Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Music › Wow, the RIAA Really Needs to be Stopped
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Wow, the RIAA Really Needs to be Stopped - Page 2

post #16 of 82
As a simple matter, the recording industry in its present state cannot exist. They have alienated an entire generation and attempted to shove horrible, produced noise down their throats. The loudness war, the scare tactics -- it will all come back to bite them. People will stop buying CDs from major vendors simply because they are from the major vendors. I know a ton of people who won't buy any Sony CDs after that rootkit crap -- I among them. It's only a matter of time before it all goes south on them and the RIAA is dissolved.
post #17 of 82
I have a simple question: what is an article about hip-hop doing in the music section in the first place? Please tell me exactly when did hip-hop become music?
post #18 of 82
Definition has to be agreed upon. In my early days, friends/family would share new albums by recording a tape. Yes, in the strict definition, that's stealing. By sharing music, the hobbyist was able to hear (otherwise not heard) styles they were not familiar with on a portable device. The quality was not as good but you got the sound.

Today, a person can get exposure to new music from P2P (songs, not entire catalogs). If you like an artist, you go to the store or on line and buy it for additional selection and improved sq. If you don't like it, delete. You don't have the disc in your collection. Isn't that what shareware is supposed to do? I don't try to download every song I can get and I do not let anyone get total access to mine.

There is alot of music not marketed in all geographic areas. I had never heard of some of my "favorites" today until I sampled. I don't have to be limited to the label performers as my only option. Honestly, the artists major marketing companies choose are usually not my taste. I have increased my CD collection (would not have bought otherwise) and the producer/artist make their money. But I choose what to buy, not them. I had never heard of Ozric Tentacles, IQ, Marillion, etc... before. I have also been exposed to music of other countries that I would never have heard here in the US heartland. Don't understand the language but the sound is outstanding.

The hobbyist is stuck with what they want us to do with our property. Once we buy it, its ours isn't it? They want to control what my money bought? I guess we are only leasing the previlege of hearing their artists? Next, they will sell the software/hardware license used to play their material.

We should not have to accept obsolete technology for freedom. SQ is what drives us. Technology has now allowed musicians to market them selves direct. I think the industry will eventially succume to logic. Right now, current investers are concerned and have the money to control the laws. I do understand their concern about losing money on their investment but where is the dividing line when it is no longer their investment. When the money runs out and other forms of marketing are available to the artist, things will adjust to what works for the audience and artist.

The industry had little concern before about the hobbyist making favs tapes for their cars. Now, our devices , medium (obsoleting on purpose) and freedom of use are being threatened. I can only watch/hear my product at the location of my equipment. Itunes can only be played on an ipod. I can only play a hi def. program on the device it was recorded from. I should be able to choose the best technology and the flexibility to use it.

There has to be definition of what "stealing" and "hobbyist" mean with the hobbyist represented, not taken out of the equation or grouped with bootleggers. I haven't made a penny on music. Why am I being restricted? The current generation is being accused of something that was accepted practice by their parents. The thiefs bootlegging protected material to make a profit are ruining a good thing for us. DON'T BUY BOOTLEG.
post #19 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Camper View Post
Definition has to be agreed upon. In my early days, friends/family would share new albums by recording a tape. Yes, in the strict definition, that's stealing. By sharing music, the hobbyist was able to hear (otherwise not heard) styles they were not familiar with on a portable device. The quality was not as good but you got the sound.

Today, a person can get exposure to new music from P2P (songs, not entire catalogs). If you like an artist, you go to the store or on line and buy it for additional selection and improved sq. If you don't like it, delete. You don't have the disc in your collection. Isn't that what shareware is supposed to do? I don't try to download every song I can get and I do not let anyone get total access to mine.

There is alot of music not marketed in all geographic areas. I had never heard of some of my "favorites" today until I sampled. I don't have to be limited to the label performers as my only option. Honestly, the artists major marketing companies choose are usually not my taste. I have increased my CD collection (would not have bought otherwise) and the producer/artist make their money. But I choose what to buy, not them. I had never heard of Ozric Tentacles, IQ, Marillion, etc... before. I have also been exposed to music of other countries that I would never have heard here in the US heartland. Don't understand the language but the sound is outstanding.

The hobbyist is stuck with what they want us to do with our property. Once we buy it, its ours isn't it? They want to control what my money bought? I guess we are only leasing the previlege of hearing their artists? Next, they will sell the software/hardware license used to play their material.

We should not have to accept obsolete technology for freedom. SQ is what drives us. Technology has now allowed musicians to market them selves direct. I think the industry will eventially succume to logic. Right now, current investers are concerned and have the money to control the laws. I do understand their concern about losing money on their investment but where is the dividing line when it is no longer their investment. When the money runs out and other forms of marketing are available to the artist, things will adjust to what works for the audience and artist.

The industry had little concern before about the hobbyist making favs tapes for their cars. Now, our devices , medium (obsoleting on purpose) and freedom of use are being threatened. I can only watch/hear my product at the location of my equipment. Itunes can only be played on an ipod. I can only play a hi def. program on the device it was recorded from. I should be able to choose the best technology and the flexibility to use it.

There has to be definition of what "stealing" and "hobbyist" mean with the hobbyist represented, not taken out of the equation or grouped with bootleggers. I haven't made a penny on music. Why am I being restricted? The current generation is being accused of something that was accepted practice by their parents. The thiefs bootlegging protected material to make a profit are ruining a good thing for us. DON'T BUY BOOTLEG.
You were really on a roll there up until the very last sentence. I don't believe that it's bootleg recordings that the music industry is worried about, in fact I don't believe that the war is over music at all. The battle may still be about music but the real war is about movies. They just happen to be using music as the testing ground for their outrageous anti-consumer actions.

They have already lost the war as far as music is concerned, the real question is whether they can make everyone tow the line again in time to save the movie business. That's going to be a real battlefield and lots of fun to watch as it unfolds.

People are not going to accept the video equivalent of a lossy compressed audio file when they see just how bad it looks on their big screen hi-def TV. And if the Blu-Ray and HD camps keep fighting there may never be a mass market hi-def format for home use.

But I digress. The music and movie industry need to realize that if their product is in digital form it will be copied and no amount of copy protection is going to make it safe. The only thing the copy protection is going to do is alienate the consumer, not protect their product.

More to the point here are a just a couple of grey areas were copying and/or sharing of certain items cannot be so clearly labeled as "stealing":

1) A live broadcast taped from the radio.

2) A long out of print LP or CD.

3) This one is really tricky: an old TV series released on DVD that I borrow from my local library only to find out that the all the actors, writers, directors, producers, etc are not being paid a cent from any of the money from the sale of the DVD since it was not part of their original contract. Who am I "stealing" from if I copy the DVD?

The music and movie industries are not some charity organizations but a profit driven companies only concerned with their bottom line. They are never concerned with what's best for the consumer, that's the consumer's job.
post #20 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by ralphp@optonline View Post
I have a simple question: what is an article about hip-hop doing in the music section in the first place? Please tell me exactly when did hip-hop become music?
May 16, 1969 without music or the early 70's if you want to give Kool DJ Herc the credit for hip hop with breakbeats. Nice job at being a smartass, BTW. Since you are so smart, you should know that jazz (a genre you obviously love) had a huge influence on the creation of hip hop.
post #21 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Camper View Post
The hobbyist is stuck with what they want us to do with our property. Once we buy it, its ours isn't it? They want to control what my money bought? I guess we are only leasing the previlege of hearing their artists? Next, they will sell the software/hardware license used to play their material.
I'm sorry but when you buy music you don't own the music. It is rhetoric to say it is "yours."

In effect, when you buy music you are licensing it for personal use (i.e. fair use). In most cases you own the medium upon which it was distributed (CD, file, whatever), but you do NOT get any further rights from that point on unless they are granted by the copyright holder. So yes, you are only leasing the privilege to hear the music, like it or not.

And yes, they have every right to license the hardware or software required to play their material. IT BELONGS TO THEM. Don't like it? Then don't buy it. But you have no right to steal it.

I think there are better models than DRM to protect ownership. But the facts remain the facts.

--Chris
post #22 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by gsansite View Post
Here's what could happen:

No more big four,

No more manufactured product,

More creative freedom for artists,

Popularity based on quality rather than marketing,

Greater selection of new music,

and a whole load more..... if we make it.
And artists not being able to make a living from making records - yeah, great.
post #23 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by hempcamp View Post
I'm sorry but when you buy music you don't own the music. It is rhetoric to say it is "yours."

In effect, when you buy music you are licensing it for personal use (i.e. fair use). In most cases you own the medium upon which it was distributed (CD, file, whatever), but you do NOT get any further rights from that point on unless they are granted by the copyright holder. So yes, you are only leasing the privilege to hear the music, like it or not.

And yes, they have every right to license the hardware or software required to play their material. IT BELONGS TO THEM. Don't like it? Then don't buy it. But you have no right to steal it.

I think there are better models than DRM to protect ownership. But the facts remain the facts.

--Chris
And that's the attitude that's killing the RIAA. We should own the music and be able to do with it wahtever we like, within reason though. I don't see the harm in ripping my cd and putting it on my iPod. Or making a mix tape for myself and maybe for a freind or two. As long as I'm using it personally and not making any profit then where is that harm? I make mix tapes for my freinds to introduce them to new music. Which in turn leads them to buy it... if they like it. That's very reasonable to me.

The RIAA makes it seem like all people are having music sharing orgys. That's just not the case though. They've managed to alienate people so much. I buy about 50 cds a month. I buy them used because I don't want the RIAA getting a cent from me. So they lose alot of money from me. Sure the couple of thousand I spend on music a year really isn't a dent in there Billions... but the more people like me get pissed off the more money they lose and the more they start to feel it.
post #24 of 82
On the original topic: I don't think the RIAA did anything wrong, busting someone for making a profit off mixtapes. It's one thing to hand out mixtapes for promotion use, but to profit off them (without any royalties going to the artists) is in my opinion wrong.
post #25 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digitalbath3737 View Post
The RIAA makes it seem like all people are having music sharing orgys. That's just not the case though.
It's not? Even back when I was in college (yikes, has it been 6 years now?), that's *exactly* what the free internet connection was: a music sharing orgy.

Several people I know have purchased terabyte drives, and get together every so often to swap hundreds of gigs of music.

I'm assuming the people I know aren't out of the norm. Which means you can multiply their behavior by millions.

Yep, an orgy.

--Chris
post #26 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by kunuggs View Post
May 16, 1969 without music or the early 70's if you want to give Kool DJ Herc the credit for hip hop with breakbeats. Nice job at being a smartass, BTW. Since you are so smart, you should know that jazz (a genre you obviously love) had a huge influence on the creation of hip hop.
Since I'm a 52 year old white male from New Jersey my opinion on whether hip-hop is music or not will carry no weight because most everyone will assume that I'm completely biased against it right from the start I therefore direct your attention to the following article:

http://www.allaboutjazz.com/php/article.php?id=21243

The writer in this case is not white or "old" and is in fact a musician, something most rappers are not.

Now back to the real thread topic.
post #27 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by hempcamp View Post
It's not? Even back when I was in college (yikes, has it been 6 years now?), that's *exactly* what the free internet connection was: a music sharing orgy.

Several people I know have purchased terabyte drives, and get together every so often to swap hundreds of gigs of music.

I'm assuming the people I know aren't out of the norm. Which means you can multiply their behavior by millions.

Yep, an orgy.

--Chris
I guess it's different for everyone. Because the people I know don't do that. We all have shelves and shelves full of cds that we bought. I'm 23 and have only a hand full of freinds that steal music. The rest of us have lives and want to do more with our time than sitting in front of a computer DL low quality files that may not be the right song. And forget ripping eachothers cds. None of us trust eachother enough to let the other actually borrow a cd . For the millions that steal there are still millions that don't.

All I know is that the people who actually buy there music shouldn't be punished for what the pirates do.
post #28 of 82
How doth one go upon OWNING music?

How does one kill that which has no life?
post #29 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by J-Pak View Post
On the original topic: I don't think the RIAA did anything wrong, busting someone for making a profit off mixtapes. It's one thing to hand out mixtapes for promotion use, but to profit off them (without any royalties going to the artists) is in my opinion wrong.
Exactly. If DJ Drama was doing this solely for music listeners' sakes and taking no profit from the mixtapes, I can safely say I would also be angry at these particular actions of the RIAA. In this case, though, I don't find any horrible problem with what happened.
post #30 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digitalbath3737 View Post
I guess it's different for everyone. Because the people I know don't do that. We all have shelves and shelves full of cds that we bought. I'm 23 and have only a hand full of freinds that steal music. The rest of us have lives and want to do more with our time than sitting in front of a computer DL low quality files that may not be the right song. And forget ripping eachothers cds. None of us trust eachother enough to let the other actually borrow a cd . For the millions that steal there are still millions that don't.

All I know is that the people who actually buy there music shouldn't be punished for what the pirates do.
Uh.. then you and your friends are part of what might be the minority
Seriously, i think right now the statistic is looking a lot more like for every song purchased 10 or so songs are stolen in some way

In some Asian countries, probably less than 1% buys original cds.. they have bootlegs and a hundreds of mp3s sold in a cd

Instead of asking who's downloading it's probably safer to say who isn't

Man, confusion all around
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Music
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Music › Wow, the RIAA Really Needs to be Stopped