RIAA lawsuits may destroy the music industry

I personally have no hope that the music industry will be able to successfully revert to the major corporate power they were before Napster. I also have very little hope that people will be able to share songs as freely and easily as they did before this whole reverse class action lawsuit. This leaves everybody with the choice to either a.) Pay an absurd amount of money to purchase songs in stores or online legally. b.)Continue to download crappy quality songs illegally with the risk of being sued. OR, and this ones a longshot, c.) Stop listening to corporate produced trashy rap and rock songs and use Kazaa for the purpose it was originally intended: to enhance and spread the flow of creative freelance music.

Why stop with the p2p user,when they could sue the radio stations and thier d.j.'s for polluting
the airwaves with this undercreative and overproduce crap they call music.And lets not forget all those pre-teens with thier tinny boomboxes doing off-air taping and sharing with thier friends too,how about going after all those karaoke singers that frequent these bars and the
bars themselves.what about those people with their rolling car stereos that are louder than most live concerts,they seem to be sharing quite
a bit!!
Bottom line,the riaa seems to have more money than
good sense to sue what appears to be a great many people for sharing music that is priced out of reach,the riaa's greed has put themselves in this
predicament and i have no sympathy for them.

What about the groups that have allowed free downloads?? Deciding that the right to pick and choose from their music is OK-how does RIAA deal with this issue vis-a-vis file sharing??? Is this now a tracking/file sharing issue?? Also what about bands that no longer have tracks available through pay for downloads??

Everyone should change their username to the default username (kazaaliteuser@Kazaa), depending on what P2P you're using. Also Klite ++ blocks RIAA ips and many others...

It's not going to stop. The world is full of intelligent people who will find a way to share files. You build a better mouse trap and you will end up educating the mice.

I hope the Congress and the music industry wake up and realize it can never stop indivual swapping of music or movies. Besides I have had to buy my music choices numerous times over the last 40 years. Not by my choice! What about me, I have purchased Beatles and Pink Floyd numerous times brecause of technical changes in the way we listen to songs. I should have the right to get a refund on every duplicate I ever purchased for example:

Pink Floyd - Dark Side of the Moon

1. Album
2. 8 track
3. Cassette
4. Album again
5. CD Finally

So am I wrong ????
I spent 4 time more money for the same piece of music than I should have . Did the recording company offer me a deal to renew my copy from LP to CD? Or how about a rebate for the other copies of poor technologies they invested in that I was led to believe would last for my life?
Anyone under the age of 30 know where i can get a working 8-track player???

It is rather obvious that the RIAA has lost all reality in this issue. Scare
tactics are used in countries such as Iraq Iran and a few others. Not the
United States it is time that the consumer stand up and fight back.

What ever happen to the fact that the customer is the backbone of any
business. With out the customer the business fails perhaps we need to
force the RIAA and Music Industry to fail before they realize they have taken
the wrong path.

I support a Strong Boycott of the music Industry until the RIAA realizes they
made a bad decision. A decision that was forced by an old executive that
felt he could toss his ageing weight around and force the consumer to bow at
his demand. Well I got news for him that is not going to be the case.

I look at it this way Why should I spend hard earned money for a CD with 9 or less
songs on it when I only wanted 1 or 2 of those songs to start with. If I had the opportunity to
pull 2 songs off of the net from the group I enjoyed that I was looking for I would
do it in a minuet. And I would even be willing to pay for it. I don't want something
for nothing.

Take the case of the Grandfather where his Teenage grandkids downloaded music.
He is the one being sued Simply because his grand kids used his computer when
they were visiting. This is Just plain WRONG I just hope that old coot that runs
the RIAA thinks about what he is doing. He is turning in to a modern day McCarthy
I am sure most do not remember the Witch hunt he did.

Yup I am up in Arms on this and it is time to boycott the industry to the fullest extent..

pos orale guey esa no me la savia,but it seems the RIAA is commited to make bad desitions over this devastating situation. Then again many of us dont give a f@@k!

you guys are stupid!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I agree with something someone said at some forum visited and thats that the RIAA is able to target P2P users and they are allowed to but no one has been able to close down or find who run illegal porn sites. All of this is driven by money and nothng else. The RIAA wants to basically "leech" off of us so that they dont loose even a dime ever. They already leech of the very own artists that work for them and now they are targeting us. All I can say that if they think that their greed will stop us, they are wrong because there are just as many other people that will profit from the RIAAs greed by making better and more accessible anonymity programs. Theres always a work around for everything.

personal i think and agree with shuman's thoughts. I think people might end up boycotting music cds from stores. In the end turning pplaway from making music because thiers no money in it. all these lawsuits are going to do is hurt the recording industry and musicens the most.

Ok. Here goes:
1. The Industry needs to stop making CDs that cost $20 (when they only cost .50 to make).
2. Most of the people that download music are:
a. young kids that still get an allowance
b. people that dont want to pay $20 for two likeable songs.
3. The Industry needs to realize that the people they are trying to sue make less than those corporate employees do in an hour.
4. Its not stealing!!! If it was stealing, then a song would be gone once you downloaded it. When you steal something, you remove it from its Retail environment. This is not STEALING. The song will always be there for other people to get---hence the term "SHARING".
5. Programs like Napster, Grogster, & Kazaa will ALWAYS be on the Internet as long as the net becomes more vast. The Industry thought that they're problems were over when they destroyed Napster. WRONG!! There was some other intelligent music lover out there that made downloading happen once again, and it will always be like that.
6. The music industry has absolutly NO ROOM TO TALK. They make billions just by selling Britney Spears merchandise. They have plenty of money, and there is no purpose for their greed.
7. How is this any different from going to the library? Checking out a book for free? Books are publications...its someone's work of art that you can read without getting sued. You can also get music and movies at the library. HOW IS THIS ANY DIFFERENT? How can the RIAA tell if one is selling the music that they download, or just keeping it for themselves? They obviously don't know....they're suing teenagers for heavens sake!!
How is the internet any different from obtaining publications at a library??

America's Corporate Giants love to point the finger. If its not Marilyn Manson, its Eminem. If its not Parental Advisory stickers, its editing CDs at Wal-Mart. They always like starting all kinds of trouble.

To me, its absurd!!!! I would like to see the RIAA try and sue me! I'm afraid to say that all they will get is about $300.

Enough Said.....

You all should have began a boycot against the music industry years ago, but not for this reason.
I fail to understand how so many think they should get the music for free. Many of you believe the cost of making music is set by the the price to manufacture the CD's, you are wrong and should look into it before making your opinions public.

As for librarys, They pay for all the material. It would be stealing if you checked out a CD from a library, copied it and then sold it. (Books to for that matter)

I think most of you are upset cause your all doing it.

Boycot the artists for making poor music and you will gain attention. Continue to steal and see what happens. Destroying jobs for people to make you feel justified in your actions is no excuse for the ignorant opinions read here.

IF you believe KaZaA is here to liberate the "People" from big bad corporate America, Then you should read this article.
www.news.com.com/2100-1023-873181.html

I love the fact that the CD was suppose to be the greatest achievement and be significantly cheaper than prior media formats. When is this suppose to happen? I sure as hell have not seen it! These corporate idiots should be sued for lying. I am all for a site or program were you can down load music for a justified price, but this will never happen because it means that the music industry bigwigs won't be able to buy that third Porsche. They want to squeeze every penny possible out of the artists and the public. If they think that suing the public is going to solve their problem and get people to buy CD's from retailers again they better wake up! Personally, I will NEVER buy a CD from a store again. I have spent thousands over the years and had to re-buy my music over and over because of media changing, are they going to refund me for this, I think not. I hope that everyone in the world including the artist's boycott the RIAA to the point that the don't exist. I would gladly sign a petition and spread the word to every one I know! If any one knows of a petition out there post it please.

Again I am confused. Sue the public? Can anyone explain this position with some sort of fact?
I do not condone the Music Industries tactics
on any issue but that does not condone the fact that the "Public" is stealing and justifying this behavior because they feel taken advantage of.

The only people being sued are those who steal. I have not been sued. I am the "Public", I do not steal. When I do not like an artist, I don't buy the music. Simple.

And since when do consumers get reimbursed for new technology?
When new cars are developed, do you complain that your car is out dated and demand compensation?
Grow Up!

