The RIAA - stupidity at it's finest -

[bmself]

This post is about how the RIAA bitches constantly, blaming filesharing for a 6% decrease in sales, while new releases are down 25% in the last three years. of course people will buy less music if there is less selection!!!! the biggest problem is the simple fact; you can't boycott the music industry, because they'll blame it on filesharing. but, think about it very carefully next time you buy a cd, because you're helping them pay for what could essentially be your trial.

a good article on this topic, and the source of my rant;

http://www.411mania.com/music/columns/article.php?columns_id=689&&vo=32

[Joel]

RIAA

When he learn?

oh, well... back to my p2p

[ryan05dp]

And you noticed now..

I don't know why the freakin RIAA cares so much. Those crappy cd's should be 50 cents. Those dang artists make so much money and they cry when we steal some.

Screw Them.

[EugeneWE]

The RIAA - stupidity at it's finest

The RIAA sucks bigtime. The sales of music Cd's have dropped bigtime in the past several years & one reason why the sales of music cd's have dropped is because of DVD's. In fact, people are buying more DVD's than music Cd's (I am also one person who purchases more DVD's than music cd's). My last music cd purchase was last year. Music cd's are too expensive. The RIAA refuses to understand that the reason why people aren'r buying music cd's is that cd's are too expensive.

ryan05dp,

IMO, it is not really the music artists who are complaining about the downloading of music, IMO, it is the record companies who are complaining more often. IMO, The record companies are the ones who are making money off the sale of cd's.

[fwgx]

Sales down 6% isn't great but then we look at what the world ecconomy has done in recent years...

[zapththedude]

Hi. All this rubbish about stealing music is such stupid nonsense. Do the people that keep repeating this stuff have a brain?

Some facts and observations:

1. Intellectual property is a relatively new concept in the history of law. It is a THEORY that someone can OWN an idea. I have a different theory that someone cannot own an idea. The whole theory of copyright is suspect in it's logic. The logical progrossion is that I should pay every time I hear a song. Why can't someone copyright the word "fact" as Microsoft is trying to do with "Windows". Every time you use the word "fact" you should pay me a royalty. Or what about the musical scales. Or the alphabet? Its just silly.
2. What have I taken from you by making a copy of the music? Nothing. Just as I have taken nothing by using the word "Windows".
3. Please direct me to the musician that says that he/she makes music for the money. What are they complaining about. If they don't like the money they are making, they should try a real job.
4. The most impressive thing about the whole situation is how well most of us have been brainwashed into BELIEVING that it is theft when in fact, it is us that have had our right to read, write, and listen to whatever we want stolen!

Ciao,
Zaph.

[rnwvr]

You don't know what you're talking about

That's right, you haven't got the slightest clue what you're talking about. I never heard anybody talk so insulting about artists as you lot here. As a musician I KNOW from first hand that it's almost impossible to make a decent living from your music. UNLESS your name is PRINCE, or MADONNA, you get the point.

I'm also a bachelor ICT, and firm GNU/Linux open source promoter, so you could say I know a little these things.

Making music costs money, effort and time. And a lot of all of that. Recording studios are EXPENSIVE!! I know! Saying that CD's should be costing 50 cents is ridiculous.

Looking at it from a musician's point of view. And what do we do? We post our own music in MP3 format online. Because we know people will copy our CD's anyway. I'm not saying I don't download the occasional MP3 myself through Limewire or IRC, but ffs, if you like it, go buy the album!! It's the same with opensource software: if you like it, donate or buy the boxed version of your distro. It's give and take.

If people would stop being so selfish maybe they'd start thinking about what is behind making music.

On a final note: All the producers I know are filthy rich so the only point you may all have is that they're filling their pockets. But that is nothing compared to the gazillions that are wasted by millions of kids downloading music from their bedrooms instead of going to the record store and buying the album...

That's just my train of thoughts on the matter, feel free to reply.

Mike

[CraigF]

i dont think anyone has ever said that artists dont get a raw deal on the whole.

its not the artists that come knocking on your door tho is it? its people working on behalf of the "industry". those people who are abusing the artists in many more ways than pirates ever could.

you say give and take? I'm just reminded of all those big artists being stripped of any ownership of their music the moment they sign the record deal.

[rnwvr]

Artists need those production houses, just as much as producers need artists... even though they ARE getting ripped off. And the fact that stealing music is taking away a well earned income from the artist can't be denied. Because: the producer doesn't get enough money anymore. He'll be forced to stop working with the artist. Do you know how hard it is to find a producer in the music business these days? And you only hear them give one (in my eyes perfectly valid) reason: illegal copies. Personally I've known guys (back in the early days of copying) that made well over three thousand dollars each month by distributing copyrighted material. So I'd say that's a few persons income you're taking away then.

And I also know, when they're complaining and bitching about it, THEY SHOULD goddammit! They're trying to protect theirselves as well as the artists

Look at it like this: say somebody invented a machine that could duplicate everything through atom replication or whatever. You would buy a coke or a bread or a pair of shoes, and with a press on the button you'd have an exact copy of it. Wouldn't you find it normal then that the industry would react against it? Because you can't have people making perfect copies of ****'s in their houses can we? Maybe this example doesn't make sense, but I'm trying to make you see the whole picture here: selling an article, and not being able to sell it because everybody is copying it from a few sold articles (note they are NOT making it themselves, they are taking your work, and making an exact copy of it). Imagine you invented a new type of engine, and somebody would steal it from you, and take all the credit (and get rich). Would you like that?

I'll say it again: if you like what you hear: buy the damn album. You'll get nice inlays and lyrics and pics etc. And you may just have helped save somebody's income.

[fwgx]

If such a machine ever existed there would undoubtably be less jobs but then again there would be little reason to ever buy anything so in the end noone suffers. You also make the assumption that people would spend their money on these records if they couldn't get the for free. I don't believe that is at all the case, the vast majority will do without and spend their money on something else. Also saying that the music industry is a mess and then having the audacity to blame it on coonsumers is plain irrational. If the artists aren't getting paid properly and the top cats are then don't run the the consumer and ask them to pay more for something that should be very cheap. Meida and production costs of CD's are minimal, anything above 70p and you're making a profit, so to charge 17GBP for a CD and complain that people are losing money is laughable.

[rnwvr]

I'm not putting the blame on anyone but those copying music for distribution, and those downloading whole CD's with the thought of not having to pay for it. Aside from the fact that CD's are too expensive. That's not the issue here. That is a totally different conversation...

You can not say that when when you do this (buy an illegal copy or make illegal copies) you are not stealing from artists and production houses.

Saying that is plain irrational. It's the same as making reproductions of paintings, wrist watches, shirts, etc... You're making money (money that you evade spending is also profit) off somebody else's hard work, without their explicit consent. Again, it's just my train of thoughts... I can be wrong but it's MY opinion about the matter.

[zapththedude]

Hi.

Irrational?

Its the same as using the word "Windows" without paying Microsoft!

Following your so called rational thought, we should be paying Italy for the alphabet and the Iranians for using numbers. Or should it be the Greeks for weening us off hieroglyphics. (Excuses to those historians that know more about the origin of these phenomena) What about the patent of the wheel!

This is rational?

"Stealing" the idea from someone else, A law should be passed that excludes those who want to make money from music from making music.

Ciao,
Zaph.

[rnwvr]

OK first: I don't use Windows and don't pay Microsoft.

second: what kind of a lame comparison is that: what do the italians and iranians have to do with anything? How can you possibly compare an illegal copy, resulting in a direct loss of income for certain persons, with the use of hieroglyphics?????? THINK ABOUT IT.

[ertmann|CPH]

he's got a point, but i see yours too....

Anyway, p2p application can also have a positive effect, personally i've discovered serveral bands through p2p applications, and later bought the CD couse i thought the music was cool, i did that with The Streets for example, and some japanese bands.....

Also we have some weird examples in my country. of bands who suddenly have gotten popular in some weird country couse some DJ on a radio station downloaded the track and played it on the radio.

The number #1 hit in Russia right now, grew this way....

The internet is an amazing place for emerging bands to showcase their music, and bypassing the established very costly distribution networks of the record companies.

Also as philly mentioned, the assumption that if someone downloads a tune from the internet, someone looses money, is wrong. Peronally i have dl' serveral tunes, that i would never ever pay for, mostly mainstream pop, just because it's great to have that kind of music at parties.

[gull_fish]

quote: "Anyway, p2p application can also have a positive effect, personally i've discovered serveral bands through p2p applications, and later bought the CD"

I've had this experience many times over. Also, some albums are no longer in circulation, and are sold on ebay for a fortune, or possibly as a special order from the company for another fortune.

To the guy who said that unspent income is equal to profit, WTF? profit is the difference between production, marketting costs, etc and the final retail or selling price of whatever, which is certainly not equivalent to a person's personal savings. I was wondering how he would eventually rationalise his claim that people were making money from distributed copies of commercially produced music files (and, as he argues, consequently reducing profit for corporations who are masters of the copyrights), and this result is pretty amazing.

Actual profit (not the pretend kind) made directly from illegally distributing copyrighted material is an infinitesimal component of the losses experienced by owners of the copyrights. Most of the (minimal) loss is because of poor quality crap artists that are being promoted with much vigour with brain-washing lyrics and cookie-cutter beats, and the heavy hands of the industry's leading producers themselves, as most people dl'ing files at no cost would not purchase the material otherwise.