    Looks like the RIAA has won a major court battle against file sharing. They won a case against Verizon, where they were asking Verizon to turn over the name of one of their users, who downloaded more than 600 songs in one day. They obtained his I.P. information with tracking software.

    Verizon fought them, and lost. Though they plan to appeal.

    For those of us who like downloading music, it's a major blow. I download music, mostly because, well, I refuse to buy it, at least for the prices they sell it at. The record industry is in big trouble right now, and I personally believe, the only way to get back on track is to: A.) lower the price structure, so it isn't worth our while to download it, and B.) Increase the quality of music being released. Instead of forcing the flavor of the week down our throats, and not giving the artists ample time to create good music, dedicate yourself to the artists, the way they used to.

    Anyway, this, with the announcement by RIAA CEO Hillary Rosen that she thinks Internet Providers should be charged for their users downloading material, could make things interesting. If they start charging the providers, then we could see a noticeable jump in service costs.

    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...dc_3&printer=1

    Anyway, just thought I would throw this out there.
    "Roger Nasty Butler!"

  2. #2
    Good for them. About time that another blow was struck against this sort of thing. People always act like they deserve to steal the music, because how rich the music industry is. If you feel that way, then you should be stealing from stores, because they can "afford the loss". Of course you wouldn't do somthing like that. But this is ok?

    It's even worse with the illegal copies of movies floating around there on the net. You may not be hurting the big companies, but independant filmmakers and musicians really get hurt by these sorts of things. If you like the music or movie, then you should support it by actually buying the CD or DVD.

    The internet has bred a entire culture that believes as long as you steal from people, who's faces you can't see then it's cool. If you can't afford to buy the music, tape it off the radio. If you can't afford to buy the movie, they rent them at the video store. Stealing is stealing, no matter how it's justified.

    MTFBWY and HH!!

    Jar Jar Binks
    THE SPY. THE SPACEMAN. THE GODDESS. THE ROBOT. THE GORILLA.

    AGENTS OF ATLAS - Returns in Early 2009.

  3. #3
    Interestingly the music biz over here just announced plans to try to lower the price of CDs as an attempt to stop the piracy. i don't have any of the real factds handy just something a vaguely heard on the radio the other day. It's basically aimed at getting us to buy more music but to make the purchases less of a financial hoover. CDs cost buttons to press so why the high cost? I think they're asking for an abolishment on the taxes incurred during sales. Whatever, the music biz are actually finally starting to get the message that these disks are far too frickin expensive for what they are. I personally refuse to pay full whack 15 -18 on a CD that only has say eight tracks. I might consider it for a CD with added value like eighteen tracks but to be honest I'd sooner go to play.com and get the CDs cheaper than in ordinary retail outlets. But even then paying 10 for a poxy CD is too much. If the cost is reduced the mid price region as it stands now which is 8 or thereabouts I might be more inclined to buy more. That would mean the lower price end of the market would drop further on back catalogue stuff. That currently stands at 6 or thereabouts. Personally I'm skeptical of it ending up as a significant enough reduction if one materialises at all. We can only hope.

    Curiosity, what do you Americans typically pay for a new release CD album? Just wondering how it compares to a UK price.

  4. #4
    Your average CD at the time of release is probably around 15 dollars. Not sure how it converts over there, but it ain't cheap. Sometimes they can be had for around 12.99, but if it isn't on sale, 16.99 or 19.99 is pretty standard.

    I think 5 dollars would be about the right price. Personally, they could stop making music videos to reduce the cost of cd's, because nobody even SHOWS music videos anymore.

    Just a thought.
    "Roger Nasty Butler!"

