PDA

View Full Version : Music piracy crackdown nets college kids


Pages : [1] 2

Lzen
05-14-2007, 10:35 AM
Un-freaking-believable. :shake:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070513/ap_en_mu/music_pirates;_ylt=ApecS6d8UUmngHloF5NisZ1xFb8C

By ANNA JO BRATTON, Associated Press Writer Sun May 13, 2:50 PM ET

LINCOLN, Neb. (AP) — At first, Sarah Barg thought the e-mail was a scam. Some group called the Recording Industry Association of America was accusing the University of Nebraska-Lincoln sophomore of illegally downloading 381 songs using the school's computer network and a program called Ares.

The letter said she might be sued but offered her the chance to settle out of court.

Barg couldn't imagine anyone expected her to pay $3,000 — $7.87 per song — for some 1980s ballads and Spice Girls tunes she downloaded for laughs in her dorm room. Besides, the 20-year-old had friends who had downloaded thousands of songs without repercussion.

"Obviously I knew it was illegal, but no one got in trouble for it," Barg said.

But Barg's perspective changed quickly that Thursday in March, when she called student legal services and found out the e-mail was no joke and that she had a pricey decision to make.

Barg is one of 61 students at UNL and hundreds at more than 60 college campuses across the country who have received letters from the recording industry group, threatening a lawsuit if they don't settle out of court.

"Any student on any campus in the country who is illegally downloading music may receive one of these letters in the coming months," said Jenni Engebretsen, an RIAA spokeswoman.

Barg's parents paid the $3,000 settlement. Without their help, "I don't know what I would have done. I'm only 20 years old," she said.

At least 500 university students nationwide have paid settlements to avoid being sued, Engebretsen said. Students who don't take the offer face lawsuits — and minimum damages of $750 for each copyrighted recording shared if they lose.

UNL officials have been told 32 more letters are on the way. At least 17 UNL students who did not take the settlement offer have been sued, according to the RIAA, although the university has been asked to forward only five subpoenas.

But the students coughing up the cash question why they're the ones getting in trouble.

"They're targeting the worst people," UNL freshman Andrew Johnson, who also settled for $3,000. "Legally, it probably makes sense, because we don't have the money to fight."

Johnson got his e-mail in February, with the recording industry group's first wave of letters targeting college students. He had downloaded 100 songs on a program called LimeWire using the university network.

The money to settle came from the 18-year-old's college fund. He'll work three jobs this summer to pay back the money.

Johnson compares what he did to people driving 5 miles per hour over the speed limit.

"It's not like I downloaded millions of songs and sold them to people," Johnson said.

But just one song can bring a lawsuit, Engebretsen said.

"It is important to send the message that this is illegal, you can be caught, and there are consequences," she said.

The industry realizes attitudes need changing, and money from the settlements is reinvested in educational programs schools and other groups can use to spread the word that song sharing can have severe consequences.

Some of the programs are tailored to start with third-graders.

"We do recognize that by the time students reach college, many of their music habits are already formed," Engebretsen said.

Earlier this month, members of Congress sent a letter to officials from 19 universities, including UNL, asking for information about schools' anti-piracy policies.

According to the letter, more than half of college students download copyrighted music and movies. The information requested is intended to help assess whether Congress needs to advance legislation to ensure illegal downloading "is no longer commonly associated with student life on some U.S. campuses," the letter says.

Barg is still angry about her letter from the recording industry group, which she calls bullying. But she agrees sharing music is common, and that other students don't understand the consequences.

"Technically, I'm guilty. I just think it's ridiculous, the way they're going about it," Barg said. "We have to find a way to adjust our legal policy to take into account this new technology, and so far, they're not doing a very good job."

Barg thinks the university should send an e-mail to all students, warning them that the recording industry won't look the other way.

As campus clears out for the summer, UNL officials are considering launching a new educational campaign in the fall.

"If we can do anything to help educate students about what illegal file-sharing is, we're willing and interested in doing that," said Kelly Bartling, a university spokeswoman.

Bartling said no one wants students to have to worry about how to pay tuition because of an expensive settlement. "It is a hugely expensive lesson," Bartling said.

Johnson, the UNL freshman, doesn't think the threats from the recording industry group are going to solve the problem. Friends who know he got in trouble still share music online.

"People are still going to do it until they get caught, and they can't catch everyone," Johnson said.

___

On the Net:

Recording Industry Association of America: http://www.riaa.com

University of Nebraska-Lincoln: http://www.unl.edu

Mile High Mania
05-14-2007, 10:38 AM
Is it ticky-tacky... sure. But, it's still illegal.

Al Bundy
05-14-2007, 10:38 AM
**** The RIAA. They whine and bitch about that crap.. but those artists make most of their money from touring. RIAA if you want to have people still buying your CD's start making the artists accept less and the record labels charing the stores 8.00 a CD. So that mom and pop stores can sell CD's at 11.97 a piece.

Saulbadguy
05-14-2007, 10:39 AM
hahahaha (for obvious reasons)

Saulbadguy
05-14-2007, 10:40 AM
Is it ticky-tacky... sure. But, it's still illegal.
Sure, but it's a victimless crime.

Cochise
05-14-2007, 10:41 AM
"Obviously I knew it was illegal..." Barg said.

Nice quote. I'm sure the plaintiff's attorneys are grateful she gave them that meatball.

Lzen
05-14-2007, 10:42 AM
Yeah, it may be illegal. But where do you draw the line? Why do they charge $15+ for a cd when it only costs them $1 to make? What about all the material that I used to own that has been lost or stolen or broken over time? Since it is about the material, can I download those for free since I already paid for them at some point? Hell no they would never do that. RIAA is the devil, I tell ya.

htismaqe
05-14-2007, 10:42 AM
I wonder what would happen if the kids fought this and took it to a judge?

I can hardly see the judge awarding damages of more than SEVEN DOLLARS per song. That's ridiculous. You could buy a whole CD for that.

Cochise
05-14-2007, 10:43 AM
Yeah, it may be illegal. But where do you draw the line? Why do they charge $15+ for a cd when it only costs them $1 to make?

Good point. I'll begin stealing anything that I feel is overpriced. Hopefully I never end up being prosecuted.

keg in kc
05-14-2007, 10:44 AM
Just wait until the mpaa starts sending out emails and million dollar fines and long sentences ensue.

Lzen
05-14-2007, 10:45 AM
Good point. I'll begin stealing anything that I feel is overpriced. Hopefully I never end up being prosecuted.

Heh, I didn't say that. BTW, I don't download stuff illegally. But I'm also more leaning toward the downloaders. It is obviously a one way street.

StcChief
05-14-2007, 10:46 AM
Wanna get back at RIAA don't buy anything from them.

See where that goes.

keg in kc
05-14-2007, 10:47 AM
I wonder how they tracked them. Were the schools pressured to give up ip information?

Lzen
05-14-2007, 10:48 AM
Personally, I would rather have the actual cd. But maybe I'm just old school that way.

bdeg
05-14-2007, 10:49 AM
Nice quote. I'm sure the plaintiff's attorneys are grateful she gave them that meatball.

Seeing as how it says right in the article she's already settled out of court, I don't think she has to worry about it.

htismaqe
05-14-2007, 10:52 AM
I wonder how they tracked them. Were the schools pressured to give up ip information?

The schools were likely served with papers. That's what used to happen when I worked in abuse claims at an ISP. The FBI would call, tell me to check the FAX machine, and then we'd have to give up the info.

stlchiefs
05-14-2007, 11:05 AM
The schools were likely served with papers. That's what used to happen when I worked in abuse claims at an ISP. The FBI would call, tell me to check the FAX machine, and then we'd have to give up the info.

Yep, the schools have said if they get a request they're turning over the info. It's the students azz's or their's and they're not about to take the fall for the Spice Girls downloads.

BucEyedPea
05-14-2007, 11:07 AM
I wonder what would happen if the kids fought this and took it to a judge?

I can hardly see the judge awarding damages of more than SEVEN DOLLARS per song. That's ridiculous. You could buy a whole CD for that.
I believe that's the minimum per offense under the law. Plus I believe the law can award treble damages which is designed to discourage the practice.

Intellectual property rights is an esoteric kind of law to most people.

I wonder if owner-plaintiffs could do class action suits too?

It is NOT a victimless crime though.

keg in kc
05-14-2007, 11:10 AM
My guess is, if the recording and movie industries ever do go all out, 99.999% of people (well, under the age of 60 who know how to operate them) who own computers will be fried.

Cochise
05-14-2007, 11:11 AM
The schools were likely served with papers. That's what used to happen when I worked in abuse claims at an ISP. The FBI would call, tell me to check the FAX machine, and then we'd have to give up the info.

At our school, I think they eventually just blocked Napster, et al, over those kinds of concerns.

BucEyedPea
05-14-2007, 11:13 AM
Yep, the schools have said if they get a request they're turning over the info. It's the students azz's or their's and they're not about to take the fall for the Spice Girls downloads.
Where I teach, they're really strict about downloading including software, which is also rampant Everyone in the building has to have a physical ids to start with. Student have been dismissed. We not only have a problem with that kind of theft but also the regular kind.

htismaqe
05-14-2007, 11:13 AM
I believe that's the minimum per offense under the law. Plus I believe the law can award treble damages which is designed to discourage the practice.

Intellectual property rights is an esoteric kind of law to most people.

I wonder if owner-plaintiffs could do class action suits too?

It is NOT a victimless crime though.

What's the going rate for songs on iTunes or some other "legal" service?

Isn't it around $1 per tune?

If you want to discourage the practice and treble the damages, fine. That's $3 per song.

This number they're looking for looks to have been pulled out of someone's ass.

Redrum_69
05-14-2007, 11:18 AM
I think Metallica is on the RIAA board

Redrum_69
05-14-2007, 11:19 AM
Also...Lincoln, Nebraska is a great city for one reason and one reason only...


Melissa Midwest hails from Lincoln

BucEyedPea
05-14-2007, 11:21 AM
What's the going rate for songs on iTunes or some other "legal" service?

Isn't it around $1 per tune?

If you want to discourage the practice and treble the damages, fine. That's $3 per song.

This number they're looking for looks to have been pulled out of someone's ass.
No it's three times the "damages" not the cost of the item. If a plaintiff can't prove damages courts can award statuatory damages if it applies. Statuatory damages are an amount between $500 and $20,000. Damages can be lowered to $200 if infringement was innocent or higher if will full. ( last I checked...but it's something like this.) They can ask for court and attorney fees too.

And liability is joint and several ...so anyone else involved can be liable too.

htismaqe
05-14-2007, 11:28 AM
No it's three times the "damages" not the cost of the item. If a plaintiff can't prove damages courts can award statuatory damages if it applies. Statuatory damages are an amount between $500 and $20,000. Damages can be lowered to $200 if infringement was innocent or higher if will full. ( last I checked...but it's something like this.) They can ask for court and attorney fees too.

And liability is joint and several ...so anyone else involved can be liable too.

That's just ridiculous.

$20K for downloading a few songs.

Hound333
05-14-2007, 11:28 AM
For this reason I have not gone to a concert or bought a CD in years.

I might feel bad for them if the numbers (no I don't have the link anymore) didn't show that revenue for the music industry went up significantly since Napster came into use.

Dicky McElephant
05-14-2007, 11:29 AM
Also...Lincoln, Nebraska is a great city for one reason and one reason only...


Melissa Midwest hails from Lincoln


I knew I liked the state of Nebraska for some reason.

cdcox
05-14-2007, 11:32 AM
What's the going rate for songs on iTunes or some other "legal" service?

Isn't it around $1 per tune?

If you want to discourage the practice and treble the damages, fine. That's $3 per song.

This number they're looking for looks to have been pulled out of someone's ass.

If they lose a lawsuit, the law provides a minimum penalty of $750 per infraction, according to the article. A settlement of 1% of that is $7.50 per infraction.

I have very little symapthy. Everyone who does it knows its against the law. If you want to break the law fine, but you have to be willing to acceot the risks. With the recording industry losing billions of dollars per year on this, there is no way they were going to sit on the sidelines and watch their fortunes disappear with the law on their side. It was completely obvious that the RIAA was going to drop the hammer big time on some people to make an example of them and maybe change some people's minds about whether it is really worth the risk.

Redrum_69
05-14-2007, 11:33 AM
Arent most of the P2P networks disabled or watched closely now for anyone downloading any type of software/music/media?

DaneMcCloud
05-14-2007, 11:33 AM
**** The RIAA. They whine and bitch about that crap.. but those artists make most of their money from touring. RIAA if you want to have people still buying your CD's start making the artists accept less and the record labels charing the stores 8.00 a CD. So that mom and pop stores can sell CD's at 11.97 a piece.

This is so ridiculous that I don't know where to start. Artists only get between 14%-21% of the retail selling price to begin with, and you want them to take less? In addition, an Artist has to pay back the record company for recording expenses, touring expenses, video, etc. THAT all comes out of their sales. That's why so many Artists don't make money from sales because of recoupment costs.

Mom & Pop stores a dead. Places like Wal-Mart & Best Buy (who typically sell CD's below Cost and make up there losses in other products) have put family owned places out of business. Less than 4% of total music sold is from "Mom & Pop" stores.

Sure, but it's a victimless crime.

Yeah, it's victimless. Unless you happen to be the record label who's invested over $750,000 in recording and marketing the Artist or your the Artist who needs those revenues to recoup costs so they can actually SEE some money. Other than that, it's victimless. :rolleyes:

Yeah, it may be illegal. But where do you draw the line? Why do they charge $15+ for a cd when it only costs them $1 to make? What about all the material that I used to own that has been lost or stolen or broken over time? Since it is about the material, can I download those for free since I already paid for them at some point? Hell no they would never do that. RIAA is the devil, I tell ya.

I thought you were a musician? Most musicians that I know are actually INFORMED about the music industry.

It doesn't cost ONE DOLLAR to make a CD. It may cost one dollar to replicate a CD but it can cost anywhere from $500,000 to $1,000,000 to record and promote for a single Artist. Through in the cost of music publishing and a company like Universal or Warner Brothers could have $1.5 million dollars invested in an artist before the CD eve hits the stores? How is that "One Dollar"?

The RIAA has its faults but policing illegal downloads isn't one of them.

BucEyedPea
05-14-2007, 11:34 AM
That's just ridiculous.

$20K for downloading a few songs.
I thought we were arguing the $750 in this particular case?
That's just the highest range it can go depending on situation.
I don't think they're asking that here. Besides, it's just as ridiculous for the infringer to not be willing to pay $1 for a song too. She had that choice and choose to steal instead.

I'm just saying that these remedies are in the © law.

Don't take my word for it. Here it is:

Under e Civil Remedies

http://www.ladas.com/NII/CopyrightInfringement.html

stlchiefs
05-14-2007, 11:34 AM
Also...Lincoln, Nebraska is a great city for one reason and one reason only...


Melissa Midwest hails from Lincoln

She's a tease, where's the real stuff?

Redrum_69
05-14-2007, 11:36 AM
She's a tease, where's the real stuff?


LOL


no comment, just look elsewhere, shes out there

Iowanian
05-14-2007, 11:38 AM
College students should unite and wage a collective Jihad on the RIAA.

They likely are the most creative at hacking and political unrest, and are the biggest consumers of music.

Redrum_69
05-14-2007, 11:39 AM
She's a tease, where's the real stuff?


I'm pretty dang sure Half-can or donger can hook you up with pics

maybe saulbadguy

stlchiefs
05-14-2007, 11:41 AM
I'm pretty dang sure Half-can or donger can hook you up with pics

maybe saulbadguy

Pics, see that's the tease. She needs to release some free vids.

