Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Hands out more Lawsuits
Syrae writes "The RIAA has unleashed yet another round of copyright infringement lawsuits against 754 people. Evidently they still had some customers that they had to make an example of. I guess the RIAA never saw the study that says that file sharers spent more money buying music online than those who don't share music at all."
I guess the RIAA never saw the study that says that file sharers spent more money buying music online than those who don't share music at all.
Not to sound harsh, but I guess the submitter never saw why the RIAA should care. They don't want anyone distributing unlicensed copies of music. It's illegal. Even if certain studies suggest a higher likelihood of legitimate purchases, going after individual infringers is well within their rights, and anyone would have to be blind not to understand why they feel this is in their best interest.
As the submitter conceded, they're making an example.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
Not any more, not after the ridiculous penalties.
BTW, How much is exactly one song worth when shared? If the music industry did not lose sales or money, then what are the damages? I thought there is a principle in law that says if you did not suffer damages, then you can not sue. For example, if I trip in front of your house on your property, but am not hurt, I can't sue because there was no harm.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
Just curious
I would complain about my tax money going to pay for these cases in court but you only ever hear of debt collection agencies calling those in the suits now...
I guess the RIAA never saw the study that says that file sharers spent more money buying music online than those who don't share music at all.
Since when did the RIAA care about the facts? They're not a morality organization, their only purpose is to generate revenue. Just like the SPA, MPAA, etc., these things start up as corporations run by high-powered attorneys. It's a great way to justify the existence of such an organization to the labels. As most people are already aware, the music industry wouldn't be what it is today without online file sharers who spend wads of cash buying legal music they ended up liking. Not trying to flame in the least bit - but why is everyone so surprised that an organization like this is defying all reason to pursue a bottom line?
IT'S NOT THEFT.
IT'S NOT THEFT.
IT'S NOT THEFT.
How many fuckin' times do we have to tell you?
STOP CALLING COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT THEFT!
How we know is more important than what we know.
At first glance, this would seem futile.
From TFA:
The world's major record labels, represented by the Recording Industry Association of America, have filed more than 14,000 such lawsuits since September 2003.
This is an infinitesimal percent of filesharers, estimated in the tens or hundreds of millions. For every person scared off by these tactics, two others will be angered into sharing more. I cannot imagine that they are not aware of that by now.
Really, though, I don't think it is. I can't imagine the **AA's are really dumb enough to believe that this strategy will work-the one thing said about them that is untrue is that they are idiots. They have gotten away with massively unethical practices for a very long time, and idiots don't do that.
This is, however, a way to keep them in the public eye while they desperately scramble for a way to regain control over distribution-which is their true goal. They're not losing money. Check their earnings reports. This is true despite the fact that they are consistently releasing garbage. But what they are losing is control over largescale methods of distribution. That's what they can't stomach.
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
Just a silly question:
What's to stop the defendant from claiming that they didn't download the files? If you run a WAP, there is virtually no way (short of them seizing your PC) for them to prove that you actually downloaded the files.
With most techno-idiot judges, just claim the "hackers" used your wireless access point to download the files.
I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
Yes, I know that this is slashdot and I am going to get hammered on this one...
Since the mods aren't descriptive enough, I'll explain that the reason you're about the be modded overrated is not that you've expressed an unpopular opinion, it's just that there's no "giant logic flaw" mod.
A comparison between data copying and physical theft is always going to be wrong. There are good reasons that it's not good to download the stuff, but comparing it to swiping materials is just going to make you look dumb to the majority of Slashdot.
Most of the pay for networks give you the ability to preview music right? Sure it's often a small clip of it (itunes gives 30 seconds which I think is reasonable)
That must be some awfully repetitive music you listen to if 30 seconds is enough.
Anybody who does not agree with the RIAA's current actions, should do the same: Vote with your wallet.
Will you please think about the reality of the situation for once? Spare me the holier-than-thou "it's the law" junk. The reality is this: if the media companies were so darn concerned with their intellectual property then they should control the distribution on the front end by whatever means they feel they can implement profitably. This business about suing customers after the point of sale is ridiculous.
I will emphasize again, for the millionth time: Face reality. Once the media company sells something to me then it is mine and I will do with it whatever I darn well please. If they don't like it they're free to not sell it to me in the first place. Once they've sold this music to the masses, however, I no longer feel any pity for them. No one's forcing them to participate in a business model which is horribly out-of-step with the technology of the day.
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
If you liked it, you went out and bought it. Now before you say, "Yeah, but digital lasts forever". Nope, CDs get scratched, p0rn sites unleash system infecting bots to delete, etc.
I got hit at the University of Missouri, Rolla and let me tell you, I never saw it coming. I'm pretty computer literate (CS major that codes alot of low-level stuff)... I thought that I was being careful by staying within the school's system (Samba shares) but they still got it. They were watching inside the network. I don't know how on earth they managed to do that, we have a pretty strict network policy. In the meantime, they dragged through it. I got caught May 5th, 2005, didn't find out until July... never got an action date 'til August. It was awful... although I did start getting music via AllofMP3 (still shady?)
My biggest reason for sharing is that it is sharing. It is not stealing. It is not taking something that will deprive another person of ownership. When I share a CD with a friend, you are not loosing anything. The artists are not loosing anything. The only one with a paranoia of loosing money is the Corporate executives. And the only thing the suits are loosing is sleep, hair, and customers who they disfranchise.
In the USA we have the right of free speech. Often, some of the most insightful ideas come from music. What was the history of the 1960's? What happened. What was the mood of the people. You can find out in the music. Fortunate Son by Creedence Clearwater Revival told you more about the Vietnam war than Nixon did in any speech.
This is the USA, not China. What will the USA do? Tax ideas? If you want to share this piece of music then you must pay $15 for the CD or $30 a month to download something you won't own, a file that will play today but not tomorrow?
If you want it to be different, file sharing copyright content will not make things better, it will just get your ass sued. Start voting with your dollars.
No matter what grass roots campaign you start, or how good of a candidate you find, we the people can NEVER win. The establishment uses money to buy votes. Why does a Senate seat cost 5+ million dollars?? How can Joe Sixpack, everyman, ever get elected to high office? Instead you get Senators that have debts to pay to those who contributed money. And guess where the money comes from? Corporations. So when the head of the RIAA or Sony calls Senator Hatch, guess what Senator Hatch does? He listens and votes. Guess what happens when Joe Sixpack calls Senator Hatch. Not a damn thing.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
As for that last sentence, I would agree that stealing music is wrong. Nevertheless, I think a lot of this boils down to something Steve Jobs was preaching when the ITMS store launched.
Essentially, Steve has been arguing that downloaders are usually not people who steal for the stake of stealing, they steal because they're music junkies who REALLY like the convenience of downloading music.
This means that if you cater to these people, and you give them convenient / reasonable ways to buy music legally, many of them will gladly do it.
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
At some point, the media producer sold the media to a distributor. Legally. That distributor then sold the media to the retail outlet. Legally. That retail outlet then sold the media to a customer. Legally. That customer then shared the media with you. Sharing is not theft.
All arguments based on the artificial concept of a license agreement aside... Just what part of this process was stealing?
What is a license agreement? There are two types of transactions: one in which ownership is transferred (sale), and one in which ownership is not transferred (rental). This business about a license agreement is a subversive technique attempting to obfuscate a rental as a sale in order to charge sale prices. 90% of the population would never exchange money for a CD if they knew it were an elaborate rental scam.
The only really fair lawsuit is one of false advertising against the media companies. They advertise sales but they really offer rentals. The fact that the rentals don't have a return date or late fees is irrelevant--Blockbuster does it.
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
"I guess the RIAA never saw the study that says that file sharers spent more money buying music online than those who don't share music at all."
The study was no surprise. I've pirated music in the past. Today, I spend about $30 a month on the iTMS. My grandmother has never pirated music. She spends no money online for music. This is because she does not own a PC.
Folks who've used file sharing software tend to buy music because they are Internet-savvy and they like music. Copyright infringement is not a prerequisite for buying music online! The important corelations are having a computer, familiarity with the Internet, and an appreciation for getting music via their PC. The music industry can find plenty of people who fall into that category without also falling into the "putting thousands of files into their share directory" category that tends to make people ripe for legal action.
The record industry has acknowledged that they are using a "carrot and stick" approach toward curbing piracy. Apple has just sold their 50 millionth track, and the online music industry is still growing logarithmically. Their approach seems to be working just fine.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
With Yahoo Music providing access to over 1 million songs for $5/month I would think the damages that RIAA can claim are limited to whatever share Yahoo would have passed onto them if these file-sharers had gone legit with a subscription. Or am I just being naive?
Yes, I feel sorry for all those who got extorted by the RIAA. They are the few (soon not so few), the proud, the ones who will help change the system! The more lawsuits that come from those baffoons the more people will get pissed off and finally start giving a shit about how they are treated.
Obviously, strong arm business tactics are alive and well. They never really left you know. Every great change in technology brought about decades worth of suffering of the people while the boneheaded ones finally benefitted in the end! Fair? Nope, not in the slightest. Who said life was fair?
Puts a tear in me eye it does. *sniff*
-FlynnMP3
One factor of supply and demand that is seemingly overlooked by all on the supply side is the demand for reasonable cost.
We are in the midst of another artificially high "fuel crisis" where any change in the weather, good or bad, somehow means they need to raise the price of fuel. If there was truly a supply problem, the profits of the companies on the supply side wouldn't be earning record high profits. In the US, this is an illegal pricing tactic and somehow it's not being prosecuted... maybe because the US president has strong interests in the oil industry. I recall the fuel crisis of about 20+ years ago and how it ended... and more importantly, WHY it ended. It ended when alternative fuels started to catch on -- specifically "gasahol." It was really soon after gasahol started flowing from the pumps that the fuel crisis came to an inexplicable end, but before that time, it didn't prevent the supply side from doing everything it could to rape its customers.
Back on topic, however, I see a demand for lower cost (read: better value) and the general responses we are seeing. We see what I consider to be "civil disobedience" even if it's technically not the correct expression for this situation. I don't consider it to be criminal as much as I consider it to be an expression that the supply side simply wants too much for something that is considered to have value... just not enough value to the people who would sooner get music this way.
The RIAA's hostile response will be the fuel of change... change they will not like. Just as gasahol started to threaten the fuel industry, independants and online trade will flourish at the RIAA's expense no matter HOW many victims they claim. There will be no "lawsuit into submission."
Sadly, the RIAA continues to defy reality and believe that suing its customers will bring them back (damn, how many times you gotta BOMB people to make 'em stop HATING you?) when people are faced with an alternative source of music (illegal or not) that is more convenient, better suited to getting them what they want, and cheaper (either free or $1.00 a song).
Unfortunately, I doubt that even the RIAA is so stupid or stupefyingly myopic that they can't see this, so I conclude that it's not about money. They want to be able to control you. They want control what you can listen to. They want to be able to stop anything new they can't pimp to enrich themselves.
They are scared to death of the internet. They hate the idea that I can could pay $12-14 for 12-14 tracks of music that I know I like, as opposed to 2 good songs and 12 pieces of filler because that would force them to put out the effort to create more good music. They hate the idea of something that can be replicated with no physical effort, because those who make money off pressing CDs will be destroyed by it if they don't adapt. They are scared of change, and intent on pulling as many people down as they can.
There's no question that the RIAA will be destroyed by the Internet. The only question is how many people with will take down with them.
It is literally, literally, comparing apples to oranges. Both are fruit, both are sweet, but they look and taste COMPLETLEY different. You wouldn't call them the same thing. Those people who are comparing it to people stealing a car/CD/etc. are the same people who believe that the RIAA is telling the truth when they say they've lost "xxx Billion Dollars in Sales" from those internet pirates.
The music was legally sold to a customer. That customer chose to share something which they bought ownership of. If the music industry wants to deal in rentals then they should make that clear at the point of sale.
As for fair use and copyright law: The federal government, the primary author of copyright law, is empowered by a single document: The Constitution. In this document, the rights are reserved to the individual authors and inventors. Rights are inalienable. You cannot sell or transfer your Constitutional rights. Admittedly, there are hundreds, maybe thousands, of court cases where incompetent attorneys and incompetent judges have breached this natural law. But let's hold true to natural law and how the Constitution implements it.
What part of modern copyright law does anything to secure rights to the individual authors, inventors, and creators? At last glance, copyright law seems to do everything possible to give the established companies the upper hand in swindling those rights away.
Consider two statements: "I can sell my rights to RCA for $XYZ, which is enough to pay rent and buy food, or I can continue to take my chances at the local pub'n'grill and possibly be homeless in a few months."
"I can sell my rights to King George and his men for a pittance which will allow me to keep my farmland and my home, or I can resist and they can burn the whole thing to the ground."
Current copyright law is the newer, kinder, gentler extortion... and nothing more.
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
That's ok. The majority of Slashdot seems to think copying a song without permission is no big deal. But when a company copies Linux and releases it without the source, then it's a HUGE deal.
Gotta love the hypocrisy.
(disclaimer: Yes, I know Slashdot has a lot of different folks on it and not all share those same set of views at the same time, but a lot of them seem to.)
Main difference being that when someone steals alcohol, the physical product is GONE and can no longer be sold. This is not true for downloaded music. Hooray for blatantly incorrect analogies.
Since then I have managed to replace many of the CDs which were physically STOLEN from me, which I once rightfully owned and paid retail price for. I have a box full of album sleeves and cover art to prove it.
I don't think I'm stealing anything whatsoever by downloading replacement copies of CDs I used to own. I'm not sure I am even guilty of copyright infringement. I used to have a right to play all that music, whenever I pleased. Was that right somehow erased when my car was broken into?
I wonder if my entire CD collection had instead been washed away in a hurricane or destroyed by fire. If we are to believe the RIAA stance that I owned a "license to listen", I would hope that physical loss of my actual media permits me to re-acquire and re-create that media using filesharing.
it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
If we can find out who these people are and put them in contact with that groovy lawyer for the woman who made news last week re: fighting back, plus sent in the cost of a single CD to that lawyer to help offset expenses... why, shit, we might have a revolution at hand.
For a few bucks each, we can help make RIAA's life a living hell.
Good entertainment value there!
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
"Ranting and karma-whoring won't get you anywhere."
Karma-whoring? Do you really think his position is karma-whoring here on slashdot??
And the fact that he used the common man's verbage and called it stealing is playing word games. Both are breaking the law. Maybe you could argue that infringment is breaking cival law whereas stealing is breaking a criminal code. But as wierd as these times are I don't know if that's true anymore, stricktly speaking.
I don't like seeing copyrighted material being shared via P2P but then I also don't like the way the copyright has been extened over and over so that it never runs out.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Lets take, as a random example, from amazon, 'The Matrix' (I havn't looked it up before writing this)
The movie itself on DVD: $14.97
The Matrix: Original Motion Picture Score [SOUNDTRACK]: $16.98
So, just the music part of the audio, not even the spoken words of the actors costs $2.01 more than the Digital Video, Audio in Dolby 5.1, Bonus Features, and all, of the DVD version.
Audio CD albums should generally be sold for $5 in little cheap cardboard sleeves
At the current insane prices I have bought 1 boxed set of CD's for $20 in the last year. If they cut their prices to $5 I would probably buy at least 1 CD a week. It's pretty simple, at 1/5 the profit per disc, but selling 50 times as many discs, profits multiply by 10.
Music stores would have much higher sales volume and albums would go 'gold' and 'platinum' a lot quicker. The main problem I forsee is the waste produced by making CD's more disposable, but that could be solved by a good recycling program.
As handy as iTunes might be, there is a good quote; "Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes"; a truckload of CD's heading to the music store is a more efficent than pumping bits through the internet.
Actually, although the two are somewhat different, they can be related. What's the difference between piracy and stealing?
Piracy makes unwanted duplicates, but otherwise causes no *damage* to the firm. The copies the users make with their own bandwidth costs the company nothing.
So, let's make this analogy. Let's say you find a way to secretly tunnel all the gin you want, for a discounted price, the Cost of Goods Sold. We'll call this 'pirating' gin. You pay COGS and get your gin. The company loses no money.
Now, from the company's perspective, the two are equal. They obviously would like you to buy instead of pirate, and pay retail instead of COGS, but neither is making them *lose* money.
Unless, of course, you all of a sudden, assume they are pirating instead of buying. However, the surveys suggest this is not an accurate model.
Surveys suggest that users pirate music and buy more music than other people. The analogy now would be, that you 'pirate' your gin, then buy two bottles at retail. Compare that to someone else who only buys one bottle.
Despite the fact that you are 'pirating' gin (or music), the company is still better off having you do both.
Obviously, they would rather have you buy three bottles than buy two and pirate one, but they're still doing just fine.
Company makes money. Customer is drunk. Everyone's happy. Why do we need lawyers for this?
Partial Credit: The Engineer's Best friend
"Well, the bridge didn't fall all the way down!"
Musicians want their music heard. Whether or not they get paid, they want their music heard. Some musicians, and bands, PAY OUT OF THEIR OWN POCKET for air time on local radio stations.
Downloading an mp3, even if it's from a known musician is NOT stealing. I don't give a hoot what you think the law says, or what it actually says for that matter. The law in this regard is supposed to reflect the feelings of the composers and performers... now, take this scenerio...
You approach Madonna, and say, "Wow, I've listened to all your songs and I'm a huge fan." Hell will freeze over before Madonna demands proof of purchase, or even ask, "Did you buy my CDs or did you just sit by a radio all day long?" About the ONLY thing we might hear a musician pitch is, "Oh, the T-Shirt stand is over there..."
As a musician myself. I will NEVER accept any notion saying that downloading an mp3 is either wrong, or illegal. I'll tell a judge to his face that he and his court is insignificant and irrelevant, without acute vision of the issue at hand then walk the hell out of the court room.
How many times must this be explained before it sinks in? The GPL is designed to maximize sharing, in fact to require it, while copyright's aim (and this wasn't its original intent but a distortion from literally centuries of special interest corporate lobbying) is to prevent it beyond anyone's reasonable lifetime. There is no contradiction between supporting enforcement of the GPL and non-commercial copying and distribution. In both cases the vision is an open society. Why are so many here and their happy moderators unable to see past the means to this simple goal?
By the same token you can attack the claim the "loss" calculated by the RIAA is based on a fallacy. They proceed from the false assumption that if the person had no access to the music illegally, they would buy the CD. I submit that this is also simply unprovable and therefore should not be used in the calculation of "loss" the labels feel they have as a result of P2P. However, such a logical leap is never questioned when the labels trumpet it in articles and whatnot. No one says "how do you know person X would buy it?" If they wouldn't buy it anyway, it's not a loss and it cannot be calculated as such.
;) Or perhaps $3/gallon gas is cutting into some people's entertainment budgets.... The RIAA is amazingly able to put blinders on.... no matter how many facts get in their way.
:-)
Basically, I'm saying the specious claims are not limited to the P2P defenders in this conflict.
Also, by your line of thinking, you can also make the connection that piracy isn't affecting sales at all for music in general, because those who engage in P2P infringement are among the targeted group who purchase the CDs anyway, and that is the RIAA's most lucrative demographic. So by that assumption, perhaps the quality of releases does have more of an adverse effect on sales, rather than the specter of "piracy" that simply is trumpeted so sell the general public a bill of goods ("it's better if we control your computer, because those evil bastard pirates are going to hack you!") But that's another line of discussion.... I digress.
Besides, I left my tinfoil hat in my car... I can't go into that line of conspiracy thinking without it.
It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
Absolutely right, all of those things are perfectly open to debate. I'm not saying I've proven piracy doesn't help sales (though I very much doubt it does), I'm only saying that the pro-p2p submitter's claims are flawed, being based on incorrect logic.
Personally, I don't really think harm matters, I just think that morally a copyright holder, who has gone to the bother of creating music or other intellectual property (or paid someone else to make it) should have the right to limit the distribution of that work, since were it not for them it wouldn't exist. I don't really see why harm is essential.
If I make an incredibly beautiful painting, and decide that while I'm willing to show it to people, I absolutely can't bear to have photos taken of it (for whatever reason, maybe I'm just an eccentric artist), and I make this wish clear, so everybody knows I don't want photos taken. Given this, is it then okay for someone to take a photo of my paiting? It doesn't hurt me or the painting (it may even publicise it more so I get more viewers, benefiting me), but I just think that morally I, or anyone in a similar position, should be able to place that restriction, and anyone who violates my above wishes is committing a breach of trust, and a wrong against me, regardless of actual harm.
In other words, I don't know if the RIAA are morons or not trying to fight piracy, but I just think they have the right to do so.
Take for example Elvis(tm).The man has been buried in his backyard since '77 and yet his tunes won't be public domain until,What,2070? The whole point of copyright was so the artist would be encouraged to make more art,Not so some media corp could cash in for a couple on centuries.
And if they played by the REAL rules that this country was founded on we would have such a wealth of great music in the public domain that we might not be having this discussion right now. But thanks to the price fixing record companies(c) the music that was old when we were children won't be public domain until after we are dust (if ever).
The only way to fight other than privacy is your wallet.And for all you free software fans here is an easy way-http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/-This page will tell you before you buy if an artist is in bed with the RIAA. There is even a grease monkey script for Firefox that will show you when you search Amazon which ones to avoid.
There are so many wonderful styles and great artists that aren't owned by the RIAA that by avoiding the bad guys(c) you might actually find some great new music for yourself while avoiding an Evil Empire(tm).
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
are you seriously trying to suggest that copyright infringement is _not_ murder? Communist!
Seriously though, no court in the world will convict you of theft for breaching copyright. Yes, yes, we know, violating copyright is against the law, but the law doesn't call it theft. Neither should we. Really, calling a copyright violator a thief is probably slander, and therefore punishable by law.
We (who don't call it theft) don't need to justify our position. If you are going to call it theft, please reference for us even one legal code that refers to copyright infringement as theft. Or lacking that, perhaps a moral or religious teaching to justify calling copyright violators theives (We may not agree with it, but it would at least provide a reason for you to say it). If you can't find even one reference in law or commonly accepted moral/religious teaching to justify calling copyright infringement theft, then perhaps you ought to stop. Think about it.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
Depends where you are in the world. F.A.C.T. The Federation Against Copyright Theft preach that it is actually theft in the UK, and they're on TV ads, DVD ads, Cinema ads... but most people take the ads off the pirated DVDs ;)
Scared of flying, pointy things snce 1979!
How about just *not buying* any DVDs or CDs? How about emailing the RIAA, the film producers and the record companies and tell them you're not buying their products because they're overpriced?
It doesn't matter how many times this discussion appears on Slashdot, the RIAA is not going to take a blind bit of notice until people start to hit them where it really hurts - in the wallet.
I personally use music downloading as a "try before I buy scheme" now - if I like it, I buy it because nothing beats having a nice shiny CD in a nice shiny case with some nice music on it; otherwise I delete it because it's just not worth the space on a hard disk or CDR.
With movies, I read reviews and go to the cinema or buy the DVD only when I am sure it's worth the money.
In both cases, rip-off high street stores like HMV or Virgin get *none* of my money unless they have prices that compete with on-line music and movie vendors.
As a result, I spend about 1/3 of what I used to spend on CDs, movies and DVDs and I'm now much happier with what I buy.
Unfortunately, it's the "sheeple" of the world that just sit there blindly consuming everything the music and movie companies churn out that are the problem - if we were all a lot more careful with what we spent our money on, this would send a very powerful message back to these companies and allow us, the consumer, to dictate what are fair prices and what we deem good quality products.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
For Gods sake, file sharing isn't all about stealing the latest Mariah Carey album. If you want to avoid being prosecuted, stop downloading music published by the big multinationals, EMI, RCA, Time-warner, etc. etc. You aren't missing out on anything. 90% of my collection is from artists who aren't signed up to this draconion bullshit, and it's a damn sight better then any of the trash the major labels are trying to spew onto me. With the moving of p2p into the mainstream the RIAA only exists to scare off warez kiddies, who have enough money to buy the albums anyway. If you buy into the corporation, you have to live with it. Same goes for anyone who downloads material from them. Just say no kids. Get it on tape instead
IMO the fact that "it takes so much effort" to make a record is part of the whole problem here. The big labels are spending so much money on advertitsing artists they have to run the music through audience tests like if it was a damn commercial. Music has simply grown from something that was integral to every human (I don't think the tribe shaman went around checking that no-one was playing his tunes between the ceremonies) to something that, to the majority of listeners, practically only exists as a refined, produced ooze that's supposed to fit as many people's tastes as possible.
FOSEHWWGTFC seems to be the only way to turn this around and KILL THE MUSIC INDUSTRY so we can have the art of music back from the corporations.
NOTE: this does not apply to marginal artists releasing stuff on small labels.
NOTE2: I also make music, and no, it doesn't take all that much effort. Only when you assume that you have some God given right to live off of your music hobby is when you start drawing conclusions such as the one in the post above.
1. The MPAA and RIAA are NOT ARTISTIC ASSOCIATIONS!
This merits repeating. The MPAA and RIAA are NOT ARTISTIC ASSOCIATIONS!
Admittedly, they are "industry" organizations, but this also implies that they represent industry interests, which are not always the same as artists' interests. In both cases, you've got lawyers and legal staffers, who serve the interests of distribution companies, financiers, studios, you get the idea.
2. The MPAA and RIAA exist in large measure to perpetuate and protect obsolete business models. It's partially driven (obscured?) by goals of being able to exact revenue from each viewing, each session, each "show". In their minds, this was the way it's supposed to work. I'd like to think they're bright enough to realize they can't keep doing business in quite the same way, but they can't even see which way they are going. It isn't only the technology they don't understand, but those "suits" don't understand the nature of offering the sort of entertainment that makes audiences want to see more, but not necessarily more of the same.
3. ...lest we forget, the entertainment industry moved to California first to dodge their creditors in the east, secondly to avoid paying tax debts, but also to avoid paying royalties to Thomas Edison. Edison and company invented the production and post-production equipment on which the American film and sound recording industries modified to their own specifications.
Of course the less polite version alleges that they ripped off Edison outright. ...can't be as morally reprehensible as copyright infringement, right?