  5. #5
    I've got different stands on this issue. For a majority of the files being shared, I'm usually against it. Then again, I think it's cool to download music if you want to see if the stuff is what you would want or not. I've done it before with Pink Floyd by having a friend send me songs from Meddle he ripped, I ended up loving the music and getting the album. Now for those instances when a person downloads music with no intentions of buying the music, then I am against that. Yeah, I think you should pay for what you want. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Just because you don't think it is the right price, does not mean you should steal it. And if you are going to steal the music, do it right and go down to Tower Records and swipe it straight from the shelves.

    Then again, there are those files I feel people can download and be allowed to keep. Those type of files are usually live recordings not being sold as an album. What I mean, it's cool with me to download some live performances of Metallica at the EMP, but then again I don't think it would be cool to download the entire Mexico City show Metallica first did, since it is available to be bought in stores. Bottom line, I wish people would respect whoever owned the rights to the music. More often than not, I wish the artists had the final say in this matter, but they rarely own the rights to their own music. I think even if cd prices are dropped, people will still share the music free. Seriously, with them getting all of their music for free this long, why go back to buying it now?
    Back and more bearded than ever before

  6. #6
    Well, the problem with music piracy now, is that it is so easy to use, that your average person does it now. Where it used to be too complicated for "mom and dad", now evern grandma can do it.

    If they lower the prices, I think they will get the "regular" crowd back, who don't want to be bothered with downloading it.

    The hardcore music pirates will always find a way to get it free. They did before Napster with FTP sites, and will find other ways later.

    Is it ok to download files of concert performances where the atists strictly prohibited recording devices, even though you can't buy it? Is that just the same as stealing it?
    "Roger Nasty Butler!"

  7. #7
    I guess I should have clarified what I meant by that live performance thing. A lot of performers don't mind that you have those bootlegs. The only live performances I have downloaded have all been Metallica, so I was mostly just speaking about their live shows which they promote the bootlegging of. Sorry for causing confusion as to what I said.
    Back and more bearded than ever before

  8. #8
    $15 is roughly equal to 10. Your taxation is different to ours but even so I think it's fair to say we pay more for music than you. Not that I'm trying to say poor us, rather poor everyone buying these CDs regardless of location. Point is they cost too much. The global economy has taken a real knock lately and if they want us to continue to buy rather than fileshare they have to drop prices. it's business common sense, sell cheap - sell more. Doesn't matter what the product is the principle is sound proven solid fact. Getting it to become a practicality is something else though because everyone wants their cut of the profit. Part of the problem lies with these superstars of music signing these multimillion dollar deals. Every artist wants in on that but it's crippling record companies so they have to recoup the money somehow and the way to do that is through higher priced CDs. So part of the anser is to stop being so ridiculous with these artist deals and golden contracts.
    It's tha same thing with sports stars. the real people supporting them are the people paying high ticket prices and buying overpriced related paraphenalia like replica shirts and stuff.
    Basially its a non ending circle, one things eats another and that eats another but somewhere along the line someone has to stop eating and admit they ate too much. break the chain.

    That was really trite wasn't it? what do I care it's 3 in the morning. You expect me to make sense at this hour of the night?

  9. #9
    this ruling is ludicrous... i can't believe that the courts and record companies don't realize that they are asking the cooperation of the people that are actually making a PROFIT off the piracy - the ISP's!!! they are the ones that are making money providing high-speed internet service, therefore making it easier to download music/movies...

    as for the whole "stealing" thing...

    since the advent of MP3's, my CD buying habits have not changed at all. i never really bought many CD's, and when i do, it's only when i know i'll enjoy the majority of the album. most of the MP3's i have are one-hits that i enjoy, but have found most of the other songs by the artist to not be worth my money.

    all the artists that i really enjoy, i have on MP3, but have also bought the CD... queens of the stone age, and audioslave being two of the most recent legitimate acquisitions.
    Nachos are the right of all sentient beings.

    The guns... They've stopped!
    - Dan Akroyd, Star Wars Episode IV - A New Hope

  10. #10
    I will say that well over 3/4 of the music I download, is music that I would never pay for anyway.
    "Roger Nasty Butler!"

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO