RIAA says it doesn't target small downloaders

pc_builder

pc_builder

New Member
I heard this newsbyte on the radio at work. So I looked it up online when I got home.

RIAA says it doesn't target small downloaders
FREDERIC J. FROMMER
Associated Press

WASHINGTON - The Recording Industry Association of America has told Sen. Norm Coleman that it is not going after small violators in its campaign against online music swappers.

The RIAA's written assurance was made in response to questions Coleman sent to the group over its tactics, which he has labeled "excessive." Coleman, chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs' Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, plans to hold hearings on the RIAA's campaign.
Click to expand...

Click here for the full story.
 
thats kind of a relief. but its still kind of asshole of them to do that anyway but at least theyre only going after the ones who are doing it excesivly
 
Rose said:
What exactly defines "excessive" by their standards?
Click to expand...

One is too many. I think I even read them quoted as saying that years ago.


*downloads a song in celebration*
 
Yep, they've said before that one is violating the law, so I have to wonder what they mean by not targetting the little ones. Maybe the ones that only download half of a song?
 
PuterTutor said:
Yep, they've said before that one is violating the law, so I have to wonder what they mean by not targetting the little ones. Maybe the ones that only download half of a song?
Click to expand...


:rofl4: I hate getting gypped by half-songs! Bastards!! *lol*
 
I believe they can't touch you for downloading music that isn't distributed by the RIAA. I also recall reading a teenage female was sued even when she only downloaded 8 songs.
 
Honestly, I think the RIAA should concentrate on LOWERING CD prices. That's the reason why there's so much illegal downloading. I'm sick of paying $15 to $18 for a CD. I don't think a CD should cost more than $8. When I do have money to spend on CDs, I go to half.com to purchase music. Yea, the CDs are used, but their cheap, cheap
 
There's a store in town that sells used cd's. So when I want to buy one, I go there first.

Also, I've been downloading my music from mp3.com lately. Lot of unknown and unsigned artists giving away free music. But there's some good stuff there.
 
CydCharisse said:
Honestly, I think the RIAA should concentrate on LOWERING CD prices. That's the reason why there's so much illegal downloading. I'm sick of paying $15 to $18 for a CD. I don't think a CD should cost more than $8. When I do have money to spend on CDs, I go to half.com to purchase music. Yea, the CDs are used, but their cheap, cheap
Click to expand...


You left off the fact that the $15.00 cd had exactly 2 SONGS worth listening to.

7 Bucks per song?

F**K that Ill go see a move and listen to the radio.
 
CydCharisse said:
Apple's idea is pretty good too. Charging .99 cents per song. I think you need the IPod...I'm not sure about that
Click to expand...

Rhapsody has it now too. Membership fee to play whatever you want off the net, pay to download them to cd.
 
Oh wait.

I found this, I think we now know what to expect:

Technology News
Monday, March 24 12:01 AM EST
Eleven Computers Drowned in MP3 Witch Hunt
By Brian Briggs

Winston-Salem, NC - The IT department of Celemtech today destroyed eleven computers during a witch hunt for illegal files, mainly MP3s, on employee computer systems.

A giant tub of sea water was wheeled around, and suspicious computers were dumped in. If the computer floated, then it was considered possessed by MP3s. If it sunk, then it was considered pure and returned to the employees.

Head of the IT Bill Stoughton explained, "We know that MP3s are lighter than air, hence they should float on the water. The same applies to pornographic files as well."

Stoughton was heartened by the results of today's dowsings. "It appears that our educational e-mails about the dangers of MP3s are working. Every computer sank today," he said with a smile.

Employees targeted by the search voiced concerns about the cost of the procedure. "We've already drained our computer budget for the entire year," said Sarah Good in Purchasing.

Stoughton responded to the cost concern, "I'd like to point out that a single MP3 on one of these computers could cost our company thirteen billion dollars in lost productivity according to a study released by the RIAA."

Celemtech used to test the systems on a "trial-by-fire" basis, but that was fraught with problems. Stoughton said, "Every time we'd light one of those computers up, the sprinkler system would go off. It was ridiculous. Now we have MP3 detection down to a science."

Bridget Bishop, an administrative assistant in the sales department disagreed. "These guys have no idea what they are doing. Last week they were in here with giant magnets trying to 'cleanse my computer of corruption.' Then we got a memo saying that the giant magnets damaged the hard drives so they were going to dunk them in a vat of salt water. Morons."


Recommend This Story to a Friend
Click to expand...

Click Here for the real story on why sales are dropping
 
So if something is too expensive it's ok to steal it? A Rolex is pretty damned expensive, especially considering the minimal cost of the parts involved and it's performance compared to a $12 Wal-Mart Casio. Does that make it ok to steal Rolex watches?

Just a reality check here. I think the recording industry is greedy as well, but what industry isn't when they can be? The markup on a typical cloth-covered sofa is ludicrous, but I don't see people saying that since it's too expensive or because the cost of the materials is so low that they should be able to get whatever couch in whatever color they want for free by simply browsing through the "free couches delivered to your door, stolen directly from the manufacturer" website.

Remember the old legal addage... the value of a thing is whatever price the market is willing to pay.

Now that that rant is over, I'll state unambiguously that the recording industry (and soon to follow the movie/video industry) is going to have to seriously explore alternative pricing and delivery options. Their business model will have to adapt. Consumers are now aware that music is only data (creative, intellectual property and copyrighted data), and will put less of a value on that data since it can be delivered to them so easily.

Apple's iTunes is a step in the right direction. Personally, I'd love to have the bandwidth and infrastructure set up for some kind of monthly subscription to an "all you can hear buffett." I'm not a fan of pay-per-view type of distribution models, but would love to be able to play any song, no matter how old or how new, at any time. I'd pay, I dunno... maybe $50 a month for such a service. And you know what... I don't spend anything near $50 a month currently on CD's, so they'd actually make more money off of me that way.

And I think many consumers are like that. In the end, it's not about the price so much as it is the convenience. If the RIAA is sucessful in making it a royal pain in the ass to play CD's, get music in MP3 format, transfer songs to your personal iPod player, etc., then consumers are going to be increasingly more pissed off.

IMO, if you offered people a flat subscription that gave them access to all music material, allowing them to do whatever they wanted with it, lots of people would be extremely happy with such a service. Unfortunately I don't think the infastructure is there yet to support "instant access" to music via online services for the general population, and even more unfortunate is the reality that some form of copy-protection will have to be a part of the solution, since there will always be people who will steal what they could otherwise afford to buy simply because they can, or because it is convenient.
 
Here is an interesting article with regards to this issue as it applies to Canada:

From: http://news.dmusic.com/print/7419[/I]

The music industry's virulent sue 'em all subpoena campaign is taking on interesting new dimensions.

The RIAA has the US sewn up tight, its Dutch look-alike, BREIN, has announced plans to sue independent file sharers in The Netherlands, and now the CRIA (Canadian Recording Industry Association) has jumped on the American bandwagon.

Sadly, however, it isn't able to sue anyone, or swamp the country with subpoenas, unlike its counterpart across the border.

Instead, it's going to 'send warnings' to people engaged in p2p activities.

The CRIA (which no one in Canada has ever heard of) maintains a full time anti-piracy unit which among other things, monitors the Net. "This is a very active section that is currently addressing the challenges of escalating internet piracy," says CRIA president Brian Robertson.

Precisely what its warnings will achieve is anyone's guess. That's because, contrary to RIAA belief, Canada isn't part of America and the DMCA doesn't apply here, a situation the CRIA and its industry supporters in Canada are trying desperately to remedy. Until they do, however, things couldn't be clearer: Canadians can safely copy music, as long as it's for personal use and not for redistribution.

