Page 1 of 1

File Sharing - RIA pursuit of downloaders

Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2003 3:09 am
by airjampanam
Why doesn't the news accurately portray the RIA pursuit of downloaders?
The RIA is primarily concerned with the "sharing" of files as opposed to the act of downloading.
Remember in days of old no one considered recording from the radio illegal or taking profits from the artist!

RE: File Sharing

Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2003 3:46 am
by goingboeing
Um... correct me if I am wrong, but isn't someone required to "share" the music for you to download it?

RE: File Sharing

Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2003 4:22 am
by airjampanam
One can download from ANY number or sites that charge a fee, the RIA would come after you if you now turn around and share those downloads.

RE: File Sharing

Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2003 4:24 am
by seb146
Some things that irk me about this RIAA witch hunt:

I can go to any pawn shop and buy CDs for under $5 but the artist does not see any of that money. There are several independant music stores that sell used CDs and the artists never see one cent from those sales either.

My friends and I share CDs all the time but the artists never see any money from that. I drive around town or while I am on the net, I listen to NRK, KUFO or KMHD listening to some of that music but the artists don't see one cent from the public and free airing of their songs that way.

Then, they expect us to live with the cookie-cutter crap they put out from American Idol rejects and (seemingly) not want us to hear the popular stuff from around the world or stuff made simply for the joy of making music. If not for the net or borrowing friends CDs, I would not know about Caater, Front 242, or Alex Sintek.

It also irritates me I can not think of the name of an Egyptian singer who died about 5 or 6 years ago. Beautiful voice, but if the RIAA had thier way, we in the States would know little if anything about her.....


RE: File Sharing

Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2003 4:28 am
by airjampanam
Amen Seb146.. Seems they should be concentrating their efforts on adapting to process to best promote and distribute a better product.

RE: File Sharing

Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2003 4:53 am
by Matt D
I can go to any pawn shop and buy CDs for under $5 but the artist does not see any of that money.

Well that's true. you said... it's a USED CD. Therefore one could surmise that at some point, it sold for new, which means that the artist DID receive royals from the sale of that disc. Also, let's be honest here...the whole reason that this downloading issue is so hot is because so many people see that as a vehicle to AVOID buying it altogether. I know, that when put up against the pawn shop example, it does seem cockamamie, but just as Ford or Honda doesn't get (deserve, or demand) any royalties when you sell your used car, neither does the RIAA care when an already bought CD gets sold again.

Then, they expect us to live with the cookie-cutter crap they put out from American Idol rejects


If it was "unknown" acts [meaning they have no chart position and therefore no sales] that constituted the bulk of pirated music, then there would be no reason for the RIAA to get involved.

So many people talk about how they "hate" Britney, Christina, Eminem, et. al. yet I'll wager my left nut that these very same "hated" Top 40 acts are the ones that get the most pilferage. I'd also wager that Brittney MP3's have been stolen more times than The Ocean Blue, The Outfield, Sarah Brightman, ELO, The Knack, Echo+The Bunnymen, Damn Yankees, and Counting Crows COMBINED.

Oh sure you may listen to the occasional Front 242 (my favorite of theirs BTW is "Headhunter"), I'd also bet good money that those "unknown"/"sampler" groups you try and defend probably make up no more than 20% of your overall downloads. The rest of it is the same Top 40 stuff that you claim to "hate".

Think about it. If everyone who says they really hate The Backdoor Boys, REALLY hated them, then why would they be so popular? Since their primaary, if not exclusive appeal is the same demographic that spends the most time downloading and online, then how COULD they be popular? You catch my drift?

Remember in days of old no one considered recording from the radio illegal or taking profits from the artist

well actually, they did. And it went all the way to The Supreme Court (before most of you were born). It was Disney Vs Sony.

Because of this, VCR's, tape recorders, and so on did very nearly become outlawed, but the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Sony in the landmark "Fair Use" act.

Probably the reason no one cared about off the air taping or even sharing tapes is 1) the quality....FM broadcasts [at least 15 and 20 years ago] were totally flatlined and unmodulated in terms of fidelity. Plus there were commercials, segues, voice overs, etc. that made it very difficult to get an entire song. And as for taping, same thing. As anyone who knows anything about taping will tell you, each subsequent generation or 'dub' is slightly worse quality than the next. The reason the RIAA has shivers over MP3's and other digital formats is because those format inherant restrictions are no longer there; you can have a 100th generation copy of a copy and it will still sound as good as the original.

RE: File Sharing

Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2003 5:02 am
by airjampanam
All valid points MattD.
BTW, thank you for the info on Disney vs Sony.
We may end up in the Supreme Court yet again!
I personally don't fall into the targeted group of downloaders based on the number of songs on my PC, but I still purchase CD's I enjoy once I have sampled them online.
Call me old fashioned, but linear notes and pictures on CD's still interest me.

RE: File Sharing

Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2003 5:41 am
by Soku39
uh Seb146 the artists do get royaltys every time their song is played on the radio, on MTV, or anything of that nature.

