Copying music to your computer may be illegal

[Mosbonian]

Who owns your music?

CNN's Sunny Hostin looks at the music industry's claims that downloading music to a computer could be breaking the law.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/showbiz/2008/01/02/lklv.hostin.music.chetry.cnn

Seems the Recording industry now wants to make sure that you don't even download a CD to your own computer regardless if you aren't planning to share it?

Not sure what to make of this......seems a little extreme if you ask me.

mmaddog
*******

[Buck]

So you aren't buying the CD, you are paying to hold on to it.

[Hydrae]

So you aren't buying the CD, you are paying to hold on to it.

I am sure they point is that you are buying 1 copy of the music. If you want to use it in multiple places, you will need multiple copies.

Or some such shit as that.

[Extra Point]

Funny, MS Windows Media Player is programmed to rip media. RIAA needs to take this fight to Mr. Gates. Rotsa ruck!

[Buck]

I am sure they point is that you are buying 1 copy of the music. If you want to use it in multiple places, you will need multiple copies.

Or some such shit as that.

So if you want one copy for your CD Player, and one copy for your Computer, you have to buy 2 copies.

Are you then allowed to put the 2nd copy on the computer?

Or lets say you only want to listen to music on your computer, can you put that copy on the computer (lets say if you discard the Disc afterwards)?

[DaKCMan AP]

they can suck a dick

[KC Dan]

F the Music Industry, F the Congress, F Metallica and F anyone else that thinks they can ever tell me what I can do with a cd I buy!!!

[Extra Point]

I reserve the right to make a backup disc, in case I scratch my master Metallica disc while I headbang to their worthless music.

[Hydrae]

I want to know how this works with relation to the new record players that have CD burners built into them. I saw one the other day that had a USB so you could record your vinyl directly to your computer. As someone with a couple hundred albums (large round black plastic discs with grooves that can reproduce sound for you youngsters out there :) ), I have been thinking about getting one of these.

[CrazyPhuD]

Meh....ripping music is a victim-less crime, it should be legal just like banging 16 yr old cheerleaders! :)

[BigChiefFan]

This is getting out of control. I've bought their damn albums, cassettes, and CDs. I'll be damned if I'm buying multiple copies of the same format. These greedy pricks can take a flyin' leap.

Here's an idea... make BETTER music and the masses will purchase it.

[BigMeatballDave]

RIAA needs to go **** themselves.

[FAX]

Can't they encode a CD so that it can't be copied?

FAX

[CrazyPhuD]

RIAA needs to go **** themselves.

They need to **** someone...with this much pent up aggression clearly they haven't been getting any lately!

[Hydrae]

Can't they encode a CD so that it can't be copied?

FAX


Probably would take about 2 weeks for someone to break that and then it would be obsolete.

[noa]

If they really wanted to stop ripping, they would go after software makers who enable it. I have a feeling this is just a way to get a foot in the door to get after more file sharers.

[Extra Point]

Can't they encode a CD so that it can't be copied?

FAX

Charley Pride recorded the first anti-pirate-coded CD, that wouldn't play on most CD players. It was so great, that noone bought it.

[Fly O.T. McWall]

fire me boy must be proud.

[BigMeatballDave]

Can't they encode a CD so that it can't be copied?

FAXYes, but I think they figure that would be a waste. Someone will always find a way around copy protection.

[noa]

Can't they encode a CD so that it can't be copied?

FAX

The problem is that any encoded CD/DVD has to have the key to decoding it on the disc. That's how it plays. That's why Blue-Ray and HD-DVD were hacked so quickly.

[FAX]

Ah, I see. Thanks, guys.

Well, I guess that means we'll just have to settle this the American Way and sue somebody's mom.

FAX

[Mecca]

fire me boy must be proud.

Dude he will show up and call us all bad people if you don't watch out.

[Extra Point]

Can't wait til CNN puts that video article on youtube.

[FAX]

Sadly, we are bad people, Mr. Mecca.

I miss Mr. Fire Me Boy!. Does anyone know how to get in touch with him?

FAX

[CrazyPhuD]

The problem is that any encoded CD/DVD has to have the key to decoding it on the disc. That's how it plays. That's why Blue-Ray and HD-DVD were hacked so quickly.

actually the shared keys have to be in the player, If they're on the disk there is no security. One the player they are as secure as the player is(that's why they were broken so fast). That said, blu-ray has key revocation ability which means if you break a player you will be able to decrypt any disks made up until that point. But after that that players keys are revoked and won't be able to play anything newer.

[Adept Havelock]

Heh. Watching these ijits try to hang on to an obsolete business model is good for a chuckle.

[noa]

actually the shared keys have to be in the player, If they're on the disk there is no security. One the player they are as secure as the player is(that's why they were broken so fast). That said, blu-ray has key revocation ability which means if you break a player you will be able to decrypt any disks made up until that point. But after that that players keys are revoked and won't be able to play anything newer.

OK, thanks. I really have no idea what I'm talking about on this stuff. I just read something on BoingBoing a while ago about why trying to prevent decryption will never work.

[88TG88]

Meh....ripping music is a victim-less crime, it should be legal just like banging 16 yr old cheerleaders! :)
Dam straight

[CrazyPhuD]

The problem is...the future is downloaded content with ubiquitous networking. Once that happens they actually can prevent you from copying between devices. DRM doesn't really work well with one way communication but with two way communication they can restrict you any way they want and you really won't be able to do much about it.

[FAX]

Heh. Watching these ijits try to hang on to an obsolete business model is good for a chuckle.

Just what I was thinking, Mr. Adept Havelock. The entertainment industry wishes to take full advantage of technologies like the internet but is unwilling to either face the associated risks or advance a solution that doesn't involve civil suits against Perry Como fans.

The Art of War.

FAX

[Simply Red]

So if you want one copy for your CD Player, and one copy for your Computer, you have to buy 2 copies.

Are you then allowed to put the 2nd copy on the computer?

Or lets say you only want to listen to music on your computer, can you put that copy on the computer (lets say if you discard the Disc afterwards)?
YES

NO

MAYBE

[Buck]

YES

NO

MAYBE
Thanks for clearing that up.

[KcMizzou]

Heh. Watching these ijits try to hang on to an obsolete business model is good for a chuckle.That's basically what it is. A big ass scramble by people who don't actually create music, desperately trying to hang on to the profits they make off it as it slips through their fingers.

[Bump]

this country is too greedy.

[Simply Red]

Thanks for clearing that up.
:)

[Mosbonian]

I figured that Dane would be on here by now...

mmaddog
*******

[007]

They can have my music when they pry it from my cold dead hard drive.

[FAX]

this country is too greedy.

This country was founded on greedy.

FAX

[Simplex3]

Can't they encode a CD so that it can't be copied?

FAX
The last DVD encryption scheme was broken before the first DVD using it was released.

[007]

Bunch of BS. If I buy a CD in a store or from iTunes, I have the right to listen to it on whichever device I choose. When I purchased it I also purchased a license to "listen to it". That license should not apply to what I listen to it on. As long as I am not sharing it they can STFU

[Silock]

The RIAA is having a problem with people ripping their music to a SHARED folder. Ripping a personal copy shouldn't be a problem, but if you are ripping it to a folder called "KAZAA SHARED FILES," there might be a problem.

[007]

The RIAA is having a problem with people ripping their music to a SHARED folder. Ripping a personal copy shouldn't be a problem, but if you are ripping it to a folder called "KAZAA SHARED FILES," there might be a problem.x
They could easily call sharing a folder with your XBOX 360 a problem though. I have all my CDs ripped to my computer so I can listen to them at my computer, on my mp3 player, on a CD for my van, and streamed to my xbox so I can play it all over my surround sound system.

[Pants]

I bought a ****ing Stephen Marley CD and that shit is f***ed. You can't copy the songs onto your computer because there are none. It kicks in some sort of a lame player when you put it in and plays 4 songs. Works fine in a stereo though. Weirdest ****ing CD ever.

[DaneMcCloud]

I figured that Dane would be on here by now...

mmaddog
*******

http://www.engadget.com/2007/12/30/riaa-not-suing-over-cd-ripping-still-kinda-being-jerks-about-it/


RIAA not suing over CD ripping, still kinda being jerks about it

Okay, so we've done some digging into the RIAA's lawsuit against Jeffery Howell, in which the industry is claiming that ripped MP3s are "unauthorized copies," and it turns out that Jeffery isn't actually being sued for ripping CDs, like the Washington Post and several other sources have reported, but for plain old illegal downloading.

As we're all unfortunately aware, that's pretty standard stuff; the big change from previous downloading cases is the RIAA's newfound aggressiveness in calling MP3s ripped from legally owned CDs "unauthorized copies" -- something it's been doing quietly for a while, but now it looks like the gloves are off.

While there's a pretty good argument for the legality of ripping under the market factor of fair use, it's never actually been ruled as such by a judge -- so paradoxically, the RIAA might be shooting itself in the foot here, because a judge wouldn't ever rule on it unless they argue that it's illegal. Looks like someone may end up being too clever for their own good, eh?

[Silock]

x
They could easily call sharing a folder with your XBOX 360 a problem though. I have all my CDs ripped to my computer so I can listen to them at my computer, on my mp3 player, on a CD for my van, and streamed to my xbox so I can play it all over my surround sound system.

Hey, I agree with you. The RIAA is stupid, but I don't think it's a terrible idea for them to be against sharing files over the internet to users that haven't bought the original material.

[Mosbonian]

http://www.engadget.com/2007/12/30/riaa-not-suing-over-cd-ripping-still-kinda-being-jerks-about-it/


RIAA not suing over CD ripping, still kinda being jerks about it

Okay, so we've done some digging into the RIAA's lawsuit against Jeffery Howell, in which the industry is claiming that ripped MP3s are "unauthorized copies," and it turns out that Jeffery isn't actually being sued for ripping CDs, like the Washington Post and several other sources have reported, but for plain old illegal downloading.