John: Downloading files off the internet is illegal but it is not theft, it is copyright infringement. Copyright law was created to give authors and artists *some* control over the distribution of their thoughts and ideas, so they could make money and continue to distribute their thoughts and ideas! Ideas (patents and copyright are not ideas) cannot be sold. It is very important that this be understood. Equating "music piracy" with "theft" indicates that the "pirated good" is property. Ideas and expressions cannot be property and continuing to acknowledge them as such will leave us open to tremendous abuse from corporate conglomerates.

I think many of you are grasping at the idea but I also understand that the RIAA is just trying to protect itself. In this case I do belive the RIAA is making a bad move. The simple fact is that it's attacking its customer base and will cause many potential customers to find "alternate" sources. I don't agree that songs should be completely free. Artists, companies, individuals invest great deals of money to develop music that will hopefully profitable. A successful song album is not easy to produce and probably is very costly. However, like any good business I think the RIAA should find alternate means to sell music. Its obvious at least to me that the old format of selling CDs has died or is going to die. Its much to easy to produce your own cd. Certainly Napster and Kazaa are making money off their advertising from their web site property I not sure why the Music industry does not follow suit. Its obvious that ripped software may lack in quality and availablity certainly consumers would be willing to pay a little to download quality legal copies of music and movies. The advertising money could be used to offset the price and drive it down. With the extra advertising income they could easily shave the prices of each song down. Also by putting on the user to produce their own cdst they reduce the costs of selling their product. The company is reacting all wrong to situation this is not a new threat to this industry they should have been prepared to change their products to meet the new demands of the media. I think this latest attack is to defend themselves and the decisions they made its a last ditch effort to not change. Once it fails and I am almost certain it will hopefully they see the light.

Ok now. Just to say something that has been bugging me. Copyright was meant to stop illegal distribution of things, however, most of the people who download the songs just do it for themselves, not to "illegally distribute." People can not be sued for having files on their computer, they may be there legally. Of course the RIAA wont bother with those "minor excuses." Also, the public is not stealing. If someone walks up to you on the street and gives you a CD are you stealing? No, the person that gave it to you may have stole it but how would you know? When you get gifts from people you are not normally accused of stealing. That goes for the online stuff too. How do you know that the person that you are "recieving" the files from didn't buy them legally? Weather they did or not you still aren't stealing by downloading the files because they are being given to you, as a gift is given. Sure it may be morally wrong but it is not wrong enough to sew the public for downloading. Why did the computer companies get to create the CD burners? Why do the CD creating programs come with mp3 burning capibilities? If you ask me, the public has been given all of these things: the CD burner, the software to burn the CD, and the song itself. The RIAA has been blaming this for the lack of CD's sold. Could another reason for this be that the economy is not so good? People can't afford to pay $19 per CD anymore. So that means the RIAA will probably have to set their profit goals much lower because its not just the downloading that hurts them, its their own prices. Finally, when the RIAA comes out and sues individuals many people are getting angry. The backlash will be hard and long but the public will win. The record companies just have to realize that they don't have a monopoly over the music industry anymore.

I have tried to buy my music in stores. I have looked in music stores in four states for one artist, and have been unable to find any of her music. I later found out she might not have released ANY music in the USA. How am I supposed to buy an album? How am I supposed to buy an album with obscure songs like Lydia the Tattooed Lady as performed by Groucho Marx? I don't think he ever cut an album. If someone could show me where I could have purchased my music and the few video files I've tried (and failed) to download, I would have been reaching for my wallet. Not now. Not after the RIAA started suing people. I will not buy any more music or anything else they would be paid for. I am boycotting them now, and I do not think I will be the only one.

Peter,

Thank you for a response based on thought over emotion!

I beg to differ with your understanding of copyright and patent ownership.

You are correct in that an idea in itself is not (real) or physical property. This is why we have copyright laws that secure ownership (exclusive rights for usage) to the person(s) who sought the copyright as a form of protection from theft of an original "idea". Copyright offers no control of how,in this case a song, is distributed. Copyright infringement is theft. It is a crime to take ones protected material and use in any way you want other than the limited license you are granted by the copyright holder at the time you purchase the CD. (the buyer may listen and make copies for personal use. ie: you have a CD but need a cassete for the car.)In the case of a gift,
The buyer releases this license when given to another party who then aquires right of usage.
(If you copy the disc and then give it away you are in violation of the law)Since this is the p2p premise, it is a runawy problem that many think is O.K.

Copyrigt and patent laws are very complex. Attorneys specialize in these fields for that reason.

In the case of downloading music from the net, even if money was not traded, it is theft. (Shop-lifting on line) The person who posts the song is guilty of copyright infringement.(Using the material in violation of the copyright holders rights under federal law).

Copyrights and patents may be bought and sold, ideas that have been protected are treated as proerty and should be respected as such.

The record industry is not going to win this battle, I know. But they are justified.

Go ahead and boycot, But do it because they have become manufaturers of music instead of Artist developers, or for price gouging and any of the legitimate reasons to do so. But not for defending there rights under the law.

Oh' Yeah! These "Artist" are on the side of RIAA no matter what you hear otherwise!

I quite agree with part of Geoff statement. I not sure how the RIAA plans to sue individuals who are simply sharing files. Certainly if they do have certain files such as a copy of a song they should own their own legal copy of that cd. Of course it be impossible for the RIAA to know if they do or don't. Simply said if I download a song that I have on a cd or even a Cassette tape I have every right to download it. Even if the orginal copy I download was illegally done as long as I own rights to the music it does not matter I own rights to the song/movie I can do with my property as I please. This is because I own a legal copywrite to that song and have the right to listen to it in any format I desire. I also have the right to share my files maybe I wanted to share it to another computer that I own. Whatever the case its up to the individual who downloads it off my computer to make certain they own a legal copy of the music not mine. It be the same case if I loaned a friend my copy or a movie and or cd and they made an illegal copy of it. Am I reponsible for their actions? I think not and its incrediable to me that the courts are still siding with the RIAA. I think that will change as well the RIAA will soon look like a bully and public discontent will effect the courts decisions. Consider this, even if I don't own a legal copy of the song/movie that i downloaded they have no way of telling that so how can they even start to sue. They can't of course. If anyone from the RIAA is reading these articles I beg you to rethink your actions. Certainly you can see that you are trying to do is only going to benefit you in the very short term. The loses you will receive will greatly overcome any legal winnings you obtain now. Its going to be hard to ever overcome the public distrust of your company and outright hate of your existance. With time comes change you eather flow with the change or get destoried by it.

Are we sheep, there are 60 million people that are basically doing this and the RIAA wants to scare the majority by making an example of a few. If you want to hit back at the RIAA, simply go to you local record stores and tell the manager that until the RIAA backs off, you will not purchace another item from their store. If enough people were to do this, the big distributers would scream bloody murder at the RIAA. Also, any politician that has supported the RIAA efforts would go white if "we the people" voted in a block form against them no matter how much money the recording industry has.

Does any one know of an official petition or anything to boycott the RIAA. I can only hope there are enough people out there who will help shut these corporate pigs down if they don't recognize the need for change! I will NOT buy a CD from a manufacturer ever again. It would be so great to see an actual list of everyone boycotting the RIAA and to see their (assuming) stupidly surprised reactions after seeing the petition(s). Suing children? Hope you jerks saved some of that money you were hoarding because we're not buying a CD ever again! Say what they may about stealing copy righted music. But how long has this been a issue? You would think after all this that the RIAA would see a need to change. Ya right! They want to soak the public for as much as they can get.

Screw the RIAA! The biggest profiteers of the music biznis are the bigwig fatcats. The artists can make a very decent living, but nowhere near the money made by the cigar-chomping money crunchers in the high offices. Maybe we need to boycott buying these overpriced CDs altogether, except perhaps in the case where the musician has a direct line to purchase their music.
If the RIAA really wants to thwart file-sharing they should get behind technology which would disable copying music to the computer's hard drive or even from CD-CD or cassette. Then, we couldn't share in the first place.

Uh, is ANYBODY using real Email addresses here?
Bugger off, RIAA!!!