BucEyedPea
05-14-2007, 11:41 AM
TYeah, it's victimless. Unless you happen to be the record label who's invested over $750,000 in recording and marketing the Artist or your the Artist who needs those revenues to recoup costs so they can actually SEE some money. Other than that, it's victimless.
Another form of "white collar crime."

Oh Snap
05-14-2007, 11:44 AM
I wonder how they tracked them. Were the schools pressured to give up ip information?
would that not be intrusion of privacy? I enjoy the fact that I am able download all sorts of music from the limewire software (its free)... I believe there was a study done a while back that actually said that illegal downloads dont really affect the artist in a negative manner. It actually helps the artist by making them more well known... So they end up making more money then they normally would. I cant find the article now. This is just a case of greed.

BucEyedPea
05-14-2007, 11:47 AM
would that not be intrusion of privacy?

You don't have a right to privacy when there is probable cause of a crime.

I enjoy the fact that I am able download all sorts of music from the limewire software (its free)... I believe there was a study done a while back that actually said that illegal downloads dont really affect the artist in a negative manner. It actually helps the artist by making them more well known... So they end up making more money then they normally would. I cant find the article now. This is just a case of greed.
It doesn't matter....this is justification or rationalizing it all away as okay.

dirk digler
05-14-2007, 11:47 AM
This is really old news. If she was smart she should have gotten a lawyer because the RIAA is losing cases left and right because they can't prove shit. This is basically a shake down to scare people to pay.

What is funny is since the RIAA is losing cases all the judges are forcing them to pay the legal fees of the defendant which they in turn cry and whine how unfair that is.

BucEyedPea
05-14-2007, 11:48 AM
This is really old news. If she was smart she should have gotten a lawyer because the RIAA is losing cases left and right because they can't prove shit. This is basically a shake down to scare people to pay.

What is funny is since the RIAA is losing cases all the judges are forcing them to pay the legal fees of the defendant which they in turn cry and whine how unfair that is.
Link?
As far as I know, a case can be won on this with circumstantial evidence...as in just having access to it.

dirk digler
05-14-2007, 11:51 AM
Link?

As far as I know, a case can be won on this with circumstantial evidence...as in just having access to it.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070424-judge-denies-riaa-request-to-reconsider-attorneys-fees-award.html

A federal judge has denied the RIAA's motion for reconsideration of his attorneys' fees award in Capitol v. Foster. Calling the RIAA's motion for reconsideration one of "very limited appropriateness," Judge Lee R. West found fault with just about every one of the RIAA's arguments.
Related Stories

Capitol v. Foster involves an Oklahoma woman targeted as part of the record industry's driftnet of file-sharing legislation. Last July, Foster won, when the case was dismissed with prejudice. Her victory opened up the door for her to recover attorneys' fees from the RIAA, and Judge West granted her motion for an award of fees in February, citing in part the RIAA's attempt to paint her as guilty of "secondary copyright infringement" in his decision.

As one might expect, the award was not greeted with much enthusiasm by the record industry, in no small part due to the ramifications it could have for other file-sharing litigation. A couple of weeks after the judge's ruling, the RIAA asked him to reconsider his decision, citing among other things the "premature end of discovery," being denied the chance to prove their claims of secondary infringement, and its belief that an attorneys' fees award rewarded the defendant for deciding to litigate long after the court battle should have been settled.

In his ruling, Judge West disagreed strongly with the RIAA's interpretation of events. With regard to the secondary infringement claims, Judge West found that "Based on the limited record and the fact that the plaintiffs could not point to a single case finding secondary liability for copyright infringement under similar circumstances, the Court concluded the plaintiffs' secondary copyright terms appeared to be marginal and indisputably untested."

The judge also ridiculed the RIAA's assertion that it was denied the chance to prove secondary infringement, noting that the record labels moved voluntarily to dismiss the case instead of proceeding to a trial.

Currently, the RIAA and Debbie Foster are engaged in discovery over the reasonableness of Foster's attorneys' fees, and the RIAA was forced to turn over their own billing records to Foster's attorneys. The RIAA had fought vigorously to keep those records from being revealed, saying that their disclosure could materially affect other file-sharing cases. Judge West agreed and issued a protective order instructing Foster's attorneys to maintain the confidentiality of the RIAA's billing records.

Oh Snap
05-14-2007, 11:52 AM
You don't have a right to privacy when there is probable cause of a crime.

but how would they know that there was a case of probable cause without first intruding upon ones own privacy?


It doesn't matter....this is justification or rationalizing it all away as okay.
it might not matter.. however what about the study that actually said that downloaded or pirated songs do not hurt the artist or the record company, it helps it? you can call it justification but it is a fact.

htismaqe
05-14-2007, 11:52 AM
would that not be intrusion of privacy? I enjoy the fact that I am able download all sorts of music from the limewire software (its free)... I believe there was a study done a while back that actually said that illegal downloads dont really affect the artist in a negative manner. It actually helps the artist by making them more well known... So they end up making more money then they normally would. I cant find the article now. This is just a case of greed.

It's most certainly NOT an invasion of privacy.

What you download becomes your ISP's business the moment you choose to break the law.

Like Pea said, anyone involved can be held liable. Your ISP isn't interested in paying your fines.

dirk digler
05-14-2007, 11:52 AM
Why the RIAA doesn't want defendants exonerated

By Eric Bangeman | Published: March 29, 2007 - 01:35AM CT
Litigation is always a risky endeavor. One can never be entirely sure how a judge will interpret case law and rule, and should the case proceed to trial, juries are even harder to read. Filing over a thousand lawsuits, therefore, is even riskier. Should a handful of rulings go the wrong way, it could jeopardize the numerous other cases currently in the system.

This is a dilemma faced by the RIAA in its war against suspected file sharers. The hundreds of cases filed have all proceeded along the same lines, with which most of us are all too familiar. The music industry's exit strategy from cases it deems undesirable to pursue—due to mistaken identity, poor likelihood of winning, or other factors—has been just as consistent. The record labels file for a dismissal without prejudice and everybody goes their own ways, footing their own legal bills, and no one is officially cleared of wrong-doing. Recent events may be casting a shadow over the wisdom of the RIAA's strategy.
Related Stories

* Son of file-sharing defendant fights back against RIAA
* Federal judge: Making files available for download = distribution
* Judge's decision leaves RIAA with lose-lose situation in Elektra v. Santangelo
* Digital Freedom Campaign to organize students against RIAA abuse

A new tactic

One such event is yesterday's news from the world of file-sharing litigation. Faced with the prospect of having to pay attorneys' fees in cases it has no interest in pursuing, the RIAA appears to be trying a new tactic. In the case of Warner Bros. v. Tallie Stubbs, the record labels have said that they "now covenant not to pursue claims against Defendant" for copyright infringement and that the defendant's counterclaim should be dismissed.

Tallie Stubbs was sued by the RIAA last year after the trade group's investigators traced a Kazaa shared folder back to her with the help of an ISP. After what it described as "further investigation," the record labels apparently concluded that they had either misidentified her or didn't have sufficient evidence to proceed with the case, and decided to move for dismissal without prejudice. When contacted by Ars and asked the reasons behind the dismissal, the RIAA declined to comment.

But Stubbs wanted something more than a mere dismissal: complete exoneration. She filed a counterclaim seeking a declaratory judgment that she had not infringed on the record labels' copyrights. Earlier this month, Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange split the difference. She granted the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss without prejudice while denying their motion to dismiss the counterclaim, ruling that "there are independent bases for subject matter jurisdiction over Defendant's declaratory judgment counterclaim." In other words, the defendant can seek to have her name cleared of any wrongdoing, regardless of the plaintiff's decision to dismiss.

By promising not to sue Stubbs again and keeping the dismissal without prejudice on the books, RIAA hopes to avoid the same fate it met in Capitol v. Foster (Debbie Foster is being represented by the same attorney as Tallie Stubbs) and faces in Elektra v. Santangelo: a ruling that the defendant is the prevailing party and therefore entitled to attorneys' fees. In Warner v. Stubbs, the labels are arguing that since they are promising never to sue her for infringement again, there is no need to continue the legal wrangling and the judge should therefore dismiss Stubbs' counterclaim. In other words, no harm, no foul.
Risky business

In choosing this course of action, the RIAA is taking a calculated risk. Dismissing a case without prejudice while promising not to bring further legal action could be interpreted as the functional equivalent of a dismissal with prejudice. As a result, the judge may very well decide to dismiss the case with prejudice after all. She could also then dismiss Stubbs' counterclaim, as a dismissal with prejudice would mean that she is the prevailing party and leave the labels vulnerable to an attorneys' fees awards.

Last week, we noted that the RIAA found itself in a difficult situation with Elektra v. Santangelo because the judge had ruled that Patti Santangelo was entitled to a shot at vindication, either via trial or a dismissal with prejudice. If Judge Miles-LaGrange issues a ruling exonerating Tallie Stubbs of infringement, it would be a worrisome trend for the RIAA. The music industry has become accustomed to having its way with those it accuses of file-sharing, quietly dropping cases it believes it can't win. It looks as though the courts may be ready to stop the record labels from just walking away from litigation when it doesn't like the direction it is taking and give defendants justice by fully exonerating them of any wrongdoing.

CoMoChief
05-14-2007, 11:55 AM
My buddy's brother got the same deal. He had to pay a lot more though. This was back when Napster was really big.

Iowanian
05-14-2007, 11:58 AM
If the police have to have a search warrant, signed from a judge to tap a phone line....how in the hell can the RIAA essentially "tap" your Computer usage without a warrant? It almost seems like invasion of privacy, habius corpus, illegal wire tapping or something to me.



I'd have more empathy for Dane's position, if I weren't seeing 13 year old rappers I've never heard of, showing off their $20million dollar mansions on Cribs.

dirk digler
05-14-2007, 11:59 AM
Students largely ignore RIAA instant settlement offers

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070326-students-largely-ignore-riaa-instant-settlement-offers.html

By Ken Fisher | Published: March 26, 2007 - 12:13PM CT

While the RIAA is touting a settlement percentage north of 25 percent with its recent campaign against file sharing at US colleges and universities, the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of students are shunning the insta-settlement approach. According to the RIAA, some 116 students have used their new web site to settle copyright infringement claims, but that means that another 284, or 71 percent of students contacted through the program aren't taking the easy way out. At least not yet.

The average settlement amount offered by the RIAA is about $3,000, so this latest pre-litigation strategy has drummed up at least $350,000 in revenue by our estimate. That's no small amount of money, but considering that music sales this quarter were nearly $100 million, one wonders if the haul from this strategy is worth the public image problems that it's deepening. Then again, public image hasn't been something that appears to concern the RIAA, but with music sales on the decline, perhaps they ought to be taking this more seriously.

A student who received a pre-litigation letter told Ars that he refused to engage their offer because they offer zero proof of what is alleged. "It's like receiving blackmail. 'We know what you did, pay us' is the message, but they don't really know me or what I have done," he wrote. The student wishes to remain anonymous.

He knows that students who ignore the pre-litigation letters are just asking the RIAA to pursue them more, but he hopes that when the RIAA is actually faced with having to produce evidence that they'll simply come up short. The current approach by the RIAA is to simply tell students that each song shared is a $750 violation, so one's fine is often calculated based on the number of songs the RIAA says that they've shared. Yet the RIAA offers no proof of their claims, while sometimes trying to make students feel like they're getting a deal.

Despite the low response, the RIAA believes that the program is going well, and they have sent another 405 pre-litigation letters to students at 23 universities. "This is not our preferred course, but we hope that students will understand the consequences of stealing music and that our partners in the college community will appreciate the proactive role they can play," said Cary Sherman, President of the RIAA, in a statement.

According to the Associated Press, one student received a letter demanding $590,000 in payment. Such letters are apparently only sent to egregious file sharers, for the average settlement rarely tops $5,000. After all, the RIAA wants to offer a good deal, you see.

Oh Snap
05-14-2007, 12:00 PM
If the police have to have a search warrant, signed from a judge to tap a phone line....how in the hell can the RIAA essentially "tap" your Computer usage without a warrant? It almost seems like invasion of privacy, habius corpus, illegal wire tapping or something to me.

This is my thinking..

Iowanian
05-14-2007, 12:02 PM
The RIAA should have to Pay $7/song for every shitting song they fill space with on a CD they're advertising as a a quality product.....a Lemon law, if you will.

They're pissed at people for downloading songs, yet out of their other side of their mouth, they're pimping "Artists" with limited talent who Lip sync songs for thousands of fans who are paying to hear them SING.

Fraud.

Oh Snap
05-14-2007, 12:05 PM
what does RIAA stand for anyways?

dirk digler
05-14-2007, 12:05 PM
The RIAA should have to Pay $7/song for every shitting song they fill space with on a CD they're advertising as a a quality product.....a Lemon law, if you will.

They're pissed at people for downloading songs, yet out of their other side of their mouth, they're pimping "Artists" with limited talent who Lip sync songs for thousands of fans who are paying to hear them SING.

Fraud.

Yep this whole RIAA is just a shake down. My advice to anyone that gets a letter go get an attorney and take them to court you will win. So far not 1 case has even gone to trial because the RIAA can't prove anything so they will drop it.

Oh Snap
05-14-2007, 12:06 PM
The RIAA should have to Pay $7/song for every shitting song they fill space with on a CD they're advertising as a a quality product.....a Lemon law, if you will.

They're pissed at people for downloading songs, yet out of their other side of their mouth, they're pimping "Artists" with limited talent who Lip sync songs for thousands of fans who are paying to hear them SING.

Fraud.
very true.. thats false advertisement..

BucEyedPea
05-14-2007, 12:07 PM
If they lose a lawsuit, the law provides a minimum penalty of $750 per infraction, according to the article. A settlement of 1% of that is $7.50 per infraction.

I have very little symapthy. Everyone who does it knows its against the law. If you want to break the law fine, but you have to be willing to acceot the risks. With the recording industry losing billions of dollars per year on this, there is no way they were going to sit on the sidelines and watch their fortunes disappear with the law on their side. It was completely obvious that the RIAA was going to drop the hammer big time on some people to make an example of them and maybe change some people's minds about whether it is really worth the risk.
I feel the same way. It's just common respect for property something our system is based on. It's funny because I teach creative artists...and they most certainly want the extra bucks from © enforcement but then turn around it abuse it regarding others.

The irony for me though, as Misean, is that technology is making © protections more difficult to enforce....and could render it obsolete despite the law. Or this industry could also go out of business suing everybody...then no more music to buy. That is as a worst case scenario.

Bob Dole
05-14-2007, 12:08 PM
I wonder how they tracked them. Were the schools pressured to give up ip information?

They've got Congress pressuring the universities now.

Source (http://www.govtech.net/news/news.php?id=105425&utm_source=GTEN_070514&utm_medium=enews&utm_content=story)

Congress is stepping up its crackdown on Internet piracy on universities in an effort to help the entertainment industry and higher education work together. Nineteen universities have received letters demanding they curb piracy or Congress "will be forced to act."

"The fact that copyright piracy is not unique to college and university campuses is not an excuse for higher education officials to fail to take reasonable steps neither to eliminate such activity nor to appropriately sanction such conduct when discovered," said a letter addressed to President Martin C. Jischke, Purdue University, on May 1, 2007. Purdue is among the top 10 universities with the most illegal Internet downloading activity in the U.S.

Recent studies reveal that 44 percent of domestic piracy losses suffered by the U.S. motion picture industry -- more than a half billion dollars annually -- can be attributed to college students, while a Spring 2006 survey by Student Monitor found more than half of all college students download music and movies illegally.