As we're all unfortunately aware, that's pretty standard stuff; the big change from previous downloading cases is the RIAA's newfound aggressiveness in calling MP3s ripped from legally owned CDs "unauthorized copies" -- something it's been doing quietly for a while, but now it looks like the gloves are off.

While there's a pretty good argument for the legality of ripping under the market factor of fair use, it's never actually been ruled as such by a judge -- so paradoxically, the RIAA might be shooting itself in the foot here, because a judge wouldn't ever rule on it unless they argue that it's illegal. Looks like someone may end up being too clever for their own good, eh?


So..if I read this right, the RIAA is suing a guy for illegal downloading, but is also trying to make the case for any copying to be illegal?

mmaddog
*******

[a1na2]

Can't they encode a CD so that it can't be copied?

FAX

I'm sure that can be done, but I'm also sure that all it would take is an audio output to an audio input to re-record the music. If done with a copper connection the resolution loss would be minimal.

[DaneMcCloud]

So..if I read this right, the RIAA is suing a guy for illegal downloading, but is also trying to make the case for any copying to be illegal?

mmaddog
*******

I honestly don't know. I went to the RIAA's website and couldn't find anything about this particular lawsuit. I linked to a blog post from someone in Arizona. But I agree that the RIAA is taking a dangerous course of action IF they're stating that people can't import legally purchased music to their computers or portable devices.

Either that or they're trying to get the courts to actually rule on the legality of copying legally purchased music from CD to computer.

Like the CNN anchor stated, nobody really seems to know what's actually happening at this point. I'm sure we'll know more later this month.

[kcfanintitanhell]

I just love the major labels sweating bullets over just about every little thing that happens that's slightly beyond their control.
I envision the day when people go to shows based on what they found on the net, downloaded, and really liked. Then they found that artist was playing at a venue (smallish) close by at a reasonable price, without the high-dollar vocal enhancement equipment dragged out by a major label supported tour, and enjoyed it, up close, honest, and personal.
And this is coming from a player that is still getting residuals (although quite minimal) from recordings he did in Nashville from '91 to '01.

In essence, what it boils down to, is to support live music whenever you get the chance. That's where it all comes from.
Sorry for the soapbox, but it has been important to me the major part of my life.

[ZepSinger]

I am sure they point is that you are buying 1 copy of the music. If you want to use it in multiple places, you will need multiple copies.

Or some such shit as that.

If I want to drive my car to work, and then drive it on vacation, Nissan doesn't say I have to buy 2 cars.

:hmmm:

[C-Mac]

This is bogus, an IPOD is technically a computer and its whole premisis is based on your ability to have all your music fit in the palm of your hand.

[007]

Hey, wonder what this will do to Ford's Sync?

[Baby Lee]

Can't they encode a CD so that it can't be copied?

FAX
Then it's not a Compact Disc as defined by Sony and Philips.
Also, encoding copy protection often brings up ancillary problems. Google 'rootkit, sony'

[memyselfI]

The RIAA and the record companies in general are dinosaurs on the verge of extinction. This is their last gasp attempt to thwart a reality that has spun beyond their control...NPI.

Had the record companies recognized that CDs were going to vanish along with their precious 8 tracks and cassettes then they wouldn't be in this mess. They would have embraced the technology, realized they can't rape the public by charging $19.99 for a cd that costs $2.00 to make, and they would have made adjustments necessary to remain relevant in the music industry.

As it is now, the musicians and the consumers have moved on WITHOUT THEM. Thus, they are spending millions of dollars trying to reverse history and pretend the status quo doesn't exist. I hope they sue themselves into oblivion faster than they are headed there presently.

Biggest racketeers on the planet.

[kepp]

I am sure they point is that you are buying 1 copy of the music. If you want to use it in multiple places, you will need multiple copies.

Or some such shit as that.
Pretty soon we're gonna need some kind of Oracle-like licensing program to buy music - "Oh...you want the PREMIUM version AND support...hehe."

[kepp]

Hey, wonder what this will do to Ford's Sync?
"Play. Artist. Tiffany."
-ding-
"You must first validate your copy of this music title."
-ding-
"Are you sure you want to validate this music title?"
-ding-
"Validation has failed. You will be reported to the RIAA."
-ding-

It is run by MS, right?

[chasedude]

'rootkit, sony'

Boo! Hisssss Hissss! George Orwell's flipping in his grave!

[Demonpenz]

downloading music has ruined many musicians lives

[Mr. Laz]

Can't they encode a CD so that it can't be copied?

FAX

they have tried many times .... takes 30 days max before somebody cracks it.

[Mr. Laz]

downloading music has ruined many musicians lives
the music industry has ruined a ton more

[Demonpenz]

you guys can spin all you want but stealing is stealing

[KC Dan]

you guys can spin all you want but stealing is stealing
So you think that ripping a cd to listen on an ipod is stealing?

[Demonpenz]

So you think that ripping a cd to listen on an ipod is stealing?


Keep spinning the two negatives arguement

[Mr. Laz]

Keep spinning the two negatives arguement
keep spinning this "buying" is really just "renting" argument.

[KC Dan]

Keep spinning the two negatives arguement
Listen, I am not spinning crap. I am asking you a simple question. Do YOU think that putting a cd on an mp3 player is stealing? I just would like to know your opinion.

[duncan_idaho]

downloading music has ruined many musicians lives

And the new wave of music technology - MySpace, iTunes, etc- has helped many smaller musicians make their big break.

If the RIAA tells me I can't copy a CD to my computer/iPod, I will never buy a CD again. Ever.

[Inspector]

Very concerning.

My youngest son is a recording artist with Epic records and I am concerned how this stuff could effect his livelihood in the future.

He did tell me that the bigger money comes from the tours nowadays, especially the large venues, due to the ease of copying or "stealing" it (as some might say). But I'd hate to see him miss out on any $$ he may have earned because of technology. The kid has worked his butt off to achieve what he has and sometimes I feel like he deserves to be able to make a living from it like anyone else who works hard.

I can see this issue from both sides.

[memyselfI]

downloading music has ruined many musicians lives

Like who?

Led Zeppelin's every song is available on torrent and on Limewire. Yet, they've gone platinum releasing an album with two and three decade old material just last month.

If musicians have not adapted to the new technologies and listened to record companies and participated in their own demise then they have no one but themselves to blame.

[memyselfI]

Very concerning.

My youngest son is a recording artist with Epic records and I am concerned how this stuff could effect his livelihood in the future.

He did tell me that the bigger money comes from the tours nowadays, especially the large venues, due to the ease of copying or "stealing" it (as some might say). But I'd hate to see him miss out on any $$ he may have earned because of technology. The kid has worked his butt off to achieve what he has and sometimes I feel like he deserves to be able to make a living from it like anyone else who works hard.

I can see this issue from both sides.

The reality is that record labels are not needed any longer to sell music. If he's missing out on $$$ it's because he's using old means of selling new music and NOT because of technology.

[memyselfI]

you guys can spin all you want but stealing is stealing

Guess you never TIVO a movie either, do ya?

[DaneMcCloud]

The RIAA and the record companies in general are dinosaurs on the verge of extinction. This is their last gasp attempt to thwart a reality that has spun beyond their control...NPI.

Had the record companies recognized that CDs were going to vanish along with their precious 8 tracks and cassettes then they wouldn't be in this mess. They would have embraced the technology, realized they can't rape the public by charging $19.99 for a cd that costs $2.00 to make, and they would have made adjustments necessary to remain relevant in the music industry.

As it is now, the musicians and the consumers have moved on WITHOUT THEM. Thus, they are spending millions of dollars trying to reverse history and pretend the status quo doesn't exist. I hope they sue themselves into oblivion faster than they are headed there presently.

Biggest racketeers on the planet.

You are such an idiot. "$2 to make"? Really? Please explain.

Recording costs: $400,000.000
Marketing: Minimum $150,000.00
Tour Expense: $30,000.00 per month
Video: $200,000.00

Those are typical expenses for a brand new band. Those expenses are further exacerbated by successful bands. These figures don't even take into account Publishing Advances (which may be as low as $150k and as high as $1 million).

I've detailed this information over and over and over again. While the actual cost of MANUFACTURING is less than $2.00, in no way, shape or form does a CD cost $2.00

[KC Kings]

And the new wave of music technology - MySpace, iTunes, etc- has helped many smaller musicians make their big break.

If the RIAA tells me I can't copy a CD to my computer/iPod, I will never buy a CD again. Ever.

The "industry" needs to realize that the culture has changed. A lot of the people that started burning CD's and stealing music were the same ones that had dual cassette ghetto blasters, and started dubbing tapes in the 80's. Downloading music was a convenience to us and it was stealing, because if we couldn't download it we would have bought the CD.

I started burning CD's in '97, and by '99 through IRC file sharing was at full force. So now you have 5th graders that have never lived in a world without file sharing. The junior high kids that started taking computer classes in 97 are now in college and have never been faced with having to buy a CD. I am not saying that none of them buy cd's, but I bet that 95% of them have shared at least one file, and I know several that have never bought a cd from a store.

The industry had a great scam going on for a long time. Artist puts out a record with 1 good song, they release the only descent song as a single, and the masses would have to buy a cd with an hour of crap just to get a copy of the one good song. People that have never had to do that before, are not going to start doing it now.

The new Bourne movie had production cost at $90 million with another $45 in marketing. I bought DVD when it came out at NFM for $12.99. The SouljaBoy CD cost $13.95. So a 16 year old kids writes a song about whacking off on his girlfriend and it cost almost a dollar more than a great movie that took $135 million to get it on the shelf? Like every other industry, the demand should dictate the price but that doesn't happen with the music industry. People keep finding other ways to obtain music, and they they stay the course charging the same price.