BUT ... the CRIA's outburst gives the appearance that it's in the game and looks good on paper - or, rather, in a paper.

Globe & Mail reporter Jack Kapika states in Can it happen here?:

"[...] in Canada, the [music] industry is collecting a levy on recordable CDs. (It now wants to extend this to MP3 players, flash memory and blank DVDs. Ordinary PC hard drives could be next on their list, but the industry fears wrath of the giant computer hardware industry, and has held back on demanding a levy on hard drives).

"All Canadian file-sharers — in fact all those who buy recordable CDs, even if not for recording music — have for several years paid for the privilege of downloading songs via peer-to-peer programs.

"The Canadian Copyright Copying Collective, which pushed for and administers the levy, has already hauled in close to $80-million over the past several years for losses supposedly due to sharing music files.

"So the industry is already being compensated, and it would be very difficult, under current legislation, to persuade a court to salve the wounds of the record companies and their related organizations by suing individuals for even more money. The levy was the result of an industry demand, and if the industry feels it is still not being properly compensated, then it must address itself to the Copyright Board, which sets the rates, and not file-sharing individuals. (The CPCC has been trying to get the Copyright Board to raise the rates dramatically. A decision is due soon.)"

I'm Canadian and I live on Vancouver Island in British Columbia, just up the road from Seattle.

A while back I did a story for a local paper and in it said, "Downloading music (and playing online) is what 57% of our children like best," states Canada's Media Awareness Network in 'Young Canadians in a Wired World: The Students' View 2001,' a nationwide survey of internet use among Canadian youth.

But, "only 6 per cent of parents are aware that their kids download".

And, "around four percent of users on file sharing networks are Canadian, meaning roughly 200,000 Canadians are typically logged on to a p2p service at any given time," Redshift Research's Matt Bailey told me for the same story.

The owner of a computer service near where I live sees at least 30 computers every month and, "85% have p2p software," he told me. "It's automatic. If there's a teenager in the house, Kazaa is on the machine."

In another G&M story here, Jack Kapika says the Canadian instant-message program is, "designed to inform Canadian users of file-sharing systems of the damage they are inflicting upon the thousands of people involved in the creation of music, as well as to warn them of the legal implications they might face," according to a statement from Robertson a statement.

In the meanwhile, the CRIA message reads: "Warning - It appears that you are offering copyrighted music to others from your computer. While we appreciate your love of music, please be aware that sharing copyrighted music on the Internet without permission from the copyright owner is illegal. When you do so, you hurt the artists, songwriters and musicians who create the music and the other talented individuals who are involved in bringing you the music.

"More than 40,000 Canadians work hard producing and supporting the music you appear to enjoy, including producers, engineers, retailers, music publishers, distributors, manufacturers, record companies, concert promoters and broadcasters.

"When you break the law, you risk legal penalties. There is a simple way to avoid that risk: Don¹t distribute music to others on a file-sharing system like this. For further information, please go to www.cria.ca.

"Remember that you need music and music needs you."

That should do it, eh?
Click to expand...
 
outside looking in said:
Remember the old legal addage... the value of a thing is whatever price the market is willing to pay.
Click to expand...


Well you answered your own question. If I buy a couch then I: sleep, game, view tv, and other activities on it for nearly 10 years.

I actually get my "inflated moneys worth" out of the thing.

The "priviledge" to listen to a song which is freely played on the radio air waves is of virtually ZERO VALUE IN REAL MONEY to me at all.


Especially when you factor in how bad most of the other songs on the CD/Service/Album/etc . Suck ASS!

A Rolex ACTUALLY HOLDS ITS VALUE OR A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF IT.

Exactly how much to do think a used copy of "Saftey Dance" would go for.

Dont get me wrong I like music, its just that if Im going to give my money away, Id rather do it in a less painful way like setting it on fire in my living room floor :confused:

If they charge "the right to listen", Ill find somthing else to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top