Is the RIAA suing you?
Damn. I didn't make the list
Are you sure that this is safe to use? In other words, will they use it to collect addresses to monitor? I don't trust Big Brother at all!….nor the RIAA! :D
Okay, I know I'm making light of a situation, but seriously, if all of these people would band together and refuse to pay the fines and opt for prison instead (yeah, not a great choice) it would overload the judicial system so badly that they would have to pressure the RIAA to opt for some other tactic. Just a thought. :p
Okay, I know I'm making light of a situation, but seriously, if all of these people would band together and refuse to pay the fines and opt for prison instead (yeah, not a great choice) it would overload the judicial system so badly that they would have to pressure the RIAA to opt for some other tactic. Just a thought. :p
there's a difference between eff and the riaa… eff is standing up for the rights of file swappers and is only comparing your info against who the riaa is subpeoning records for.
Please let markie be on that list.
the thing about what the riaa is going after seems a bit going after a needle in a haystack…
are they going after people's isp user ids or file sharing sw ids. one could always change the id on kazaa for example.
if they are going after ip address they best be going after people who have permanent or static ip addresses, because my ip address can change everytime i connect to the network. most people don't pay the extra fee to have a static address. the ip address i'm using right now could have just been used by another person who was file sharing. it seems that riaa would have to have pretty solid proof if using dynamic ip addresses to subpeona someone.
are they going after people's isp user ids or file sharing sw ids. one could always change the id on kazaa for example.
if they are going after ip address they best be going after people who have permanent or static ip addresses, because my ip address can change everytime i connect to the network. most people don't pay the extra fee to have a static address. the ip address i'm using right now could have just been used by another person who was file sharing. it seems that riaa would have to have pretty solid proof if using dynamic ip addresses to subpeona someone.
Originally posted by kosmo vinyl:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3104281.stm
the thing about what the riaa is going after seems a bit going after a needle in a haystack…
are they going after people's isp user ids or file sharing sw ids. one could always change the id on kazaa for example.
if they are going after ip address they best be going after people who have permanent or static ip addresses, because my ip address can change everytime i connect to the network. most people don't pay the extra fee to have a static address. the ip address i'm using right now could have just been used by another person who was file sharing. it seems that riaa would have to have pretty solid proof if using dynamic ip addresses to subpeona someone.
I can't help but think that some of this is only a bunch of scare tactics. Bastards!
Originally posted by Jaguär:Of course it is. They don't want to sue everybody. They want to sue just enough people to make it clear that there are consequences for stealing and distributing copyrighted works.
I can't help but think that some of this is only a bunch of scare tactics. Bastards!
it's a shame the riaa would rather litagate then negotiate… record companies have been shooting themselves in the foot for years and feel that can blame their woes on people who download music files from the internet.
nevermind that fact that the dvd provides a better value for the money than a cd and is almost the same price. or that a majority of cds i buy are promo copies or independent releases. the record industry needs to change how they distribute music.
nevermind that fact that the dvd provides a better value for the money than a cd and is almost the same price. or that a majority of cds i buy are promo copies or independent releases. the record industry needs to change how they distribute music.
Just one band's point of view……
________________________________
Downloading Works For Elbow Downloading music is not a problem for
Elbow. In fact, they've used the Internet to release the first song
from their new album 'Cast of Thousands" and want people to send it
to their friends.
The reason they went online first was because the song they wanted to
introduce the album with didn't necessarily fit in with radio formats
or marketing strategies. "We wanted to put something out and
wanted 'Ribcage' to be the first song people heard from the album"
bass player Pete Turner tells Undercover News. "We knew we couldn't
put it out as a single because it is far too long at around six and a
half minutes. You can't have a single any longer than four minutes
unless you are Radiohead. We put it on the Internet low-key so that
people into the band could download it. We didn't restrict it. We
made sure people could send it on to their mates".
While the U.S. recording industry is trying to bring in a law that
makes the downloading of even one song earn the downloader 5 years in
jail, for Elbow people hearing their music for free is a good
thing. "I don't have a problem with it, really. People can always get
their hands on free music, whether they tape it or just steal it"
Pete says. "I want people who can't afford to buy it to still hear
the song. I think live is where the whole thing goes. Especially from
touring you can make loads of money. I'd rather people come and see
the live shows and if downloading ours songs for free means they will
do that, then that is fine for me. People need a bit of convincing,
so downloading something for free is the perfect way of doing it. I
really like artwork and looking at the artwork on the inlay card
while I'm listening to music sometimes, so I think people will go and
buy it anyway even if they have downloaded it".
Elbow are about to release their 'Cast of Thousands' album through
V2 / Festival Records.
by Paul Cashmere
________________________________
Downloading Works For Elbow Downloading music is not a problem for
Elbow. In fact, they've used the Internet to release the first song
from their new album 'Cast of Thousands" and want people to send it
to their friends.
