Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Boycott paid music, RIAA suing innocent families

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
JackSwift Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 10:59 PM
Original message
Boycott paid music, RIAA suing innocent families
for acts of teenagers in illegal downloading. Boycott all paid for music and live shows of recording artists until the RIAA drops the suits and apologizes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Don_G Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 11:03 PM
Response to Original message
1. I Have Been
Until those Rethug greedy f**ks get their head out of their a** and start producing some good music, I'll stick with used CD's.

RIAA too!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Resistance Is Futile Donating Member (693 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 11:16 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Skeletons in the closet
RIAA a Republican organization? Surely you jest. The entertainment empires have traditionally been very large sponsors of the Democratic party.

Do recall that the DMCA--legislation which has enabled the RIAA and MPAA's more extreme abuses of power in recent years--was the brainchild of the Clinton administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 11:19 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Democratic Senators sponsored the bill.
I remember a few, such as our Bill Nelson, Diane Feinstein, Fritz Hollings, and so forth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Resistance Is Futile Donating Member (693 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 11:26 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Hollings = turncoat
Hollings since turned into the representative for the RIAA, though.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dogmudgeon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 11:27 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. DMCA's forebears
The entertainment biz was trying to write new legislation as long ago as the 1940s. The previous big push was in the early '80s with Ronald Reagan, whom they saw as a kindred spirit, since he had been a movie star.

Remember the PR war against renting videotapes? Same thing.

Recently, payment into the GOP war chest led to the statutory term for copyrights being extended 20 years (from 70 to 90) to prevent Walt Disney's creations from passing into the public domain. And "Happy Birthday" went from Public to "Protected" in the late 1980s.

Clinton stole a lot of the GOP's thunder ... by endorsing a bunch of dumb-ass ideas, like NAFTA, GATT, welfare "reform", and the DMCA. But all of these big power grabs have been "bipartisan". Money has long been more important than conscience; the Big Dog is neither immune, nor has he usually acted alone.

Once again, it comes down to Money vs. The People.

--bkl
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terwilliger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 12:56 AM
Response to Reply #6
16. Once again, I'm forced to admit that the Democratic party
doesnt seem to be on the right side anymore
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Resistance Is Futile Donating Member (693 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 02:14 AM
Response to Reply #16
20. Party differences overstated
No party is on the right side. Whoever gets seelected will follow the policy dictated by their largest corporate backers. With Clinton's backers that meant substantial invasions of human rights in the name of protecting Hollywood's bottom line. With Shrub's backers that meant substantial invasions of human rights in the name of fighting terrorism. Different assholes, same bullshit. The only choice offered on election day is what brand of corporate idiot gets to fiddle on the throne while Rome burns.

So, dear reader, would you rather the President sponsored by Coke or the President sponsored by Pepsi?



Free clue to party organizers: the vote is sitting out there for the taking for any candidate who has the balls to show some real leadership and demonstrate an ability to face up to the problems of this century and stop pandering to the benighted fuckwits who are looting the future for their own personal benefit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robin Hood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #16
44. Forced to admit?
More like, ready and willing to admit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NashVegas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 08:47 AM
Response to Reply #3
30. The Current RIAA Chief
Is a big Republican fatcat associated closely w/Bill Frist of Nashville - where all the country divisions of the major labels are set up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ergotron Donating Member (131 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #1
58. They can have my 8-track when they pry if from my cold, dead hands.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sugarcookie Donating Member (563 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 11:11 PM
Response to Original message
2. Can someone explain to me
how they caught them? I was telling someone I know about this and..well they have downloaded a few songs from Kazaa. Do they need to take them off the hard drive?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muddleoftheroad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 07:53 AM
Response to Reply #2
27. They tracked the network
And went after the biggest traders of songs. If you merely downloaded a couple songs and didn't upload many, you are likely OK.

Those being sued made the mistake of making available about 1,000 songs each.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uptohere Donating Member (603 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #2
39. its a little late but they would be advised to do so
and to drop Kazaa as well. There are other services that offer better protection.

Or only keep out there those tunes that you have copyright ownership of (cds that you ripped yourself or legally downloaded tunes).