RE: File Sharing

Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2003 6:00 am
by seb146
Soku39: I think one group that tracks that is BMI. I remember once in my 3 year career as a radio DJ, I had to write all the songs I played so the artists could get paid. Althogh that was at the only radio station on Harney County Oregon. I am sure they keep track of those things better for stations like Z-100 and on MTV.

And, for the record, I know I am in the minority of people that download the lesser known artists. I bought the 'popular' stuff at second-hand stores. I buy new CDs for people I really really like.

PS: The Egyptian woman I was trying to think of earlier is Ofra Haza.


RE: File Sharing

Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2003 8:18 am
by lehpron
If anybody goes on about copyright then they can kiss my ash. The RIAA doesn't care about copyrights, the fact of the matter is that if an older album is requested, they WONT sell it cuz not enough people are asking for it for them to make a profit on it. This is a fact with any business, which is why we won't see another Concorde....

RE: File Sharing - RIA Pursuit Of Downloaders

Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2003 9:53 am
by L-188
The RIAA can't seem to get it through it's head that the reason why music sales are down by, I believe, a quater over the last decade isn't because of piracy (admittedly it does take a chuck) but rather because there are no good acts comming out.

But of course the artists putting out the crap will never admit it. Besides if it wasn't the act howcome the RIAA hasn't gone and tried to sponser, Pay per Download services? They have been drug what little they have moved in that direction by consumer advocates.

The RIAA needs to realize that technology is outmoding their current distribution system.

RE: File Sharing - RIA Pursuit Of Downloaders

Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2003 12:21 pm
by cba
I'll give you an example of why the RIAA is losing money. Not because of downloaders...

Back in July, my 5 year old cousin wanted the Jungle Book soundtrack for her birthday. So I head to Target to buy it, and the piece of crap is listed at $18.00. I start to get the CD, but on my way to the register I see the Jungle Book on DVD for $12.99. My cousin was much happier to get the DVD.

RE: File Sharing - RIA Pursuit Of Downloaders

Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2003 3:57 pm
by lehpron
Interesting. Hey Cba think they're doing it on pupose so they have something to cry about?  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

RE: File Sharing - RIA Pursuit Of Downloaders

Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2003 6:47 pm
by MxCtrlr
Steve Jobs offered the same set-up for Mac's Music D/L service to the RIAA and they refused to even look at it. Their attitude was and is, "We want to go after the file sharers to prove a point". Well legally, they do have a point. A copyright is a copyright and cannot, and SHOULD not, be infringed on. That being said, there are a number of songs I have d/l'ed that you cannot find in record stores (Smother's Brothers stuff, Tom Lehrer, etc). I even tried to have Blockbuster Music order a CD of my favorite Rob Mullins album, Soulscape. They couldn't find it. However, if I find that song on-line at Kazaa and D/L is, according to the RIAA, I am violating a copyright and depriving the artist of royalties. HOW???? The CD isn't available for sale so how can I be depriving the artist of royalties????

As to the "amnesty" the RIAA is offering as an "olive branch" - what a bunch of crap that is. Most music copyright attorneys have stated that the RIAA only represents a small fraction of the recording artists out there and their "amnesty" does not apply to those artists. If you d/l'ed a song from a non-RIAA-represented artist and then took the "amnesty" offer, that artist could turn around and come after you legally and you would have no recourse.

The best response to the RIAA is to say, in no uncertain terms, "F**K YOU!" The reason CD sales are down (and dropped even more - a whopping 53% I believe I read - after the RIAA began this witch hunt) is because the prices are too damn high to buy a crap CD for one song I marginally like. The last CD I will purchase - Boston's Corporate America - is the last one I plan to purchase for a long time to come! The RIAA wants to do nothing more than sue people, then they can rot. When someone in the recording industry realizes that they are doing nothing more than blaming their customers for sagging sales, and develops a rational, sensible pay download service (say $3/month or $0.50/song), that's when these "starving recording artists" might actually start seeing some royalties!

MxCtrlr  Smile/happy/getting dizzy
Freight Dogs Anonymous - O.O.T.S.K.  Smokin cool

RE: File Sharing - RIA Pursuit Of Downloaders

Posted: Sat Sep 20, 2003 3:41 pm
by aviatortj
MxCtrlr: (say $3/month or $0.50/song)

I don't know what you were saying about Steve Jobs above, but the Apple iTunes music service for Macs offers $.99 a song and $9.99 for most CDs. There is little DRM on these too, in fact you can burn it to CD as many times as you want. That is much more forgiving than other pay services. In the next few months watch out for iTunes for Windows and iTunes for Europe. The papers are just waiting to be signed.

People will pay for music for the right price and if it is convenient. It is much easier to download for free than to go to Best Buy and drop $19. I think the pay services will eventually make their way into the mainstream. If the price is right and it is at your finger tips, why not give the artist their contribution?

I am also against the RIAA. I think they are money sucking bastards. People didn't start downloading because songs were too cheap. They brought the problems upon themselves, and now they feel they need to make a point.  Yeah sure B.S. IMHO