With 20% of Americans having shared music files via P2P, don't you think it's alot likely that hundreds of family members of the over-1,000 music companies that comprise the RIAA, have too? How much you want to bet that they have a pact not to sue their own da_n-selves? Look...piracy is bootlegging copies for PROFIT. No one has done that! Granted, ok, the practice apparantly is illegal. But it has taken years in courts before it has become apparant and only has become so, a few weeks ago. Ergo, the courts should NOT be issuing ex-post facto subpeonas. What's more...I'd love to see some of those sued go all the way to court. Chances are...in some cases whomever decides (a jury, a judge) has used P2P their own selves and aren't likely to impose huge sums for fines. Also, they would likely be fair and weigh in the fact that we are talking about mainstream America here, not the freakin' Russian Mafia! Going back and suing thousands of the tens of millions of users who have been led to believe that they have tacit approval because of no precedent, should not result in even a few thousands of dollars fine. I've seen NOTHING showing how much "the industry" has lost because of illegal downloading. The premise they would have us believe is that "everyone" who up or downloads a song, would have purchased a CD with the song on it were it not available illegally. That's just not true. Besides...they say they've lost "billlions?" Okay, divide 60 million users by $2 billion...that's $33 apiece! The whole economy is down 10-20%, and they've also made their own problems by charging kids a month's allowance to buy a few measly CD's worth only about 50 cents in plastic to begin with! The artists roll around with all their bling-bling and Rolls Royces and the record companies pay their executives untold millions in bonuses, and they price themselves out of the market. So now children and the elderly have to cough up untold thousands more in court, so what...they can buy BIGGER mansions in L.A.? For God's sake...why won't someone do something to set things straight?

You know they say that 60 Million people are involved in this. Can you picture what 60 Million people can do to an Industry if they boycott it for just 2 months?

I think we would hear the soft foot steps of the
RIAA retreating real fast.

The last CD's I purchased were through BMG music. I got 12 disks for about $25, plus shipping. Then, after I got them, I copied them onto cassette and sold them on eBay for a profit. Now I can listen to my music while on my computer, which is all I wanted to do in the first place. Should I go to jail for this, or be sued? What if I ripped them and listen to then through the speakers on my computer? What if I ripped them, put the songs I like on a blank CD and keep it for myself? Where is the line? When does it become a problem? Do I have to make a profit on the songs, or just the disks? What if I bought a CD for $10 on eBay and re-sold it for $15? Am I a pirate then? What about buying the disks for one cent from BMG and selling them for 25 cents on eBay? What about pawn shops? Yard sales? The RIAA better hire on a bunch of lawyers, they have a lot of people to sue, here. They might want to just file one big suit, The RIAA v the people of the United States...

It is interesting the Adds by Google on the right all pertain to copyright protection when, according to some of these posts, 60 million americans could care less and expect no reaction to their actions.

Why did Shuman bother with a copyright for this site? How about I make copies and sell them for profit and leave Shuman out in the cold? Do you think he would mind or is he one of the 60 million?

I know your right John copyright infringement is stealing. Put it in plain terms when you pour work, money, and effort to develop a product whether it be physical or Intellectual you would expect to benefit from it. Like you said if I took a year of my life to develop a nice web site to attract people and sell a product. It wouldn't be fair for someone to just copy and paste so to speak without my permission. The problem I have with the issue is the means. Just like the cable company can't coming bargining into your house to see if your stealing cable the RIAA should not be able to spy to find out what your sharing. Plus like a said if you own a copy of the song or music you have every right to use it on other formats including the computer. The copyright does not stop me from transfering music onto a computer or a CD if I so desired. I also have the right to share my intellectual property on the web for my own personal use. If some takes advantage of my sharing then its up to them to obtain or have a copyright of the music or whatever. I don't agree with "stealing music" but I am outragged that the RIAA feels it has the right to illegally invade the privacy of everyone to route out a few. The end does justify the means. An interesting article I read recently mentioned that the RIAA tried to get an amendament into the a recent bill that was passed to fight terrorism. They wanted to in effect get permission to hack individuals computers to see whether they have illegal copies of music. They also wanted to get passed limited liability to damages they may cause in doing this. Of course thank god this was not allowed. Could you imagine the reprocutions. I also feel that the RIAA is trying to delay the change in technology because of the threat to its market standing and profit. The music industry is a cash cow that is milked and produces quite some profit. Th RIAA trying to cover up the fact and pretend they are on life support also is wrong in my opinion. Certainly they could make profit if they were to move to the web. Yes, jobs would be lost but new ones will be created. Resistance is common I read some articles posted on the RIAA site. They are very interesting as they mention that some of the "Artists" are biting the hand that feeds them in support of Kazaa. Yet are they not doing the same thing they criticize those artist for doing? They also mention that they have not been able to find a way to sell music on-line that will enable them to make a profit. They state if you look at the music companies that have attempted this formate (Kazza, Napster) have gone brankrupt. What they don't mention is this is because the RIAA had run them out of business by continuely sueing them. The lawsuits took so long their legal fees caused them to become financially unstable so to speak. Is this a fair measurment of the market on-line for the music industry or an excuse to continue to delay the demanded changes in the industry? I understand your stand on intellectual property rights but it does not excuse the actions of the RIAA and inactions. Proverty causes crime rates to go higher, there is a cause effect relationship. Should we treat the proverty side or waste more money trying to fight the symptom while ignoring the disease. In the same sense the RIAA over priced merchandise and intentionally ignored the changes in the industry and have caused many to seek other sources. What should we do punish those who are the symptom or treat the problem at the source.

You know It is rather obvious to me that some here do not fully see the trees for the forest. Sure Copyright Violations are wrong. I would be the first to stand up and say that.

What I am up in arms about is the way the RIAA is trying to railroad the American People into submission. I will not allow my self to stand by and let some Podunk operation think they can force their customers into submission. And hey the RIAA needs to realize they are not the golden child of business.

Ask any music artist from the 50s How many of them are seeing royalties from their work. I would say only 20 percent if that. The RIAA is suppose to represent all and they have been shafting those artist for years. So where is the copyright with that?

What it boils down to is a group of money hungry throw backs to the Rock-olla Years when they got caught with their fingers in the cookie jar.

It is time that the customer stand up and say Hold it treat me like that and see what happens to your future sales.

Let me see if I get this:
Its ok to sell me a CD burner
Its ok to sell me blank media
Its ok to sell me the same album several times over using different media (album, cassette, CD, enhanced CD, etc.) but if I want to copy the CD to have it in my car player (I don't like to drive around with $200+ of stealable goodies), its illegal?
No I still don't get it. This effort is doomed.

I would feel so much better about myself if i was to download a whole album, record my own CD and then send the band a cheque for £5, most bands recieve a small sum of each album sold, averaging around one pound per £15 of the album you buy, the music industry seems to have forgotten that we get the music because we like the people who create it, not because they advertise it everywhere, or because they spend millions on music videos, i never buy music videos but the CDs i buy pay for them, what a waste, stop makin videos, lesson the ads, make CDs cheaper and ill stop downloadin

I just bought 4 CDs from Amazon, I buy CDs all the time, I also download songs via KAZAA. I bought the Readers Digest music album of Golden Oldies. All I download to my hard drive so I may listen while Im working or on line. I am retired and live on my socialsecurity and wouldnt be able to accumulate allt these songs if I didnt "borrow" some of them. I have baacked all these to cdS, deleted them from my harddrive and
stopped downloading them till this mess is ironed out. meantime I still have the songs that my grandsons band wrote and played available for anyones download and enjoyment.

Why don't the ISP's change their software so that it's impossible to track their users? They could advertise this as a "privacy" bonus. All they would have to do is purge the recorded IP addresses of their users each night.

I think the RIAA is straight out wrong and I know they will not win this. We the American people need to put our foot down and say enought is enought!!! How many of us have gone to the music store to buy a CD just for ONE song you like??? I'm pretty sure 99.9% of the people have done it, and on top of that a CD goes between $15-$20. How you're actually paying $15-$20 for 1 song!!! Just 1 song. What kind of Sh!t is that??? That's insane!!! and to think that it only cost $.50 to make a CD. That's rape of the people's hard earned money. I hope the RIAA goes down hard. I WILL NEVER BUY A CD EVER AGAIN!!!!! or anything the RIAA is part of. I will be willing to sign a petition about this. Now there's another issue involved in this and that privacy. Who says that it's ok for the RIAA to sneak around your computer without your permission, which is your private property. Isn't that called Trespassing??? I don't think the RIAA has a chance to win this war. If anyone from the RIAA is reading this comment I have one thing to tell you...EAT IT!!!!!!!!!! YOU'RE GOING TO LOSE THE WAR!!!!!!!!!