And don't forget to do a "real" erase. Otherwise its still there only not referenced.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DedEye Donating Member (361 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 11:35 PM
Response to Original message
7. Done and Done
I don't buy CDs because they're overpriced, and because I hate the recording industry.
The RIAA is bipartisan you could say; their former chairwoman, Hillary Rosen, was a democrat (the current head is a republican). However, the entertainment industry is still heavily to the left (though the right isn't very far from the left on the issue of the entertainment companies vs. consumers).
They caught them by matching the IP address used by the individual's computer with their name, which they usually have to subpeona from the phone company. Programs like Kazaa work because people share their files with other users, and the RIAA catches users by looking for the IP addresses of Kazaa users (don't know how they decide who to sue though).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sugarcookie Donating Member (563 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 11:49 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. I think I understand
Thanks for the explanation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldSoldier Donating Member (982 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 06:58 AM
Response to Reply #7
22. Who they sued
IIRC, they went after people who were sharing over 1000 copyrighted songs, which is why they went after the "honor student" everyone's so up in arms about.

My opinion: these people really should have been watching their kid better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TAH6988 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 07:04 AM
Response to Reply #22
25. Amen!
Don't commit illegal acts, and you won't be prosecuted or sued.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RapidCreek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #25
48. You mean like Kenny boy Lay?
Gee I guess I see your point....In the scheme of things, successfully conspiring to steal billions of dollars pales in the face of a twleve year old downloading Brittany Spears!

It's good to see our legislators are helping concerned citizens go after the real criminals in our country! I say send the little shit to Guantanamo....off with her head! She's standing in the way of legitimate commerce!

RC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nolabels Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #22
42. Yea, right, sit them down in front of a TeeVee, and let corporate........
America drains their brain. Did you ever notice the people who are spearheading this stuff are also the one who loose the most if the margins of profits are not the greatest as they can be? People that identify with corporate America, these people who want to criminalize the rest of the US so they can have the upper hand. To me helping them do it make them even worse than the ones that are doing it. For with out them, they would never be able to get their way with the rest.

Instead of telling them that it is wrong and that they should not be trying to do such things. They bang out the Gongs of tradition, proclaiming the goodness of institutions that have went as far as to claim Women are chattel and some others need only be considered 3/5ths of a person in barter. I am not claiming lawlessness should prevail, I am stating things like this are being done against the will of the people to keep a few greedy people rich.

The divide between the government and its people is getting very real; indorsing the ones that do it, only propels the spiral
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demigoddess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 11:43 PM
Response to Original message
8. Boycott forever
the only cd I bought in a couple of years was the dixie chicks album while they were being punished for speaking out
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bridget Burke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 08:05 AM
Response to Reply #8
28. Dixie Chicks: another reason to like them....
They were concerned about Sony making so much money off their music when they got relatively little. Most of their money came from touring.

So they took a year off & recorded demos in their spare time. Eventually Sony relented & gave them a better deal. The Chicks listened to the demos & decided to release them as-is. The result was "Home"--their best seller yet.

I have no problem paying for music, but CD's are too expensive & the artists usually don't get a fair share. Haven't bought many recently--partly because I'm old & have LOTS of CD's to listen to. Also lots of LP's & a functioning turntable.

Exception: when I go to a show & the band is selling their own CD's.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uptohere Donating Member (603 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 08:54 AM
Response to Reply #28
31. you do realize that the label still gets their cut right ?
and the acts don't have to sign the contracts if they don't like the terms.

Lets be realistic, labels sign lots of acts, most flop. Lots of money still gets spent trying to get them popular and that money is recouped by the very few who do become popular.

Everyone makes some money insted of a very few.

And if musicians were so outraged by it why do the successful ones who form their own labels do the same thing ?

It is the music BUSINESS after all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
old dog Donating Member (11 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 11:49 PM
Response to Original message
9. They are being foolish
These lawsuits are going to cause a huge backlash if they continue to persue them

suing the crap out of a teenager because Madonna missed out on 3 cents will not sit well with the american people
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uptohere Donating Member (603 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #9
40. hasn't yet
and I don't expect it either. Its illegal and everyone has known that for years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skyzics Donating Member (182 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 11:49 PM
Response to Original message
10. On-going CD boycott here..
Have not bought a CD in 6 months and plan to keep that going. I am using satelite radio and free internet radio instead.

