RIAA Suggests MIT Student Drop Out Of School To Pay Fine

neon_glows

The RIAA has made quite the business out of shaking down folks they accuse of uploading music. This has been covered at length before, but they basically send a "settlement offer" with each lawsuit. The offer says (more or less) "pay $3500 and this goes away." They also make it clear that just taking the case to court will likely cost more than $3500 in legal fees, suggesting it's not even worth fighting it -- which in some parts of the world sounds very much like extortion. Plenty of people have done the math and suggested that this little business of suing their biggest fans has turned into a nice little profit center for the industry. Digg is pointing to the case of one woman, a student at MIT, who is trying to talk to the RIAA after being offered just such a settlement. When she points out that she's a poor college student, the RIAA rep kindly suggests that perhaps dropping out of school will make it easier to pay off the fine. Now, from the story, it's unclear whether or not the student is guilty of uploading files. If she did it, then it's certainly her responsibility to face whatever punishment comes her way. However, on the spectrum of punishment fitting the crime, does it seem reasonable to ask a student to give up her college education for the sake of paying off the recording industry for the "crime" of helping others find music they might like?

Dave!

They're trying to make an example and scare people into not downloading

MorningStar

In fairness this is a big threat to the music industry and a college student destroying the livelyhood of other people isn't exactly excusable. We all know people who say "scr*w them they make more money than I do let them prosecute me" . If they get caught they change their minds. Can I point out this is nothing like extortion as the person did do something wrong knowingly and is now being asked to pay for damages casued.
There will be people who are made examples of but that doesn't mean they aren't guilty.

Dragan

Why not just have them pay whatever the relevant artists would have made had the songs been purchased leagally, through one of the websites?????

It would make just a little bit more sense.

Boggle

In fairness this is a big threat to the music industry and a college student destroying the livelyhood of other people isn't exactly excusable

A bit of an overstatement isn't it? Do you honestly think some album with maybe one or two decent songs is worth 20 quid? Uploading music is a natural reaction to this perceived rip-off and the only way to change things is to charge a reasonable price...

Lets face it - I like music but it sickens me to hear these people putting on the poor mouth and then flashing exhorbitant levels of cash around. Greed si finally killing the beast...

CyberGhost

she should use allofmp3 next time.

I hate RIAA, but more than that I hate the music/movie industry, they make millions and billions of money, which they do NOT deserve, why should a celebrity be payed millions? what good do they do to humanity? also today's singers my god bunch of talantless created morons... they don't deserve a cent or a place on a HDD.

Also like Boggle mentioned, 20 quid for a music CD? they don't have real prices that's why people "steal" music, instead of adjusting them, they prefer to keep them and just sue people, if music cds cost 5 euro, there would be a lot less piracy.

Dave!

MorningStar wrote:

In fairness this is a big threat to the music industry and a college student destroying the livelyhood of other people isn't exactly excusable.

It's not destroying the livelihood of the musicians, they don't make they fortune from selling records. If it's destroying anyone's livelihood, it's the record labels, who are only making a living off the musicians themselves. The only purpose they serve is to spread the word (and music) of the artists, so that people go to their shows and buy their merch, and the internet does that to a much greater extent.

astrofool

In China most pop stars make their money from concerts, and make a decent living that way, because everything is pirated there. (i.e. they actually work)

Peteee

astrofool wrote:

In China most pop stars make their money from concerts,

Thats how they make their money here too. Singles are ads for the album, albums are ads for the concerts.

Uploading music is a natural reaction to this perceived rip-off and the only way to change things is to charge a reasonable price...

I'm off to steal a Ferrari. I cant afford it, but hey, thats Ferraris fault for pricing it so high. I dont think it's wrong for me to steal the ferrari cos, well I couldnt afford it anyway, so Ferrari aren't loosing anything, therefore I'm perfectly within my right to take it :rolleyes:

Do you honestly think some album with maybe one or two decent songs is worth 20 quid?

Your listening to the wrong music.

While I agree that music is too expensive, and that most of my music is gotten through 'other' means, saying something is crap and too expenisve is justification for taking it is absurd.

CyberGhost

astrofool wrote:

In China most pop stars make their money from concerts, and make a decent living that way, because everything is pirated there. (i.e. they actually work)

That's the way it should be...

Chucky the tree

Boggle wrote:

A bit of an overstatement isn't it? Do you honestly think some album with maybe one or two decent songs is worth 20 quid? Uploading music is a natural reaction to this perceived rip-off and the only way to change things is to charge a reasonable price...

Lets face it - I like music but it sickens me to hear these people putting on the poor mouth and then flashing exhorbitant levels of cash around. Greed si finally killing the beast...

Why not buy it direct on the artists site? or else on amazon or play.com, there still alot cheaper. Have you done that?


No sympathy for the girl. As they say if you cant do the time, dont do the crime.

the_syco

TBH, it should be X amount per song she uploads. Weather she uploaded 3 or 3000, she still has to pay their fine. Oh, and do the RIAA even have to show their proof, or just email random people that they know that may have leeched a file?

Lemming

MorningStar wrote:

In fairness this is a big threat to the music industry

I suggest you stop listening to RIAA spokespersons and actually start to perhaps educate yourself on the matter.

File-sharing actually comprises an utterly miniscule amount of revenue-drain on the music industry (in and around the 1% mark of profit margins last I checked). ANd when I say "Industry" I do of course mean the old balding guys with beer-guts in limos with hookers and cocaine.

If you want to examine the "Oh look sales have declined" routine, you might want to look at the fact that in the couple of years previous circa 1999-2001 the industry over-manufactured albums, thus in the intervening years culled that manufacture back to clear that excess stock. The result, on the surface, looks like a depression in sales figures. This is, of course, bollocks once you take that into account.

But in a more consumer-related note ... have you even SEEN the sh*te that's being pimped these days? It's awful. Absolute dross aimed at a very fickle market with ADD (ie. 12-16 year olds). Perhaps THAT could be a rather compelling argument for any loss in revenue ..... :rolleyes:

Here's a bit of a revelation about capitalism.

Ok, ready folks? ....


breath ...


"people buy what they perceive to be good things to buy".

Can I point out this is nothing like extortion as the person did do something wrong knowingly and is now being asked to pay for damages casued.

I think you'll find it IS extortion since the damages are not proven to have costed the plaintiff such amounts. In short they can, and are, claiming whatever damages they feel like claiming.

They then try to "persuade" you not to challenge them. That, MorningStar, is extortion. 'Racketeering' I believe is the correct term.

Chucky the tree

How is it rackerteering? All they said was that the legal fees might cost 3,00euros alone. Surely that is just advice?

projectmayhem

Peteee wrote:

I'm off to steal a Ferrari. I cant afford it, but hey, thats Ferraris fault for pricing it so high. I dont think it's wrong for me to steal the ferrari cos, well I couldnt afford it anyway, so Ferrari aren't loosing anything, therefore I'm perfectly within my right to take it :rolleyes:

not the same comparison. you don't have to pay that much for a car. you can easily go off and buy another car for a lot less. you can't do the same for music, the cartel of 5 labels who own everything and everyone keep the prices up high, as do the record sales stores (HMV, Virgin, etc.)...

i don't agree with STEALING the music, but i can see why people do it. it's too expensive to be a fan of music..

however, there are ways and means - itunes and similar sites charge a tenner for an album, or a euro for 1 track and amazon/play/cdwow etc. sell cd's cheaper then high-street stores.

as for this student, she is not being faced with charges of downloading an artists music. she's guilty of UPLOADING music, i.e. giving it for free to other people at the expense of the artist and everyone on the "daisy chain". she's guilty, deal with it. the RIAA however, have no place telling someone to quit college to pay a fine

JC 2K3

http://www.downhillbattle.org

Record labels are no longer needed now that the internet's here, CDs aren't necessary, downloading = zero distribution costs. Every ISP could charge say an extra €5 per month for a licence to download music and the money would be distributed amongst artists according to download stats. This way artists would actually make more money than they are now. Right now they're getting really screwed over, about €1 of a €20 album goes to the artist and the rest mainly to the record label/music shop. iTunes is a load of crap too, 11c of a €1 song goes to the artist, and at €1 per song it's as expensive as a CD and you're not even getting lossless music files. You'd be better downloading an album and sending €5 to the artist if you wanted to support them right now.

the_syco

projectmayhem wrote:

however, there are ways and means - itunes and similar sites charge a tenner for an album, or a euro for 1 track and amazon/play/cdwow etc. sell cd's cheaper then high-street stores.

itunes, etc, exist DUE TO napster, etc.

Lemming

Chucky the tree wrote:

How is it rackerteering? All they said was that the legal fees might cost 3,00euros alone. Surely that is just advice?

It's racketeering since they [the RIAA] are using their position to manipulate the market whilst attempting to claim back unsubstanciated financial losses in a court of law. These claim figures are, literally, plucked out of thin air and cannot be backed up in any credible manner relevant to the actual losses sustained by an individual defendants actions.

The RIAA would be forced to cover court-costs if they lost such a case, not to mention it would set a precedent against them, hence their whole "why bother challenging us" routine is intimidation outside of the court-room.

