RIAA wins case in Minnesota?

Originally Posted by SuperNova

What I don't understand is how the RIAA is going to survive just suing people into the ground. It creates nothing but bad press for the industry as a whole.

The problem is something of a paradox. If a bad set of beef that has some dangerous amount of e.coli goes out on the market, it stops people from eating hamburgers for a while. But does it kill the entire industry? Of course not - people go right back to consuming.

Its even tougher with media since its a very specific thing. If you want Metallica, you have to deal with the Elektra label, and so on and so forth. Independent labels are nice and dandy - but they don't carry anything heard on the radio past 91.1 on your dial.

Originally Posted by knkwzrd

They only catch idiots, really.

As it should be. While I think that file sharing is stupid as a general principal, you really do have to be fucking stupid to get caught by the RIAA. After all, someone has to really stick out against everyone else on the internet in the entire world.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Monkey King

The RIAA is bleeding millions prosecuting all these cases.

I don't think you're bleeding anything - least of all money - if you're the chief fiscal force behind recorded media in the entire world. They probably have enough money to start a small nation - so throwing it towards what they view as their own best interests is exactly what they should do.

As for "negative publicity", thats a really stupid "internet" line of reasoning. Even the most staunch, stupid middle schooler knows file sharing is illegal. Of course the RIAA is going to do this, since they're in the right.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Slash

I think what he means it that the RIAA is spending millions to watch people, get all their information and stuff like that, then to prosecute and whatnot as well

Thats still not wasting any type of money. They're attempting to save their own ass by prosecuting people who are breaking the law. Besides, every CD bought every day puts money in their pockets. I don't see any of this making them broke at any point in the future.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Yggdrasil

While it is most certainly within the RIAA's rights to sue people for infringing on their copyrights and denying them their very hard earned money, why are they targeting everyday users and not say, the groups that rip and release the pirated music or shut down the servers that host the pirated music?

Because a great deal of these servers are overseas, where the RIAA has limited if any jursidiction over copyright laws. Since they can't shut down material that is hosted in another country, they can certainly shut down the end users (provided they're American).

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Quote:

You don't "lose a sale" to someone with no interest in purchase and no money.

You most certainly do. If they have no money to spend to buy the item but take it anyway, your preventing someone else the chance to purchase it and for the company to make money.

The longer run is that you're hurting the artist. Lets say a new artist with a big CD comes out and everyone torrents it. The CD label suddenly has less revenue to pay their bills, legal fees, staff, insurance - and of course, the artist themselves. And while the arguement that "Dur, most artists don't make money from CDs anyway" (which is only slightly true) - promotion departments won't back an artist who's CD doesn't sell as well - and how do they determine that, boys and girls? Ill give you a hint - its not with a torrent.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Bigblah

And collecting those atoms from many different sources, then reassembling them, is a concept similar to torrenting. Can you see it now?

And a Ferrari dealer slowly goes out of business because fewer and fewer people buy them, while more and more people have them. Supply, demand and all that shit.

As time goes on and more material is Torrented, eventually people will start losing jobs. Recording engineers, graphic designers for album art, agents, contract negotiators and people up and down the line from custodians who clean toilets to CFOs will be unemployed because people can have what they want without having to invest anything into it.

A counter analogy, far more simpler - "Why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free" has been tossed out to countless 18 year old girls by suspecting mothers since time forgotten. And it stands to this day - the fact that you want it doesn't suddenly supersede the fact that can't afford to buy it. I think too many people are focused on their personal wants, as opposed to the function of how the industry works.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Aardark

This is exactly why I love piracy. People losing jobs! Bands going out of business and shitty musicians and producers committing suicide! All because of me, a guy at his computer! I am destroying a whole INDUSTRY without leaving my home. How. fucking. badass. is. that.

And your taste in music has left the classical world stagnant for almost a century.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Smelnick

If I didn't download the music, I still wouldn't go buy the cd. So no loss of sale there.

You're compairing apples and glassware sets.

The fact that you can get it without paying for it is probably the best definition of stealing you can find. The fact that you didn't have intent to pay for it even if you had the money just equates to premeditation to the crime.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Smelnick

I was merely stating that the music industry isn't losing money from my anyhow.

The last time I heard about a "victimless crime" it was in an article from Housatonic University that rape was good for fat women.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Besides, downloading torrent music by artists you like is akin to inviting friends to your house and then robbing them

There's nowhere I can't reach.

That... doesn't make any sense. David Bowie was posting music for free years ago. If the artist wants to distribute something without charge, they probably have to make arrangements with their agent and their label before releasing anything.

That is - if the artist says its free, its free legally.

Most amazing jew boots

That still requires a contract release or some type of legal proceeding where they're no longer affiliated with the label. By the time they told them publically to fuck off - they had probably done it weeks or months before hand. Speaking ill of any record label is highly unprofessional and not unlike cutting your nose off to spite your face.

(On the other hand, Lou Reed got out of contract by fulfilling his album obligation in producing the legendary Machine Music album. The fact that Radiohead seperated denotes that theres more going on than simply a group of hippies disagreeing with a bunch of suits.

Most amazing jew boots