When they bring new CD's down to around $7.50 or less, I'll consider buying again - IF the major labels cease in this file-sharing lawsuit nonsense, that is.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Resistance Is Futile Donating Member (693 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 11:51 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. Six months?
I haven't bought any CDs for more than six years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skyzics Donating Member (182 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 12:06 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. It's a start..
McIntosh has a buck a song deal which I tried on a friend's Mac once. That's a better deal than CD's, as obviously you only buy the songs you want. But considering the necessary effort and somewhat limited selection yet available, a buck a song seems a little pricey to me. Fifty cents a song would motivate me a lot more, I think.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terwilliger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 12:53 AM
Response to Original message
14. boycott the Democratic party support of the RIAA!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FDRrocks Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 12:55 AM
Response to Original message
15. 15- 20$
a CD, is too much. If the recording industry wants to retain thier sales, they need to lower thier prices.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newyawker99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 06:50 AM
Response to Reply #15
21. Hi FDRrocks!!
Welcome to DU!! :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hooligan Donating Member (44 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 01:00 AM
Response to Original message
17. Done and done...
The RIAA should be boycotted anyway because they are greedy bastards who have profited by exploiting artists and gouging costomers for decades. Screw 'em.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fescue4u Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 01:43 AM
Response to Original message
18. The RIAA's behavior makes me inclined to download music
Im not what you would call a "music person" and I rarely buy and even more rarely download music.

In fact the only times I downloaded music was to find out what the fuss was about, and another time in a work related function (network engineering)

Anyway, this kind of crass behavior makes me want to swear off EVER buying CD's and only download.

The thought of putting money into the pockets of the RIAA, who then use it to abuse children is sickening.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Resistance Is Futile Donating Member (693 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 01:59 AM
Response to Reply #18
19. Go for the indie stuff
Go looking for the independant music scene. The music is better, it costs far less, and the people producing it aren't trying to take away our rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TAH6988 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 07:03 AM
Response to Reply #19
23. What right are they taking away?
Why is this such a big deal? The music companies WARNED people to stop illegally downloading music and then went after those who continued to do so. Just because one feels CDs cost too much, one does not have the right to "steal" the work of the artist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catholic Sensation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 07:51 AM
Response to Reply #23
26. I know
Jesus Christ, THESE PEOPLE ARE STEALING MUSIC! THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DOWNLOADING AN ENTIRE ALBUM AND WALKING INTO FYE AND TAKING ONE OFF THE SHELF! These families are not innocent because 1000 mp3s at an average of 3.5 mb per file (which is a conservative average) is at LEAST 3.5 gigs of hard drive space which is hard not to notice is missing from your usual space. Suing the twelve year old was harsh, but for the most part these people are committing a crime, why don't you understand that? BOYCOT MUSIC BECAUSE THEY WANT TO MAKE US PAY FOR THEIR MUSIC THUS PAYING THEM SPENDING HOURS UPON HOURS OF WRITING THE LYRICS AND CREATING THE BEATS/MUSIC!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NashVegas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 09:57 AM
Response to Reply #26
36. MUST Read Artlicle in NYT
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/14/technology/14MUSI.htm...

Yes, it's illegal. Some people are disobeying the law, it's as simple as that. Or is it?

Just how badly are artists getting cheated?

Much of the stated concern over file sharing has centered on the revenue that record companies and musicians are losing, but few musicians ever actually receive royalties from their record sales on major labels, which managers say have accounting practices that are badly in need of review. (Artists do not receive royalties for a CD until the record company has earned back the money it has spent on them.)

Even the Backstreet Boys, one of the best-selling acts of the 1990's, did not appear to have received any CD royalties, their management said.

"I don't have sympathy for the record companies," said Mickey Melchiondo of the rock duo Ween. "They haven't been paying me royalties anyway."


Case in point: You might remember the Goo Goo Dolls huge smash lp Boy Named Goo with the top single "Name." Not only did they not make a dime, IIRC, when all was said and done, they still owed the label money.

Then you have the case of Wilco, who were dropped from their label when they refused to make Yankee Hotel Foxtrot more "commercially viable." Happens all the time. In their case, the band themselves leaked the tracks and when they finally settled on a new label, the album sold 50k copies in the first week of release - their highest ever.

I've said it 80 gazillion times, and I'll say it 80 more: this fight is not about the labels losing money because file traders don't buy music; this fight is about labels losing money because file trading is cutting into their ability to decide what artists and music will get heavy promotion and reap the profits from it. You budget 25 million dollars to promote album XYZ, but no one buys it because they've found ABC on a network and are digging the hell out of it. Result: the promotional budget assigned to XYZ is wasted budget resource.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RapidCreek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #36
51. EXACTLY RIGHT!
Thank you for saving me the time of pointing this out.