TiwstaSista

Copyright violation is not stealing, repeat after me. One is a civil infraction, the other is a crime. Now while I do see the point that you don't have something and you want it, someone else has it and you take it without paying their required compensation, they have been wronged. The RIAA and them are blood sucking faecal drooling anal bandits, don't get me wrong, but if we could remove them for the equation, piracy would drop considerably since money would be going direct to the artists. Anyone claiming their current tactics or even existence are even slightly justifiable needs to study the DeBeers diamond cartel a bit more...

Besides the internet has changed the ground rules, and things will never be the same again.

The_Conductor

Slightly off-topic.....

The continental model for this for some time has been to place an extra duty on all blank media (blank tapes/CDs/DVDs/hard-drives) with the implicit understanding that this duty was a defacto payment to music industry etc as the bulk of materieux to be copied to these media would be copyrighted works. This has been the case for over 20 years- and has worked.

The French are going a step further and proposing legalising downloads with a fixed rate monthly charge (and have started an almighty war with both the likes of the Apple (and their Itunes site) the MIAPPA and other bodies. The Commission are not too happy about this as the French have not transcribed prescribed EU regulations governing copyright protection into national legislation (we did with the copyright act of 2000 here in Ireland). What is really of interest is certain other countries now look likely to follow the French example (Denmark propose to implement a similar scheme by early 2007 and thereafter its thought there could be a rush in a free-for-all).

2/3 of the computer using population of France are doing quite happily, what this poor MIT student did. The MIT student's worse crime- getting caught. It is incredibly harsh her prescribed punishment. Keep in mind these gangsters (the RIAA) are also the same people who paraded children on nationwide TV during the superbowl two years ago- to make examples of them. Their behaviour is disgusting.

Lemming

smccarrick wrote:

Keep in mind these gangsters (the RIAA) are also the same people who paraded children on nationwide TV during the superbowl two years ago- to make examples of them. Their behaviour is disgusting.

You forgot to include the innuendo that these kids were also convicted and ergo criminals, which would fall under defamation clauses.

Geff

DaveMcG wrote:

They're trying to make an example and scare people into not uploading

Fixed if you read the article.

MorningStar

DaveMcG wrote:

It's not destroying the livelihood of the musicians, they don't make they fortune from selling records. If it's destroying anyone's livelihood, it's the record labels, who are only making a living off the musicians themselves. .

Musicians only make monet becasue of record companies. THe people working in record lables and shops are entitled to make money. Musicians would not make the money they do if it wasn't for the other people employed in the industry. A musician doesn't design the cd case so the guy doing that looses his job etc... Lots of people involved.

Boggle wrote:

A bit of an overstatement isn't it? Do you honestly think some album with maybe one or two decent songs is worth 20 quid? Uploading music is a natural reaction to this perceived rip-off and the only way to change things is to charge a reasonable price...

No overstatement. How much do you think it costs to advertise an adverst record an album and ship a CD? Theft is the natural progression greed is what I see you are saying.

Lemming wrote:

I suggest you stop listening to RIAA spokespersons and actually start to perhaps educate yourself on the matter.

I suggest you look at the drop in sales of CDs and also see the number of legal download services don't match.

Lemming wrote:

File-sharing actually comprises an utterly miniscule amount of revenue-drain on the music industry (in and around the 1% mark of profit margins last I checked). ANd when I say "Industry" I do of course mean the old balding guys with beer-guts in limos with hookers and cocaine.

A 98% od stats are made up on the spot. Proof rather than you say it is only 1%. THe industry around music covers a lot more than record executives and diminished sales effects a lot more people

Lemming wrote:

If you want to examine the "Oh look sales have declined" routine, you might want to look at the fact that in the couple of years previous circa 1999-2001 the industry over-manufactured albums, thus in the intervening years culled that manufacture back to clear that excess stock. The result, on the surface, looks like a depression in sales figures. This is, of course, bollocks once you take that into account.

So that explains the last 4 years. I am sure you know all that goes on becasue obviously you work in the industry and know the figures. I provide software to music retailers and I see sales going down. My job is indirectly effected

Lemming wrote:

But in a more consumer-related note ... have you even SEEN the sh*te that's being pimped these days? It's awful. Absolute dross aimed at a very fickle market with ADD (ie. 12-16 year olds). Perhaps THAT could be a rather compelling argument for any loss in revenue ..... :rolleyes:

So you don't like the music being produced so you steal what you do like. I am guessing you are not old enough to know that that has always been the case. The beatles were viewed the same way when they came out. A teen sensation that if weren't support would never have gone on to be what they became. Madonna, George Micheal etc... get the idea, nothing comes fully formed

Lemming wrote:

Here's a bit of a revelation about capitalism.
Ok, ready folks? ....
breath ...
"people buy what they perceive to be good things to buy".

Are you ready for this people steal such things out of greed not need. People don't steal things the precieve has no value

Lemming wrote:

I think you'll find it IS extortion since the damages are not proven to have costed the plaintiff such amounts. In short they can, and are, claiming whatever damages they feel like claiming.

They then try to "persuade" you not to challenge them. That, MorningStar, is extortion. 'Racketeering' I believe is the correct term.

For it to be extortion or racketering this student would have to be innocent. Don't do the crime if you are not willing to suffer the consequence.
Extortion and rackeeteering are both illegal acts the RIAA are acting legally the student illegally.

I don't think the record industry is really in the right overall but the student is certainly in the wrong point blank if he uploaded music. It has consequnces.

THe industry is really protecting the future of many thing but noticably films. Unlike music general quality will not make people eventually go out and buy the movie. THis is about protection of a product that has massive production costs. For those who think music would be found anyway look at what happened to Prince once he split from his label and look at all the free mp3s of unsigned bands and see how terrible they are. Normal listeners are going to spend time searching for bands through the wave of ****e.

Sam Vimes

Peteee wrote:

I'm off to steal a Ferrari. I cant afford it, but hey, thats Ferraris fault for pricing it so high. I dont think it's wrong for me to steal the ferrari cos, well I couldnt afford it anyway, so Ferrari aren't loosing anything, therefore I'm perfectly within my right to take it :rolleyes:

thats a rather silly thing to say. if i steal a ferrari the company has suffered an actual material loss. record industries have lost nothing. they just didn't gain. as twistasista says copyright violation is not stealing

MorningStar

Commander Vimes wrote:

thats a rather silly thing to say. if i steal a ferrari the company has suffered an actual material loss. record industries have lost nothing. they just didn't gain. as twistasista says copyright violation is not stealing

So if you invented something and owned the copright and it sells for €30 and then somebody copies your invetion and sells it for €20 an you stop selling nothing has been stolen from you? You spend 5 years perfecting it yet somebody else just comes along and steals all the tme you invested in your invention you don't see it as theft. You write a book and somebody makes a film of the book and gives you no money that is fair in your eys?
Copyright violation is theft it doesn't need to be material goods to be theft.

ek942

Years ago they said the music industry would be destroyed by people recording songs off the radio.Then it was cassette copying.instead it just got bigger and bigger .There will always be enough suckers out there to support the industry and pay over the odds for their music.

MorningStar

ek942 wrote:

Years ago they said the music industry would be destroyed by people recording songs off the radio.Then it was cassette copying.instead it just got bigger and bigger .There will always be enough suckers out there to support the industry and pay over the odds for their music.

CD slaes have dropped the industry is making less money . What happened in the past does not mean it will happen again as they aren't the same things

justsomebloke

MorningStar wrote:

I suggest you look at the drop in sales of CDs and also see the number of legal download services don't match.

What happens if you then use the increased number of DVD's sold. Are DVD's not one of the biggest reasons CD sales have declined as people are spending their money on different types of media. People aren't generally going to be able to afford music and films and as the DVD industry has boomed this has been to the loss of the music industry

MorningStar

jsb wrote:

What happens if you then use the increased number of DVD's sold. Are DVD's not one of the biggest reasons CD sales have declined as people are spending their money on different types of media. People aren't generally going to be able to afford music and films and as the DVD industry has boomed this has been to the loss of the music industry

A valid point about the fall in sales and adding game sales and the reduction in demand of people rebuying cds (replacing records)as in the 80s and 90s can be brought in too. It still does not negate theft and forcing people out of work. The industry provides a service it just happens people don't think they do.

HelterSkelter

If they charged a fair price, say €5 for a album download, I would pay it. But the prices they are charging is a joke. Most download albums are €10 from iTunes. The same CD's which have much higher production, distribution, etc costs are €13 from CDWOW.

What I do now is download for free from peer to peer and if I like the album I buy it from cdwow.

MorningStar

HelterSkelter wrote:

If they charged a fair price, say €5 for a album download, I would pay it. But the prices they are charging is a joke. Most download albums are €10 from iTunes. The same CD's which have much higher production, distribution, etc costs are €13 from CDWOW.

Well what makes you decide a fair price?
CD wow don't pay tax here that is 21%. Or rent publuc liability insurance. Not a fair comparison in my eyes

HelterSkelter wrote:

What I do now is download for free from peer to peer and if I like the album I buy it from cdwow.

SO you only steal things for a little while. Some people make the permenant and if the record company wants to stop that happening is it wrong they sue those letting that happen?

HelterSkelter

MorningStar wrote:

Well what makes you decide a fair price?

Well I don't think €10 to download an album is a fair price. Do you?

CD wow don't pay tax here that is 21%. Or rent publuc liability insurance. Not a fair comparison in my eyes

That is a red herring. Companies locate in other countries all the time to save costs. Lots of american companies locate here due to tax savings. If that is the principal you abide by are you going to refuse their business or refuse a job from them?

MorningStar wrote:

SO you only steal things for a little while.

I don't consider it stealing. I consider it a trial period, like when you sign a contract, buy a Dell computer, etc you have 7 days to change your mind. If you don't want it you can return it and get your money back. If I don't like the album I delete it, if I do I buy it.

MorningStar wrote:

Some people make the permenant and if the record company wants to stop that happening is it wrong they sue those letting that happen?

I wouldn't mind them suing people if they were charging a fair price for their downloads in the first place. In my opinion a tenner is not a fair price.

Sorry but I have absolutely no sympathy for the record companies .

BobTheBeat

Dragan wrote:

Why not just have them pay whatever the relevant artists would have made had the songs been purchased leagally, through one of the websites?????

It would make just a little bit more sense.

I am guessing that there is a deterrent factor in the fine. If it is sufficiently large enough, the tendancy to reoffend is much lower plus it sets an example for the rest of the would be offenders!

Boggle

No overstatement. How much do you think it costs to advertise an adverst record an album and ship a CD? Theft is the natural progression greed is what I see you are saying.

Greed? There's enough of that to go around in this case. Everyone needs to compromise - they need to charge realistic prices and not expect billions for rehashing the same old tripe time and time again and we as a public will (do) pay for the music we like.

I suggest you look at the drop in sales of CDs and also see the number of legal download services don't match.

I would suggest that there's more to that than just the prevalence of p2p filesharing.

http://news.com.com/2100-1027_3-5181562.html

THe industry is really protecting the future of many thing but noticably films. Unlike music general quality will not make people eventually go out and buy the movie.

I never used to buy films but since we startd downloading films I go out and buy the ones I like... It also helps that over here you can get films alot cheaper than I could do at home.

Normal listeners are going to spend time searching for bands through the wave of ****e.

We don't have to - Dj's will generally do that for you and then you can pick the ones you like...

MorningStar

HelterSkelter wrote:

Well I don't think €10 to download an album is a fair price. Do you?

How much does it cost to produce and advertise an album. WHen you know that maybe you can figure what is fair

HelterSkelter wrote:

That is a red herring. Companies locate in other countries all the time to save costs. Lots of american companies locate here due to tax savings. If that is the principal you abide by are you going to refuse their business or refuse a job from them?

How is it a red herring cd wow sell for €13 a shop charges €20. 21% of 13 is 2.73. Straight away they avoid irish tax making them ablle to sell cheaper. Insurance and staff cost can easily make up the rest and as they come from china staff is a lot cheaper.

HelterSkelter wrote:

I don't consider it stealing. I consider it a trial period, like when you sign a contract, buy a Dell computer, etc you have 7 days to change your mind. If you don't want it you can return it and get your money back. If I don't like the album I delete it, if I do I buy it.

THat's nice it is stealing whether you think so or not. Dell company policy doesn't effect the law

HelterSkelter wrote:

I wouldn't mind them suing people if they were charging a fair price for their downloads in the first place. In my opinion a tenner is not a fair price.

Sorry but I have absolutely no sympathy for the record companies .

Again how do you KNOW what is fair. % years after supporting a band and 2 failed albums and one big sellers might make up for it but if you don't get the return on your investment that doesn't sound fair.

AS I said the record industry are not the only ones who suffer. I suggest you walk into HMV and tell people who work ther you don't care if you make them loose their job. Tell the pension company that rents the shop to them that you don't care about them either. Tell your parents you don't care about ther pensions and the govenrment you don't think you should pay tax on your luxury items. Don't forget to tell any artist trying to make it to forget it as you will steal from their pockets. Tell me you don't care if I loose my job priovding the businesses with software.
Cause and effect. The record industry is not the only people who suffer. I don't care if some selfish student destroys their life by stealing.

the_syco

Most people who download, wouldn't buy the CD normally. BUT, those who download songs, that they wouldn't usually listen to, may goto a concert, which they'd never have gone too, if it wasn't for some random track they got. Same goes for movies.

RIAA think that everyone who downloads would have shelled out money for that CD.

Oh, and if ye upload stuff, you should know that you may be caught.

gline

the_syco wrote:

Most people who download, wouldn't buy the CD normally. BUT, those who download songs, that they wouldn't usually listen to, may goto a concert, which they'd never have gone too, if it wasn't for some random track they got. Same goes for movies.

RIAA think that everyone who downloads would have shelled out money for that CD.

Oh, and if ye upload stuff, you should know that you may be caught.

this is true

I think it is a little harsh to ask someone to leave colledge.. thus affecting their whole life just for downloading some songs
Unless she was actually mass uploading stuff , then it is a different story

L31mr0d

Just think about this next time you illegally download those mp3's

Downloading Info

HelterSkelter

MorningStar wrote:

How much does it cost to produce and advertise an album. WHen you know that maybe you can figure what is fair

I am comparing the cost of a CD to a download. They couldn't be passing the savings on if the CD is only 2 or 3 quid more expensive than the downloadable album

MorningStar wrote:

How is it a red herring cd wow sell for €13 a shop charges €20. 21% of 13 is 2.73. Straight away they avoid irish tax making them ablle to sell cheaper. Insurance and staff cost can easily make up the rest and as they come from china staff is a lot cheaper.

Becuase I am comparing CDWOW with iTunes, NOT HMV or other high street record stores. As far as I'm aware iTunes don't pay Irish tax either.

MorningStar wrote:

THat's nice it is stealing whether you think so or not. Dell company policy doesn't effect the law

It is not Dell company policy, it is the law. You are allowed to change your mind within 7 days of signing a contract.Dell selling their computers falls under this law.

MorningStar wrote:

Again how do you KNOW what is fair. % years after supporting a band and 2 failed albums and one big sellers might make up for it but if you don't get the return on your investment that doesn't sound fair.

They are not passing on the savings. I wouldn't be surprised if they make more money from a downloaded album than a CD sale.

MorningStar wrote:

AS I said the record industry are not the only ones who suffer. I suggest you walk into HMV and tell people who work ther you don't care if you make them loose their job.

As I said I was talking about iTunes and CDWOW. I never mentioned HMV or other high street stores. Anyway I am not going to pay more money for any product to keep someone in a job. Do you do all your grocery shopping in the local Spar rather than a Dunnes Stores or Tesco who are cheaper because you are worried about the Spar employees losing their jobs??????? I thought not

MorningStar wrote:

Tell the pension company that rents the shop to them that you don't care about them either. Tell your parents you don't care about ther pensions and the govenrment you don't think you should pay tax on your luxury items. Don't forget to tell any artist trying to make it to forget it as you will steal from their pockets. Tell me you don't care if I loose my job priovding the businesses with software.

Ha ha ha, you have me in stitches here. Your arguments are becoming laughable now. So you think I should pay higher prices for my CD's to protect vested interests like pension companies and software developers. If that's the case I should fly with Aer Lingus or British Airways all the time because god forbid I fly with Ryanair or Easyjet who are doing all those poor people out of their jobs by cutting costs. I should not use this new online check in Ryanair are proposing because the check in staff will lose their jobs in Dublin Airport. MorningStar, you talk sense most of the time but on this occasion I think you are really losing your marbles!!

MorningStar wrote:

Cause and effect. The record industry is not the only people who suffer. I don't care if some selfish student destroys their life by stealing.

As I said I don't have any sympathy for the record companies, and by this I mean the big labels.

HelterSkelter

the_syco wrote:

those who download songs, that they wouldn't usually listen to, may goto a concert, which they'd never have gone too, if it wasn't for some random track they got. Same goes for movies.

That's an excellent point. I have downloaded some songs and I am just waiting for the bands to play a concert here.

ressem

Years ago they said the music industry would be destroyed by people recording songs off the radio.Then it was cassette copying.instead it just got bigger and bigger .There will always be enough suckers out there to support the industry and pay over the odds for their music.

CD slaes have dropped the industry is making less money . What happened in the past does not mean it will happen again as they aren't the same things

But its simple to plausibly argue that it's matters other than piracy to blame.

eg.
In the late 70's decreases were blamed on the cassette recorder.
Between '81 and '84 MTV starts up and is credited with helping sales reach record levels, 8% higher than the previous best.

Now MTV find that showing cheap reality TV shows gets more of an audience and limit music to the dead of night.
Due to digital TV, introducing newish music to a large TV viewing audience seems to be limited to TV ads and TV soap like the OC. The plethora of 'old MTV' knockoffs appear to aim at small audience segments and none appear all that popular.