Meanwhile, a recent survey of college students conducted by the NPD Group, a market research firm, found that students reported that more than two-thirds of all music they acquired was illegally obtained. NPD also concluded that college students were responsible for more than 1.3 billion illegal music downloads in 2006 and that college students disproportionately used peer-to-peer (P2P) networks to download unauthorized music files. In the study, students represented just 10 percent of the sample surveyed but accounted for 21 percent of all P2P users and 26 percent of all P2P downloaded music.

"This theft of digital intellectual property is in the billions of dollars. Beyond the money, the cost also includes job losses and severe economic dislocation. No college or professor would tolerate this theft if it were their own intellectual property," said Safwat Fahmy, CEO & President SafeMedia Corp. "Most importantly, compliance with copyright protection ensures that all members of the academic community -- faculty, staff and students -- respect the rights and privileges of intellectual properties, whether created on or off campus," he said.

The Congressional letters were sent to the presidents of the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA), Boston University, Columbia University, Duke University, Howard University, Michigan State University, North Carolina State University, Ohio University, Rochester Institute of Technology, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, University of Massachusetts at Boston, University of Michigan, University of Pennsylvania, University of Nebraska at Lincoln, University of South Carolina, University of Tennessee, University of Wisconsin at Madison, Vanderbilt University, and Purdue University.

The letters were signed by the chairs of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property as well as the House Committee on Education and Labor. The letter requires that the "Survey of University Network and Data Integrity Practices" be completed and returned no later than May 31, 2007.

"The presence of your institution on both 'Top Ten' lists is a troubling indication that authorized users of your university computer networks routinely utilize your facilities to engage in the theft of copyrighted works," the letter says. "Your full and complete responses to the enclosed survey will assist us in determining what 'best practices' need to be instituted. It will also help us to assess whether Congress needs to advance legislation to ensure the unacceptable use of educational facilities to obtain or traffic in copyrighted goods is no longer commonly associated with student life on some U.S. campuses."

Of some 400 Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) pre-litigation letters sent out in February 2007 to students suspected of illegally downloading music over the Internet, more than 115 responded and have settled with the association. According to published reports, lawsuits are being prepared and filed against those who did not respond.

BucEyedPea
05-14-2007, 12:09 PM
Yep this whole RIAA is just a shake down. My advice to anyone that gets a letter go get an attorney and take them to court you will win. So far not 1 case has even gone to trial because the RIAA can't prove anything so they will drop it.
Perhaps, but having to pay a lawyer to litigate can be a discouragement too.
I'm sure they know that...and this alone may be enough to them. Could be part of their strategy. I'm not a lawyer, (I've won two © suits though) but my understanding is that something like over 95% of cases are settled out of court. That can still cost you a pretty penny, depending on how far it goes.

Cochise
05-14-2007, 12:10 PM
This is so ridiculous that I don't know where to start. Artists only get between 14%-21% of the retail selling price to begin with, and you want them to take less? In addition, an Artist has to pay back the record company for recording expenses, touring expenses, video, etc. THAT all comes out of their sales. That's why so many Artists don't make money from sales because of recoupment costs.

Mom & Pop stores a dead. Places like Wal-Mart & Best Buy (who typically sell CD's below Cost and make up there losses in other products) have put family owned places out of business. Less than 4% of total music sold is from "Mom & Pop" stores.



Yeah, it's victimless. Unless you happen to be the record label who's invested over $750,000 in recording and marketing the Artist or your the Artist who needs those revenues to recoup costs so they can actually SEE some money. Other than that, it's victimless. :rolleyes:



I thought you were a musician? Most musicians that I know are actually INFORMED about the music industry.

It doesn't cost ONE DOLLAR to make a CD. It may cost one dollar to replicate a CD but it can cost anywhere from $500,000 to $1,000,000 to record and promote for a single Artist. Through in the cost of music publishing and a company like Universal or Warner Brothers could have $1.5 million dollars invested in an artist before the CD eve hits the stores? How is that "One Dollar"?

The RIAA has its faults but policing illegal downloads isn't one of them.

You have no business here, logic is not welcome in this lynch mob. Artists should record music at great expense and give it away for free. They exist only to entertain us at no benefit to themselves.

Mr. Plow
05-14-2007, 12:11 PM
I'm screwed.

Iowanian
05-14-2007, 12:12 PM
I think the reason they're going after college kids(Other than the fact they download alot of songs) is they don't think they have the life experience or money to defend themselves from this shakedown.

If they want to prove a point....find a millionaire who is downloading music....Take someone like Mark Cuban to court and see what happens if this is really about what they say it is.

dirk digler
05-14-2007, 12:13 PM
Perhaps, but having to pay a lawyer to litigate can be a discouragement too.
I'm sure they know that...and this alone may be enough to them. Could be part of their strategy. I'm not a lawyer, (I've won two © suits though) but my understanding is that something like over 95% of cases are settled out of court. That can still cost you a pretty penny, depending on how far it goes.

That is why the above case I cited is important. The judge said they RIAA has to pay the defendants lawyers fees and I believe that is going to be the case going forward if the RIAA keeps this shake down up.

Have you read about some of the people they have accused of downloading music? Some of these people didn't even have a computer in their house.

Cochise
05-14-2007, 12:14 PM
The RIAA just has to log into Ares or Napster or whatever, search for examples of songs that are copyrighted, and then download them. They can tell what your IP is from connecting to your computer during the download process, and from there it's just a matter of getting a judge to subpoena your ISP to find out who you are.

Oh Snap
05-14-2007, 12:14 PM
theyre sticklers.

Lzen
05-14-2007, 12:14 PM
I thought you were a musician? Most musicians that I know are actually INFORMED about the music industry.

It doesn't cost ONE DOLLAR to make a CD. It may cost one dollar to replicate a CD but it can cost anywhere from $500,000 to $1,000,000 to record and promote for a single Artist. Through in the cost of music publishing and a company like Universal or Warner Brothers could have $1.5 million dollars invested in an artist before the CD eve hits the stores? How is that "One Dollar"?

The RIAA has its faults but policing illegal downloads isn't one of them.

Oh, those poor starving musicians and recording companies. :deevee:

I wish I had the link. I read an article not too many years ago that said something like 10 cents to actually print a cd. But the average after paying the artists, recording studios, promotion, etc. was about $1 per cd. Somebody is full of shit. Who do you choose to believe?

dirk digler
05-14-2007, 12:17 PM
I think the reason they're going after college kids(Other than the fact they download alot of songs) is they don't think they have the life experience or money to defend themselves from this shakedown.

If they want to prove a point....find a millionaire who is downloading music....Take someone like Mark Cuban to court and see what happens if this is really about what they say it is.

Yep exactly right Iowa.

Anybody that is interested the biggest case that could go to trial is UMG v. Lindor. Keep an eye on that because this could blow a big hole in the RIAA.

http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/

Oh Snap
05-14-2007, 12:17 PM
I thought you were a musician? Most musicians that I know are actually INFORMED about the music industry.

It doesn't cost ONE DOLLAR to make a CD. It may cost one dollar to replicate a CD but it can cost anywhere from $500,000 to $1,000,000 to record and promote for a single Artist. Through in the cost of music publishing and a company like Universal or Warner Brothers could have $1.5 million dollars invested in an artist before the CD eve hits the stores? How is that "One Dollar"?

The RIAA has its faults but policing illegal downloads isn't one of them.

yes I feel so sorry for the poor artist once a catch an epsiode of MTV cribs.. Poor things.. just how do they do it on such a tight budget?

Iowanian
05-14-2007, 12:18 PM
If someone who downloads a song, had zero intention of purchasing that CD(because the rest of it likely SUCKS sweaty Donkey balls)....it costs the industry ZERO.

DaneMcCloud
05-14-2007, 12:19 PM
I think the reason they're going after college kids(Other than the fact they download alot of songs) is they don't think they have the life experience or money to defend themselves from this shakedown.

If they want to prove a point....find a millionaire who is downloading music....Take someone like Mark Cuban to court and see what happens if this is really about what they say it is.

Come on, Dude, you're smarter than this statement. If you want to download ANY song for $1, go to iTunes. In 2006, iTunes saw over 850 million downloads, all LEGAL and with 65% of the profit going to the record labels (then on to the Artist). How can paying $1 per song be too much money?

"Millionaires" don't need to download illegally. Most adults don't need to download illegally. Illegal downloads involve learning how install peer-to-peer programs on your computer, joining newsgroups, exposing your computer to spyware and viruses, along with a myriad of other problems. To MOST people, purchasing a song for $1 isn't all that difficult or expensive.

I don't see how it's "wrong" to prosecute kids who steal intellectual property. That's the only way college aged kids will learn that music and movies AREN'T free.

dirk digler
05-14-2007, 12:20 PM
The RIAA just has to log into Ares or Napster or whatever, search for examples of songs that are copyrighted, and then note the username that is sharing them. They can tell what your IP is from the download process, and from there it's just a matter of getting a judge to subpoena your ISP to find out who you are.

Attorney Ray Beckerman, who runs the Recording Industry vs. The People blog, told Ars that the RIAA's evidence of a name, an IP address, and a list of songs in Elektra v. Wilke isn't enough to constitute "competent evidence sufficient to create a material issue of fact that can be used at trial."

When asked if there had been a financial settlement, Wilke's attorneys told Beckerman that "plaintiffs, the RIAA, and SBC [Wilke's ISP] worked cooperatively and amicably to resolve this dispute."

This appears to have been another in a long string of cases of mistaken identity by the RIAA. Instead of merely saying that the RIAA had the wrong guy, as other defendants have, Wilke and his attorneys decided instead to attack the record label's case, saying that the usual data the RIAA uses as the basis for its lawsuits is not sufficient to build a case on, let alone prove infringement.

Since the RIAA began filing lawsuits against suspected file sharers in 2003, not a single one has gone all the way to trial. In most cases, the defendants agree to write a four-figure check to the record labels to avoid a drawn-out court case. However, some of the accused are fighting back, and in some cases, it appears that the RIAA is dropping cases to avoid the possibility of losing. One case that bears watching is UMG v. Lindor, where the defendant accused the RIAA of using P2P networks and is expected to file a motion for summary judgment once the discovery period concludes at the end of the year. If that motion is denied, UMG v. Lindor may be headed for trial in 2007.

BucEyedPea
05-14-2007, 12:21 PM
That is why the above case I cited is important. The judge said they RIAA has to pay the defendants lawyers fees and I believe that is going to be the case going forward if the RIAA keeps this shake down up.

The thing is one still has to shell out until then....and most can't. Let alone the strife and mental issues due to the conflict. It's never a gaurantee though. It would depend on the facts of each case. Must be something about the cases. I'll read your links later. I will read them too.

Have you read about some of the people they have accused of downloading music? Some of these people didn't even have a computer in their house.
No I haven't but this sounds like a sloppy job.

keg in kc
05-14-2007, 12:22 PM
If someone who downloads a song, had zero intention of purchasing that CD(because the rest of it likely SUCKS sweaty Donkey balls)....it costs the industry ZERO.Or, like the college students they're targetting, can't afford to purchase the CD.

I wonder what happens if you listen to an online broadcast of a station, and record your own mp3s from that stream, which is essentially the same as making analog tapes off of FM in my misspent youth, are you equally guilty?

Iowanian
05-14-2007, 12:24 PM
How can paying $1 per song be too much money?

.

When I was in college, my weekly budget was around $20....gas, on campus food, beer, dates and all.


Surely you've lived 4 years on Top Ramen ($.15/pack on sale)....well, maybe not.


I can listen to songs for free on online radio stations, car radio right now. It costs the record industry exactly Zero If some hypothetical person downloads a song they were never going to purchase in the first place, and listens to it at their leisure.

they're trying to scare and intimidate kids they don't think have the funds to fight them, and hope to scare them into settling(money they likely don't have in the first place).

BucEyedPea
05-14-2007, 12:26 PM
Or, like the college students they're targetting, can't afford to purchase the CD.

Meanwhile they'll take humongous loans, $70K for instance, because they value getting an education. What's a few more dollars....even on a credit card? I don't buy they can't afford it. They do because they can.

DaneMcCloud
05-14-2007, 12:26 PM
Oh, those poor starving musicians and recording companies. :deevee:

I wish I had the link. I read an article not too many years ago that said something like 10 cents to actually print a cd. But the average after paying the artists, recording studios, promotion, etc. was about $1 per cd. Somebody is full of shit. Who do you choose to believe?

That's just plain uninformed. I worked in the music industry at both Universal and Paramount for over 10 years, I've been involved in the recording industry for over 20 and that is just the dumbest thing I think I've ever heard.

I gave you REAL WORLD figures. Not some bozo's interpretation or twisting of numbers. Not only where my recording, marketing and publishing numbers taken from actual deals, but give any replication plant in America a call and ask them how much to print 50,000 CD's. I GUARANTEE that it will be more than $5,000.00.

dirk digler
05-14-2007, 12:26 PM
The thing is one still has to shell out until then....and most can't. Let alone the strife and mental issues due to the conflict. It's never a gaurantee though. It would depend on the facts of each case. Must be something about the cases. I'll read your links later. I will read them too.


No I haven't but this sounds like a sloppy job.

Mistaken identity: the RIAA withdraws a lawsuit filed against a 66-year-old sculptor accused of sharing gangsta rap. Not only does she not listen to rap, she cannot even run Kazaa since she has a Macintosh. The RIAA issued a statement indicating that while they were withdrawing the suit for the time being, they would "reserve the right to refile the complaint against Mrs. Ward if and when circumstances warrant." Yes, just in case she buys a PC, installs Kazaa, acquires a taste for hip-hop, and decides to start sharing files.

"I sue dead people..."

By Eric Bangeman | Published: February 04, 2005 - 03:43PM CT

The RIAA's ongoing campaign to stamp out file trading by suing consumers is old news. But when details of one of their latest lawsuits became public, it was too good to pass up. A suit filed recently in US District Court named 83-year-old Gertrude Walton as a defendant, accusing her of serving up over 700 songs onto peer-to-peer networks. Now, the RIAA has gone after grandmothers before. In 2003, they mistakenly targeted a 66-year-old woman for allegedly sharing gangsta rap. But this case goes a bit further, as Mrs. Walton actually passed away in December 2004.

Perhaps granny was dishing out illicit mp3s prior to her demise. Not so, says her daughter Robin Chianumba, who says her mother didn't want PCs in the house, and had absolutely zero experience operating them.

A few months after the legal campaign began, the RIAA decided to begin sending letters to suspected file traders prior to filing suit, in an attempt to get them to settle outside the legal system ("you pay us some money and we make this little problem go away"). By doing so, they hoped to avoid making stupid mistakes such as this one.

However, when Chianumba received such a letter from the trade group, she sent back a copy of her mother's death certificate in hopes of dissuading them from going ahead with the suit. The RIAA didn't heed the death certification, but it has apparently been convinced to its satisfaction that Mrs. Walton has passed beyond the earthly veil.

A Recording Industry Association of America spokesman said Thursday that Walton was likely not the smittenedkitten it's searching for.

"Our evidence gathering and our subsequent legal actions all were initiated weeks and even months ago," said RIAA spokesman Jonathan Lamy. "We will now, of course, obviously dismiss this case."

One would hope that they would be more diligent in ensuring that they have targeted the right people. Unfortunately, their history does little to inspire such hopes. Apparently the RIAA does not mind being thought of as a laughingstock.

dirk digler
05-14-2007, 12:28 PM
Or, like the college students they're targetting, can't afford to purchase the CD.

I wonder what happens if you listen to an online broadcast of a station, and record your own mp3s from that stream, which is essentially the same as making analog tapes off of FM in my misspent youth, are you equally guilty?