RC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VermontDem2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #26
43. Wasn't stealing for me
Music companies profited from me, before Napster came I bought 2 cds when napster came I bought around 20 cds, when the RIAA came I bought 0 cds. I used napster to listen to songs from a CD and if I liked the songs I would go out and buy a cd, if I didn't like the songs I wouldn't buy the cd. Now that there is no napster I have no idea if the cds are good or not unless I borrow it from someone else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Resistance Is Futile Donating Member (693 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #23
37. Rights consumed by the RIAA
The wonderful people at the RIAA have decided that we the people shouldn't have:

1) The right to listen to music at a time and place of one's choosing on a playback device of one's choosing. Space and time shifting are recognized rights. The RIAA has made many efforts, both legal and technical, to prevent customers from playing music on any device other than a CD player from any medium other than the original disk.

Among other efforts, the RIAA sued (and lost) in an attempt to block the sale of the first stand-alone solid state MP3 player. The RIAA has also expended considerable effort in developing anti-use technologies to prevent CDs from being played by computers or stand-alone devices which use CD-ROM derived mechinisms. This ammounts to an effective confiscation--theft--of legitimately purchased and legitimatly used equipment.

2) The right to listen to music that has not been RIAA approved. The RIAA has made several efforts to purchase legislation aimed at banning the sale of devices capable of playing music which does not have an embedded RIAA digital signature.

3) The right to pay a fair price, as determined by the market, for goods sold. The RIAA has been documented to engage in price fixing to artificially inflate its revenues.

4) The right for artists to recive a fair wage, as determiend by the market, in return for their labor. RIAA companies do not pay a fair wage and in many cases engage in creative accounting so that artists must pay the record labels rather than vice versa.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RapidCreek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #18
54. Yep the RIAA has been an inspiration to me!
Emule. chained anonymous proxy. don't show shared files. firewall. I quit buying CD's the day I heard about the RIAA.

A question....If there were no such thing as a record company...would Jerry Garcia still be a rich musician?

I paid 25 bucks to see Collective Soul the other day....so did about 600 other folks. Good music...worth standing in 49 degree temperatures to hear. I listened to about three other bands as well....a couple I had never heard of and really liked allot. If they come back next year I'll pay to see them again. Nothing like a live show! What a Concept!



RC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldSoldier Donating Member (982 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 07:03 AM
Response to Original message
24. Today's music sucks anyway
There aren't a lot of bands I'd consider buying even if boycotting the RIAA wasn't the "progressive" thing to do. I like Avril Lavigne's stuff, and No Doubt makes good tunes. I bought those CDs recently; the rest of the "modern" stuff I've left on the shelves.

Most modern music is either crap, rap or crappy rap. Thank you no, I've been filling out my collection of 1970s-era disaster movies on DVD.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sick of Bullshit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 09:10 AM
Response to Reply #24
32. Contemporary "music" does suck
Cookie cutter shit that reminds me of the housing development I used to live in-- one house/song is just like another.

And suing that 12-year-old girl in the projects for $2000 was the lowest of the low. Only the scummiest of scumbags would do that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uptohere Donating Member (603 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 02:22 PM
Original message
they only sued for 2k BECAUSE of her financial status
the rich kids in the burbs got 6 figure lawsuits.

All are settling for a small fraction of the suit since they are only intended to be sending a message that they are serious about theft. That kid will likely get off by deleting the tunes and being sorry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uptohere Donating Member (603 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 08:36 AM
Response to Original message
29. they are not innocent
feel free to boycott if you want, but don't delude yourself into thinking that what they did is legal.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoneStarLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 09:21 AM
Response to Reply #29
33. uptohere is right
These people are not innocent. They are quite guilty of violating law.

The realy turn of the worm with filesharing is does the punishment fit the crime? I think we can all answer no to that.

In my job (computer security) we spend about 80% of our time dealing with RIAA warnings. As a public university we have to handle things a bit more delicately than your regular corporate ISP, so these incidents take time to process. In a phrase, this sucks.

This takes time away from our legitimate security work and while it is most definitely illegal to share files, it is also the case that the RIAA is defending an outmoded, antiqued business model in the music industry instead of trying to innovate.

I have no sympathy for file sharers who break the law nor for brass-hided dinosaurs in the music industry who are trying to protect a failed business. They both waste my time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProfessorGAC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 09:32 AM
Response to Reply #33
34. Count Me As The Third With This Sentiment
It's illegal. It's theft of intellectual property. We may not like the way the music biz is run. The business model may be an anachronism, and the notion of customer satisfaction may be just a rumor with these folks.
But, that doesn't justify stealing. Stealing from pirates is still stealing.
The Professor
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VermontDem2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #34
45. See post #43
It can be stealing if you download the music and burn it on CD, if you do not it isn't stealing. Plus alot of the stuff you download cannot be bought at your local CD store, I know people who were downloading old stuff that couldn't find the music at a Tower Records. I used downloading music as a way of "shopping around".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uptohere Donating Member (603 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 09:40 AM
Response to Reply #33
35. I do have problems with the degree of "damage" that they claim
And I wonder at the claims of out-dated business model that I see. And how they are fighting some new one.