So responsibility is on the publishing companies, whose job it is to market the product to set up an alternative method of marketing to those who don't actively search for music.
Eg a music link on google home page which links to an audio broadcast stream, encouraging people who don't go looking for music to click on it as they start browsing and leave it running in the background all day. Content has to be chosen so that it's perceived to be better than average radio or podcast. And don't split the audience by providing too many different channels unless they go looking.

What do you think? Just as likely a cause as the 'pillaging pirates' vitreol?

MorningStar

HelterSkelter wrote:

I am comparing the cost of a CD to a download. They couldn't be passing the savings on if the CD is only 2 or 3 quid more expensive than the downloadable album

Well obviously you don't understand. Cd production ins't very expensive all the other stuff is expensive. Group buying deals mean discounts get passed on to consumers. These giscounts no longer exist on downloads

HelterSkelter wrote:

It is not Dell company policy, it is the law. You are allowed to change your mind within 7 days of signing a contract.Dell selling their computers falls under this law.

THen I misunderstood you. On retail on normal good you don't have 7 days so whay has a contract got to do with retail sales?

HelterSkelter wrote:

They are not passing on the savings. I wouldn't be surprised if they make more money from a downloaded album than a CD sale.

CDs are more expensive than downloads so how is it not pased on? A differnt price model for a differnt distribution model

HelterSkelter wrote:

As I said I was talking about iTunes and CDWOW. I never mentioned HMV or other high street stores. Anyway I am not going to pay more money for any product to keep someone in a job. Do you do all your grocery shopping in the local Spar rather than a Dunnes Stores or Tesco who are cheaper because you are worried about the Spar employees losing their jobs??????? I thought not

This thread is about illegal download and uploads you want to rabit on about the new distribution model I suggest you start another thread. Stealing from the grocery store so you don't buy in Spar would be what is being discussed using your metaphore

HelterSkelter wrote:

Ha ha ha, you have me in stitches here. Your arguments are becoming laughable now. So you think I should pay higher prices for my CD's to protect vested interests like pension companies and software developers. If that's the case I should fly with Aer Lingus or British Airways all the time because god forbid I fly with Ryanair or Easyjet who are doing all those poor people out of their jobs by cutting costs. I should not use this new online check in Ryanair are proposing because the check in staff will lose their jobs in Dublin Airport. MorningStar, you talk sense most of the time but on this occasion I think you are really losing your marbles!!

I think you shouldn't steal and say it is right becasue you think you ONLY effect a record label. I am talking stealing you want to complain about iTune start another thread.

HelterSkelter wrote:

As I said I don't have any sympathy for the record companies, and by this I mean the big labels.

THat is nice for you but as I pointed out it effects others and is illegal. The record companies are in the right and you wouldn't have any of your music if it wasn't for them. You just fall into the ignorant group of people who think the record companies do nothing

MorningStar

ressem wrote:

But its simple to plausibly argue that it's matters other than piracy to blame.

Yes it is plausible. It still doesn't making stealing and allowing others to steal right or defendable. THe tape recoding thing had at least a temporary effect. Th eproblem being that tapes recorded poorer quality and limited life span. Digital downloads are better quality and close to the commercial product.
Stealing is still stealing and making an example out somebody they caught seems fair to me. What is actually wronmg with it?
Bear in mind it isn't whether it is illegal or not it is illegal as fact.

pyramuid man

I dont mean to rant here so I wont. The RIAA should examine its own practices. They knowingly broke the law by accessing file sharing programmes. At the time when this was happening, the people were more than likely not aware that what they were doing was wrong and therefore continued to do so. All this crap about record companies losing money is irrelevant. A study has shown and people who downloaded a song from a PTP network were more often going to buy the album. So if anything the profits would have increased. Finally, The reason the record companies are loosing money is because they are publishing talentless wankstains like Xfactor winners and leaving the really talented artists unsigned. Rediculous.

HelterSkelter

MorningStar, my whole point is that people would be less inclined to download illegally if the record companies charged a fair price for music downloads. I think a tenner for a album download is not fair.

Try to answer these two simple questions with a yes or no:
Do you think €10 is a fair price for an album download?
Do you think if an album download was cheaper then more people would pay for downloads resulting in more sales and more profits for the record companies and artists?

With sales of downloadable music there are no costs associated with production & copying of the CD, no costs of printing artwork, no costs of rentiing/buying property for warehouses, no distribution costs and probably other cost savings I haven't thought of. Still a downloadable album from a legal source is only 2 or 3 euro cheaper than a site that legally sells CD's. Tha t doesn't sound fair to me.