Music publishers sue XM Radio over "downloads"

By Eric Bangeman | Published: March 23, 2007 - 10:55AM CT

XM Radio now has another headache. In addition to getting skeptical federal regulators to sign off on their merger with Sirius, the satellite radio operator was sued yesterday by a group of music publishers. The National Music Publishers' Association announced the lawsuit yesterday, accusing XM Radio of not compensating songwriters and publishers for music recorded by its subscribers.


At issue are XM Radio players that have the capability to record music broadcast over the satellite service. The availability of devices like the Samsung Helix means that XM Radio is no longer just a satellite radio company, according to the NMPA. The fact that its subscribers can record music and listen to it again means that the company is operating an "unauthorized digital download service."

Cochise
05-14-2007, 12:29 PM
This is all seems very simple.

Some people don't want to pay for music, so they will perform any amount of logical gymnastics to get to a position where they can do it without feeling bad.

The problem isn't legality, it seems that question is settled aside from disputes about what can be admitted as evidence and how much the judgments should be.

It seems if everyone is really honest, the people who want to be able to pirate copyrighted material are just hoping to justify the means and assuage their conscience. And the reason why the cries are getting louder is because they are doing it even though they know the illegality of it - but now they are getting angry because it looks like they stand an increasing chance of getting caught, so they'll have to modify behavior.

It's just latching on to whatever rationalization justifies what they want to do in the first place, to talk themselves into thinking they can get what they want without having to feel like they are doing something wrong.

DaneMcCloud
05-14-2007, 12:30 PM
When I was in college, my weekly budget was around $20....gas, on campus food, beer, dates and all.

This isn't 1985. Albums were $4 dollars back then.

Surely you've lived 4 years on Top Ramen ($.15/pack on sale)....well, maybe not.[/QUOTE]

So, you're justifying stealing music by saying that you had to buy beer, food and go on dates? So that makes it okay? Seriously?

I can listen to songs for free on online radio stations, car radio right now. It costs the record industry exactly Zero If some hypothetical person downloads a song they were never going to purchase in the first place, and listens to it at their leisure.

Um, no. It cost the record industry money to record and promote the music your listening to on the internet and the radio. The COMPOSER(S) of those songs you're listening to are paid Performance Royalties for each play. They're paid by ASCAP, BMI & SESAC and those royalties are VITAL to the songwriters and publishers.

Music is NOT free.

cdcox
05-14-2007, 12:31 PM
Or, like the college students they're targetting, can't afford to purchase the CD.



1. It's not like music is a necessity. If you can't afford it, go without.

2. As has been pointed out, any song can be downloaded for $1. You don't have to buy the whole CD for one or two songs.

3. When I was in college, I managed to build a pretty decent music collection of commerically purchased music. On an inflation adjusted basis, I bet music is cheaper today than it was then. I could not buy everything I wanted, so I made choices.

Redrum_69
05-14-2007, 12:32 PM
So how can the RIAA possibly track the satellite radio music being recorded while its playing in my car?

Iowanian
05-14-2007, 12:33 PM
If my friend purchases a book, I can borrow it and read it.

Its not stealing the intellectual property unless I quote it, without a footnote, and try to pass it off as my own work.

dirk digler
05-14-2007, 12:34 PM
This is all seems very simple.

Some people don't want to pay for music, so they will perform any amount of logical gymnastics to get to a position where they can do it without feeling bad.

The problem isn't legality, it seems that question is settled aside from disputes about what can be admitted as evidence and how much the judgments should be.

It seems if everyone is really honest, the people who want to be able to pirate copyrighted material are just hoping to justify the means and assuage their conscience. And the reason why the cries are getting louder is because they are doing it even though they know the illegality of it - but now they are getting angry because it looks like they stand an increasing chance of getting caught, so they'll have to modify behavior.

It's just latching on to whatever rationalization justifies what they want to do in the first place, to talk themselves into thinking they can get what they want without having to feel like they are doing something wrong.

I think that is part of it but you also have a corrupt organization like the RIAA going after dead people, people who have no computers in their home or college kids and try to shake them down for money.

If they have the evidence prove it if not stfu and pay my lawyers fees .

Mile High Mania
05-14-2007, 12:35 PM
They charge big $ for CDs because there is a market...

Also, I would imagine the fine is excessive to make a point. The girl admits that she knew it was wrong. If the penalty were minimal, then that doesn't go very far in making a point.

Victimless crime? Well, it's not bank robbery for sure, but it's still illegal.

DaneMcCloud
05-14-2007, 12:35 PM
yes I feel so sorry for the poor artist once a catch an epsiode of MTV cribs.. Poor things.. just how do they do it on such a tight budget?

For every Artist that breaks through on MTV or radio or through album sales, there's another 16 that fail. The ONE artist who breaks through generally pays for all the rest.

Here's some facts and figures for you from Soundscan:


Average album sales by an indie in 2006: 543 units
Average album sales by a major in 2006: 16,455 units

Only 33 new releases of 75,774 sold more than 1,000,000 units (0.0004%)

Only 364 sold 100,000 or more (.004% of all new releases)

Total units sold of those 364 new releases: 149.4 million (meaning .4% of all releases accounted for 67.8% of all sales)

Of the 364 albums that sold 100,000 or more, only 28 were issued by indies (nearly 7%)

6 of the 28 indie releases sold more than 250,000

BucEyedPea
05-14-2007, 12:35 PM
Post #75

Seems to me dirk, it's not the content of their suit that's faulty but WHO is doing it. In that case, they deserve to lose. I'm not for punishing the wrong targets.

suds79
05-14-2007, 12:36 PM
This article doesn't surprise me.

I think these kids are a little slow on the take.

I stoped downloading several years ago as I started to hear that the record companies are going after people who are downloading illegally.

Does it suck? Yeah it does but it is illegal.

Plus it's not worth the hassell when you can get a song for a dollar.

DaneMcCloud
05-14-2007, 12:37 PM
If my friend purchases a book, I can borrow it and read it.

Its not stealing the intellectual property unless I quote it, without a footnote, and try to pass it off as my own work.

Try typing the entire book into Word, setting up a site where everyone can get a copy of that book for FREE. Let me know publishers and lawmakers come after you for illegally distributing copyrighted material that you don't own.

Please let me know how that goes.

keg in kc
05-14-2007, 12:38 PM
1. It's not like music is a necessity. If you can't afford it, go without.

2. As has been pointed out, any song can be downloaded for $1. You don't have to buy the whole CD for one or two songs.

3. When I was in college, I managed to build a pretty decent music collection of commerically purchased music. On an inflation adjusted basis, I bet music is cheaper today than it was then. I could not buy everything I wanted, so I made choices.I'm not making a judgement one way or another, I'm addressing the argument that the music industry loses money because of these downloads. If the people downloading it would never have bought it in the first place, then that's a fallacy.

As for itunes, I can't afford it. $1/song is too much for me. So I go without. Then again, I don't really listen to music, I listen to talk radio if I listen to anything.

Redrum_69
05-14-2007, 12:39 PM
Ok...so if theres so much piracy going on, why arent garage sales and flea markets being cracked down on. How many times do you see people SELLING and RESELLING cd's that they have bought at other stores for a cheaper price. THis weekend I bought over a dozen cd's at garage sales and spent $7 on all of them.

Isnt this a form of piracy?

DaneMcCloud
05-14-2007, 12:41 PM
Ok...so if theres so much piracy going on, why arent garage sales and flea markets being cracked down on. How many times do you see people SELLING and RESELLING cd's that they have bought at other stores for a cheaper price. THis weekend I bought over a dozen cd's at garage sales and spent $7 on all of them.

Isnt this a form of piracy?

No, it's not digital distribution. If that were a form of piracy, then used CD shops and places like Half.com, Amazon and so on wouldn't be allowed to sell used albums and CD's.

BucEyedPea
05-14-2007, 12:41 PM
Ok...so if theres so much piracy going on, why arent garage sales and flea markets being cracked down on. How many times do you see people SELLING and RESELLING cd's that they have bought at other stores for a cheaper price. THis weekend I bought over a dozen cd's at garage sales and spent $7 on all of them.

Isnt this a form of piracy?
Because it's not copying...it's selling a used item that is your property in this case the actual CD and it's contents.

Copyright simply means "right to copy."
That's the exclusive right of the creator author.

Mile High Mania
05-14-2007, 12:41 PM
Ok...so if theres so much piracy going on, why arent garage sales and flea markets being cracked down on. How many times do you see people SELLING and RESELLING cd's that they have bought at other stores for a cheaper price. THis weekend I bought over a dozen cd's at garage sales and spent $7 on all of them.

Isnt this a form of piracy?

No, you bought old versions of the originally licensed product.

Now, if you bought "cd recordings" of the orginal CD... yes, it's piracy.

The artist and lables already made their $ on the original purchase of the CD you bought.

dirk digler
05-14-2007, 12:41 PM
Try typing the entire book into Word, setting up a site where everyone can get a copy of that book for FREE. Let me know publishers and lawmakers come after you for illegally distributing copyrighted material that you don't own.

Please let me know how that goes.

I don't get your point? So are you telling me you never watched a friends movie that you borrowed or read a borrowed book from someone or never listened to a borrowed CD?

Mile High Mania
05-14-2007, 12:43 PM
I don't get your point? So are you telling me you never watched a friends movie that you borrowed or read a borrowed book from someone or never listened to a borrowed CD?
You are comparing downloading music without paying for it to borrowing a book? That's not even a debate.

I can borrow a cd... I can't post that CD for 10,000 people to 'borrow'.

cdcox
05-14-2007, 12:43 PM
I'm not making a judgement one way or another, I'm addressing the argument that the music industry loses money because of these downloads. If the people downloading it would never have bought it in the first place, then that's a fallacy.

As for itunes, I can't afford it. $1/song is too much for me. So I go without. Then again, I don't really listen to music, I listen to talk radio if I listen to anything.

Whether the music industry loses money or not is not the real issue. The real issue is property rights. The artists and record labels own the property. It is their right to determine how the property is used.

The real problem is that some people don't recognize intellectual property having the same value as a solid object that you can touch and feel.

Mile High Mania
05-14-2007, 12:44 PM
Whether the music industry loses money or not is not the real issue. The real issue is property rights. The artists and record labels own the property. It is their right to determine how the property is used.

The real problem is that some people don't recognize intellectual property having the same value as a solid object that you can touch and feel.

Exactly. This is why you can't tape NFL games (for example) that are broadcast on CBS, record them and sell them.

Saulbadguy
05-14-2007, 12:45 PM
If someone who downloads a song, had zero intention of purchasing that CD(because the rest of it likely SUCKS sweaty Donkey balls)....it costs the industry ZERO.
Exactly.

Al Bundy
05-14-2007, 12:45 PM
This is so ridiculous that I don't know where to start. Artists only get between 14%-21% of the retail selling price to begin with, and you want them to take less? In addition, an Artist has to pay back the record company for recording expenses, touring expenses, video, etc. THAT all comes out of their sales. That's why so many Artists don't make money from sales because of recoupment costs.

Mom & Pop stores a dead. Places like Wal-Mart & Best Buy (who typically sell CD's below Cost and make up there losses in other products) have put family owned places out of business. Less than 4% of total music sold is from "Mom & Pop" stores.



Yeah, it's victimless. Unless you happen to be the record label who's invested over $750,000 in recording and marketing the Artist or your the Artist who needs those revenues to recoup costs so they can actually SEE some money. Other than that, it's victimless. :rolleyes:



I thought you were a musician? Most musicians that I know are actually INFORMED about the music industry.

It doesn't cost ONE DOLLAR to make a CD. It may cost one dollar to replicate a CD but it can cost anywhere from $500,000 to $1,000,000 to record and promote for a single Artist. Through in the cost of music publishing and a company like Universal or Warner Brothers could have $1.5 million dollars invested in an artist before the CD eve hits the stores? How is that "One Dollar"?

The RIAA has its faults but policing illegal downloads isn't one of them.

Then it is time for the record industry to cut back some more. I know all about Mom and Pops stores, I worked for one for 6 years. They need to realize either they (The record labels) A. Quit charging so much per CD or the illegal download will continue. Now.. lets look at it this way. At a mom n pops store you have to pay 11.59 for Ride The Lightning A CD that is 24 years old... now something old should be on the 8.00 list price because they have already recouped all of the money for that CD + 100%. So there it is, and while it might be a tad bit illegal, I am ok with someone downloading Ride The Lightning for free rather than lining the pockets of already too rich people for a 24 year old album.

dirk digler
05-14-2007, 12:46 PM
You are comparing downloading music without paying for it to borrowing a book? That's not even a debate.

Why not?

My friend may have a movie I want to watch so I get it from him and watch it. What is the difference whether it is done online or not?

Redrum_69
05-14-2007, 12:46 PM
So maybe God should start going after scientists who clone humans, since God is the creator of all living things.

Mile High Mania
05-14-2007, 12:47 PM
Ok guys... let's say one of you brainiacs comes out with a new kick ass media player for computers. You decide to start selling it b/c you want to get rich.

I buy a copy of that software from you. I post it on my site www.getfreeshithere.com (http://www.getfreeshithere.com) and 1,000 people download it for free within a week.

Is that a bad thing? I mean, I paid you for the original cd of the software.

BucEyedPea
05-14-2007, 12:48 PM
I don't get your point? So are you telling me you never watched a friends movie that you borrowed or read a borrowed book from someone or never listened to a borrowed CD?

MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) I read a few weeks ago, wants to start cracking down on how many people you have in your living room watching a dvd. I think this takes things too far. It's not copying anything.


When my daughter was in part-time daycare this came up....as it was a group setting where people paid the school. I believe, but am not certain if it was Disney that was complaining. Afterall, they did threaten a daycare for having Disney characters painted on thier windows.

Saulbadguy
05-14-2007, 12:48 PM
Yeah, it's victimless. Unless you happen to be the record label who's invested over $750,000 in recording and marketing the Artist or your the Artist who needs those revenues to recoup costs so they can actually SEE some money. Other than that, it's victimless. :rolleyes:

How are they losing $$$ when i'm downloading a song I wouldn't buy to begin with?

|Zach|
05-14-2007, 12:48 PM
Also...Lincoln, Nebraska is a great city for one reason and one reason only...


Melissa Midwest hails from Lincoln
Not true, she is actually from the Kansas City area. Lee's Summit.

DaneMcCloud
05-14-2007, 12:48 PM
I don't get your point? So are you telling me you never watched a friends movie that you borrowed or read a borrowed book from someone or never listened to a borrowed CD?

The point is this: It is ILLEGAL to take a copyrighted work, whether it's music, movies or a book and make a massive amount of copies and distribute them for FREE. Borrowing a book is different than putting the book in Word the putting it on a website for ANYONE in the world to download and read for free.

It's illegal for anyone to distribute intellectual works that they don't own! When you buy a cd, movie or book, you don't OWN that intellectual property - you own a copy that was legally distributed by the owners. You don't have any more ownership in that work than you do when you purchase a ticket on an airline - you don't OWN the airline just because you paid for a ticket. You own the right to fly on that plane. But you don't own the plane.

Mile High Mania
05-14-2007, 12:48 PM
Why not?

My friend may have a movie I want to watch so I get it from him and watch it. What is the difference whether it is done online or not?

Again, not even in the same ballpark..

Al Bundy
05-14-2007, 12:49 PM
Ok.. so now we get into the Indy labels. I see now that Koch Ent is buying Navarre to help them both out. The Indie labels are hurt some by the illegal downloading. The majors are hurt more because they put out a full Cd with 2 decent songs on it and 11 "fillers". The problem lies within the industry itself.

