[jbloudg20]

I want to first state that I no longer illegally share music. I stopped a few years ago upon learning that it really is stealing. I believe part of the problem is teen/younger people do not see it as stealing music, they see it as free. I never knew it was wrong, and once I learned, I stopped. I am currently subscribed to Rhapsody and Yahoo! music services, and when I find something absolutely great, I go buy it on redbook (or if available DVD-A).

However I really feel that the RIAA is going about this in the wrong manner. Attacking your potential customers only shy them away from purchasing more. I know since learning all about the RIAA lawsuits, I nearly stopped all my purchases of redbook, having only bought actual hardcopies (as opposed to using my Rhapsody service to obtain the albums) from my favorite artist, DJ Tiesto, who is under his own sub-label, Magik Music. Coincidentally, Magik Music is marketed and distrubuted here and in Canada through Nettwerk Productions.

Sorry for the rant, I wanted to get off my chest why I do not like the RIAA, but more importantly that there are record labels out there that feel as I do. As posted by Slashdot, Nettwerk Productions as stood up against the RIAA, and is making a bold statement. This is groundbreaking, and may very well be the first real step toward a cowardly company attacting those who support is vary existance.

Heading over to the Nettwerk website, I notice that my other favorite artist, Sarah McLachlan, is also on their label. It loks as if very soon, I will be starting, and completing my SM collevtion, and filling in the few discs I am missing of Tiesto. My money is going to someone who feels the same as I do, and I intent to send them a letter, thanking them for their actions.

Bravo Nettwerk!

 

[elrod-tom]

This is similar to the problem that we have in this country containing illegal drugs. Do you focus on the dealer (supply), or the end user (demand)?

Unfortunately, giving potential illegal downloaders pause is probably the most effective way to curb illegal downloading. All one need do is look at the hassle involved in trying to shut down services like Grokster or the original Napster. The services maintain that they don't facilitate theft, they just supply a product that people are using to facilitate commission of a crime...and it's tied up in court for years.

I don't like what the RIAA is doing...but I understand WHY they are doing it. In short, it's working.

 

[jbloudg20]

I comletely understand why they are doing it. I guess technically it worked for me as well. However, a simple commercial (similar to what the MPAA is doing not with DVD's) would have been just as effective on me. I simply did not look at it as stealing until it was brought to my attention. I purposly avoid buying from big labels BECAUSE of the tactics the RIAA uses.

There are other ways they could have dealt with the problem, one BIG way would be to drop the price of redbook discs. I simply refuse to pay around $20 for a single CD. I am big on brand loyalty (look at my EMS thead). If the company treats me right, I will go out of my way to return to them. As far as I am concerned many major labels, due to their own greed, lost my business. OK given that maybe that the market price for a CD is $20, and I agree to pay that. (consequently, check out the Nettwerk site... I'm about to snag a Sarah M. disc for $10 SHIPPED) Look at SONY, going out of their way to prevent me from copying the files onto my comptuer, so that I may transfer them to my Zen Micro. I PAID FOR THE CD, I own it. Within the laws of copyright protections, don't tell me what to do with my property.

I really, truly feel that the RIAA is only hurting themselves, and they really should rethink their whole means of obtaining their goals. There are other, more peaceful ways of achieving them.

 

[donunus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrisfromalbany Before that point in my life when I had a house fire and lost a few thousand CDs. At that point I stopped trying to complete my music collection.

That really suuucks! I too Lost around 700 cds when the person I left my cds with got arrested

. They auctioned everything including my stuff. I stopped caring about completing my collection too.

 

[elrod-tom]

If you plan to post in this thread, please do not discuss how you illegally download. This includes certain sites that are, at best, operating on the fringes of legality. Thanks...

 

[chrisfromalbany]

Quote:

Originally Posted by elrod-tom If you plan to post in this thread, please do not discuss how you illegally download. This includes certain sites that are, at best, operating on the fringes of legality. Thanks...

Well I am still hoping that part of posting returns (Jude).. Are there any Head-Fi friendly sites that you can download at 320 or lossless?

 

[pennylane]

POST EDITED BY MODERATOR

Though my collection of music is somewhat large and varied (at least compared to what it used to be), I'm not exactly comfortable buying CD's based solely on recommendations and my own past experiences/preferences. I wish there were some monthly payment service that had decently-encoded music to try (say, well-encoded VBR 128 kbps MP3's or something). I would use them as both a trial method for music and a way to listen to some of the more disposable music I like (music I listen to for a time but stop listening to thereafter; music I don't feel is worth purchasing a CD for).

That would be the best of both worlds. For the people that care about sound quality, it's music consistently encoded well-enough for the listener to not worry about poor quality encodes, but not high enough for actual archival quality. For those that don't care about sound quality, it's just like any subscription service.

I'm still not quite willing to pay for yahoo or real rhapsody. I've found plenty of music they don't have and "try before buy" would still be my primary use of such a service.

 

[rextrade]

Weird, my post disappeared??

The gist of my last post was that the copyright laws have gone way too far in favor of the RIAA and copyrightholders, and I really hope the law is changed to allow for limited file sharing.

And, I don't think that "illegal" file downloading is stealing, it's a copyright violation. While it may be a legal violation, it's a different one than stealing is, and I'm not sure why people keep repeating the RIAA propoganda that is stealing (again, it is a violation of the law, and I'm not condoning doing it).

When technology makes something so easy to do that is not intuitively morally wrong, I think the law should be changed to adjust to that new reality. The RIAA line of "downloading = stealing" just doesn't resonate with most people, which is why they are having trouble getting people to follow it.

I think many musicians are beginning to take advantage of the new business realities thought, and will learn how to make money while still giving music away for nothing.

 

[catscratch]

RIAA lawsuits are merely phase #1 of their war on the consumer. Phase #2 will be DRM, and aggressive restrictions on the use of purchased digital files. The advent of online music business has literally swept the feet from under the RIAA's CD-based music distribution infrastructure, so now they're doing the same thing to the consumer by selling music on a license basis, as opposed to ownership basis. What p*sses me off to no end is that they're still claiming that you're "buying" their music when in fact you're buying the license. This is marketing fraud, and should be put to trial in court.

I will never buy a single DRM-encrypted album if I can help it, unless the RIAA makes it clear and explicit that I am in fact buying a license, and makes the ownership costs of the music known to me in full. Of course, they never will, since raising the price on their products is the best way to drive away their customers.

Especially when you consider the quality of their products in the first place...

In regards to the OP, I don't think that file-sharing steals much from the artist, since from my understanding, the royalties an artist gets paid from album sales are very small in comparison to what the record company receives. It seems to be that the music business exploits the artist as much as it exploits the consumer. The RIAA's lawsuits are definitely hurting file-sharing, but they're not helping the arstists.

All IMO of course. I'm glad that someone is finally fighting those bastards in full force. I've been happily boycotting most RIAA member-produced music on my own end and buying from independent labels, but the dollar vote of a single consumer hardly matters.