That is my point.

Boggle

Morningstar wrote:

Yes it is plausible. It still doesn't making stealing and allowing others to steal right or defendable.

Its NOT stealing. Stealing is taking something that belongs to someone else. COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT is when you copy something belonging to someone else. Quit with using exagerations to bolster your case.

You still go on about how me downloading a track affects jobs - I have shown a study that reckons it doesn't... care to do likewise to prove your point?

Your argument MOrningstar is it's the law full stop. No one is denying that. What people are saying is that while we agree that you should have to pay - the prices being demanded are completely unrealistic and are conducive to illegal downloading.

Tell me, do you believe that we are currently being charged a fair price for our music?

MorningStar

HelterSkelter wrote:

MorningStar, my whole point is that people would be less inclined to download illegally if the record companies charged a fair price for music downloads. I think a tenner for a album download is not fair.

I keep asking you how do you know what is fair?
I'm answering your question so answer that.
Once something is unfair in your eyes do you think it is fair to steal it?
If you want a house and you think they are unfairly priced, is it ok to break in and squat?
You see something you like and you think it is too expensive is it OK to steal it?

HelterSkelter wrote:

Try to answer these two simple questions with a yes or no:
Do you think €10 is a fair price for an album download?
Do you think if an album download was cheaper then more people would pay for downloads resulting in more sales and more profits for the record companies and artists?

Yes
No (althought your question is too complicated to be very accurate)

HelterSkelter wrote:

With sales of downloadable music there are no costs associated with production & copying of the CD, no costs of printing artwork, no costs of rentiing/buying property for warehouses, no distribution costs and probably other cost savings I haven't thought of. Still a downloadable album from a legal source is only 2 or 3 euro cheaper than a site that legally sells CD's. Tha t doesn't sound fair to me.

That is my point.

Wrong there are costs you just don't think there are. What sounds fair to you is based on what? You think loads of things are free that aren't. THe actual production and distribution of a CD is about 2-3 euro. Go look it up if you don't beleive me. THe point is you aren't looking at the costs you are just saying they don't have costs. Ever seen a data warehouse they cost money to run. How much is IT support? Back up and redundancy?

MorningStar

Boggle wrote:

Its NOT stealing. Stealing is taking something that belongs to someone else. COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT is when you copy something belonging to someone else. Quit with using exagerations to bolster your case.

You still go on about how me downloading a track affects jobs - I have shown a study that reckons it doesn't... care to do likewise to prove your point?

Your argument MOrningstar is it's the law full stop. No one is denying that. What people are saying is that while we agree that you should have to pay - the prices being demanded are completely unrealistic and are conducive to illegal downloading.

Tell me, do you believe that we are currently being charged a fair price for our music?

In every country it is is considered stealing. THe law in this country it is illegal as in the us. You show a study that thinks it doesn't but is not conclusive. It remains illegal.
My argument is that copyright infringment is stealing and I statee it read back and quote that and argue against what I said on the subject.
THe courts and I agree it is illegal. Your belief is not considered. Explain why you think you are right over all the people who have studied law and fairness in law.
Tell me how much it cost to create a single music track that sells and will make a profit? You just claim the price is unfair what is your proof it is unfair?

astrofool

I think a point is MorningStar is that it has been proven that the prices are unfairly fixed, as pointed to by the court cases they have lost because they were acting as a cartel keeping the prices artificially high.

Anyone remember back to cd + tapes? The argument initially was that cd's cost more to make, and thus demanded a higher price, now the complete opposite is true, yet cd's still demand the same premiums (same goes for VHS vs. DVD)

MorningStar

astrofool wrote:

I think a point is MorningStar is that it has been proven that the prices are unfairly fixed, as pointed to by the court cases they have lost because they were acting as a cartel keeping the prices artificially high.

When was it proven did I miss a link or something becasue all I seem to here is people whinging and saying it is too high but no proof. Post the link and I'll comment on this "proof" otherwise I choose not to believe you

astrofool wrote:

Anyone remember back to cd + tapes? The argument initially was that cd's cost more to make, and thus demanded a higher price, now the complete opposite is true, yet cd's still demand the same premiums (same goes for VHS vs. DVD)

Actually cds always had an extra charge for devlopment and are a licenced technology which the record companies pay to use. Tapes never really dominated the western market it was mostly records and then cd.

astrofool

*cough* ass *cough*

http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/news/2002-09-30-cd-settlement_x.htm (there was another a few years before that, which I'm sure you can google)

And the cost of producing CD's is miniscule to that of producing tapes and records, but you already know that don't you? (i.e. don't be pedantic)