Now let's look at this...is it wrong for you to tape a movie off the TV??? Can the production company that created that TV show or movie you tapped come and sue you??? NO!!! If you're just taping or copying music for your own personal use then one has the right to invade your privacy and hand you a lawsuit. Is the RIAA going to sue the software companies that create MP3 creation software??? Are they going to sue CD-Burner manufacturers for advertising on their boxes thay they can burn MP3's??? Come on give me a break. No matter what the RIAA does file-sharing will never be stopped. They can close KaZaa or other p2p software search engines, but for every 2 that they shut down another 5 will open. Look what happend to Napster. Napster was great!!! Once they were shut down how many new search engines came online??? Countless number. :o) YOU WILL NEVER WIN!!! Another thing sueing teenagers is just straight out wrong!!!
I will say one thing those that live by greed will die poor. RIAA can kiss my @ss!!!!!!!

This is turning out to be just like the late 50's and 60's when the govenment cracked down on marajiana use by making it a federal crime. on average 25% of americas youth was put in prison for 50 years or more and weigh with hefty fines i don't know what they are thinking when they find out they are sueing inocent 12 year old kids that don't know any better that right there shows that the judicial system is broken and needs to be fixxed out of the millions of users out there on kazaa they chose about 200 users to sue when i can log on kazaa ata any given time and search 2 times in a row for one song and get 2 different sets of users. so you do the math are these 200 users actually the cause of the problem or the effect of what happens when a money hungry music industry can not share nicely with all the other kids on the play ground and lower there cd prices to compete with the peer 2 peer networks.

For those of you who going to boycott the RIAA and their members check out http://www.riaa.com/about/members/default.asp for the list of those that they represent. I was very shocked to see a lot of the record labels that represent the artists I do listen to on the list. I too wanted to immediately boycott the RIAA, but as a DJ I have to buy the vinyl (yes, vinyl) to have the latest dance music. I definitely am going to be more discriminating when picking out LPs and CDs and I am also going to be searching out more independent and unsigned artists. But any artist who is trying to do something with their career is going to be absorbed into the RIAA on way or another.

I am a DJ too, and yes I also buy vinyl to keep up with the new tracks that are put out there. I will look at that list Lonegun posted to see if any or the Artist's tracks I spin are in the list. If they are...then the hell with them, I don't need to spin their music anymore. I'm a progressive house and techno DJ, so my crowd can deal with out any vocals and would just be fine with sounds. RIAA HOPE U CRASH!!!!!!!!!!

There is a difference between stealing music and sharing music. Stealing music is when you take someone else's creation and put your name on it, say it's yours and then selling it to make money off. That I do NOT agree with. Sharing files is not stealing because you're not making any money of it and you're not stealing the artist track to say you're the creator of it. Sharing files is for personal use.

I think recording artist actually benefit from file sharing networks because it makes the artist more popular therefore the public will go out and buy their CD's as well as their products. The average home has a broadband Internet connection...what does that mean for the artist??? More file-sharing = more exposure to the public. Am I not right??? What if one day I sat in front of my computer opened up Kazaa and did a random search for Alternative music. I will get a bunch of hits...some of those bands I may know, some I may not. Now lets say I select to download a song from X band that I have never heard of and end up liking the song I downloaded. So I do a search for that specific band again and happen to like quite a few songs from them....How does that benefit the artist??? Well...1)The artist has just been expoused to a new fan in this case ME. 2)It will make me want to buy their CD's and products. Do you as the reader get my point??? This is just my opinion. The RIAA is going to regret what they are doing. It's going to hurt them in the long run.

Hey peter1. Good post on 9-12. I agree with much of your argument but still stand by the law on this issue.

Most of you Are not "Getting It" but to each his own.

Since the outrage is so extreme, Why not do some thing about it! I read alot about cost, bad music,
and the poor Americans abused by this
evil industry. And your all correct on those issues. Boycot the industry for these reasons and I will be the first to help organize and structure a campaign.

If you want to fight them because you "feel" your not stealing or hurting anyone, Then you are ignorant of the law of the land and have no ability to contribute an intelligent campaign that can gather the right attention.

Action Rules the Day!

I think the problem here is not that people are unwilling to support the artists who create the music they enjoy. The problem is that the current system in place for buying and selling music and ideas is outdated and inconvenient. Most of us accept the system anyway, continuing to purchase CDs because it is the only real system in place, but we choose to augment this practice by downloading the songs we are curious about or cannot currently afford. The availability of p2p has, if anything, increased the number of CDs that I have purchased or been interested in purchasing.
But, let's be honest, the problem has little to do with a willingness to purchase CDs. The problem has to do with the fact that I am not going to waste my time flipping through hundreds of albums to listen to a variety of music. I own 1140 albums [that have been purchased legitimately] and I have no interest and no recourse for using this music in CD format. Mp3s offer something that CDs cannot: ease of use. Nobody is going to turn their backs on that in favor of an ancient system that ammounts to little more than a pain in the neck.

With all that is going on in the world today, why is this such a big issue? Greed, that is why.
The almighty dollar is always the most important thing both in industry as well as government.

My opinion on the RIAA is they should go after the ones that post the music not the ones that download it. Of course it would be extremely difficult if not impossible to determine who the original person copied the originally legally owned song and posted it. However they are the ones that are the true violators of the copyright and the illegal distribution. It is the "sharer" not the "sharee" that is guilty.

This is just another example of how this country allows frivoulous lawsuits to happen.
So many stories of people suing for ridiculous things, i.e. woman sues store for hurting her ankle after tripping over her own unruly child.
If courts can award money for this, why does it surprise anyone that the courts allow this class action from RIAA??
It's a crazy world we live in and I'm sure it's only going to get crazier....It's ashame....

With any change comes pain and discomfort. As a generality people hate change. Corporations are run by people, who generally hate change. The Advent of the Mp3 encoding process has irrevocably changed the way the average person listens to music. I do not condone the illegal use of intellectual property. However, I also cannot condone the gouging of the American public. It is my opinion that the RIAA is not acting in a fashion that is beneficial to the artists, the public, or the companies that they represent. In fact, tracking down and sueing individuals for copyright infringement (when in fact, no copyright was infringed) for an absurd amount of money is not condusive to the public image that most would deem necessary to stay in business. I know that if I were to sue my clientele for copying my business card and giving it away, I certainly wouldn't have any customers left. I created that card, I own it, but to sue someone for giving away a copy? Come on people, let's use our heads for something more than a hat rack. I find the actions fo the RIAA appalling, and the actions of the individuals who are illegally gaining profit from the transactions over the P2P networks distasteful. I do not find the sharing of music, knowledge, ideas, literature, or images in anyway discomfiting. The internet is public domain, as are the airwaves that transmit television signals and radio signals. According to federal law, the information that is received from this media is public domain, and is freely copiable. What is illegal is to sell the copied materials or to publicly demonstrate the materail without the consent of the copyright holder. How can this be different from the information gathered on the internet? I think I have beaten this horse to death. Good night. Long live the P2P networks.

Linux rules....

Why do artists need the RIAA anyway? Surely they only needed them pre-internet to distribute their songs nationally or even globally. But now artists can easily distribute their own songs globally on the internet. They then get to keep all their profits, which they can re-invest in recording new songs and making videos which can again be distributed on the internet at whatever price they feel they can sell them at. This way the artists gets to keep all the profits, the consumer is happy to pay the money direct to the artists, and the RIAA gets nothing! Just take them out of the loop, they are not needed any more.

For your consideration:

1) FM radio broadcasts in good fidelity and is easy record. Record companies spend millions trying to get airplay.

1) As Napster grew more popular, CD sales went up. When Napster was closed down, CD sales slumped.

You see, the recording industry just can't add one plus one and get two. (Just talk with any recording artist with a first-time hit album and they'll tell you they got squat. Hit recording minus production and promotion costs equals almost zero for the artist -- try again until you develop some real clout.)

Why is PAYOLA still an issue today? The answer is EXPOSURE! Napster gave artists, big and small, an expanded audience -- kind of like radio.