BucEyedPea
05-14-2007, 12:50 PM
So maybe God should start going after scientists who clone humans, since God is the creator of all living things.
Acts of God don't count and are also exempt in most contracts. Heck! Even a credit card company will cut you slack if you're hit by a hurricane or some other Act of God. :p

Saulbadguy
05-14-2007, 12:53 PM
The point is this: It is ILLEGAL to take a copyrighted work, whether it's music, movies or a book and make a massive amount of copies and distribute them for FREE. Borrowing a book is different than putting the book in Word the putting it on a website for ANYONE in the world to download and read for free.

It's illegal for anyone to distribute intellectual works that they don't own! When you buy a cd, movie or book, you don't OWN that intellectual property - you own a copy that was legally distributed by the owners. You don't have any more ownership in that work than you do when you purchase a ticket on an airline - you don't OWN the airline just because you paid for a ticket. You own the right to fly on that plane. But you don't own the plane.
I don't think anyone is arguing about how it is illegal or not, we all know its illegal.

DaneMcCloud
05-14-2007, 12:55 PM
How are they losing $$$ when i'm downloading a song I wouldn't buy to begin with?

Because you're downloading ONE song in which someone else owns the property rights.

Let's say that you want to stay in a hotel for one night, but the hotel only allows guests to stay for one week (7 days). Do you think that the owners will let you stay for one night for free, because that's all you need? I think not. To stay at this hotel, you'd need to pay for all seven days.

That's how the record industry looks at losses. Now, multiply that by 500,000 people - that's a minimum of $500k dollars for ONE song that they've lost money - not to mention the fact that the song wasn't offered on its own and retail price of the CD was $13.99. Now with 500,000 people download one song for free and neglecting to pay $13.99 for the entire CD, the music industry has just lost almost $7 MILLION dollars in revenue.

Yeah, that's free alright. :rolleyes:

Redrum_69
05-14-2007, 12:56 PM
Not true, she is actually from the Kansas City area. Lee's Summit.


This would be the person that would prolly hook you up with what you seek stlchiefs

Mile High Mania
05-14-2007, 12:57 PM
I am guessing a few of you could be next...

|Zach|
05-14-2007, 12:58 PM
This would be the person that would prolly hook you up with what you seek stlchiefs
I should have been more clear...she is from LS but is in Nebraska now.

Saulbadguy
05-14-2007, 12:59 PM
Because you're downloading ONE song in which someone else owns the property rights.

Let's say that you want to stay in a hotel for one night, but the hotel only allows guests to stay for one week (7 days). Do you think that the owners will let you stay for one night for free, because that's all you need? I think not. To stay at this hotel, you'd need to pay for all seven days.

That's how the record industry looks at losses. Now, multiply that by 500,000 people - that's a minimum of $500k dollars for ONE song that they've lost money - not to mention the fact that the song wasn't offered on its own and retail price of the CD was $13.99. Now with 500,000 people download one song for free and neglecting to pay $13.99 for the entire CD, the music industry has just lost almost $7 MILLION dollars in revenue.

Yeah, that's free alright. :rolleyes:
That is brilliant accounting. How do you count money as a "loss" when you NEVER HAD THE MONEY? That's ridiculous.

DaneMcCloud
05-14-2007, 01:00 PM
Then it is time for the record industry to cut back some more. I know all about Mom and Pops stores, I worked for one for 6 years. They need to realize either they (The record labels) A. Quit charging so much per CD or the illegal download will continue. Now.. lets look at it this way. At a mom n pops store you have to pay 11.59 for Ride The Lightning A CD that is 24 years old... now something old should be on the 8.00 list price because they have already recouped all of the money for that CD + 100%. So there it is, and while it might be a tad bit illegal, I am ok with someone downloading Ride The Lightning for free rather than lining the pockets of already too rich people for a 24 year old album.

Nice rationalization. So I guess that the works of Ray Charles, Elvis, Frank Sinatra, etc. should all have their works reduced in value as well, since they've been available to the public for 50 years?

How about a movie like Gone With the Wind or the Wizard of Oz or Casablanca? Should the movie studios reduce the price of those DVD's because they've been available for 50 plus years?

This is a ridiculous notion. And it's more than "a tad bit illegal" to download "Ride the Lightening", regardless of when it as released. It's illegal. PERIOD.

Mile High Mania
05-14-2007, 01:00 PM
That is brilliant accounting. How do you count money as a "loss" when you NEVER HAD THE MONEY? That's ridiculous.

I'm assuming you have a job.

You have an idea as to what $ you are due from now until Dec 31, 2007. Let's say you are fired in 10 minutes... do you experience a "loss" of potential revenue?

Saulbadguy
05-14-2007, 01:01 PM
I am guessing a few of you could be next...
Nope, I don't download music. I don't agree with this shake down, either. Are CD sales really suffering that much that they need to go after college students for money?

Mile High Mania
05-14-2007, 01:02 PM
Nope, I don't download music. I don't agree with this shake down, either. Are CD sales really suffering that much that they need to go after college students for money?

I'm guessing they are going after the demographic that is the most guilty... I doubt many 60+ year olds are stealing music. I'm 36... married with 3 kids... I have no time to listen to music at all.

So, yeah... I would say they're targeting the demo that is doing the damage.

dirk digler
05-14-2007, 01:03 PM
Because you're downloading ONE song in which someone else owns the property rights.

Let's say that you want to stay in a hotel for one night, but the hotel only allows guests to stay for one week (7 days). Do you think that the owners will let you stay for one night for free, because that's all you need? I think not. To stay at this hotel, you'd need to pay for all seven days.

That's how the record industry looks at losses. Now, multiply that by 500,000 people - that's a minimum of $500k dollars for ONE song that they've lost money - not to mention the fact that the song wasn't offered on its own and retail price of the CD was $13.99. Now with 500,000 people download one song for free and neglecting to pay $13.99 for the entire CD, the music industry has just lost almost $7 MILLION dollars in revenue.

Yeah, that's free alright. :rolleyes:

:deevee:

I have zero sympathy for the RIAA and their mafia like tactics. It is also not free for college students or wrongfully accused people to hire attornies and when the case gets thrown out the RIAA then cries and whines like the little bitches they are that they shouldn't have to pay the attorney's fees.

dirk digler
05-14-2007, 01:03 PM
I am guessing a few of you could be next...

I am lot smarter than the dumb ****s at the RIAA.

Mile High Mania
05-14-2007, 01:04 PM
I am lot smarter than the dumb ****s at the RIAA.

Good for you! Live the American dream...

Saulbadguy
05-14-2007, 01:05 PM
I'm assuming you have a job.

You have an idea as to what $ you are due from now until Dec 31, 2007. Let's say you are fired in 10 minutes... do you experience a "loss" of potential revenue?
No, I find a new source of income.

DaneMcCloud
05-14-2007, 01:06 PM
That is brilliant accounting. How do you count money as a "loss" when you NEVER HAD THE MONEY? That's ridiculous.

Saul, I understand that the licensing and distribution of intellectual works is a difficult concept for most people to understand. But let's put it this way: If you download a song for FREE and enjoy that intellectual work for one play or a million, you've avoided paying the owner of those intellectual works for the right to enjoy that work. The owner loses out on that revenue. Couple that with the fact that the song you downloaded wasn't available as a single and the only way to purchase it was to buy it as a "bundle", I hope you can begin to see how this relates to a loss.

Take for example a box of donuts. Say that you only like the powdered donuts but they aren't sold individually at your market. You HAVE to purchase the box with not only powdered donuts, but chocolate and coconuts as well, or no donuts for you. Is it okay for you to reach in and grab the powdered donuts and walk out door and NOT pay for them because you really didn't want the other donuts anyway?

DaneMcCloud
05-14-2007, 01:06 PM
No, I find a new source of income.

Saul, meet iTunes.

Mile High Mania
05-14-2007, 01:07 PM
I liked this quote "Technically, I'm guilty. I just think it's ridiculous, the way they're going about it," Barg said. "We have to find a way to adjust our legal policy to take into account this new technology, and so far, they're not doing a very good job."

Barg thinks the university should send an e-mail to all students, warning them that the recording industry won't look the other way.

You're in college... you likely want to be treated as an adult in most areas of life, so welcome to the real world.

cdcox
05-14-2007, 01:07 PM
I am lot smarter than the dumb ****s at the RIAA.


Then you should be able to create a profitable business model through which you can legally distribute music from acts that you sign. Your business model should be so efficient that you would be able to charge such low prices that everyone would love to pay them. And you should be able to get rich off of doing it.

Cochise
05-14-2007, 01:08 PM
I'm assuming you have a job.

You have an idea as to what $ you are due from now until Dec 31, 2007. Let's say you are fired in 10 minutes... do you experience a "loss" of potential revenue?

Maybe more pointedly, if you are fired unjustly, you can sue and recover lost wages. If you're injured by someone, you can sue and recover lost wages. In none of these cases did you ever have the money in hand, and it is commonplace to recover the money you could have earned during that time frame.

Redrum_69
05-14-2007, 01:08 PM
Saul, I understand that the licensing and distribution of intellectual works is a difficult concept for most people to understand. But let's put it this way: If you download a song for FREE and enjoy that intellectual work for one play or a million, you've avoided paying the owner of those intellectual works for the right to enjoy that work. The owner loses out on that revenue. Couple that with the fact that the song you downloaded wasn't available as a single and the only way to purchase it was to buy it as a "bundle", I hope you can begin to see how this relates to a loss.

Take for example a box of donuts. Say that you only like the powdered donuts but they aren't sold individually at your market. You HAVE to purchase the box with not only powdered donuts, but chocolate and coconuts as well, or no donuts for you. Is it okay for you to reach in and grab the powdered donuts and walk out door and NOT pay for them because you really didn't want the other donuts anyway?


This is the best way to explain something to a person...putting them down at the start always catches their attention.

Taken this into account, maybe this is why GoChiefs has no luck with the ladies.

Saulbadguy
05-14-2007, 01:09 PM
Saul, I understand that the licensing and distribution of intellectual works is a difficult concept for most people to understand. But let's put it this way: If you download a song for FREE and enjoy that intellectual work for one play or a million, you've avoided paying the owner of those intellectual works for the right to enjoy that work. The owner loses out on that revenue. Couple that with the fact that the song you downloaded wasn't available as a single and the only way to purchase it was to buy it as a "bundle", I hope you can begin to see how this relates to a loss.

Take for example a box of donuts. Say that you only like the powdered donuts but they aren't sold individually at your market. You HAVE to purchase the box with not only powdered donuts, but chocolate and coconuts as well, or no donuts for you. Is it okay for you to reach in and grab the powdered donuts and walk out door and NOT pay for them because you really didn't want the other donuts anyway?
Of course not. Those powdered donuts could have been sold to another customer.

The downloaded song, no, it could NOT have been sold to another customer.

The way I see it, downloading songs should curb CD theft. So, downloading songs is actually a good thing for the RIAA. Maybe they should wise up and think about that.

Mile High Mania
05-14-2007, 01:09 PM
This is the best way to explain something to a person...putting them down at the start always catches their attention.


Your mom.

Oh Snap
05-14-2007, 01:11 PM
I gave you REAL WORLD figures. Not some bozo's interpretation or twisting of numbers. Not only where my recording, marketing and publishing numbers taken from actual deals, but give any replication plant in America a call and ask them how much to print 50,000 CD's. I GUARANTEE that it will be more than $5,000.00.
This sounded a bit arrogant of you. No the idiots who bother watching that garbage gave YOU the "real world".. Its a supply demand world out there.. Your just supplying what the ppl (the purchaser) want. Without the purchaser then your out business.

htismaqe
05-14-2007, 01:13 PM
Why not?

My friend may have a movie I want to watch so I get it from him and watch it. What is the difference whether it is done online or not?

Because when you're done watching it, you give it back to him.

Only one copy exists at any one time.

Downloading music, using your example, would be borrowing the movie from your friend, copying it, giving it back to him and then watching your copy. At some point, you copy your copy and give it to a family member.

Saulbadguy
05-14-2007, 01:14 PM
It's just gotten way out of hand as far as the legal rights of the RIAA to shake down these students, or anyone, for that amount of money.

Delete the songs, that should be the end of it.

In the end, it's all about the money. I don't know think anyone is going to come after me for printing an image I liked off the net and putting it up in my office.

I doubt the Chiefs will sue anyone for the unlicensed, non-authorized reproductions of their logos on the various home-made signs that people bring to games.

Really, it should stop SOMEWHERE. It's gone way too far already.

BucEyedPea
05-14-2007, 01:14 PM
This is the best way to explain something to a person...putting them down at the start always catches their attention.


I didn't get that from his post. My lawyer told me that it is an esoteric concept for most people, and as such don't understand it. Or sometimes they do but disagree with the idea of it but won't let on.

Mile High Mania
05-14-2007, 01:15 PM
Because when you're done watching it, you give it back to him.

Only one copy exists at any one time.

Downloading music, using your example, would be borrowing the movie from your friend, copying it, giving it back to him and then watching your copy. At some point, you copy your copy and give it to a family member.

Logic is lost on some.

Mile High Mania
05-14-2007, 01:16 PM
It's just gotten way out of hand as far as the legal rights of the RIAA to shake down these students, or anyone, for that amount of money.

Delete the songs, that should be the end of it.

In the end, it's all about the money. I don't know think anyone is going to come after me for printing an image I liked off the net and putting it up in my office.

I doubt the Chiefs will sue anyone for the unlicensed, non-authorized reproductions of their logos on the various home-made signs that people bring to games.

Really, it should stop SOMEWHERE. It's gone way too far already.

Heh - so this is the same as StevieRay having a KC logo on his FDE outfit...

You should take a break from this conversation.

Cochise
05-14-2007, 01:17 PM
I doubt the Chiefs will sue anyone for the unlicensed, non-authorized reproductions of their logos on the various home-made signs that people bring to games.

so... you think that's the same thing? ROFL

Saulbadguy
05-14-2007, 01:18 PM
Heh - so this is the same as StevieRay having a KC logo on his FDE outfit...

You should take a break from this conversation.
Why is it different? An artist created that logo. The Chiefs get royalty fees from use of their logo. Why shouldn't the Chiefs sue him for lost revenue?

Saulbadguy
05-14-2007, 01:19 PM
so... you think that's the same thing? ROFL
It's the same principle on a smaller scale.

Are you two going to just cop out and laugh, or try to explain why it's NOT the same thing?

Mile High Mania
05-14-2007, 01:20 PM
Why is it different? An artist created that logo. The Chiefs get royalty fees from use of their logo. Why shouldn't the Chiefs sue him for lost revenue?

I'm going to let someone else take this one... or you can just scroll through the last few pages.

Al Bundy
05-14-2007, 01:20 PM
Again.. the industry and artists themselves have only themselves to blame. They will never really be able to explain what is right about charging 11.59 for 24 year old record or what is right about only pushing 1-2 singles off of a record with 11 fillers.

Saulbadguy
05-14-2007, 01:21 PM
I'm going to let someone else take this one... or you can just scroll through the last few pages.
Tap-out.

dirk digler
05-14-2007, 01:21 PM
Because when you're done watching it, you give it back to him.

Only one copy exists at any one time.

Downloading music, using your example, would be borrowing the movie from your friend, copying it, giving it back to him and then watching your copy. At some point, you copy your copy and give it to a family member.

Not if I delete it doesn't.

Cochise
05-14-2007, 01:22 PM
Tap-out.

Lacking the will to continue a fruitless endeavor does not equate to conceding your argument.

Mile High Mania
05-14-2007, 01:23 PM
Legally, there is likely something that KC or any team could do to stop their fans from printing or recreating their logos (etc) for personal use at games. But, why would they? I am sure they could do something about this site (and others) for use of logos, names, etc if they thought it was damaging their brand.

There are disclaimers on sites like this about not being affliliated with the NFL, the KC Chiefs, etc for a reason.

However, this comparison isn't even in the same ballpark as the downloading stolen music.

Saulbadguy
05-14-2007, 01:23 PM
Lacking the will to continue a fruitless endeavor does not equate to conceding your argument.
Then equate it to something else, then. Why does that example not work?

Mile High Mania
05-14-2007, 01:24 PM
Lacking the will to continue a fruitless endeavor does not equate to conceding your argument.

Bingo... but, I buckled and replied. Saul will never get the point.

Saulbadguy
05-14-2007, 01:25 PM
Legally, there is likely something that KC or any team could do to stop their fans from printing or recreating their logos (etc) for personal use at games. But, why would they? I am sure they could do something about this site (and others) for use of logos, names, etc if they thought it was damaging their brand.

There are disclaimers on sites like this about not being affliliated with the NFL, the KC Chiefs, etc for a reason.

However, this comparison isn't even in the same ballpark as the downloading stolen music.
Why is it not? The scale of it? Kudos for just picking that comparison. What about the printing the image off the net that I did not purchase?

The only difference is the money involved.

Saulbadguy
05-14-2007, 01:26 PM
Bingo... but, I buckled and replied. Saul will never get the point.
Concession acknowledged - again. When you can not illustrate "the point", it becomes rather obvious that you have none.

I understand and accept the legality of such copyright infringments. I disagree with the lawsuits and money involved in such things.

Mile High Mania
05-14-2007, 01:26 PM
Then equate it to something else, then. Why does that example not work?

I tried earlier... nobody answered the post.

I compared it to you (for example) creating a new music player for a computer. You designed this badass software and wanted to sell it for $100 a cd. You think it rocks and you'd like to make money.

I buy that CD for $100... I post it on www.getfreeshithere.com (http://www.getfreeshithere.com) for all the world to download for free. 1,000 people download it for free in one week. You make $100 b/c I legally bought it.

Did I do something wrong?

Mile High Mania
05-14-2007, 01:27 PM
Concession acknowledged - again. When you can not illustrate "the point", it becomes rather obvious that you have none.

I understand and accept the legality of such copyright infringments. I disagree with the lawsuits and money involved in such things.

You don't get it... maybe my previous response paints a better picture for you.

dirk digler
05-14-2007, 01:28 PM
I tried earlier... nobody answered the post.

I compared it to you (for example) creating a new music player for a computer. You designed this badass software and wanted to sell it for $100 a cd. You think it rocks and you'd like to make money.

I buy that CD for $100... I post it on www.getfreeshithere.com (http://www.getfreeshithere.com) for all the world to download for free. 1,000 people download it for free in one week. You make $100 b/c I legally bought it.

Did I do something wrong?

It depends in what country you did it from or where the site is located.

If it is done in the US yes you have committed a crime.

DaneMcCloud
05-14-2007, 01:28 PM
It's just gotten way out of hand as far as the legal rights of the RIAA to shake down these students, or anyone, for that amount of money.

Delete the songs, that should be the end of it.

In the end, it's all about the money. I don't know think anyone is going to come after me for printing an image I liked off the net and putting it up in my office.

I doubt the Chiefs will sue anyone for the unlicensed, non-authorized reproductions of their logos on the various home-made signs that people bring to games.

Really, it should stop SOMEWHERE. It's gone way too far already.

Saul, you're mixing apples and oranges. Making a home-made sign is different than creating an exact replica of the Chiefs logo, putting that logo on merchandise such as t-shirts, flags, hats, etc. and distributing it WITHOUT paying a licensing fee to the NFL and the KC Chiefs.

If someone is illegally downloading music and that illegal download can be traced, that person should be fined and prosecuted. End of story. It doesn't matter whether or not it's a teenager, college kid or 40 year old virgin (gochiefs). It's still illegal.

Saulbadguy
05-14-2007, 01:28 PM
I tried earlier... nobody answered the post.

I compared it to you (for example) creating a new music player for a computer. You designed this badass software and wanted to sell it for $100 a cd. You think it rocks and you'd like to make money.

I buy that CD for $100... I post it on www.getfreeshithere.com (http://www.getfreeshithere.com) for all the world to download for free. 1,000 people download it for free in one week. You make $100 b/c I legally bought it.

Did I do something wrong?
YES, you did something wrong!

Should you be sued and forced to pay $100,000 ($100 x 1,000 copies) for it? NO!

chasedude
05-14-2007, 01:30 PM
Would buying a used CD from a store follow under the same scrutiny? Wouldn't selling the CD again require that more money going back to the label and artist?

Mile High Mania
05-14-2007, 01:30 PM
YES, you did something wrong!

Should you be sued and forced to pay $100,000 ($100 x 1,000 copies) for it? NO!

Brilliant! I'm guessing you don't own your own business...

gblowfish
05-14-2007, 01:31 PM
This is so ridiculous that I don't know where to start. Artists only get between 14%-21% of the retail selling price to begin with, and you want them to take less? In addition, an Artist has to pay back the record company for recording expenses, touring expenses, video, etc. THAT all comes out of their sales. That's why so many Artists don't make money from sales because of recoupment costs.

Mom & Pop stores a dead. Places like Wal-Mart & Best Buy (who typically sell CD's below Cost and make up there losses in other products) have put family owned places out of business. Less than 4% of total music sold is from "Mom & Pop" stores.



Yeah, it's victimless. Unless you happen to be the record label who's invested over $750,000 in recording and marketing the Artist or your the Artist who needs those revenues to recoup costs so they can actually SEE some money. Other than that, it's victimless. :rolleyes:



I thought you were a musician? Most musicians that I know are actually INFORMED about the music industry.

It doesn't cost ONE DOLLAR to make a CD. It may cost one dollar to replicate a CD but it can cost anywhere from $500,000 to $1,000,000 to record and promote for a single Artist. Through in the cost of music publishing and a company like Universal or Warner Brothers could have $1.5 million dollars invested in an artist before the CD eve hits the stores? How is that "One Dollar"?

The RIAA has its faults but policing illegal downloads isn't one of them.
I agree with most of what is said here, except for a couple of things.

I make CDs for a living, and for a major act, when a disc is being produced in multiple thousands or millions of copies, the cost of creating the disc is closer to $ .50, depending on how elaborate the print materials are.

I used to work with a guy who was an A&R guy for Capitol records. We had a debate about the sale price of CDs over and over again. I always said the sale price of $12 (or more, depending on the act) was way too much. His side of the story was this: it takes one Madonna or Garth Brooks or whoever the hot artist is on a label, to allow the label to take a chance on lesser known acts. The more successful the flagship acts are, the more capital the record company has to try to break new acts.

Unfortunately, record companies have really cut back on taking chances on new music and new artists. That's why so many musicians have to sell their songs as downloads on the net as independent artists. It's really hard to get noticed and signed now.

I think $1 a song on I-Tunes is fair. The damages RIAA are looking for are overboard, and settling "out of court" is easy money for them. And indeed, they are preying on kids who really have no other choice. It's predatory, and that sucks. But kids need to learn that nothing is really "free.'

So, kids who have never ever paid for their music are in for a rude awakening. RIAA is a pit bull of an organization, almost as ruthless as ASCAP. This will continue as long as RIAA can make a buck doing it.

cdcox
05-14-2007, 01:31 PM
Again.. the industry and artists themselves have only themselves to blame. They will never really be able to explain what is right about charging 11.59 for 24 year old record or what is right about only pushing 1-2 singles off of a record with 11 fillers.

Do you always disagree with property rights and free markets, or only when they are convenient to you?

Is it okay for someone to swindle you out of your house if it is over 24 years old?

You can buy any tune you want for a $1 off a number of legal download services. Why do people keep bringing this up?

BucEyedPea
05-14-2007, 01:31 PM
A name/logo is also protected by trademark law.
As I understand, if you don't take enough action to protect a trademark ( others copying it) the owner can lose it to the public domain. So how they act and enforce has bearing. ( speaking with homemade signs aside)

What's the big deal in asking permission anyway?

If the owner feels it will still promote the organization/team or whatever in a positive way....what's the likelihood of them saying no? Particularly, if it's fans of the team.

Saulbadguy
05-14-2007, 01:31 PM
Saul, you're mixing apples and oranges. Making a home-made sign is different than creating an exact replica of the Chiefs logo, putting that logo on merchandise such as t-shirts, flags, hats, etc. and distributing it WITHOUT paying a licensing fee to the NFL and the KC Chiefs.

If someone is illegally downloading music and that illegal download can be traced, that person should be fined and prosecuted. End of story. It doesn't matter whether or not it's a teenager, college kid or 40 year old virgin (gochiefs). It's still illegal.

The difference is noone is going around giving away unlicensed Chiefs merchandise. They are selling it. THEY should be fined and prosecuted, they are making $$$ off someone elses intellectual property.

What if said person was giving away the merchandise though? Should whoever took the merchandise for free, be prosecuted? IMO: NO. Destroy the merchandise. That's it.

DaneMcCloud
05-14-2007, 01:32 PM
Again.. the industry and artists themselves have only themselves to blame. They will never really be able to explain what is right about charging 11.59 for 24 year old record or what is right about only pushing 1-2 singles off of a record with 11 fillers.

If this is the way you feel, go to iTunes and purchase the song you want for $1.00. Don't download the song illegally for free or the entire record for free.

How can the industry, especially the artist, be to blame? Things cost what they cost. Why should ANY industry lose money or better yet, distribute items or goods for LESS than actual COST?

You need to go back to college and take Econ 1 & 2. For starters.

Lzen
05-14-2007, 01:32 PM
Exactly. This is why you can't tape NFL games (for example) that are broadcast on CBS, record them and sell them.

But nobody is turning around and selling them. They are just sharing them. They aren't selling.

Saulbadguy
05-14-2007, 01:35 PM
But nobody is turning around and selling them. They are just sharing them. They aren't selling.
That'll be $3,000, Lzen. Cash check or charge?

cdcox
05-14-2007, 01:35 PM
But nobody is turning around and selling them. They are just sharing them. They aren't selling.

Do they own them in order to make the decision to share them?

DaneMcCloud
05-14-2007, 01:35 PM
The difference is noone is going around giving away unlicensed Chiefs merchandise. They are selling it. THEY should be fined and prosecuted, they are making $$$ off someone elses intellectual property.

What if said person was giving away the merchandise though? Should whoever took the merchandise for free, be prosecuted? IMO: NO. Destroy the merchandise. That's it.

WHO is selling official Chiefs merchandise without licensing from the NFL? Are you telling me that someone is giving away or selling millions of units that are royalty free?

BucEyedPea
05-14-2007, 01:36 PM
The difference is noone is going around giving away unlicensed Chiefs merchandise. They are selling it. THEY should be fined and prosecuted, they are making $$$ off someone elses intellectual property.

What if said person was giving away the merchandise though? Should whoever took the merchandise for free, be prosecuted? IMO: NO. Destroy the merchandise. That's it.
See post #159.

Saulbadguy
05-14-2007, 01:36 PM
If this is the way you feel, go to iTunes and purchase the song you want for $1.00. Don't download the song illegally for free or the entire record for free.

How can the industry, especially the artist, be to blame? Things cost what they cost. Why should ANY industry lose money or better yet, distribute items or goods for LESS than actual COST?

You need to go back to college and take Econ 1 & 2. For starters.
This is what my wife & I do, iTunes. $1.00 a song and if you use the iTunes credit card you get free points. Then she can burn them on a CD or transfer them to her iPod.

Saulbadguy
05-14-2007, 01:37 PM
See post #159.
Everything you post is retarded so I tend to skip over your posts.

BucEyedPea
05-14-2007, 01:38 PM
Everything you post is retarded so I tend to skip over your posts.
:) Cool. I understand that people put down things they don't understand.
You're point is still inaccurate.

dirk digler
05-14-2007, 01:38 PM
If this is the way you feel, go to iTunes and purchase the song you want for $1.00. Don't download the song illegally for free or the entire record for free.

How can the industry, especially the artist, be to blame? Things cost what they cost. Why should ANY industry lose money or better yet, distribute items or goods for LESS than actual COST?

You need to go back to college and take Econ 1 & 2. For starters.

Because the RIAA doesn't want you to know how much the actual cost is. In a case I cited above the attorney's have subpoenaed the RIAA documents about how much it acutally costs to distribute but no the RIAA doesn't want to turn that over because it would totally undermine their whole case.

DaneMcCloud
05-14-2007, 01:39 PM
I agree with most of what is said here, except for a couple of things.

I make CDs for a living, and for a major act, when a disc is being produced in multiple thousands or millions of copies, the cost of creating the disc is closer to $ .50, depending on how elaborate the print materials are.

I used to work with a guy who was an A&R guy for Capitol records. We had a debate about the sale price of CDs over and over again. I always said the sale price of $12 (or more, depending on the act) was way too much. His side of the story was this: it takes one Madonna or Garth Brooks or whoever the hot artist is on a label, to allow the label to take a chance on lesser known acts. The more successful the flagship acts are, the more capital the record company has to try to break new acts.

Unfortunately, record companies have really cut back on taking chances on new music and new artists. That's why so many musicians have to sell their songs as downloads on the net as independent artists. It's really hard to get noticed and signed now.

I think $1 a song on I-Tunes is fair. The damages RIAA are looking for are overboard, and settling "out of court" is easy money for them. And indeed, they are preying on kids who really have no other choice. It's predatory, and that sucks. But kids need to learn that nothing is really "free.'

So, kids who have never ever paid for their music are in for a rude awakening. RIAA is a pit bull of an organization, almost as ruthless as ASCAP. This will continue as long as RIAA can make a buck doing it.

George, you're right on but keep in mind that there are hundreds of artists each year on majors and indie's that cost more than ".50" due to volume. So while a Garth Brooks or No Doubt or whatever might warrant a million or so initial copies (thereby reducing the replication costs to .50) most new bands don't warrant those kind of initial replication numbers which causes the actual replication cost to be higher.

Cochise
05-14-2007, 01:41 PM
But nobody is turning around and selling them. They are just sharing them. They aren't selling.

Have you watched a DVD in the last 5 years or so? It specifically says on those in the copyright statement (sic) that reproduction even without financial gain is also prohibited.

DaneMcCloud
05-14-2007, 01:43 PM
Because the RIAA doesn't want you to know how much the actual cost is. In a case I cited above the attorney's have subpoenaed the RIAA documents about how much it acutally costs to distribute but no the RIAA doesn't want to turn that over because it would totally undermine their whole case.

Distribution or cost of goods sold? Do you wear a tin foil hat as well?

Dude, I WORKED in the music industry at all levels for 10 years. Royalties, copyrights, business affairs, income tracking, management, upper management, etc. In prior posts I've given legitimate samples of costs associated with the recording and marketing of a CD along with Soundscan numbers.

Those numbers ARE real. It's ILLEGAL to download music for free. Period. End of story. The RIAA is the police force of the recording industry. What do you expect them to do?

BucEyedPea
05-14-2007, 01:45 PM
Have you watched a DVD in the last 5 years or so? It specifically says on those in the copyright statement (sic) that reproduction even without financial gain is also prohibited.
People constantly cite the money making point....it has NO bearing.
It's just a "right to copy" period.

Cochise
05-14-2007, 01:45 PM
Distribution or cost of goods sold? Do you wear a tin foil hat as well?

Dude, I WORKED in the music industry at all levels for 10 years. Royalties, copyrights, business affairs, income tracking, management, upper management, etc. In prior posts I've given legitimate samples of costs associated with the recording and marketing of a CD along with Soundscan numbers.