[DaneMcCloud]

The reality is that record labels are not needed any longer to sell music. If he's missing out on $$$ it's because he's using old means of selling new music and NOT because of technology.

BULLSHIT.

NAME ONE brand new band that sold in excess of 500,000 copies WITHOUT a record label of ANY type.

Then name TEN.

You are SUCH a pathetic MORON.

[KC Kings]

You are such an idiot. "$2 to make"? Really? Please explain.

Recording costs: $400,000.000
Marketing: Minimum $150,000.00
Tour Expense: $30,000.00 per month
Video: $200,000.00

Those are typical expenses for a brand new band. Those expenses are further exacerbated by successful bands. These figures don't even take into account Publishing Advances (which may be as low as $150k and as high as $1 million).

I've detailed this information over and over and over again. While the actual cost of MANUFACTURING is less than $2.00, in no way, shape or form does a CD cost $2.00
Would you please stop quoting this piece of trash?
The iggy is a great feature for those of us with low tolerance for the ingorant, but is easily defeated by the quote feature.

[Bowser]

The RIAA is livin on the fortunes they made up until the 90's, and is trying to bleed the turnip dry. Kind of akin to Carl Peterson living on the success of the Joe Montana led Chiefs.

[Fly O.T. McWall]

Would you please stop quoting this piece of trash?
The iggy is a great feature for those of us with low tolerance for the ingorant, but is easily defeated by the quote feature.
try cpiggy.

[DaneMcCloud]

The "industry" needs to realize that the culture has changed. A lot of the people that started burning CD's and stealing music were the same ones that had dual cassette ghetto blasters, and started dubbing tapes in the 80's. Downloading music was a convenience to us and it was stealing, because if we couldn't download it we would have bought the CD.

I started burning CD's in '97, and by '99 through IRC file sharing was at full force. So now you have 5th graders that have never lived in a world without file sharing. The junior high kids that started taking computer classes in 97 are now in college and have never been faced with having to buy a CD. I am not saying that none of them buy cd's, but I bet that 95% of them have shared at least one file, and I know several that have never bought a cd from a store.

The industry had a great scam going on for a long time. Artist puts out a record with 1 good song, they release the only descent song as a single, and the masses would have to buy a cd with an hour of crap just to get a copy of the one good song. People that have never had to do that before, are not going to start doing it now.


Theft is theft is theft. If you don't want the product, DON'T BUY IT.

[DaneMcCloud]

Would you please stop quoting this piece of trash?
The iggy is a great feature for those of us with low tolerance for the ingorant, but is easily defeated by the quote feature.

"Ingorant"? WTF is that? YOU????

I worked in the music industry for 10 YEARS. I know FAR more about the economics and accounting than all of Chiefsplanet COMBINED.

If there's anyone to IGNORE, it's YOU.

[KC Kings]

Theft is theft is theft. If you don't want the product, DON'T BUY IT.

I won't. I have purchased very few CD's over the last few years for 2 reasons. CD's are 90% crap, and 10% good music. Flecktones ans Trans-Siberian Orchestra are the only CD's I can think of that I bought in the last year. If I can't find it to download, I am not going to listen to it. I don't go to concerts, but I would like to see a poll of concert goers to see how many in attendence actually own a legal copy of the music that the artist has produced. File sharing might decrease money in the form of CD's, but it increases exposure and fan base which leads to more concert ticket sales.

To me, most music is like The Bronx pizza. I won't go stand in line and pay for, but if there are left overs in the break room I will gladly have a slice. I won't go stand in line to pay for a CD, but if I can find an extra floating around I will listen to it for a while.

BTW, the last music that I downloaded was David Matthews and Red Hot Chili Peppers. Both of these artist's songs were on CD's that I had already purchased, but Dave Matthews was scratched beyond repair, and RHCP had been played so much over the last 10 years that the reflective paint had started to bubble off in certain places. Not only is most music over priced and full of 90% crap music, it is also sold on non-durable media.

[KC Dan]

Theft is theft is theft. If you don't want the product, DON'T BUY IT.
I agree that burning cd's and giving them to others is stealing. But, please help me to understand that putting a cd on an mp3 player or on my personal computer so I can listen while on the road is stealing? If I purchase a cd with MY money, I have the right to do whatever I want with it short of copying and giving to others. If I want to shove it up my arse, I can do it. I understand file sharing online and burning cd copies but putting on an mp3 player or personal computer for personal use is my decision not these friggin' millionaires.

[Bob Dole]

Bunch of BS. If I buy a CD in a store or from iTunes, I have the right to listen to it on whichever device I choose. When I purchased it I also purchased a license to "listen to it". That license should not apply to what I listen to it on. As long as I am not sharing it they can STFU

What if you're listening to the digital copy on your iPod while someone else in your house is listening to the original CD?

[KC Kings]

"Ingorant"? WTF is that? YOU????

I worked in the music industry for 10 YEARS. I know FAR more about the economics and accounting than all of Chiefsplanet COMBINED.

If there's anyone to IGNORE, it's YOU.


Really? What albums did you work on?


Want a copy of them?

[memyselfI]

Oh joy, our resident dinosaur is here spewing RIAA propaganda. Perhaps he should stop drinking the Kool-ade and start doing some research because he's on the verge of extinction...none too soon.


http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/magazine/16-01/ff_byrne?currentPage=all

http://www.fool.com/investing/high-growth/2007/10/10/the-music-industrys-downward-spiral.aspx

http://www.news.com/British-music-industry-boosted-by-online-sales/2100-1026_3-6224469.html

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1576538/20071214/madonna.jhtml

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20057685_20057687_20153007,00.html

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=4501185

[KC Kings]

What if you're listening to the digital copy on your iPod while someone else in your house is listening to the original CD?
You are a thief and a sinner.

It is a shame that Windows Vista Media center is designed to do exactly what they want to stop.

[Inspector]

The reality is that record labels are not needed any longer to sell music. If he's missing out on $$$ it's because he's using old means of selling new music and NOT because of technology.

Not sure if they are doing anything different than in the past. Their first release with Epic won't come out until April so we'll see.

From what he says they'll probably make the real money with the live performances and with selling music to movies, TV shows and commercials.

This is going to be an interesting year, that's for sure.

[DaneMcCloud]

I won't. I have purchased very few CD's over the last few years for 2 reasons. CD's are 90% crap, and 10% good music. Flecktones ans Trans-Siberian Orchestra are the only CD's I can think of that I bought in the last year. If I can't find it to download, I am not going to listen to it. I don't go to concerts, but I would like to see a poll of concert goers to see how many in attendence actually own a legal copy of the music that the artist has produced. File sharing might decrease money in the form of CD's, but it increases exposure and fan base which leads to more concert ticket sales.

To me, most music is like The Bronx pizza. I won't go stand in line and pay for, but if there are left overs in the break room I will gladly have a slice. I won't go stand in line to pay for a CD, but if I can find an extra floating around I will listen to it for a while.

BTW, the last music that I downloaded was David Matthews and Red Hot Chili Peppers. Both of these artist's songs were on CD's that I had already purchased, but Dave Matthews was scratched beyond repair, and RHCP had been played so much over the last 10 years that the reflective paint had started to bubble off in certain places. Not only is most music over priced and full of 90% crap music, it is also sold on non-durable media.

Good for you!

Trust me, I've detailed here and on the old Kansas City Star board how I had sat in meetings with record company and publishing execs, warning them about the future. I argued that people would crack any DRM, that viruses would be attached to mp3's (eventually, spyware) and so on and so forth. No one listened.

Now, while I don't feel any pity, whatsoever, for the music companies, I do feel it for people like Inpector's son. There are almost two full generations of people who feel that music should be FREE, because it's been illegally available for over a decade via the internet. The only people that are truly hurt in this scenario the Artists themselves.

Without the revenues from CD sales, most of these bands just go away after one album. And even though it's debatable due to musical taste, the reason why so much music "sucks" these days is because unlike the 60's and 70's where artists were allowed to "grow", today it's One And Done. So if the first record doesn't sell 500,000 copies, more than likely, you'll never hear from that band again.

It's a sad state of affairs. And I don't know the answer.

[DaneMcCloud]

Oh joy, our resident dinosaur is here spewing RIAA propaganda. Perhaps he should stop drinking the Kool-ade and start doing some research because he's on the verge of extinction...none too soon.


http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/magazine/16-01/ff_byrne?currentPage=all

http://www.fool.com/investing/high-growth/2007/10/10/the-music-industrys-downward-spiral.aspx

http://www.news.com/British-music-industry-boosted-by-online-sales/2100-1026_3-6224469.html

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1576538/20071214/madonna.jhtml

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0Hello - commatard on the loose.20057685_20057687_20153007,00.html

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=4501185

I don't need to read any thread to know that you're completely full of shit.

[Baby Lee]

"Ingorant"? WTF is that? YOU????

I worked in the music industry for 10 YEARS. I know FAR more about the economics and accounting than all of Chiefsplanet COMBINED.

If there's anyone to IGNORE, it's YOU.
He's talking about the guy you quoted, not you.

[DaneMcCloud]

I agree that burning cd's and giving them to others is stealing. But, please help me to understand that putting a cd on an mp3 player or on my personal computer so I can listen while on the road is stealing? If I purchase a cd with MY money, I have the right to do whatever I want with it short of copying and giving to others. If I want to shove it up my arse, I can do it. I understand file sharing online and burning cd copies but putting on an mp3 player or personal computer for personal use is my decision not these friggin' millionaires.

I didn't say that is was illegal to do so. Please read post 44:

RIAA not suing over CD ripping, still kinda being jerks about it

Okay, so we've done some digging into the RIAA's lawsuit against Jeffery Howell, in which the industry is claiming that ripped MP3s are "unauthorized copies," and it turns out that Jeffery isn't actually being sued for ripping CDs, like the Washington Post and several other sources have reported, but for plain old illegal downloading.