The reason they went online first was because the song they wanted to
introduce the album with didn't necessarily fit in with radio formats
or marketing strategies. "We wanted to put something out and
wanted 'Ribcage' to be the first song people heard from the album"
bass player Pete Turner tells Undercover News. "We knew we couldn't
put it out as a single because it is far too long at around six and a
half minutes. You can't have a single any longer than four minutes
unless you are Radiohead. We put it on the Internet low-key so that
people into the band could download it. We didn't restrict it. We
made sure people could send it on to their mates".
While the U.S. recording industry is trying to bring in a law that
makes the downloading of even one song earn the downloader 5 years in
jail, for Elbow people hearing their music for free is a good
thing. "I don't have a problem with it, really. People can always get
their hands on free music, whether they tape it or just steal it"
Pete says. "I want people who can't afford to buy it to still hear
the song. I think live is where the whole thing goes. Especially from
touring you can make loads of money. I'd rather people come and see
the live shows and if downloading ours songs for free means they will
do that, then that is fine for me. People need a bit of convincing,
so downloading something for free is the perfect way of doing it. I
really like artwork and looking at the artwork on the inlay card
while I'm listening to music sometimes, so I think people will go and
buy it anyway even if they have downloaded it".
Elbow are about to release their 'Cast of Thousands' album through
V2 / Festival Records.
by Paul Cashmere
Elbow, as the copyright holder, has every right to distribute their music and allow others to do the same. More power to 'em.
OK maybe I am in the minority here but I am on the side if the RIAA and the artists. Bottom line is that stealing ain't right. If I have to explain it any further than that then there is no point in me wasting my breath. Its my stand, it may not be popular, but I am standing by it.
RB
RB
Originally posted by RatBastard:I agree, people who think music should be free are missing something, but I think the RIAA are more than slightly misguided in the ways they combat the problem.
OK maybe I am in the minority here but I am on the side if the RIAA and the artists. Bottom line is that stealing ain't right. If I have to explain it any further than that then there is no point in me wasting my breath. Its my stand, it may not be popular, but I am standing by it.
RB
Not me. They wouldn't dare.
Originally posted by RatBastard:I'm in total agreement with you.
OK maybe I am in the minority here but I am on the side if the RIAA and the artists. Bottom line is that stealing ain't right. If I have to explain it any further than that then there is no point in me wasting my breath. Its my stand, it may not be popular, but I am standing by it.
RB
Originally posted by mankie:I'm in agreeance as well.
Originally posted by RatBastard:I'm in total agreement with you.
OK maybe I am in the minority here but I am on the side if the RIAA and the artists. Bottom line is that stealing ain't right. If I have to explain it any further than that then there is no point in me wasting my breath. Its my stand, it may not be popular, but I am standing by it.
RB
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:i was going to say that! :p
I'm in agreeance as well.
i really am on both sides of this issue… stealing is stealing.. whether its from the internet or from a store. however, i have never downloaded entire albums and burned them onto cds. when i download music, i stop sharing it, and put it on a playlist to listen to when i'm working on the computer. so i don't feel as "bad" (for lack of a better word) as someone who downloads and burns entire albums daily.. music shouldn't be free, but i am getting sick and tired of paying 18 bucks for a cd! yes, there are some independent stores and cds with cheaper prices, but overall, the cost of cds is way too expensive (unless it's a used cd, which is more reasonable)
basically, what i am saying is that i believe there are certain degrees of severity when it comes to downloading, and if the music industry weren't increasing the price of cds, downloading music may begin to slow down when people can finally afford to buy their favorite albums.
one question - even though i don't share songs, can i still get into trouble with the riaa (granted that they actually do hunt down everyone.. pssh yeah right)?
It's not stealing for the same reason taping Seinfeld on my VHS is legal or allowing my father to "borrow" my Celine Dion collection. And remember, the media was purchased. I'm not hacking into anyone else computer unknowingly. The common technology supports this. And remember, it does cost an awful amount of money to fileshare: computer, internet provider, blank discs, and most importantly… time. We don't ride horses to work anymore because the common technology allows us not to. This is a recording industry dilemma. Not a "is it stealing or not" personal dilemma. I don't think any of this would be a problem in the slightest if CD's were $6. The people making money in music in the year 2003 would dwarf the people making money in 1973 at those prices…. $15 dollars plus is corporate greed and consumers are realizing there is an easier way. I've said it many times before, $10 is my "fence price". I like the album artwork, case, track listing (except Sigur Ros), and high quality recording. But above this price, I can sacrifice these by filesharing.
Originally posted by myuman:i think 10$ is a perfect price for a cd… remember when olssons stopped carrying that new linkin park cd because it was like $20 but only had 30 minutes worth of music on it? where is the reasoning that you get what you pay for there? i would own a lot more albums if they were cheaper (obviously)… but i still think it's wrong to copy an entire cd and burn it onto a cd.
I've said it many times before, $10 is my "fence price". I like the album artwork, case, track listing (except Sigur Ros), and high quality recording. But above this price, I can sacrifice these by filesharing.