Do recording companies spend tons of money to promote their artists to programming directors of radio stations? You bet your sweet bippie they do! Reps, novelty packaging, artist receptions, and the like all are geared to get the DJs to play their tunes -- free for anyone to record.

So little Napster gave these same artists exposure in a big way. Sure, you could burn to CD -- just as anyone can burn from FM recordings -- but oddly enough sales of physical CDs from physical stores (OK - and online retailers) went up. WOW! Free publicity! No need for payola or high priced promotions, the Internet was doing the promotion for them.

Tens of thousands of artists could be sampled and tested by the buying public before making their "purchasing decision".

I fiddled a bit with Napster during its hayday, and soon found myself exploring new (to me) genres of music. A site that offered the tune I was looking for also had other tunes available. Might the both of us have similar tastes? Each site was like a miniature radio station that broadcast (narrowcast?) the favorites of the individual host. It was a great way to discover a whole new world of music. It was more than downloading individual recordings, it was a musical education.

So, what went wrong? Why didn't the record companies realize what was going on? They were making increasing sales and good money "for free".

As much as I would like to think that they are greedy, ignorant bastards, I think that they are more clever than that.

What they were losing was control.

If you representing a multi-milliion dollar corporation that can influence the consolidating number of outlets for "product", you would rather have a larger share of a small pie than a bigger piece (but smaller share) of a much larger pie. It just doesn't look good to the shareholders if market share is dropping, even if there are much greater revenues.

If all promotion has to be bought and paid for (and you have the bucks for promotion), then you don't want any wild cards in the deck. No independent can get into the game unless they can afford the ante. If you control the promotional channels, you don't want anything like a free flowing Internet operates outside that control. It is much better in the long term to take a hit in sales and blame it on file sharing than to lose control over the promotional channel.

-----

And what about this $0.07 per listener per song royalty stuff when broadcasting over the Internet? What do "real" radio stations pay? I have no knowledge here, but here are some quick calculations.

Let us say that a typical broadcast radio station might play 10 songs per hour and has a listenership of 10,000. That's $0.07 X 10 X 10,000 = $7,000 per hour. Or $168,000 per day. A weeks worth of programming would run $1,176,000. A year would cost station operators $61,320,000 just in royalties alone.

As I said, I don't know what the current rate cards are, but I doubt that the fees are so high for "real" radios stations.

Louie, I think you hit the nail on the head. It's all about control. I can go to numerous corporate radio stations on line with the same genre and what do I hear? The exact same songs that have been promoted by the RIAA to the big corporate company. When the people have a free choice in choosing their music such as KAZAA and Napster allowed, they might choose not to be force feed the same canned artists and music. I believe I read somewhere (not here) that independent sales actually have been increasing. Could some of those lost CD sales be going there? I'm sure the RIAA can't keep track of sales they don't control. I think the RIAA is pissed because they can't control our listening habits and gear them toward their artists and now they are try to scare us into submission.

Louie has a great point. The Grateful Dead openly encouraged the bootlegging and free distribution of their music, the end result being this; The Grateful Dead was one of the most popular bands EVER! People would follow them around the country in a VW van.

Additionally, when a band makes a record (especially a "new" band), they get a loan from the record company. It may seem like a lot of money at first, but after the costs of making the album and promotion are recouped, there is usually very little left. Then the band must pay back the loan through record sales. The band gets jacked.

Lars Ulrich (you remember, the rich "drummer" who helped start this whole debacle) might not remember this step of the process. It's probably where he first learned to take it in the rear.

I've read many interviews with artists who would very much like to encourage downloading as a new way of life, so people will put less value in a piece of plastic (the CD itself) and maybe go to a live show with all of that money they saved on the CD....That's where the money is made, and that's what people should be paying to go see.

Excuse me John, but I think maybe you should re-read a few of the opinions written down. I for one have been an avid music collector since my teen years. I have absolutley no issues whatsoever with buying my music. Over the years, I've lost a few to time, some to damage, and some to oblivion. The fact of it is....I PAID IN FULL FOR IT! Therefore, I do not believe I should pay for what I have already paid for again. I absolutely will not either. I agree in boycotting not only the RIAA, but the bands, of whom are already making their millions, and that are trying to rape us again by supporting such tactics as the IRAA (may I refresh everyone's memory with the name Metallica. - how many millions is enough Lars!). I am downloading what I already owned once. And it this point...I'm going to download again and again what I have already paid for. I do not agree with theft, but I think the IRAA is being incredibly irresponsible in the way they are going about resolving this issue. At this point, until they stop their scare tactics, I will no longer buy another piece of music. Especially since you don't get your money's worth anyway, unless of course, it's a greatest hits album. For all the musicians and bands out there, I have but one piece of advice - get yourselves a website, publish the music yourself, cut the music yourself, make it available on a per song basis fee, and cut out the RIAA and their take on you. I hope bands keep putting out albums, but I hope they understand that not every consumer may want every song on their record, and they may not buy it at all. Per song may be the only way that the artists and the consumers will survive the IRAA. As a further note, for the bands that are represented by the IRAA - they were already paid in advance for creativeness, so in essence, its the IRAA taking from the artists, then inflating the price to get rich on somethng they really never owned in the first place. Whose the real thief?

Two types of downloaders:--

Those who continue to purchase (either cd's or legal sites like buymusic.com) copies of some or all of the music that they received through p2p networks-- and those whose cavalier attitude is "why should I EVER pay for my music again?"

It is my BELIEF that most file traders fall into this first category.

If this IS the case then for reasons that have already been expressed ad-naseum the RIAA is simply holding a gun to it's own head by even viewing p2p as a problem.

IF HOWEVER-- and this contradicts my intuition but I have seen no IRREFUTABLE STUDIES concluding one way or the other--- the number of file traders in the second category "music should be free idiots" comprises 40/50%+ of all file traders.... then unfortunately that WOULD validate everything that the RIAA is doing.

unfortunately all the RIAA is able to do is, or at least all they are BOTHERING TO do at this point is prosecuting people with large numbers of music files left open to p2p searches-- without taking into account how those files got there, how they are being shared, and how that is affecting the purchasing decisions of the individual....

Gordy, Thanks for re-enforcing my "opinion". A quick note for Al (re:post 9-17-03) I think you have the thing nailed! Well done.

Copyright: Sharman Networks Ltd does not condone activities and actions that breach the rights of copyright owners. As a Kazaa Media Desktop user
you have agreed to abide by the End User License Agreement and it is your responsibility to obey all laws governing copyright in each country.Copyright: Sharman Networks Ltd does not condone activities and actions that breach the rights of copyright owners. As a Kazaa Media Desktop user
you have agreed to abide by the End User License Agreement and it is your responsibility to obey all laws governing copyright in each country.

A couple suggestions for those of you who have expressed their ire over this:
1. Learn the English language. Inarticulate rage lacks credibility, as does sloppy spelling.
2. If you advocate no longer purchasing music yet claim to love it, offer concrete suggestions as to how an artist is supposed to make a living without revenues from their recorded work. Touring is a great way to lose money, and while it's true the record companies allow artists to make relatively small profits, at least they do make that.
3. Patronize other venues. Buy CDs directly from artists on line or at shows, buy from independently owned and operated labels, shop at independent record stores.
I agree that the RIAA action is Draconian and should fail because it attacks small people in a big way, for the most part. However, their actions do not exucse yours.
Bottom line: if you claim to be downloading because you love music and don't do everything you can to support the people who make the music you love, you are a hypocrite.
I only recall one post on this entire thread in which someone suggested actually paying the musician directly.
My overall impression is that those of you complaining about this suit are, for the most part, throwing tantrums simply becuase you fear the loss of a free ride at the expense of the creators of that which you claim to love.
If the music means that much to you, find a way to support its creators.

Wow, some very intresting points you all are making and i agree with most of you 100%
now its my turn to add my 2 cents in.



If i were to be sued for downloading or sharing music off kazaa or any other p2p network i would never purchase another CD ever again.

In fact i would keep downloading and sharing music dispite their best efforts to stop me. It would only fuel the fire to download and share more for retaliation.

(if im going to be sued for $150,000 per violation im going to get my moneys worth.)




- They will never stop file sharing!

- there is always a work around.

- it will always be accessable if you know where to find it.

P2P enable me to "sample" or "preview" the works of the artists and determine if I like it or not, and if I do I will buy the CD. And because of this, I have been buying CDs more often before P2P came abt.

Now, since they are taking the ability for me "Preview", then they wont get my money so easily, unless they would let me open up the CD and listen to it in the shop!!!! Why should I pay of something that I dont even know if I like it in the 1st place.

I already posted the link to view the artists and labels who belong to the RIAA. And I am glad I haven't watched Mtv in years.

I believe P2P file sharing is only a great technology if used responsibly. We can argue all day about copyright infringement and whether or not those who are being sued knew that they were in violation of any laws, but what it all boils down to is we as an online community are not using P2P responsibly.

By being responsible each user needs to make sure the files that they are distributing are permitted to be shared. If not then that user will have to face the consequences for their actions.

In our current situation I do feel that the RIAA is showing what the music industry is really interested in, and that is money. How many judges and law-makers do they have in their pocket? We may never know, but I for one am going to be more than careful when I buy music. If bands and artists are really out there for the sake of the music and the art then why make money for an organization that has no problem suing 12-year-old kids for thousands of dollars.

Simply put reguardless what is said here. Men and women of the tech world will and continue have the ability to go P2P and share whatever they want in complete safety. For those who know how of course. You have to image tech people can create viruses that destroy and cost billions of dollars in damage. Is the RIAA ready for this counter attacked? Which can be launched at any time? Fear not the corporate link heads have no idea what will meet them at their corporate door. But I am sure it will not be friendly. I am disgusted by their attack of their little 12 year girl and the $2000 bucks her family can ill afford. Sometime needs to be done about this heavy handed bullsh..t they are doing to us all. The rest of us are at the mercy of others. Big companies will do this kind of attack on people because it is run by old men and women. They will loose and be wiped back into their collective fat leather chairs and retire with fat pensions. The company will go bust or get samller or something but they will not win, period. And for those with no hope left in them, fear not there is another way that is full of hope and promise.

Listen boys and girls to a bit of information. I cannot possibly hear and pay to hear all the different music out there. P2P is a great way to listen to music I would have never heared or pay to hear until I downloaded it, discovered I liked it and went out to purchase back issues and new issues of this music. Point 2, the fact I listen to it and want more of the music supports the artist, dum dum, my Point 1 actions should be noted here. Point 3 MP3 copies are not real copies...more like fake copies, this is a legal point people. How can a 40 mb wave song become a 3.5 meg song and be an exact copy? It is like copying from a radio. Look it up! Point 4 RIAA and movie companies complain about this for 40 years. First 8 track blank tapes threaten their universe, then blank video tapes, then CD copies, now this. Get the point? This is nothing to do with supporting artist, clever but not the issue, are you supporting artist by listening to radio? Are you dropping a quarter to hear them into your radio? Radio people pay 1 cent per airplay. I have old video tape copies of movies, cassette tapes, how about copies of complete cds? And now DVDs? They are not thinking they are reacting. Theaters did not die because of video tapes. Music cd did not die because of copies, nor did cassette tapes, maybe 8 track tapes was the culprit? The RIAA Get more artist out there and more music, its getting boring out here. Besides their are tons of old music that is not avaiable to the public that can find new life in P2P, possible new sales?

Most music I have downloaded I would not have bought anyway, so the RIAA has not lost any revenue from me on that account.

Other songs I have downloaded I have liked so much that I went out and bought the CDs because I believe in supporting the artists I like to listen to. I would not have done so without first downloading the music and "previewing" it. Downloading songs online allowed me greater access to a variety of music I would not otherwise have gained exposure to.

Now, after the actions by the RIAA, I will no longer be buying music from any record companies affiliated with the RIAA, even if I DO like the artist. The actions of the RIAA cannot be condoned, and I am considering myself part of a boycott action against the RIAA. I am sorry for what this all is going to do to the artists who are affiliated with the record companies who are exercising such flagrant abuse of their corporate power.

HMMM the price make a cd 10 0r more years ago wa spretty expensive right, now I could be wrong but you can buy a blank CD at about a tenth of the price less now, than what it used to cost. So why have music CD prices stayed the same..???
Oh yeah thats right the RIAA are big fat greedy wa*k@rs!!!
OI FAT CATS why dont you tell us what percentage the artist makes off of a cd sale, and then what you make off of a CD sale.?
Guarantee its ten times more than the artist.

Does anyone remember when the small barber shop in some small toown was sued? The industry assiciation stated it was because they let their customers listen to the radio while they were waiting or getting haircuts and thus was commecial use of the music and the artists deserved royalties. This has gotten so far out of hand that it makes the entire music industry look like hungry vultures without a conscience and concern for their loyal fans and those who pay their way.

The RIAA is biting the hand that feeds it. I have stopped all CD purchases and will listen to whatever I wish from the airwaves until this idiocy is stopped.

Remember... the RIAA is NOT the real villain. The RIAA is a representative group that is paid by the major record labels. They are essentially a lobbying group who has gotten way more power than they ever should have. It is okay to be angry at the RIAA because they are the public figurehead of this whole mess, but your vehemence should really be targeted at the profiting companies that use the RIAA to represent them. The major record labels are the ones hiding behind the RIAA as a publicity shield. Sony and Warner don't want you to hear thet THEY are suing a 12 year old girl, so they have their lobbying group, the RIAA make all the public statements... but if you look at the actual lawsuits... the RIAA ISN'T THE PLAINTIFF. The copyright holder/owner is, which is the RECORD LABELS. The RIAA is a patsy, albeit, a willing one... but the real villains are the major labels who hide behind the RIAA as if they are not involved. If anyone on this board becomes a target of the RIAA, you are really becoming a target of the record labels who are telling the RIAA to go out there on this witch hunt. Artists do not choose to be represented by the RIAA, the artists' record labels choose that. There are ways to harm the record labels without harming the artists. Send the artists fan mail telling them you support them artistically, but you refuse to purchase their albums. Then go see them in concert instead. They make a greater percentage of performance money than they ever do with albums sales. Personally, I don't buy CDs anymore (I bought over 2,000 of them in the 90's), but I have converted my entire collection to MP3. I don't share them on the web, but I burn collections onto CDs for my friends. That is a gratifying feeling, because my friends get to hear music they never would have heard any other way, and the artists get new fans at their concerts, all without me or my friends paying high CD prices for the record labels' greed. If you want to know THE REAL reason why CD sales have slumped, this guy has done a great job of sifting through the RIAA's OWN NUMBERS to illustrate how the record labels aren't releasing as much material as they were a few years back. Could that be the real reason? Check out all the numbers and you decide.

http://www.azoz.com/music/features/0008.html

:D

There is another major problem here that is being overlooked. Copyright & patent laws were designed to allow the originator of an idea or work the opportunity to earn a profit from their work before it was put in the public domain, to be used as source material for additional works by others.
Patent Law still works in this manner. However Congress at the request of coporations who have control or ownership of popular materials, has decided that copyright should not expire. For the last 30 years or so, each time the sopyright law would allow rights to lapse, the period of exclusivity has been extended. The original law stated 20 years then the work was Public Domain.

Currently most work produced in or after the year 1928 may not be used without the Owner's permission (try getting that from an unknown owner) The latest extension is courtesy of the corporation known as Disney. It seems that the copyrights on Mickey Mouse were due to expire. Congress reacted to this potential corporate disaster by updating the Copyright laws to prevent Mickey from being made available to any artist who wished to create new work without Diney's corporate permission.

In music this means that the recordings released in 1928 or later are copyrighted and unavailable unless you can locate a licensed recording. I have 45s & 78s that have never been rereleased and a BBC callin program apologized for playing a pre WWII 78 on the air since it was the only copy of the request they found in a worldwide search.

The real loss comes not from the RIAA but from Congressional action prohibiting the copying of works that have been buried. Brenda Lee & Bing Crosby regularly reappear, now try to find some of their more obscure contemporaries. For that matter try finding Bing's "Pistol Packin' Momma" on a modern recording. If you were able to buy the recording fine, if you had to copy it because the owner wouldn't sell & it was the only one you found tough luck. if you copied it citing unavailabilty as an excuse that's a crime under Copyright Law. Remember it's the Copyright Holder's right to refuse to distribute.

If you like a band, write to them & suggest they set up a page with an outfit like MP3.com (others similar are out there too) This allows direct sales as links to other sources are in the info. Samples & suggestions are offered as well. Encourage your favorite artists to join an online distributor and then help promote the ones you patronize.

***Boycott the RIAA...buy from unaffiliated distributors & bands :)***

P.S. Contact your Senator & Reprsentative and let them know that you a voter would vote for someone who supports the original intent of the Copyright & Patent laws.

There are a couple things I'd like to say, though I'm sure it's probably been said already.

I like classical music. Certain pieces of classical music can be hard to find, specifically music from the ere of Bach and Handel. I have used P2P to find this music since I have been unable to find some of it online. Let alone going to my local music stores which are filled with popular music of today. I *hate* music stores because of the kind of people who I find there who like the "music" with 50 cuss words in 5 minutes.

Secondly, when I find the classical music I like online, it's rare to find it at more than 128kbps quality. Now that level of quality may be fine for your steam factory style music (rock), but for classical music you must have perfection. This means that though the music I downloaded may be illegal, it sounds horrible because the recording level is poor. Even at 192kbps some violin music is terrible. Violins "warble" at anything less than 230kpbs.

Having said all that, I download the music for purposes of finding something that isn't attainable. I also download music for purposes of finding out what a particular song sounds like. If I want to buy a CD, I check all the songs on the internet first, then if I like the songs, I go get the CD. Because as I said, I hate being in a music store and if I'm going to there, I want to go in, get the CD and get out.

In reality, I completely agree with what has been said about the RIAA. They are going about this whole thing wrong.

HOWEVER, Sharing copyrighted material IS illegal. I don't allow uploading on my computer because I don't have anything that is legal for me to pass on. If I did, then I most certainly would pass it on and there would be nothing that the RIAA could do about it since it would be "public domain" software/music.

I agree that exposure is the key to rescuing the music industry. There are so many music groups out there that most of us haven't even heard of, simply because they are trying to go through their producers. Fact is, there are many muscicians that have put their music on the internet and have had increased sales because of it. Why? Because of the same reasons I have for downloading music. "Try before you buy".

How many of you have an MP3 player in your car? I do... I've created CD's with 8 hours of music on them. I've TRIED creating CD's with music that I downloaded off the internet. That was a mistake. The songs I downloaded are mostly 128kbps and they are quieter than my own high quality MP3's and so I'm constantly having to adjust the volume on my stereo. Not to mention the poor quality. The only MP3 CDs I enjoy listening to in the car are the MP3 CDs that I created from MY OWN collection of CDs. NOT downloaded CDs.

All that being said, there are three things I've learned from this whole situation:

1. Downloaded music isn't as nice and they think it is cause it's not good enough to really use in most cases.

2. Downloading music that isn't yours is stealing. Uploading music that isn't yours is illegal.

3. The RIAA is a bunch of crooks that just wants money that wouldn't be theirs in the first place.

******************************
I am going to go to my local Bookman's, Books-a-Million, and Borders (when I'm there anyway) and I'm going to talk to the manager and tell him that I will not be buying any music from his store until the RIAA backs off. And that I'll be buying any music I get from overseas sites or directly from the musicians.
******************************

EVERYONE SHOULD DO THIS.

Another little blurb in relation to what Chuckie said: He is completely right. The RIAA is just a puppet following orders. The real "mafioso" is the recording labels. I know this for a fact because my Dad has an extremely large Christian web site that he had posted many midi's on for listening to while you browse or for downloading. He made sure that all the midi's that he had posted had no indication of copyright. However, this wasn't good enough. BMI (affiated with BMG) *CALLED* him and told him he was in violation of copyright infringement and that he either had to pay to have the midi's up there or take them down. They were nice enough to give him the option at least. But here's the kicker: When he asked "Which songs?", they wouldn't tell him but gave him a site to go to that would tell him which songs were copyrighted. When he went to that site, they had songs like "Amazing Grace" and many others that ARE NOT COPYRIGHTED. WHY??? Because they had an artist that had recorded a peice of music called "Amazing Grace" and so they copyrighted the music AND the name. So they say.... However, this later didn't hold up in court, but in the process, the Midi industry has all but died because of these jerks.... THESE are the people who are behind the RIAA. I say boycott BMI/BMG and all their affiliates! We need someone who can research all the companies in the RIAA and make a list so we can stop buying their music! There are plenty of overseas label companies to buy from. Hey, a little "integration" of european music wouldn't hurt now would it? :)

I can only agree and repeat what others have said. What about all the money I've spent on repeat buy's of 8-Tracks or LP's then cassettes and now CD's. What about the network of freinds and freinds of freinds who trade and share CD's at school or work to take home and copy. Since there has been ways of reproducing recordings someone has been copying. I've recorded whole albums from the radio when they play the midnight album of the day. I now download unrecoverable or irreplaceable music if I can find it, and a lot of the music that is available on such areas as say Kazaa are not top quality are mislabled and mis represented. And top of all this how come Bands like Grand Funk RR who sold out arenas faster than anyone in the history of Rock and Roll didn't make any money? The Beatles don't own their songs? John Fogerty of Creadance Clearwater Revival went through the court system (as shabby as it is) just to be able to play his own music in public? Why did the Osbourns not associate with Sharons Father for all those somany years? Because the Record Companies Ripped them off, stole from them, Talked them into bad Deals, and more or less got rich off the sweat of others and still want to do so because if it weren't for the real musical talent of others where would these theives be? Hopefully where their going to end up anyway, HELL

Whether you like it or not, the RIAA companies own the copyrights. It is their property! Huffing and puffing and keeping on about peoples' rights may make you feel better but it is still does not reverse this fact. They can choose to do what they want with this property. They may have gotten hold of these rights by somewhat questionable methods but it is still theirs!

Suing children and old people is nothing more than bad p.r. and one must question the quality of their legal advise. They have made themselves appear a bunch of heartless thugs and probably encouraged people to write software that will beat any of their efforts. The fact remains that the music is still their property and you can't just take it because you like it, any more than you can take my car just because I choose not to sell it to you with all the wheels.

They are very bad business people. I have lots of downloaded music from the 50s and early 60s that is no longer available. I would certainly love to buy a high quality download at a reasonable price but I can't do it because they won't make it available. ( I am looking for Boomerang by Donny Brooks) I am still breaking the laws by doing this and just have to accept this fact and either choose to live with it or erase the music. The problem is mine.

The industry can make a big profit, if it choses. They do not seem to want to take this route even though it is obvious that technology is changing. Talk about Ludites! The fact remains that they own the music!

You live in a capitalist system. The rules of that system say that the owner of any capital, in this case copyright, should maximize the profit that they make in any way that they choose. They can try to charge $£100 if they think that they can get away with it. They may be in a monopolistic position but that remains their right and they own the music.

You, as the consumer have one right. You do not have the right to steal something because you don't like the way the owner chooses to maximize their property. You DO have the complete and absolute not to buy the product. In the capitalist model, the owner will now either lower their price and change their marketing strategy or go out of business. In the latter case, the rights to their music will be sold to a more market conscious business or it will become public domain.

So please stop whining! You have three choices.
1) Accept the fact that you are stealing it and continue to do it. You have the moral decision.

2) Stop downloading the music. It does not belong to you.

3) Stop downloading and stop buying. Maybe a little capitalistic pressure will do the trick.

Just remember that you may WANT music but you DON'T need it

PS if you have an original, copy it and give away the original, you are the thrief. If you give the copy to the friend, then they are the thief. (some friend you are) If you make copies to your computer and onto take or CD and only use it yourself, that is perfectly legal.

I remember a few years ago there were people both average Joes and high profile folks who were pleading with the entertainment industry in general and the music industry in particular to stop promoting songs that glorified "cop killing" and all sorts of illicit sex. The music industry collectively hid behind the First Amendment, which, by the way won't protect a child if he says Grace over his lunch in a public school. The music industry wound up offering a meaningless and optional ratings system to which nobody really pays any attention. Now, it seems as these people who were promoting all this music encouraging and promoting the attitude, "If it feels good, do it", are, as the Bible puts it, reaping the whirlwind. All of a sudden these people want you and I to start paying attention to the Ten Commandments--well, at least the one that says, "Thou shalt not steal". Of course, these people do not mention the fact that they overprice CD's to beat the band-no pun intended. I would urge anyone downloading music--even if you think it's legal--STOP. Two wrongs do not make a right. But take one more step. DO NOT GO INTO THE RECORD STORES. Before too much time has passed, the music industry is going to have to come up with another explanation of its sagging sales, especially if 50% of people stop downloading and the sales in the stores are still dropping. Maybe they'll be forced to admit that most of the so-called music produced today isn't even worth the price of the free download--and that's BEFORE you get sued.