As we're all unfortunately aware, that's pretty standard stuff; the big change from previous downloading cases is the RIAA's newfound aggressiveness in calling MP3s ripped from legally owned CDs "unauthorized copies" -- something it's been doing quietly for a while, but now it looks like the gloves are off.

While there's a pretty good argument for the legality of ripping under the market factor of fair use, it's never actually been ruled as such by a judge -- so paradoxically, the RIAA might be shooting itself in the foot here, because a judge wouldn't ever rule on it unless they argue that it's illegal. Looks like someone may end up being too clever for their own good, eh?[/QUOTE]

[memyselfI]

Not sure if they are doing anything different than in the past. Their first release with Epic won't come out until April so we'll see.

From what he says they'll probably make the real money with the live performances and with selling music to movies, TV shows and commercials.

This is going to be an interesting year, that's for sure.

Did they try to release a CD without a label?

It's possible to publish CDs without a label. A band I know has had their music in two different indie movies. Yes, they have a connection with the movie producer but music/entertainment industry is all about connections and it used to be you needed a label to make them for you. Now you don't.

I wish your son luck. It's exciting regardless of the label/industry debate.

[Bowser]

Good for you!

Trust me, I've detailed here and on the old Kansas City Star board how I had sat in meetings with record company and publishing execs, warning them about the future. I argued that people would crack any DRM, that viruses would be attached to mp3's (eventually, spyware) and so on and so forth. No one listened.

Now, while I don't feel any pity, whatsoever, for the music companies, I do feel it for people like Inpector's son. There are almost two full generations of people who feel that music should be FREE, because it's been illegally available for over a decade via the internet. The only people that are truly hurt in this scenario the Artists themselves.

Without the revenues from CD sales, most of these bands just go away after one album. And even though it's debatable due to musical taste, the reason why so much music "sucks" these days is because unlike the 60's and 70's where artists were allowed to "grow", today it's One And Done. So if the first record doesn't sell 500,000 copies, more than likely, you'll never hear from that band again.

It's a sad state of affairs. And I don't know the answer.

So basically, the arrogance of the music industry has them where they are now, and here they are scrambling trying to throw their muscle around to get people to fall into lock step with what they want. I don't feel sorry for them.

And you're right about the one and done thing. It's seemingly the goal of (some) of these artists these days.

[Inspector]

Good for you!

Trust me, I've detailed here and on the old Kansas City Star board how I had sat in meetings with record company and publishing execs, warning them about the future. I argued that people would crack any DRM, that viruses would be attached to mp3's (eventually, spyware) and so on and so forth. No one listened.

Now, while I don't feel any pity, whatsoever, for the music companies, I do feel it for people like Inpector's son. There are almost two full generations of people who feel that music should be FREE, because it's been illegally available for over a decade via the internet. The only people that are truly hurt in this scenario the Artists themselves.

Without the revenues from CD sales, most of these bands just go away after one album. And even though it's debatable due to musical taste, the reason why so much music "sucks" these days is because unlike the 60's and 70's where artists were allowed to "grow", today it's One And Done. So if the first record doesn't sell 500,000 copies, more than likely, you'll never hear from that band again.

It's a sad state of affairs. And I don't know the answer.

They are working with a guy named Mike Flynn with Epic records. Do you know him? Is he any good?

The way I understand this stuff, it all "sounds" good...but who knows....

I just hope he can make a living with this band.

[DaneMcCloud]

Really? What albums did you work on?


Want a copy of them?


ROFL

I think I've got copies of everything that I really wanted that I was associated with during my time in the business.

Though I would like to have my cassette copy of Alanis Morrisette's "Jagged Little Pill" still, just so I have something that's of no value to me to destroy if I'm ever in a bad mood. :p

[memyselfI]

I don't need to read any thread to know that you're completely full of shit.

And I don't need a crystal ball to know you are in an industry that will not be around in 10-15 years...

Long live the artist. The record companies can eat sh*t and die a long overdue death.

[memyselfI]

So basically, the arrogance of the music industry has them where they are now, and here they are scrambling trying to throw their muscle around to get people to fall into lock step with what they want. I don't feel sorry for them.

And you're right about the one and done thing. It's seemingly the goal of (some) of these artists these days.

Yes, that is why the trend is to avoid signing with a label that will control you artistically and take your money but drop you like a hot potato if you are not a success off the bat.

The internet, not downloading music, killed the record companies. It made marketing of music available to ANYONE without signing your life or rights away to a record company.

[DaneMcCloud]

They are working with a guy named Mike Flynn with Epic records. Do you know him? Is he any good?

The way I understand this stuff, it all "sounds" good...but who knows....

I just hope he can make a living with this band.

Inspector,

I don't know Mike Flynn. I left that side of the 'Biz in 2003 and while I have many friends throughout the industry, the number of people still working in that business is dwindling. Sales, economics and mergers have really changed the business, in a negative way. The last company that I worked for was sold to Sony for $400 million and 52 GOOD people were left without jobs. It's a shame.

As for your son, truth be told, there are absolutely no guarantees he will sell even 10 records. With all the changes that have occurred at Sony in the past year (most notably, the hiring of Rick Rubin as President of Sony Music), there's a possibility that your son's record may never see the light of day.

In regards to film and television, who is the band's publisher? Who is the band's main songwriter? I noticed that you mentioned they expect money from film and television, but that's paid through publishing and only the composer of the song earns income. It's called Synchronization and the publisher takes 40% of the income derived from film and television placement. Again, that money is only paid to the composer, not the entire band (so more than likely, the drummer will never see a penny from a song that's placed in a film or television program).

As I've said before, good luck to your son.

[Brock]

LOL, they still make CDs?

[DaneMcCloud]

And I don't need a crystal ball to know you are in an industry that will not be around in 10-15 years...

Long live the artist. The record companies can eat sh*t and die a long overdue death.

Really? What's the proof of this ridiculous claim? Who's going to supply the finances for these new bands to record a CD's worth of songs that are actually listenable? Where are you going to find competent music producers and recording studios that are willing to work for free?

You SERIOUSLY don't know WTF you're talking about.

And by the way, Radiohead, after collecting somewhere between $4 & $6 million dollars for distributing limited bandwidth mp3 files are now releasing a what? CD for sale at $19.99 through what? A record label.

[DaneMcCloud]

Yes, that is why the trend is to avoid signing with a label that will control you artistically and take your money but drop you like a hot potato if you are not a success off the bat.

Well according to you, a band doesn't need a label so who cares if they're dropped?

[Bob Dole]

Did they try to release a CD without a label?


Bob Dole bought it off iTunes. (And burned a copy to CD to play in the car.)

[KC Dan]

Bob Dole bought it off iTunes. (And burned a copy to CD to play in the car.)
LAWBREAKER!!! Don't look behind you! It's the RIAA!!! Run!

[chasedude]

LOL, they still make CDs?

Yeah they put on a fantastic light show when you put them in a microwave. :p

[memyselfI]

They are working with a guy named Mike Flynn with Epic records. Do you know him? Is he any good?

The way I understand this stuff, it all "sounds" good...but who knows....

I just hope he can make a living with this band.


Please read this article by an independent producer who has some experience in the industry. Not all of them are shills for the RIAA like are friend Dino Dane.

http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

Here is a rather long essay offering a comprehensive look at the situation:

http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue12_8/frost/index.html

[Bowser]

Bob Dole bought it off iTunes. (And burned a copy to CD to play in the car.)

Street thug!

[DaneMcCloud]

Please read this article by an independent producer who has some experience in the industry. Not all of them are shills for the RIAA like are friend Dino Dane.

http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

Hey Denise,

Kick my f*cking ass.

I NEVER worked for the RIAA, nor do I condone their practices. I worked in MUSIC PUBLISHING, which represents the songwriter and composer interests. Just because I KNOW FIRST HAND the accounting practices of the record labels doesn't mean that I'm a "shill".

As for Steve, I only have good things to say about him (and yes, I am well acquainted with him, his work and have corresponded with him on several occassions).

And FWIW, ANYONE who is offered a Deal Memo should immediately consult with a qualified music attorney.

Being stupid isn't an excuse.

[Fly O.T. McWall]

Please read this article by an independent producer who has some experience in the industry. Not all of them are shills for the RIAA like are friend Dino Dane.

http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

Here is a rather long essay offering a comprehensive look at the situation:

http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue12_8/frost/index.html
no wonder half the board has you on iggy. sheesh.

[memyselfI]

Hey Denise,

Kick my f*cking ass.

I NEVER worked for the RIAA, nor do I condone their practices. I worked in MUSIC PUBLISHING, which represents the songwriter and composer interests. Just because I KNOW FIRST HAND the accounting practices of the record labels doesn't mean that I'm a "shill".

As for Steve, I only have good things to say about him (and yes, I am well acquainted with him, his work and have corresponded with him on several occassions).

And FWIW, ANYONE who is offered a Deal Memo should immediately consult with a qualified music attorney.

Being stupid isn't an excuse.


Wow, I hit a nerve. ROFL

[DaneMcCloud]

Wow, I hit a nerve. ROFL

No, you're just uneducated dumbass who's not worthy of my time.

[Baby Lee]

Hey Denise,

Kick my f*cking ass.
Strangest retort in while.

[Inspector]

Inspector,

I don't know Mike Flynn. I left that side of the 'Biz in 2003 and while I have many friends throughout the industry, the number of people still working in that business is dwindling. Sales, economics and mergers have really changed the business, in a negative way. The last company that I worked for was sold to Sony for $400 million and 52 GOOD people were left without jobs. It's a shame.

As for your son, truth be told, there are absolutely no guarantees he will sell even 10 records. With all the changes that have occurred at Sony in the past year (most notably, the hiring of Rick Rubin as President of Sony Music), there's a possibility that your son's record may never see the light of day.