Those numbers ARE real. It's ILLEGAL to download music for free. Period. End of story. The RIAA is the police force of the recording industry. What do you expect them to do?

d00d! A cd only costs $1 to makez!!!1

gblowfish
05-14-2007, 01:47 PM
George, you're right on but keep in mind that there are hundreds of artists each year on majors and indie's that cost more than ".50" due to volume. So while a Garth Brooks or No Doubt or whatever might warrant a million or so initial copies (thereby reducing the replication costs to .50) most new bands don't warrant those kind of initial replication numbers which causes the actual replication cost to be higher.
Agreed. I can make 1,000 commerical style CDs for a band at about $1.25.
For most small local bands, they look at it this way: Spend $1250 for some CDs, or get a front end alignment, new tires and an AC charge for the Van.

Some local acts buy 1,000 discs, give away about 100 of them to friends, send out about another 200 to radio stations, then end up sticking the remaining 700 in the closet, because....well, they're not very good musicians. Sort of the musical version of the "vanity press."

I've had a couple of KC rappers sell literally 5,000 discs locally here in KC, and that's pretty good for a local artist.

dirk digler
05-14-2007, 01:49 PM
Distribution or cost of goods sold? Do you wear a tin foil hat as well?

Dude, I WORKED in the music industry at all levels for 10 years. Royalties, copyrights, business affairs, income tracking, management, upper management, etc. In prior posts I've given legitimate samples of costs associated with the recording and marketing of a CD along with Soundscan numbers.

Those numbers ARE real. It's ILLEGAL to download music for free. Period. End of story. The RIAA is the police force of the recording industry. What do you expect them to do?

I am talking about online downloads.

A proposed order filed yesterday would force the recording industry to divulge closely-held details of their wholesale pricing arrangements. The record labels are fighting Lindor's attempts to gain access to the pricing information. They have argued that it shouldn't be divulged, and if it is, it should only be done so under a protective order that would keep the data highly confidential. The RIAA regards the wholesale price per song as a trade secret.

Redrum_69
05-14-2007, 01:55 PM
I didn't get that from his post. My lawyer told me that it is an esoteric concept for most people, and as such don't understand it. Or sometimes they do but disagree with the idea of it but won't let on.


sarcasm much?

jidar
05-14-2007, 01:59 PM
To whoever thinks sales are up,
You're wrong.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070418-despite-revenue-slump-riaa-still-not-getting-the-big-picture.html
Revenues this past year are HALF of what they were in 2000. At this rate the existing industry will be a shell of what it was inside of a decade.
The existing studios are a dying breed.


But you know what? So what?
**** the RIAA. I don't give a flying **** if their shit gets stolen, they've been raping everyone for years so **** THEM. I DON'T CARE IF THEY STARVE AND DIE. PRAISE JESUS THE MUSIC INDUSTRY IS BEING DESTROYED.

Lzen
05-14-2007, 02:01 PM
Have you watched a DVD in the last 5 years or so? It specifically says on those in the copyright statement (sic) that reproduction even without financial gain is also prohibited.

My couch cushions also have a tag that says it cannot be removed without legal repercussions. I tore the tags off anyways. Does this mean I should be looking out for the couch/mattress tag police?
ROFL

asdf
05-14-2007, 02:04 PM
Most MP3 downloads (of the illegal type) are of crappy quality compared to the original CD. Not much better than FM... Anyone know if that ever factors in to these lawsuits?

Also, it's stupid to pay $1 to download a song when the quality is inferior to the retail CD. Does anyone offer $1 downloads in a full-fidelity uncompressed format?

Al Bundy
05-14-2007, 02:10 PM
If this is the way you feel, go to iTunes and purchase the song you want for $1.00. Don't download the song illegally for free or the entire record for free.

How can the industry, especially the artist, be to blame? Things cost what they cost. Why should ANY industry lose money or better yet, distribute items or goods for LESS than actual COST?

You need to go back to college and take Econ 1 & 2. For starters.

I am not going so far as to say "Illegally download an entire album for free". What I am saying is that they labels have no way of justifying putting the price on that 24 year old record. So in order for people to buy whole albums then maybe they make the artists make better full length albums. It is what it is and they have themselves to blame for the "losing money" They got rather greedy in the mid 90's and started overcharging for the CD's. It came back around and bit them.

Iowanian
05-14-2007, 02:13 PM
Dirk buys a book, thinks its great and loans it to me. I read it and give it back. He loans it to his brohter in law, who reads it and gives it back....he loans it to a guy at work and then a girl at work, and then the lady with the goiter on her nose from accounting.

How many times can he do this before getting in trouble. I mean, we're getting to read the 18th installment of Harry Potter, but didn't buy the book.

Simplex3
05-14-2007, 02:14 PM
Yeah, it may be illegal. But where do you draw the line? Why do they charge $15+ for a cd when it only costs them $1 to make? What about all the material that I used to own that has been lost or stolen or broken over time? Since it is about the material, can I download those for free since I already paid for them at some point? Hell no they would never do that. RIAA is the devil, I tell ya.
The record industry has been very clear that you aren't buying the music. If you lose the CD you are required to buy a new one. You are NOT allowed to make a backup copy for yourself and you are not allowed to rip the music to mp3. If you have an mp3 you are required to have some sort of control in place so that the same song can't be heard on more than on music device at a time.

Iowanian
05-14-2007, 02:19 PM
Did I actually create the software, or did Michael Bolton and Samir write it and I'm the pretty face, who lip syncs in the conference you paid to attend to learn about my genius?

Does the software really work, or maybe just 1 button works really well, and the other 12 don't really do it for you, maybe even harm your ears?

On the software label and media blitz, did I tell you it was the "Software of the year" before it was released?

Did I tell you that Britney Spears could really sing live? Did I tell you that Milli Vanilli was a functioning software, that you paid for, but turned out to be a fraud, and didn't refund you?


Ok guys... let's say one of you brainiacs comes out with a new kick ass media player for computers. You decide to start selling it b/c you want to get rich.

I buy a copy of that software from you. I post it on my site www.getfreeshithere.com (http://www.getfreeshithere.com) and 1,000 people download it for free within a week.

Is that a bad thing? I mean, I paid you for the original cd of the software.

DaneMcCloud
05-14-2007, 02:19 PM
What I am saying is that they labels have no way of justifying putting the price on that 24 year old record.

So, you're of the opinion that a great work of art actually LOSES value over time? That's absurd. I bet you'd bitch about the admission price to the Louvre or the Vatican. Great works of art APPRECIATE, they don't go down in value. We're just lucky that the record companies don't charge MORE for records like "Dark Side of the Moon" or the Beatles catalog.

So in order for people to buy whole albums then maybe they make the artists make better full length albums. It is what it is and they have themselves to blame for the "losing money" They got rather greedy in the mid 90's and started overcharging for the CD's. It came back around and bit them.

No. What "bit them" was people who created software to illegally share copyrighted, recorded works and shared these protected works to hundreds of millions of people for FREE.

Let's put it this way: I've NEVER heard of a 35 year-old plus, male or female, bitch about the cost of music, nor do I know anyone in that age group that participates in illegal downloading. The overwhelming majority of people that participate in illegal downloading are teenagers and college kids, whose budgets don't allow them to purchase music lawfully. So they STEAL IT, without any consequences or guilt.

Now that the tide is turning, these same people who dowloaded music for free are complaining "Why me?" when they knew, all along, it was illegal.

Simplex3
05-14-2007, 02:22 PM
This is really old news. If she was smart she should have gotten a lawyer because the RIAA is losing cases left and right because they can't prove shit. This is basically a shake down to scare people to pay.

What is funny is since the RIAA is losing cases all the judges are forcing them to pay the legal fees of the defendant which they in turn cry and whine how unfair that is.
This whole thing reeks of when DirecTV was suing anyone and everyone that ever bought any smart card equipment. They would send you a letter saying you could settle for several thousand or they'd sue your ass. They didn't even bother to ask if maybe, just maybe, you had a legitimate use for the equipment.

Iowanian
05-14-2007, 02:23 PM
If I purchase a CD and decide it sucks after 1-2 listens....can I return it for my money back?


No.

Al Bundy
05-14-2007, 02:25 PM
So, you're of the opinion that a great work of art actually LOSES value over time? That's absurd. I bet you'd bitch about the admission price to the Louvre or the Vatican. Great works of art APPRECIATE, they don't go down in value. We're just lucky that the record companies don't charge MORE for records like "Dark Side of the Moon" or the Beatles catalog.
99 times out of 100 I have respected your opinion on subjects of all varities. But this time I am simply going to have to disagree, a 24 year old CD should not be at a higher price than a new CD. No matter how good the music on the CD is it just shouldn't. They have already made all of the money on said "Ride The Lightning" 100 times what they ever invested in it. You and I will agree to disagree. Furthermore if you get caught doing something illegal you pay the price period. However I don't feel one bit of sympathy for the major labels or the artists. AND I dont feel any sympathy for someone who got caught doing something illegal.

Al Bundy
05-14-2007, 02:26 PM
If I purchase a CD and decide it sucks after 1-2 listens....can I return it for my money back?


No.

Not at all, as a matter of fact it is illegal to "rent" CD's. Hell I remember when they tried fighting Used CD's back in the day.

Mile High Mania
05-14-2007, 02:27 PM
Dirk buys a book, thinks its great and loans it to me. I read it and give it back. He loans it to his brohter in law, who reads it and gives it back....he loans it to a guy at work and then a girl at work, and then the lady with the goiter on her nose from accounting.

How many times can he do this before getting in trouble. I mean, we're getting to read the 18th installment of Harry Potter, but didn't buy the book.

Weird... I think there's a difference between sharing something like that among friends and sharing online with potentially thousands of people that never give you the original copy back.

Dirk didn't mass reproduce the book for each of you to have a copy. Do you really not see the difference?

Mile High Mania
05-14-2007, 02:28 PM
If I purchase a CD and decide it sucks after 1-2 listens....can I return it for my money back?


No.

You can if you return it b/c there is a scratch... or something like that.

DaneMcCloud
05-14-2007, 02:30 PM
Did I actually create the software, or did Michael Bolton and Samir write it and I'm the pretty face, who lip syncs in the conference you paid to attend to learn about my genius?

Does the software really work, or maybe just 1 button works really well, and the other 12 don't really do it for you, maybe even harm your ears?

On the software label and media blitz, did I tell you it was the "Software of the year" before it was released?

Did I tell you that Britney Spears could really sing live? Did I tell you that Milli Vanilli was a functioning software, that you paid for, but turned out to be a fraud, and didn't refund you?

Iowanian, I gave you a perfect representation of the illegalities involved with downloading music, using your "borrowed book" as an example, but you neglected to respond.

Again, take your favorite book, type this book into MS Word, put it on a website for anyone to download for FREE, and let me know if there are any legal repercussions, okay?

As for your dig at marketing, how many times do you hear that a movie is a "Movie of the Year" or that this "new" version of software will change your life? If you don't feel the movie is the "Movie of the Year", does that mean that you should be able to watch it for free? If the software (hell, appliances, cars, etc.) don't change your life, should it be free?

The music industry has LONG been full of artists that can't sing or play live. But you're not buying a LIVE performance or a concert ticket - you're buying a recorded work of art. Whether or not they can play or sing live is not at issue. You're buying a recording.

Saulbadguy
05-14-2007, 02:30 PM
You can if you return it b/c there is a scratch... or something like that.
Exchange only.

Mile High Mania
05-14-2007, 02:32 PM
Exchange only.

Ok, so exchange it...

Cochise
05-14-2007, 02:32 PM
There should be a poll here.

By "file sharing" I mean unauthorized downloading of digital music/movies/software. If you do this, choose one:

1. File sharing is legal, so I do it.
2. File sharing is illegal, but I do it because I feel artists are overpaid/music is too expensive.. (eg, two wrongs make a right)
3. File sharing is illegal, but I do it because my chances of getting caught are low.
4. I don't do it/I use legal/pay downloading services.

Iowanian
05-14-2007, 02:38 PM
You can if you return it b/c there is a scratch... or something like that.


....but I can't return it if its an "inferior product". Interesting.


False Advertising Dane.

If I sell a product as "the fastest widget in the world" and its NOT....they can return the product and the advertising is false.

The music industry will be fine as long as dumbasses will pay for a CD of William Hung's favorite songs.



I don't really care about this that much.....I just like to see Dane twist into knots and mumble about the time he had Bob Hope on his shoulders playing chicken at his private pool vs Vin Deisel and George Burns.

Simplex3
05-14-2007, 02:42 PM
I don't buy music. I don't steal it either. Pandora is just fine, thank you very much. 99.999999999% of the stuff released today is s**t anyway. You couldn't pay me to listen to it.

As far as I'm concerned celebrity worship can dry up and blow away and take Dane with it.

Cochise
05-14-2007, 02:43 PM
As far as I'm concerned celebrity worship can dry up and blow away and take Dane with it.

Dane Cook?

We could only hope.

Mile High Mania
05-14-2007, 02:45 PM
....but I can't return it if its an "inferior product". Interesting.


False Advertising Dane.

If I sell a product as "the fastest widget in the world" and its NOT....they can return the product and the advertising is false.

The music industry will be fine as long as dumbasses will pay for a CD of William Hung's favorite songs.



I don't really care about this that much.....I just like to see Dane twist into knots and mumble about the time he had Bob Hope on his shoulders playing chicken at his private pool vs Vin Deisel and George Burns.

The inferior product deal ... can Lions fans get their $ back for season tickets? Buyer beware or something like that.

Iowanian
05-14-2007, 02:46 PM
Can anyone find me a free copy of Mac Davis' "fatboy and Me" or "me and fatboy"?

I'd like to borrow it and its unavailable on Itunes.

Al Bundy
05-14-2007, 02:53 PM
Actually as a mom and pop store you cannot return an opened CD for any reason.

Mr. Laz
05-14-2007, 02:54 PM
maybe one of these days a student will go all Columbine on the RIAA main headquarters.

Lzen
05-14-2007, 02:59 PM
Let's put it this way: I've NEVER heard of a 35 year-old plus, male or female, bitch about the cost of music....

Not true. There are a few just in this thread alone. Sry Dane, not everyone can live in a mansion and hang with celebs not worrying about money. :rolleyes:

...nor do I know anyone in that age group that participates in illegal downloading.

I can honestly say that I don't do that.

Mile High Mania
05-14-2007, 02:59 PM
maybe one of these days a student will go all Columbine on the RIAA main headquarters.

Ok, I think we found an ender for the thread...

Mr. Laz
05-14-2007, 03:00 PM
Ok, I think we found an ender for the thread...
ROFL

dirk digler
05-14-2007, 03:05 PM
The record industry has been very clear that you aren't buying the music. If you lose the CD you are required to buy a new one. You are NOT allowed to make a backup copy for yourself and you are not allowed to rip the music to mp3. If you have an mp3 you are required to have some sort of control in place so that the same song can't be heard on more than on music device at a time.

The problem is the music industry is wrong on that issue. You can make backup copies of your CD and or rip the music to mp3. You just can't distribute said material.

That is why copying programs are so widely available. I don't even think the MPAA is really saying you can't make backup copies of your own DVD's that you own.

This all goes back to the Betamax lawsuit that the Supreme Court said it was ok to copy with VCR's.


Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984)[1], also known as the "Betamax case", was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States which ruled that the making of individual copies of complete television shows for purposes of time-shifting does not constitute copyright infringement, but is fair use. The Court also ruled that the manufacturers of home video recording devices, such as Betamax or other VCRs (referred to as VTRs in the case), cannot be liable for infringement. The case was a boon to the home video market as it created a legal safe haven for the technology, which also significantly benefited the entertainment industry through the sale of pre-recorded movies.

Mile High Mania
05-14-2007, 03:10 PM
Dirk, the problem is that the kids are knowingly breaking the law because "everyone else is doing it"... it's unfortunate that these kids will either go to court or settle, but that's a life lesson.

Many may disagree with it, but it's still a law...

dirk digler
05-14-2007, 03:11 PM
Let's put it this way: I've NEVER heard of a 35 year-old plus, male or female, bitch about the cost of music, nor do I know anyone in that age group that participates in illegal downloading. The overwhelming majority of people that participate in illegal downloading are teenagers and college kids, whose budgets don't allow them to purchase music lawfully. So they STEAL IT, without any consequences or guilt.

Now that the tide is turning, these same people who dowloaded music for free are complaining "Why me?" when they knew, all along, it was illegal.

LMAO

I know tons of people in that age range that download stuff for free.

I am in that age range and if I hypothetically download music\games\apps from say bittorrent I don't care

Mr. Laz
05-14-2007, 03:21 PM
LMAO

I know tons of people in that age range that download stuff for free.

I am in that age range and if I hypothetically download music\games\apps from say bittorrent I don't care

what is this Bittorrent you refer too??? :hmmm:

dirk digler
05-14-2007, 03:23 PM
what is this Bittorrent you refer too??? :hmmm:

You know what it is Laz. Downloading from a torrent site like Pirate Bay or Demonoid.

JBucc
05-14-2007, 03:27 PM
I've downloaded a few games over the past year or so. Who would come and sue me if they chose to?

Bob Dole
05-14-2007, 03:27 PM
Most MP3 downloads (of the illegal type) are of crappy quality compared to the original CD. Not much better than FM... Anyone know if that ever factors in to these lawsuits?

Also, it's stupid to pay $1 to download a song when the quality is inferior to the retail CD. Does anyone offer $1 downloads in a full-fidelity uncompressed format?

Rumor has it that the iTunes store will begin offering lossless downloads in June.

Mr. Laz
05-14-2007, 03:28 PM
You know what it is Laz. Downloading from a torrent site like Pirate Bay or Demonoid.

i have no idea what you're talking about. o:-) o:-)

htismaqe
05-14-2007, 03:32 PM
Rumor has it that the iTunes store will begin offering lossless downloads in June.

Lossless formats like FLAC have been around for a while.

The idea that illegal MP3's are of "lesser" quality is pretty much bunk.

Bob Dole
05-14-2007, 03:34 PM
Lossless formats like FLAC have been around for a while.

The idea that illegal MP3's are of "lesser" quality is pretty much bunk.

He asked about the $1 downloads. Is someone currently selling lossless downloads for $1 per song?

Valiant
05-14-2007, 03:34 PM
It is victimless in a sense that those downloading the music WOULD NEVER actually buy the music... There is no LOST REVENUE when the person(s) were never going to buy it in the first place...

dirk digler
05-14-2007, 03:38 PM
Lossless formats like FLAC have been around for a while.

The idea that illegal MP3's are of "lesser" quality is pretty much bunk.

Yep and honestly can anyone really tell the difference unless it was copied off the radio or the TV IMO it is not noticeable.

Mile High Mania
05-14-2007, 03:39 PM
It is victimless in a sense that those downloading the music WOULD NEVER actually buy the music... There is no LOST REVENUE when the person(s) were never going to buy it in the first place...

That argument was made earlier and it was silly then.

BucEyedPea
05-14-2007, 03:43 PM
That argument was made earlier and it was silly then.YUP...irrelevant as well. If they don't want it...then why are they downloading it.

htismaqe
05-14-2007, 03:45 PM
He asked about the $1 downloads. Is someone currently selling lossless downloads for $1 per song?

Not that I know of. The only lossless downloads I've seen would be of the illegal kind.

I was speaking to the "Most MP3 downloads (of the illegal type) are of crappy quality compared to the original CD" portion of his post...

Mile High Mania
05-14-2007, 03:45 PM
That's like saying there are 100 unsold seats for the KC game. 30 people show up at game time for a tailgate but they can't afford a ticket. Those 30 people slip by security and watch the game from 30 of the 100 unsold seats.

They never intended to BUY tickets, but they slipped in and watched the game live from seats that hadn't been paid for...

I guess KC isn't out that revenue since those 30 never intended to pay anyway.

BucEyedPea
05-14-2007, 03:52 PM
But this time I am simply going to have to disagree, a 24 year old CD should not be at a higher price than a new CD. No matter how good the music on the CD is it just shouldn't. They have already made all of the money on said "Ride The Lightning" 100 times what they ever invested in it.
The price is what the market will bear ie what the consumer values and is willing to pay. ( w/o stealing) Costs alone do not determine price, demand has a role....a bigger one. If something costs $5k to make but no one wants it, then it's worth nothing because no one is willing to exchange their dollars for it. On the other hand if something cost .50 to make and everybody wants it, it can sell for more. Ultimately, consumers drive the rates.

dirk digler
05-14-2007, 03:52 PM
Let me ask everyone a question. Do you think sharing music\games etc on your home network with your family is illegal?

By the way the law is written it probably is so do you think you should be fined for that?

Saulbadguy
05-14-2007, 03:54 PM
Let me ask everyone a question. Do you think sharing music\games etc on your home network with your family is illegal?

By the way the law is written it probably is so do you think you should be fined for that?
1. Yes
2. No

Valiant
05-14-2007, 03:54 PM
That argument was made earlier and it was silly then.


Have not read the whole thread... I just know that many people NEVER buy music, period.. And you cannot claim that you are losing money when those people were never going to buy your music.. It has been this way since tapes in the 80's... You are either going to buy the music or you are not, once you make up your mind you are not going to pay for it you are no longer one of their customer bases..

The only reason why the Music Industry revenue is down is from crap quality per CD(not more then 1-3good songs a CD)... Its funny that the few great CD's that are made each year still go multi-platinum with all these downloads...

Mile High Mania
05-14-2007, 03:55 PM
Let me ask everyone a question. Do you think sharing music\games etc on your home network with your family is illegal?

By the way the law is written it probably is so do you think you should be fined for that?

It's "illegal" in just about any scenario... the chances of someone getting fined for sharing with their family is likely very low.

A student (being one of many) downloading 381 songs at the campus computer lab... well, they're going to find those people.

I guess the students are lucky that the schools aren't coming after them for committing a crime through the use of school property.

BucEyedPea
05-14-2007, 03:57 PM
Let me ask everyone a question. Do you think sharing music\games etc on your home network with your family is illegal?

By the way the law is written it probably is so do you think you should be fined for that?
I have two computers and I have to buy two programs legally...or just buy a group liscense.

Iowanian
05-14-2007, 03:58 PM
I think the RIAA should just make the guilty wear this outfit and wear a sign that says

"Aaaaaaaaaaaarg, I'm a music Pirate!"
http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/pirate-9.jpg

DaneMcCloud
05-14-2007, 03:58 PM
....but I can't return it if its an "inferior product". Interesting.

False Advertising Dane.

If you can prove that in a court of law, more power to you.

If I sell a product as "the fastest widget in the world" and its NOT....they can return the product and the advertising is false.

Really? Is that why everyone returned their Apple computers a few years ago, because Jobs said it was the fastest computer in the world, but when tests were run in the "real world", this proved to be far from the truth?

The music industry will be fine as long as dumbasses will pay for a CD of William Hung's favorite songs.

Iowanian,

I haven't defended the music industry's product, good or bad. There are literally thousands of artists out there who are popular that I don't like and probably less than a few hundred that I care about. No one can successfully argue taste. I've defended the illegal downloading and it's consequences to the artists, composers and record companies.

Intellectually speaking though, I can't understand why you defend illegal activities, regardless of whether or not YOU find it to be illegal. Something shouldn't be "Less Illegal" just because people aren't happy with the profit margin. That's ludicrous.

I don't really care about this that much.....I just like to see Dane twist into knots and mumble about the time he had Bob Hope on his shoulders playing chicken at his private pool vs Vin Deisel and George Burns.

And BTW, I kicked all their asses!

Mile High Mania
05-14-2007, 03:58 PM
You are either going to buy the music or you are not, once you make up your mind you are not going to pay for it you are no longer one of their customer bases..

...and you are committing a crime if you choose to download that music through a source that allows you to not pay for it.

I really don't understand why this is a hard concept for some of you.

You own a restaurant. You charge $ for your menu items.

I decide that while I'm hungry, I'm not going to buy any of your menu items. However, I am going to walk over to the counter... grab a burger and eat it.

In your world, that's cool to do b/c I've decided that I'm not part of your customer base.

Valiant
05-14-2007, 03:59 PM
YUP...irrelevant as well. If they don't want it...then why are they downloading it.


They are not wanting to pay for it... This is the argument no??


Answer me this...


If you were never going to buy an album that you downloaded are you their customer??? You NEVER planed on buying it, did they just lose money off of you when you were never going to buy it...

This is why it is a victimless crime, unless you plan on selling it...

Redrum_69
05-14-2007, 04:00 PM
Why is it that people can download music for free and get in trouble for it, but yet the Denver broncos can cheat on their salary cap and be praised for it after winning a super bowl?

BucEyedPea
05-14-2007, 04:00 PM
Originally Posted by Iowanian
....but I can't return it if its an "inferior product". Interesting.

If you don't like a dish in a restaurant but eat it, can you throw it up to give it back?

Iowanian
05-14-2007, 04:00 PM
I'll counter with this pokemon.

The Chiefs sucked in the mid 80s and thousands of seats went unpurchased.

IF I attended a tailgate with friends with no intention of buying a ticket, and snuck into the game, but enjoyed myself enough that I purchased a soda, nachos, hotdog and a beer.....and enjoyed myself to purchase tickets to a future game because I had such a good time.......I'd suggest the team DID recieve value in the long run.


They make a profit in residual ways, and my ass sitting in that seat cost them nothing.


They never intended to BUY tickets, but they slipped in and watched the game live from seats that hadn't been paid for...

I guess KC isn't out that revenue since those 30 never intended to pay anyway.

DaneMcCloud
05-14-2007, 04:02 PM
99 times out of 100 I have respected your opinion on subjects of all varities. But this time I am simply going to have to disagree, a 24 year old CD should not be at a higher price than a new CD. No matter how good the music on the CD is it just shouldn't. They have already made all of the money on said "Ride The Lightning" 100 times what they ever invested in it. You and I will agree to disagree. Furthermore if you get caught doing something illegal you pay the price period. However I don't feel one bit of sympathy for the major labels or the artists. AND I dont feel any sympathy for someone who got caught doing something illegal.

That's cool. It's fine to disagree. But keep in mind that a record company puts an absolute ton of money into recording and promoting a band. It's a HUGE crapshoot. No one REALLY knows how the public will accept any music, good or bad. But with that in mind, when a record DOES hit, I don't think that there should be a "shelf-life" of profitability. The value of the original recordings should not decrease - to the contrary. It should actually increase, due to its popularity. But essentially, CD's haven't increased in price since being introduced to the market place over 20 years ago.

Mile High Mania
05-14-2007, 04:02 PM
They are not wanting to pay for it... This is the argument no??


Answer me this...


If you were never going to buy an album that you downloaded are you their customer??? You NEVER planed on buying it, did they just lose money off of you when you were never going to buy it...

This is why it is a victimless crime, unless you plan on selling it...

Dumb, dumb, dumb.

They have a product for sale.

If you chose not to pay for the product and you don't use the product, then they have lost nothing.

If you chose not to pay for the product and you USE the product, then they have lost revenue on the sale that never happened for the product you are using without paying for it.

Iowanian
05-14-2007, 04:02 PM
If you don't like a dish in a restaurant but eat it, can you throw it up to give it back?

If I go to a restaraunt, order a $25 dish I've never had before, and it tastes like ass...or has a hair in it....I sure as hell can send it back.

Valiant
05-14-2007, 04:02 PM
...and you are committing a crime if you choose to download that music through a source that allows you to not pay for it.

I really don't understand why this is a hard concept for some of you.

You own a restaurant. You charge $ for your menu items.

I decide that while I'm hungry, I'm not going to buy any of your menu items. However, I am going to walk over to the counter... grab a burger and eat it.

In your world, that's cool to do b/c I've decided that I'm not part of your customer base.


You keep throwing out other things that you cannot compare???

Above would be similar if I could go to some other place that fixes the exact same food and gives it to me for free... So that place above in question would not lose money...

Saulbadguy
05-14-2007, 04:02 PM
Why is it that people can download music for free and get in trouble for it, but yet the Denver broncos can cheat on their salary cap and be praised for it after winning a super bowl?
Excellent question.

htismaqe
05-14-2007, 04:02 PM
If you don't like a dish in a restaurant but eat it, can you throw it up to give it back?

I've seen people eat 3/4 of a burger, complain to the manager, and get their money back.

DaneMcCloud
05-14-2007, 04:03 PM
LMAO

I know tons of people in that age range that download stuff for free.

I am in that age range and if I hypothetically download music\games\apps from say bittorrent I don't care

Well, good for you. Steal, steal, steal and laugh about it all you want. You certainly won't gain any respect from law abiding citizens.

Mile High Mania
05-14-2007, 04:03 PM
I'll counter with this pokemon.

The Chiefs sucked in the mid 80s and thousands of seats went unpurchased.

IF I attended a tailgate with friends with no intention of buying a ticket, and snuck into the game, but enjoyed myself enough that I purchased a soda, nachos, hotdog and a beer.....and enjoyed myself to purchase tickets to a future game because I had such a good time.......I'd suggest the team DID recieve value in the long run.


They make a profit in residual ways, and my ass sitting in that seat cost them nothing.

I never thought I'd type this to you... but, that's the dumbest thing I've ever read. Yes, they made money off of you at the food counter and for future ticket sales. They lost money on you while you were at the game.

Redrum_69
05-14-2007, 04:04 PM
Well, good for you. Steal, steal, steal and laugh about it all you want. You certainly won't gain any respect from law abiding citizens.


THis coming from someone in California.

Iowanian
05-14-2007, 04:05 PM
I never thought I'd type this to you... but, that's the dumbest thing I've ever read. Yes, they made money off of you at the food counter and for future ticket sales. They lost money on you while you were at the game.

Your arguement would be better if you said I snuck into the game and stood on the railing to watch. I didn't actually occupy a seat that could have been sold to someone else.

DaneMcCloud
05-14-2007, 04:05 PM
I've seen people eat 3/4 of a burger, complain to the manager, and get their money back.

I have see this as well. But not 100 million times.

Mile High Mania
05-14-2007, 04:05 PM
You keep throwing out other things that you cannot compare???

Above would be similar if I could go to some other place that fixes the exact same food and gives it to me for free... So that place above in question would not lose money...

I'm trying to find something that clicks with you and a few others...

If you use a product that you didn't pay for, you are a criminal and someone is losing money on a product that is being used yet resulted in no revenue stream.

DaneMcCloud
05-14-2007, 04:06 PM
THis coming from someone in California.

What does THAT have to do with anything?

BucEyedPea
05-14-2007, 04:06 PM
I've seen people eat 3/4 of a burger, complain to the manager, and get their money back.
I'm inclined to think that decide on a trade-off....bad PR or otherwise.
I used to waitress in art school, that policy varies. People do try to get a free meal that way though too.

Mile High Mania
05-14-2007, 04:07 PM
Your arguement would be better if you said I snuck into the game and stood on the railing to watch. I didn't actually occupy a seat that could have been sold to someone else.

Ha! If I had used that argument, you would have said "the game was sold out, there were no more tickets to sale... therefore they lost no revenue by me illegally watching the game from the railing area."

My example allows for "empty seats that haven't produced revenue" being used by your non-paying arse. :p Thereby resulting in a loss of revenue for the team.