Have you ever come up with a melody or lyrics? Did you capture these ideas with a recording device? Did you pay a fee to copyright them? Who, invests their time and money on these things? If you have been lucky to make a living from these
things, congratulations to you.
Support the creative minds, that is most important. All else fades without value.
"Let the little guy, get a piece of the pie"; Reduce his cost, new tracking, online distributor models. You will sufficiently reduce your initial production costs by using sample rate tracking methods. A&R responsibilities should expand technically as well as talent budgeting.
All good ideas are worth copyrighting, right?

I have been reading a number of the post from the last few days. A large majority feel that the RIAA is dead wrong I feel the same way. Simply put the others don't and it is their right to feel that way.

I do agree with a statement that was made a few post up that the RIAA is strictly a Lobby for the large music companies. We need to get a list of the labels that are associated with the RIAA and refuse to purchase their products. Folks it is real simple start hurting them in the pocket book and you will see the RIAA and their members start back peddling real fast.

I have no problem with doing this any time a big corporate industry feels it is ok to file a lawsuit against a 12 year old. I will go out of my way to teach them a very important lesson. Some people like to be treated as cattle. I for one will not stand for it. I would guess that 99% here would not stand for it either.

I will go out to the RIAA site and Get a list of their members. And I will write each one letting them know I will not stand still to let them and the RIAA force their customers into submission.

The Music Industry and the RIAA have gotten away with this far too long, and it is time they realize people are not going to stand still for it any longer.

IT REALY SIMPEL TO SHOW WHO IS IN CHARGE US ARE
RIAA THEY FIRED THE FIRST SHOT LETS FIRE THE NEXT THERE ARE MORE OF US THAN THERE ARE OF THEM AND THEY USE THE SAME INTERNET WE USE IF THE LAW SAYS THEY CAN INVADE WHY CANT I RIAA
IS A BS CORP JUST LIKE ENRON IT IS PULLING THE WOOL OVER THE EYES OF THE COURT I SAY LETS START A CYBER WAR ON RIAA AND SEE HOW THE LIKE BEING SCREWD WITH JUST LIKE THEY SCREWD WITH THAT 12 YR OLD GIRL

I do not endorse doing anything illegal and obviously there are laws being broken. But why couldn't the RIAA see the advantages in this and coming up with a bright idea. Perhaps a 24 hour trial of a tune, where it goes from high quality audio to a much lesser quality after first being played. Most software companies offer at least a 30 day trial version of their software. Lets face it, they were left in the technological dust of the younger generation.

John you are a jerk. Shut up. I dont want to ever read one of your posts again. The recording industry is trying to suck everyone dry. All of the sudden it seems to be good business practice to sue your customers. What are these people thinking?

Raul, You are the reason.

I agree with the statement that, "if the RIAA's user-hostile plan succeeds, then they will directly accelerate the creation of an adversary that is beyond their ability to contain."
Nevertheless, I think the bigger question is whether or not the Digital Millenium Act is enforcable. Alternatives aside, this Act has proven that the law has not caught up with technology. Millions are downloading and those numbers are growing exponentially, the RIAA doesn't have snow balls chance in H--- in going after them all, and I think they know it.
What they have done is brought themselves to the attention of the federal government. I would like to see them in front of a Congresssional committee answering questions the RIAA doesn't want answered. My faith in Congress may be misplaced, however, 60 million downloaders carry alot of votes.

MP3 THIEVES ARE RUININ THE INDUSTRY BECAUSE ALL THESE LITTLE KIDS ARE GETTING HARD WORK FOR FREE AND TREAT IT LIKE ITS THE FLAVOR OF THE WEEK BECAUSE THERE GETTING IT FOR FREE. THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW MUCH GOES INTO IT. I'M NOT SAYIN ARTIST SHOULD BE WORSHIPED OR IDOLIZED. THE ONLY ONE THAT SHOULD BE IDOLIZED IS GOD. BUT ARTIST SHOULD BE RESPECTED AS HARD WORKING BUSINESS TYPE PEOPLE. THAT LACK OF APPRECIATION IS KILLING THE ARTISTRY. ARTISTS ARE BEING FORCED TO COME OUT WITH MORE FREQUENTLY BECAUSE THEIR MATERIAL IS BEING DISPOSED OF SO QUICKLY BECAUSE PEOPLE DON'T APPRECIATE IT AS MUCH. THIS MEANS THERE SPENDING LESS TIME ON CREATING WHICH LEADS TO BORING RECORDINGS. SINCE MP3'S TOOK OVER, A NUMBER OF GREAT ARTIST SOLD OUT THEIR CREATIVITY TO FEED THIS DISPOSABLE MARKET. THAT MEAN WE MISSED OUT ON GREAT RECORDINGS. IT WILL BE VERY HARD FOR TRUE ARTISTS TO DEVELOP UNDER THIS SOCIETY THAT DOWNLOADS HARD WORK FOR FREE. I want to hear creative things. Their inspiring to me. I haven't been inspired by a recording since MP3's. That why I support the R.I.A.A's actions to against you! And I'll support your prosecution. If you do have stolen music on your hard drive you will be prosecuted.

What this boils down to is the corporate mentality that feels they have the power over the average person. And the power over their customers. They feel that if they say jump we will ask how high. Well guess what we are not jumping and every one should stand their ground and not buy another CD or Tape for the next two months.

We are already seeing the results of the music industry in ability to deal with the public and they are starting
to feel the sting. The music industry is about at rock bottom Oh they say it is because of the fact
that P2P is still taking place and that people are downloading music. The fact is folks the major
drop in sales took place after the RIAA filed the law suits. Guess what Their customers are starting
to talk loud and clear.

Perhaps the RIAA had best rethink their actions they are about to be a lobby for
an industry that is a has been.

The smartest thing that the RIAA can do at this point is to regroup and approach the customers that buy music and DOWNLOAD music and come up with ways that will benefit each side. Simply put they are on the losing end of the stick. With 60 million people downloading I would think it would not take long to for them to see the light.

I would not mind paying a small fee for a download providing their are NO restrictions on the download for my personal use. Another words to be able to download it put it on a CD or copy to a tape for my own use. With out any protection on the music media preventing it.

Now if the bands were smart and some of them are they would brake lose of the cut throat labels and branch out on their own. I really don't see were the complication is in this. Other than the fact you have Labels that want to make millions off of the music they produce. And produce for pennies and turn around and sell for 15 or 20 bucks.

It is time that the public make its stand and let the music industry know we are mad as hell and we are not going to take it any more. Their tactics are not welcome now or ever and they need to fully understand that they are not dealing with sheep.

Artists need to be paid for their efforts, whether they are musicians or book writers or painters. The need for some method of payment to the artist directly is required, and at a rate that is reasonable and fair. The future of file sharing is only going to get better, and more popular, so the recording industry better wake up and smell the coffee, and get a reasonable plan up and running, or they will fade away like the eight track tape. The next thing you know they will be suing us for recording tv shows on our VCR's.

Here is my view on the issue: Music is an absolutely wonderful thing; it can invoke emotions and imagination. When it does this people are willing to pay for it, but the price of $19 per CD is quite a high price to pay when you consider that the average American makes 12% LESS money ( in terms of the real world value of our dollar) than 30 years ago. So much more than just that is wrong with our economy and our current economic situation is effectively erroding away at our ability to buy simple luxuries such as an album that we would like to listen to every now and then. Especially at a cost of $19. The price of CD's has risen at a very high rate over the last ten years - and the average income of any given person has sure as Hell not kept pace. And I wasn't even talking about the average CD consumer, which is a MINIMUM WAGE earning teenager. Last time I looked, minimum wage isn't at least $7 an hour higher than it was ten years ago. If companies want to be competitive in the market they must provide a product at a competitive cost. If the company such as a MUSIC COMPANY that already has a fa