In regards to film and television, who is the band's publisher? Who is the band's main songwriter? I noticed that you mentioned they expect money from film and television, but that's paid through publishing and only the composer of the song earns income. It's called Synchronization and the publisher takes 40% of the income derived from film and television placement. Again, that money is only paid to the composer, not the entire band (so more than likely, the drummer will never see a penny from a song that's placed in a film or television program).

As I've said before, good luck to your son.

Thanks for the info. All 4 of them are listed as the composers of their music. He told me who the publisher is but I can't remember. Same with the management team they recently signed with. My memory is pretty lousy (old age, I guess...)

I guess we'll just keep our fingers crossed and hope for the best. They have a 2 record deal so maybe between the two something good will happen.

Even if it's a total flop, it's sure been a lot of fun watching this all unfold.

Thanks for the kind words.

[Inspector]

Did they try to release a CD without a label?

It's possible to publish CDs without a label. A band I know has had their music in two different indie movies. Yes, they have a connection with the movie producer but music/entertainment industry is all about connections and it used to be you needed a label to make them for you. Now you don't.

I wish your son luck. It's exciting regardless of the label/industry debate.

Their next CD is their 3rd. The first 2 were with an independent.

Yeah, seems like th emusic business is like a lot of businesses. Connections are key.

Thanks Denise for wishing them luck. I appreciate it.

[Lzen]

Heh. This is kind of funny. I know the popular thing to do around here is to bash denise. Believe me when I say that I am usually on the opposite side of debates/arguments in which she is involved. This time, however, I don't think she is all that wrong. Sry, but I'm not buying all of the recording industry's or dane's BS.

[Iowanian]

downloading music has ruined many musicians lives

Heroin, whiskey, cocain, anal sex, ex wives and loaded shotguns have left more of them dead and bloated than a 14 year old listening to a Tiffany song she never knew was out there.

[Demonpenz]

Heh. This is kind of funny. I know the popular thing to do around here is to bash denise. Believe me when I say that I am usually on the opposite side of debates/arguments in which she is involved. This time, however, I don't think she is all that wrong. Sry, but I'm not buying all of the recording industry's or dane's BS.


If your not BUYING YOU ARE STEALING!

[memyselfI]

If your not BUYING YOU ARE STEALING!

Someone needs alittle help reading. None of us are talking about downloading music from a torrent or Limewire. The article states the RIAA is trying to make uploading a CD you have purchased and own to be the same as stealing one. If you bought it then you should own it. What you do should be none of the damn business of the RIAA or anyone as long as you are not copying and reselling that CD, IMO.

Are you saying that in order for you to have it in digital form on your computer you should have to purchase it again in a digital format? Fine, let the RIAA box themselves into this corner. I think this will hasten their demise. As no one will buy CDs any longer and everyone will seek to purchase music online so they can have the ability to upload it to their Ipods.

[chasedude]

What about buying Used CD's? Would this fall under the same thing? None of the profits from the second sale are going to go to the artist/producer/label.

[Mr. Laz]

Theft is theft is theft. If you don't want the product, DON'T BUY IT.

[Mr. Laz]

If your not BUYING YOU ARE STEALING!

[Eleazar]

I understand why the record companies would not want you digitizing your music. They want what they want - your money - no matter what they have to do to get it.

Just like the file sharing folks want what they want - the music - no matter what they have to do to get it, including what's pretty clearly illegal.

Both sides resemble each other a lot more than they would like to admit.

[Demonpenz]

i don't know how some of you people sleep at night. I know you probably never picked up a guitar or drumkit or you would know how hard it is being professional musicians some of my friends have lived off of food stamps for years trying to make ends meet

[memyselfI]

What about buying Used CD's? Would this fall under the same thing? None of the profits from the second sale are going to go to the artist/producer/label.

Oh, the slime at the RIAA have been targeting this area as well. I think it's just been under the radar because it impacts far less people than online music does.

http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/content_display/industry/e3i9ebf2d8ce6fd1e267bac18d43959ac24

[Mr. Laz]

i don't know how some of you people sleep at night. I know you probably never picked up a guitar or drumkit or you would know how hard it is being professional musicians some of my friends have lived off of food stamps for years trying to make ends meet
ROFL

[Valiant]

Very concerning.

My youngest son is a recording artist with Epic records and I am concerned how this stuff could effect his livelihood in the future.

He did tell me that the bigger money comes from the tours nowadays, especially the large venues, due to the ease of copying or "stealing" it (as some might say). But I'd hate to see him miss out on any $$ he may have earned because of technology. The kid has worked his butt off to achieve what he has and sometimes I feel like he deserves to be able to make a living from it like anyone else who works hard.

I can see this issue from both sides.


Not really any.. Because people that were downloading it were not going to pay for it anyway.. There is not net loss for you, your son will not be out any money as they were not customers anyway..

Now what you should advise your son to do is make the cd's/downloads affordable and many more people will buy them.. Maybe have a buyitnow button on his myspace page to download the songs...

But like you said almost all the money made now is through live shows..


And with the internet it is easier to network and advertise your product..

[patteeu]

i don't know how some of you people sleep at night. I know you probably never picked up a guitar or drumkit or you would know how hard it is being professional musicians some of my friends have lived off of food stamps for years trying to make ends meet

Starving artists make the best art. Have you heard Metallica lately?

[memyselfI]

i don't know how some of you people sleep at night. I know you probably never picked up a guitar or drumkit or you would know how hard it is being professional musicians some of my friends have lived off of food stamps for years trying to make ends meet

I have musician family members. One of which hopes to make a go of it in the music industry. He's smart enough to know the old model isn't working and thus will have to make a name for himself without a major label and more importantly that his music aspirations are PLAN B. He's going to have a real job because the odds are against him making a career of it no matter how hard he works.

This is the new generation of musicians and artists. They've grown up seeing the demise of the music industry and have made themselves aware of the pitfalls of their predecessors lest they follow the same dead ends. They've also used the technology that the RIAA has tried to stifle. They know they must find ways to make that technology work for them because they've seen what trying to stop it has accomplished.

[memyselfI]

Not really any.. Because people that were downloading it were not going to pay for it anyway.. There is not net loss for you, your son will not be out any money as they were not customers anyway..

Now what you should advise your son to do is make the cd's/downloads affordable and many more people will buy them.. Maybe have a buyitnow button on his myspace page to download the songs...

But like you said almost all the money made now is through live shows..

This is where the music industry should be focusing their efforts. I mean, my God, how many hundreds of thousands of dollars do they lose on resale of tickets through brokers and scalpers. If an artist loses a few bucks on a cd that is downloaded then then must lose hundreds on tickets that are sold for ten to 100 times their face value.

If this trend continues they are going to price most people out of the live shows.

[Valiant]

You really cannot compare the two generations of music artists and companies and how they made money off of cd sales.. It is two completely different things now..


It is like comparing records of NFL stats from the 50's to now..

[chasedude]

i don't know how some of you people sleep at night. I know you probably never picked up a guitar or drumkit or you would know how hard it is being professional musicians some of my friends have lived off of food stamps for years trying to make ends meet

They couldn't get other jobs? Did they just sit around playing all day living off the gov't tit?

Every industry has its pitfalls and the music biz is one. I'm sure every kid that picked up the guitar fantasized about making it big, reality sets in though. Hell, I wanted to be the next John Bonham but I grew up.

[memyselfI]

You really cannot compare the two generations of music artists and companies and how they made money off of cd sales.. It is two completely different things now..


It is like comparing records of NFL stats from the 50's to now..

I agree with you if you are referencing trying to apply an old model to today's market. It doesn't work and the music industry has suffered because of it.

[DaneMcCloud]

Someone needs alittle help reading. None of us are talking about downloading music from a torrent or Limewire. The article states the RIAA is trying to make uploading a CD you have purchased and own to be the same as stealing one. If you bought it then you should own it. What you do should be none of the damn business of the RIAA or anyone as long as you are not copying and reselling that CD, IMO.

Are you saying that in order for you to have it in digital form on your computer you should have to purchase it again in a digital format? Fine, let the RIAA box themselves into this corner. I think this will hasten their demise. As no one will buy CDs any longer and everyone will seek to purchase music online so they can have the ability to upload it to their Ipods.

And ONCE AGAIN, you didn't read the article that I linked. ALL of the information about this case as reported by the news outlets (Washington Post, CNN, etc.) are WRONG.

This particular case involves ILLEGAL downloads.

But go ahead, ignore it so you can spew your ridiculous venom.

[Demonpenz]

They couldn't get other jobs? Did they just sit around playing all day living off the gov't tit?

Every industry has its pitfalls and the music biz is one. I'm sure every kid that picked up the guitar fantasized about making it big, reality sets in though. Hell, I wanted to be the next John Bonham but I grew up.


they can't really have a job because they play on different street corners of cities

[DaneMcCloud]

Heh. This is kind of funny. I know the popular thing to do around here is to bash denise. Believe me when I say that I am usually on the opposite side of debates/arguments in which she is involved. This time, however, I don't think she is all that wrong. Sry, but I'm not buying all of the recording industry's or dane's BS.

As a supposed "musician", I hope you're not this dumb in regards to your band finances.

Or did you always play for free?

[chasedude]

they can't really have a job because they play on different street corners of cities

:hmmm: "You reap what you sow"

[memyselfI]

And ONCE AGAIN, you didn't read the article that I linked. ALL of the information about this case as reported by the news outlets (Washington Post, CNN, etc.) are WRONG.

This particular case involves ILLEGAL downloads.

But go ahead, ignore it so you can spew your ridiculous venom.


Actually, you didn't read your own article because it states that though the RIAA is not suing this particular person for ripping in this particular case, it HAS maintained that doing so is stealing. The link is contained within the article you posted.

http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/04/sony-bmgs-head-lawyer-says-ripping-cds-is-stealing/

Article about Jennifer Pariser's testimony:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071002-sony-bmgs-chief-anti-piracy-lawyer-copying-music-you-own-is-stealing.html

[Demonpenz]

:hmmm: "You reap what you sow"


unless of course thieves steal what you reap

[DaneMcCloud]

Does your idiocy NEVER end? Seriously? W.T.F?

I have musician family members. One of which hopes to make a go of it in the music industry. He's smart enough to know the old model isn't working and thus will have to make a name for himself without a major label and more importantly that his music aspirations are PLAN B. He's going to have a real job because the odds are against him making a career of it no matter how hard he works.

Hey Dipshit, this has ALWAYS been the case. The music business is completely LITTERED with talented singers and songwriters who NEVER sold two records. The likelihood of getting signed, IN ANY ERA, let alone having any modicum of success is about 10 million to one. REGARDLESS of talent.

If you're offered a chance to work for GM or Fred's Motors, who are you going to choose? IF your "family" members have ANY talent and are lucky enough to be faced with that choice, can you honestly say with a straight face they'd choose some nameless Indie label over Sony Music?? Seriously?

This is the new generation of musicians and artists. They've grown up seeing the demise of the music industry and have made themselves aware of the pitfalls of their predecessors lest they follow the same dead ends. They've also used the technology that the RIAA has tried to stifle. They know they must find ways to make that technology work for them because they've seen what trying to stop it has accomplished.

ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL

New era? Ever heard of the 80's? Motley Crue, Poison, Ratt, Dokken, Warrant, Guns N Roses, LA Guns or any of one hundred other bands signed in the 80's? Do you have ANY idea how they were found or signed?

They recorded demos, released independent albums and plastered Hollywood with band flyers, posters and PAID to play in the clubs, just to get noticed.

Just because the internet allows people to share their music worldwide doesn't mean that successful bands haven't been doing the same exact type of marketing over the years to be successful.

[DaneMcCloud]

Actually, you didn't read your own article because it states that though the RIAA is not suing this particular person for ripping in this particular case, it HAS maintained that doing so is stealing. The link is contained within the article you posted.

http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/04/sony-bmgs-head-lawyer-says-ripping-cds-is-stealing/

Article about Jennifer Pariser's testimony:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071002-sony-bmgs-chief-anti-piracy-lawyer-copying-music-you-own-is-stealing.html

Look at the date: That was OCTOBER. Not December 29th.

And until this trial goes to court, NO ONE will know exactly what the RIAA is claiming. Additionally, as I mentioned earlier, the courts NEED to rule on what's legal and what's illegal regarding fair use of purchased music.

Once that's been determined by the courts, the issue can be settled. Until then, it's just a lot of rhetoric by ill-informed people.

[Bob Dole]

Not really any.. Because people that were downloading it were not going to pay for it anyway.. There is not net loss for you, your son will not be out any money as they were not customers anyway..

Now what you should advise your son to do is make the cd's/downloads affordable and many more people will buy them.. Maybe have a buyitnow button on his myspace page to download the songs...

But like you said almost all the money made now is through live shows..


And with the internet it is easier to network and advertise your product..

Okay.

Click Here (http://www.bluecollardistro.com/secondnaturerecordings/product_info.php?products_id=970&cPath=80_202&store=) and buy it. (Or you could go to their myspace page and click the same link.)

[Inspector]

Not really any.. Because people that were downloading it were not going to pay for it anyway.. There is not net loss for you, your son will not be out any money as they were not customers anyway..

Now what you should advise your son to do is make the cd's/downloads affordable and many more people will buy them.. Maybe have a buyitnow button on his myspace page to download the songs...

But like you said almost all the money made now is through live shows..


And with the internet it is easier to network and advertise your product..

Yeah, their MySpace page has a link to buy their "old" (previous) CD. But it was with an indie label. Not sure if that will change or not.

Lots of the folks on here know a lot more about this stuff than me. This is giving me a little education.

[|Zach|]

Vedera represent!

[Mr. Laz]

i don't know how some of you people sleep at night. I know you probably never picked up a guitar or drumkit or you would know how hard it is being professional musicians some of my friends have lived off of food stamps for years trying to make ends meet
tell your lazy ass friends to get real jobs and stop stealing taxpayer's money.

[Demonpenz]

vedera is pretty sweet. i like them better than paramore

[Inspector]

Okay.

Click Here (http://www.bluecollardistro.com/secondnaturerecordings/product_info.php?products_id=970&cPath=80_202&store=) and buy it. (Or you could go to their myspace page and click the same link.)

Wow, thanks Mr. Dole.

Hope you enjoyed this one. It's actually a few years old. They were just kids. Still are really. My son is the oldest and he's just turning 26 next month. Kristin was only about 20 or so when they recorded Weight Of An Empty Room. Heck, Drew, the drummer, just graduated in 05 or 06.

I've only heard a few of the songs coming out in April. I'm really pumped. I love their muisc. I'm not only the bass guitar players dad, I'm a HUGE fan of their sound.

Thanks for your support! I appreciate it!

[Inspector]

Rep to the Vedera fans!!

I appreciate all you guys.

[Demonpenz]

When people try to hate on chick lead singers I have been pimping vedera they will do fine

[kcfanXIII]

i don't know how some of you people sleep at night. I know you probably never picked up a guitar or drumkit or you would know how hard it is being professional musicians some of my friends have lived off of food stamps for years trying to make ends meet


tell the lazy bums to get ****ing jobs, and quit living off the government. or better yet, consider the profit they're losing from my downloading their music, payback with interest on the loan that real HARD working americans floated them while they "chased their dream." ****ing foodstamps.

i can deal with music industry people calling me a thief, but when you start whining about shit like this you totally lose any support i have for your side of the argument.

and yes, i've been involved in music. played bass, and was a good friend of mine's tech. set up amplifiers and other stage shit for him.

[Bob Dole]

Wow, thanks Mr. Dole.

Hope you enjoyed this one. It's actually a few years old. They were just kids. Still are really. My son is the oldest and he's just turning 26 next month. Kristin was only about 20 or so when they recorded Weight Of An Empty Room. Heck, Drew, the drummer, just graduated in 05 or 06.

I've only heard a few of the songs coming out in April. I'm really pumped. I love their muisc. I'm not only the bass guitar players dad, I'm a HUGE fan of their sound.

Thanks for your support! I appreciate it!

The band actually came up in a conversation with a friend's wife a few weeks back. I'm not sure she doesn't want their band to cover one of the songs off that first CD.

And HERE (http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?id=73057521&s=143441) is the link in the iTunes Music Store. :)

[kcfanXIII]

alright, this thread was interesting enough, but i'm gonna clean the house now. while listening to illegally downloaded music through my PC.

[memyselfI]

alright, this thread was interesting enough, but i'm gonna clean the house now. while listening to illegally downloaded music through my PC.

What I wish would happen is that these record companies would offer their catalogs for download for a reasonable price. I have a 300+ hundred albums and at least that many tapes rotting in my basement because I refuse to purchase most of it again. I've repurchased that which I cannot live without and have downloaded a song or two that I loved but lived through buying the entire crappy album the first time and was not about to make that same mistake again.

I own the music. It's downstairs if the RIAA wants to come and see it. I just will not buy an entire Wham CD when I loved one song, same for Barry Manilow, Gino Vanelli or any other song I loved 20-30 years ago and actually wasted the money once on an album I'd never purchase again.

[DaneMcCloud]

I own the music.

Herein lies the problem:

You DO NOT own the music

You own a licensed COPY of the music that was distributed by said record company. 99% of the time, the Record Company owns the Master Recordings and the Publisher OWNS the copyright.

Unless you are the copyright holder or the owner of the Master Recordings, YOU do not OWN the music.

Did you complain when Star Wars came out on DVD, even though you owned a VCR version? Did you make a fuss about "needing" to purchase it for a different format?

WTF is wrong with you?

[memyselfI]

Herein lies the problem:

You DO NOT own the music

You own a licensed COPY of the music that was distributed by said record company. 99% of the time, the Record Company owns the Master Recordings and the Publisher OWNS the copyright.

Unless you are the copyright holder or the owner of the Master Recordings, YOU do not OWN the music.

Did you complain when Star Wars came out on DVD, even though you owned a VCR version? Did you make a fuss about "needing" to purchase it for a different format?

WTF is wrong with you?

No, I bought the new Star Wars on DVD because my kids want it. But again, I have HUNDREDS of videos on VCR that I have not purchased because I don't love them enough to buy them again. If it were easier to download them I would do it as well. But then, a movie is an entire piece of work. Like an entire CD would be.

I'm talking downloading songs. But that is why the RIAA doesn't want you to be able to download just songs instead of buying an entire piece of crap CD.

I own the music in that I purchased it once. To me, that was plenty enough times. If the format is change it's not my fault. I should not have to repurchase the same material ten times. And I don't. Thus, those artists are not losing a dime from me because I do not intend to repurchase their music ever again. I have it in boxes in my basement. I might purchase one or two of their songs if given the option.

[Mr. Laz]

Herein lies the problem:

You DO NOT own the music

You own a licensed COPY of the music that was distributed by said record company. 99% of the time, the Record Company owns the Master Recordings and the Publisher OWNS the copyright.

Unless you are the copyright holder or the owner of the Master Recordings, YOU do not OWN the music.

Did you complain when Star Wars came out on DVD, even though you owned a VCR version? Did you make a fuss about "needing" to purchase it for a different format?

WTF is wrong with you?
ahh ..... but it wasn't illegal to have a vcr version. I can take that VCR copy and put it any VCR i want and watch it. I can take the VCR copy over to my friend house and let him watch.

As long as i don't "charge" to watch that VCR copy then it's cool



rat bastard RIAA are basically doing they're very best to make everything illegal so they can just rent music to people.

pretty soon they will make you pay "per listen" like some giant jukebox so they can line their pocket with another 100 quintillion dollars.

each CD will have 'mission impossible' timers on them so they self-destruct after you listen to it 3 times unless you send a check to RIAA central.


WTF is wrong with you?

[Adept Havelock]

Herein lies the problem:

You DO NOT own the music

You own a licensed COPY of the music that was distributed by said record company. 99% of the time, the Record Company owns the Master Recordings and the Publisher OWNS the copyright.

Unless you are the copyright holder or the owner of the Master Recordings, YOU do not OWN the music.

Did you complain when Star Wars came out on DVD, even though you owned a VCR version? Did you make a fuss about "needing" to purchase it for a different format?

WTF is wrong with you?

So if I take my Licensed copy of Star Wars on VHS and make a copy to use for playback (so the original is not degraded), that is legal under the courts understanding of "fair use".

I don't mind paying for a DVD, as it's a different quality of product.

Why then is the RIAA claiming it is not legal for me to make a copy of my CD on my computer so the original isn't at risk of being damaged?

Seems to me that's the exact same thing, and it's already covered under "fair use". No matter how much the RIAA whines about it.

Doesn't matter a whit to me either way. I'll continue to digitally archive my music whether they like it or not. That way I can stream it to any room in the house, or burn it to disk for the car. As for the Vynil in my collection, I bought it once and won't buy most of it on CD's because 1) It's not worth it to me for most of it, and 2) A friend already converted most of it to MP3's. Sure, they don't sound as clear as a CD, but that doesn't bother me. For the albums I wanted on CD, I bought them. For most of the rest, my MP3's do just fine.

[DaneMcCloud]

Why then is the RIAA claiming it is not legal for me to make a copy of my CD on my computer so the original isn't at risk of being damaged?

The RIAA is NOT claiming that at this time. I wish the thread starter would make the correction.

It was incorrectly reported by several news agencies. BUT, if they ever try to make that claim, they're completely insane. That would NEVER hold up in a court of law.

Doesn't matter a whit to me either way. I'll continue to digitally archive my music whether they like it or not. That way I can stream it to any room in the house, or burn it to disk for the car. As for the Vynil in my collection, I bought it once and won't buy most of it on CD's because 1) It's not worth it to me for most of it, and 2) A friend already converted most of it to MP3's. Sure, they don't sound as clear as a CD, but that doesn't bother me.

I am in complete agreement.

[DaneMcCloud]

I'm talking downloading songs. But that is why the RIAA doesn't want you to be able to download just songs instead of buying an entire piece of crap CD.

Excuse me? What? Have you heard of iTunes? Amazon? Last time I checked, I was able to download a single song. If the RIAA were against that, then stores like iTunes wouldn't exist.

I own the music in that I purchased it once. To me, that was plenty enough times. If the format is change it's not my fault. I should not have to repurchase the same material ten times. And I don't. Thus, those artists are not losing a dime from me because I do not intend to repurchase their music ever again. I have it in boxes in my basement. I might purchase one or two of their songs if given the option.

YOU DON'T OWN THE MUSIC. PERIOD.

If you want a digital copy, buy a CD or download it LEGALLY.

[memyselfI]

Doesn't matter a whit to me either way. I'll continue to digitally archive my music whether they like it or not. That way I can stream it to any room in the house, or burn it to disk for the car. As for the Vynil in my collection, I bought it once and won't buy most of it on CD's because 1) It's not worth it to me for most of it, and 2) A friend already converted most of it to MP3's. Sure, they don't sound as clear as a CD, but that doesn't bother me. For the albums I wanted, I bought them. For most of the rest, my MP3's do just fine.

Bravo.

This is where the RIAA really screwed themselves, IMO. If they had offered low res MP3 downloads for free or low cost then much of their problems would not have been created. They could have introduced this service BEFORE people got wind of how to do it themselves and created the mindset that obtaining this music was THE way of doing it even if there were other free ways. They would have then had the moral high ground to claim that cheating them out of a dollar was wrong because they OFFERED people a way to obtain music inexpensively. This could have been a marketing bonanza and a great public relations ploy to introduce themselves as purveyors of music for the masses using technology to create lower costs and more variety.

They could make more money buy offering higher res downloads for the audiophiles or those who really wanted CD quality music.

But NOOOOOOOOOO. They clung to antiquated beliefs that has nearly destroyed the industry from which they bottom feed.

[DaneMcCloud]

ahh ..... but it wasn't illegal to have a vcr version. I can take that VCR copy and put it any VCR i want and watch it. I can take the VCR copy over to my friend house and let him watch.

As long as i don't "charge" to watch that VCR copy then it's cool



rat bastard RIAA are basically doing they're very best to make everything illegal so they can just rent music to people.

pretty soon they will make you pay "per listen" like some giant jukebox so they can line their pocket with another 100 quintillion dollars.

each CD will have 'mission impossible' timers on them so they self-destruct after you listen to it 3 times unless you send a check to RIAA central.


WTF is wrong with you?

Dude,

Read the entire thread and read post #44. The trial is about illegal downloading, not whether it's legal or not to store your legally purchased CD's on your own computer.

I don't think there's a judge in the US that would outlaw copying a legally purchased CD to a computer.

[Adept Havelock]

The RIAA is NOT claiming that at this time. I wish the thread starter would make the correction.

The RIAA itself may not be, but some of their members clearly are. SONY-BMG's lead shyster, for one.

http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/04/sony-bmgs-head-lawyer-says-ripping-cds-is-stealing/

Sony BMG's head lawyer says ripping CDs is "stealing"

There's one of them RIAA lawsuits going down in Duluth this week, and Jammie Thomas, the single mother charged with sharing 26 songs on Kazaa, isn't going down without a fight. Yesterday her attorneys called Jennifer Pariser, Sony BMG's head of litigation, to testify before the jury and got her to say some incredibly incendiary things -- not least of which was her opinion that making copies of purchased music is just "a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy.'" That viewpoint, of course, implicates pretty much every single thing consumers do with music and computers, including transferring songs to iPods and Zunes. We're betting there might be a couple jurors on the panel who aren't too fond of Ms. Pariser right now. Might want to check yo'self before you wreck yo'self, counselor.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071002-sony-bmgs-chief-anti-piracy-lawyer-copying-music-you-own-is-stealing.html

Gabriel asked if it was wrong for consumers to make copies of music which they have purchased, even just one copy. Pariser replied, "When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." Making "a copy" of a purchased song is just "a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy'," she said.

:shrug:

BUT, if they ever try to make that claim, they're completely insane. That would NEVER hold up in a court of law.

They've already proven themselves insane by trying to hold on to an obsolete way of doing business.

[memyselfI]

Excuse me? What? Have you heard of iTunes? Amazon? Last time I checked, I was able to download a single song. If the RIAA were against that, then stores like iTunes wouldn't exist.



YOU DON'T OWN THE MUSIC. PERIOD.

If you want a digital copy, buy a CD or download it LEGALLY.

Yes, I've used those services. And stores like that don't exist out of the goodness of the RIAA's heart. They exist reluctantly because of a come to the party late 'can't beat em, join em' realization by the RIAA.

[Baby Lee]

Why then is the RIAA claiming it is not legal for me to make a copy of my CD on my computer so the original isn't at risk of being damaged?
Just playing devils advocate, but the argument is two-fold.
1. You purchased a manifestation of the intellectual property in the form of a CD. As such, you are entitled to enjoyment of what the CD provides, in terms of fidelity and durability. The difficulty is that, for todays ears, CD is as much fidelity as is needed, and digitization makes durability perpetual. Think of it if there were some machine that digitized an operable automobile, and all of the sudden, people were buying new cars and immediately digitizing them, down to the gas in the tank, and they just threw them away when the tank emptied. That's a whole heck of a lot of settled expectations in a number of industries thrown on their ear. It may be unreasonable for the RIAA to both toll the fidelity and perpetuity of the CD format, and for them to bank on CDs degrading and losing fidelity for repeat business, but that was their settled expectation from prior business models.

2. Digitization, especially on a PC, means that there is just a mouse click between copying for personal archival purposes and copying for distribution.

[KCHawg]

Herein lies the problem:

You DO NOT own the music

You own a licensed COPY of the music that was distributed by said record company.



And I'll do with MY MY copy as I damn well please!

[DaneMcCloud]

Bravo.

This is where the RIAA really screwed themselves, IMO. If they had offered low res MP3 downloads for free or low cost then much of their problems would not have been created. They could have introduced this service BEFORE people got wind of how to do it themselves and created the mindset that obtaining this music was THE way of doing it even if there were other free ways. They would have then had the moral high ground to claim that cheating them out of a dollar was wrong because they OFFERED people a way to obtain music inexpensively. This could have been a marketing bonanza and a great public relations ploy to introduce themselves as purveyors of music for the masses using technology to create lower costs and more variety.

They could make more money buy offering higher res downloads for the audiophiles or those who really wanted CD quality music.

But NOOOOOOOOOO. They clung to antiquated beliefs that has nearly destroyed the industry from which they bottom feed.

First off, the RIAA is basically the watchdog of the major labels. They don't make decisions of whether or not to allow downloads, etc.

Secondly, offering low res or cheap downloads in 1997 would have done nothing to curb file sharing. NOTHING.

Music has no value to these people. Offer something for free, people will take it for free. The latest Radiohead record is the PERFECT example. More than 60% of the downloaders took it for free. FREE.

And if people REALLY were interested in paying for downloads, why did Shawn Fanning's company, SnoCap, law off 70% of its workforce? Maybe because unlike Napster, it wasn't free??

Yep, those fans REALLY care about the artist. :rolleyes:

[DaneMcCloud]

The RIAA itself may not be, but some of their members clearly are. SONY-BMG's lead shyster, for one.

http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/04/sony-bmgs-head-lawyer-says-ripping-cds-is-stealing/

Sony BMG's head lawyer says ripping CDs is "stealing"

There's one of them RIAA lawsuits going down in Duluth this week, and Jammie Thomas, the single mother charged with sharing 26 songs on Kazaa, isn't going down without a fight. Yesterday her attorneys called Jennifer Pariser, Sony BMG's head of litigation, to testify before the jury and got her to say some incredibly incendiary things -- not least of which was her opinion that making copies of purchased music is just "a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy.'" That viewpoint, of course, implicates pretty much every single thing consumers do with music and computers, including transferring songs to iPods and Zunes. We're betting there might be a couple jurors on the panel who aren't too fond of Ms. Pariser right now. Might want to check yo'self before you wreck yo'self, counselor.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071002-sony-bmgs-chief-anti-piracy-lawyer-copying-music-you-own-is-stealing.html

Gabriel asked if it was wrong for consumers to make copies of music which they have purchased, even just one copy. Pariser replied, "When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." Making "a copy" of a purchased song is just "a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy'," she said.

:shrug:



They've already proven themselves insane by trying to hold on to an obsolete way of doing business.

Dude, that link is old (October) and wrong. Wrong info.

[Adept Havelock]

Dude, that link is old (October) and wrong. Wrong info.

What part is incorrect?

Jennifer Parsier of Sony-BMG didn't make that claim?

I'm willing to bet the court documents confirm she did.

Perhaps you can prove otherwise, but I seriously doubt it. :shrug:


They only try to enforce the laws set forth by the U.S. government.

Sure, pull the other one. It's got bells on. They are also a lobbying group, and your attempt to pretend otherwise is disingenuous at best.

[DaneMcCloud]

Yes, I've used those services. And stores like that don't exist out of the goodness of the RIAA's heart. They exist reluctantly because of a come to the party late 'can't beat em, join em' realization by the RIAA.

You really don't get this, do you? I mean, not at all, right?

The RIAA isn't above Sony, Universal, Warners or Capitol. They work FOR the labels. The record labels decide what is allowed legally on websites such as iTunes. Otherwise, The Beatles catalog would have been online since day ONE. But, it wasn't.

The RIAA is essentially a watchdog group. They don't make record company policy. They only try to enforce the laws set forth by the U.S. government.

[DaneMcCloud]

So, Jennifer Parsier of Sony-BMG didn't make that claim?

I'm willing to bet the court documents confirm she did. :shrug:

Even if she DID make that claim, there's not a judge in America that would uphold that in a court of law.

It sounds to me like she really overstepped the law.

[memyselfI]

First off, the RIAA is basically the watchdog of the major labels. They don't make decisions of whether or not to allow downloads, etc.

Secondly, offering low res or cheap downloads in 1997 would have done nothing to curb file sharing. NOTHING.

Music has no value to these people. Offer something for free, people will take it for free. The latest Radiohead record is the PERFECT example. More than 60% of the downloaders took it for free. FREE.

And if people REALLY were interested in paying for downloads, why did Shawn Fanning's company, SnoCap, law off 70% of its workforce? Maybe because unlike Napster, it wasn't free??

Yep, those fans REALLY care about the artist. :rolleyes:

I totally disagree about offering downloads in 1997. Back then America was not all that computer savvy. Most people got online via America Online and internet speeds were not as fast as they are today. Hard Drives were huge at a whopping 20 GB.

If people had been introduced to downloading music when the internet was really in it's infancy then we'd know no differently and a generation, perhaps two, would have been downloading music directly from the labels and thinking nothing of a deal of paying .25 cents a song for less than CD quality sounding music. Afterall, back then a download for a single song might have taken an hour via dialup.

It was really all about creating a mindset. The pirates succeeded in creating it because a vaccum was there.

[Adept Havelock]

Even if she DID make that claim, there's not a judge in America that would uphold that in a court of law.

It sounds to me like she really overstepped the law.

And as she is the lead counsel for Sony-BMG, are you going to claim she doesn't know her own company position on the subject? Most of the attorneys I've known are very careful about such statements, and none of them is close to operating on her level. I doubt she just said it for the sake of hearing her gums flap.

These idiots are out of touch, behind the curve, and I'm laughing my ass off at their pain.

Does it suck for the artists? Sure, but they chose to get in bed with that devil. No sympathy here.


They only try to enforce the laws set forth by the U.S. government.

LMAO

Sure, pull the other one. It's got bells on. They are also a lobbying group, and your attempt to pretend otherwise is disingenuous at best. Lobbyists attempt to make policy. Don't insult my intelligence by claiming they only execute it.

[memyselfI]

You really don't get this, do you? I mean, not at all, right?

The RIAA isn't above Sony, Universal, Warners or Capitol. They work FOR the labels. The record labels decide what is allowed legally on websites such as iTunes. Otherwise, The Beatles catalog would have been online since day ONE. But, it wasn't.

The RIAA is essentially a watchdog group. They don't make record company policy. They only try to enforce the laws set forth by the U.S. government.

The RIAA is the face of the recording industry BY CHOICE. Hence, most people know that when you talk about the RIAA you are talking about the record companies without naming them directly or using a million different acronyms.

If it will make YOU feel better I can refer to the labels as RI. But since they are in bed together using the RIAA conveys the disdain that particular agency has come to symbolize without having to s-p-e-l-l it out. At least for those of us outside of the industry and who are tired of their crap.

[DaneMcCloud]

I totally disagree about offering downloads in 1997. Back then America was not all that computer savvy. Most people got online via America Online and internet speeds were not as fast as they are today. Hard Drives were huge at a whopping 20 GB.

If people had been introduced to downloading music when the internet was really in it's infancy then we'd know no differently and a generation, perhaps two, would have been downloading music directly from the labels and thinking nothing of a deal of paying .25 cents a song for less than CD quality sounding music. Afterall, back then a download for a single song might have taken an hour via dialup.

It was really all about creating a mindset. The pirates succeeded in creating it because a vaccum was there.

I totally disagree. There were tens of millions of college students across the world with T1 access on campus that were file sharing. It had nothing to do with the "music business" or pricing - it was FREE.

FREE. Just like all the freakin' idiots at Costco and Sam's that line up for free samples.

Are the free samples really that good at those places? Or do people just like FREE goods?

[DaneMcCloud]

And as she is the lead counsel for Sony-BMG, are you going to claim she doesn't know her own company position on the subject? Most of the attorneys I've known are very careful about such statements, and none of them is close to operating on her level. I doubt she just said it for the sake of hearing her gums flap.

These idiots are out of touch, behind the curve, and I'm laughing my ass off at their pain.

Does it suck for the artists? Sure, but they chose to get in bed with that devil. No sympathy here.



LMAO

Sure, pull the other one. It's got bells on. They are also a lobbying group, and your attempt to pretend otherwise is disingenuous at best. Lobbyists attempt to make policy. Don't insult my intelligence by claiming they only execute it.

Lawyers make outrageous claims in courts every single day. That doesn't make it true, nor does it make it legal. If this particular person was trying to set a legal precedent, I think she failed.

So do employees of other companies "get in bed with the Devil"? Is everyone at Microsoft "Evil"? How about GM?

You lost me.

[listopencil]

FTI!

[Mosbonian]

"Ingorant"? WTF is that? YOU????

I worked in the music industry for 10 YEARS. I know FAR more about the economics and accounting than all of Chiefsplanet COMBINED.

If there's anyone to IGNORE, it's YOU.

So I am assuming my 30 years of Accounting, Credit and Economics is just a waste to your vast knowledge of the real world? :rolleyes: :shake:

mmaddog
*******

[Mosbonian]

The RIAA is NOT claiming that at this time. I wish the thread starter would make the correction.

It was incorrectly reported by several news agencies. BUT, if they ever try to make that claim, they're completely insane. That would NEVER hold up in a court of law.



I am in complete agreement.

Change what? You CANNOT make a valid assertion that the RIAA isn't aiming for that anymore than I can claim they are.

Why not wait until the RIAA plays their hand? But thus far their MO is to try and handcuff as tightly as possible so as to maximize $$'s in their coffers. (BTW I have friends in Finance that work in the recording industries )

mmaddog
*******

[Mosbonian]

Dude,

Read the entire thread and read post #44. The trial is about illegal downloading, not whether it's legal or not to store your legally purchased CD's on your own computer.

I don't think there's a judge in the US that would outlaw copying a legally purchased CD to a computer.

But from the same view, you cannot be sure. No one knows for sure, because the RIAA doesn't want to tip it's hand. But I can say with surety that if the RIAA thought it could successfully argue that it is illegal to do what is inferred at this time, they would do it.

mmaddog
*******

[DaneMcCloud]

So I am assuming my 30 years of Accounting, Credit and Economics is just a waste to your vast knowledge of the real world? :rolleyes: :shake:

mmaddog
*******

Excuse me, I meant the music business.

[DaneMcCloud]

But from the same view, you cannot be sure. No one knows for sure, because the RIAA doesn't want to tip it's hand. But I can say with surety that if the RIAA thought it could successfully argue that it is illegal to do what is inferred at this time, they would do it.

mmaddog
*******

Who can be sure? If this was really argued in a court of law, I'm pretty confident a judge would over-rule those claims.

How would a law of this type even be enforced? I don't think it's possible.

[Sully]

"You wanna know something else that's funny? In 1974, the great Charlie Rich won the award for Country Musician of the Year. Do you know who he had to hand the award over to in 1975? Mr. Sunshine-on-my-goddamn-Shoulders Denver."
"No!"
"I'll be damned if Mr. Rich didn't take out his cigarette lighter and light the award on fire right there in front of everyone. "
"You saying you're going to light my country music award on fire? "
"I'm just saying, when my suspension is up, you better watch your ass. "
"You gonna light my ass on fire?"

This quote brought to you by the non sequitor of the week foundation.

[Halfcan]

The music industry can suck my left nut.