First off, they did wait far too long to accept subscription music services.

However...

Do you believe that artists attempt to create CDs that have a correlation of the tunes taht they put on them or do they just pick 12 and if there are more than 2-3 good tunes they save some for the next CD in case they need tham ? My point is that the artists would like you to hear more than just what the radio plays, they have lots to say and if you only listen to the radio then you miss out. This creative control is actually whats behind why music is released the way it is. Talk to the artists if you don't care.

I really have a problem with their attempts to limit what you can do with the music fro services. I'll give it some thought when they get over that. They cede all control once the sell the CD, why is the download different ?

Oh and if you don't think CDs are worth that much, tell the popular artists, they're the reasons for it. And shock of all shocks, they're talking about dropping prices. A good way to tell them you don't like prices is to shut your checkbook !
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 01:15 PM
Response to Original message
38. So you think musicians should work for free?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nolabels Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #38
55. Hell no, I consider it an Honor to be able to buy good music.
I have purchased three or four thousand dollars worth of music in the last 8 or 9 years, I just think it is wrong for any large share of money produced from it going to people that have had nothing to do with producing it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 05:46 PM
Response to Reply #55
56. So that means you get it for free?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FDR2004 Donating Member (21 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 01:32 PM
Response to Original message
41. I buy only used music
Seems like a good alternative.

FDR2004
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CBHagman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 01:50 PM
Response to Original message
46. Innocent? No, not at all.
Sorry, kiddies, but piracy is piracy, and if rather doubt you would want whatever work you do to be given away free. Talk to a few music store clerks and get another perspective.

If you expect to be paid for your work and yet want freedom to duplicate and disseminate copyrighted material, they have a name for you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VermontDem2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #46
47. Appearantly it isn't illegal
to search people's houses without a warrant anymore so downloading music is now illegal. I just used Napster as a way of shopping around I would download music from cds and if I liked the music, I bought the cd. If I didn't like the music I didn't buy the cd. Before Napster I bought 2 cds, during napster I bought 20 cds, after napster I bought 0. So the music industry certainly profited from people like me. Also, there are some things you think should be legal but aren't, such as Marijuana, you should be able to walk into a store, purchase some, and walk out. Unfortanetly, we don't live in that world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uptohere Donating Member (603 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #47
49. but you didn't delete the songs you didn't like apparantly
look, taking without permission is theft pure and simple. People like you are in the minority or sales would not be as down as they are.

Add the fact that you kept all of it like it or not and you might as well be the kid stuffing cds down his pants at the store. This is now those artists make a living, do you begrudge them their paycheck ?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VermontDem2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #49
50. I don't begrude them because i bought 20 cd's
during the napster period. They aren't loosing money just because people are downloading files, it is just the fear that no one will buy cd's because they will all be downloading files. I have bought no cd's since the NRiaa or whatever the fuck they are stepped in so Music artists are actually loosing money from me. A person I knew downloaded old music that she couldn't buy at a place like Tower Records.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uptohere Donating Member (603 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #50
52. OK you bought those 20 cds what about the other 40 you stole ?
alright I'm making up a number but you did not take that opportunity to tell me that you deleted the tunes that sucked. So you must have kept them. So good for the 20 artists you like and tough luck for all the rest. Why should you decide which artist gets paid and which one does not ? Do you not realize that artists actually get checks for the number of their cds that sell ? Its not just that they get a percentage of the entire label's profits, only from the sweat of their brow. At least delete what you don't like. Be that "honest".

As to the tale that some tunes are unavailable, that may be true occasionally but most stuff can be ordered (at Tower).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yavin4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 02:41 PM
Response to Original message
53. The RIAA Is Using Our Legal System To Correct Their Own Mistakes
First, they should have jumped on the file sharing bandwagon years ago. They should have used the internet as a distribution vehicle instead of kissing MTV's and corporate radio's asses.

Second, they should lower the cost of their CDs. I understand that most of the price of the CD goes to the retailer. Well, geniuses use your damn websites to sell the CDs at a lower cost. Geesh!

Third, produce better music. Brittney is nothing more than a striptease act posing as a music artist. Put out better music and you'll see sales rise.

IOW, the music industry is blaming file sharing for their own myopic corporate management.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-15-03 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #53
57. So you think musicians should work for free too then...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Sep 19th 2014, 07:23 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC