[Sarchi]

Also, people shouldn't pay for mp3 files. It's immoral.

 

[necropimp]

i wonder how much of that 9 grand per song goes to the artists... oh yeah NOT A ****ING PENNY WILL

the artists should sue the RIAA

 

[james__bean]

Her case was crap, she should have settled. The fine that they gave her was ridiculous, but she knew how much she would have to pay if she lost. She's lucky it's not a lot more.

 

[sahwnfras]

HAHAHAHA id be ****ed

 

[Zorander]

Work to pay off fine. It's no longer work to live...

 

[Redo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sarchi /img/forum/go_quote.gif Also, people shouldn't pay for mp3 files. It's immoral.

Pay per bitrate of the mp3 vs CD release. So if the CD costs $20 and is 60min long, call the cost $1 for 3minutes of CD quality. If I download 128kbps mp3/aac, it should cost 11.023x cheaper. So a $20 album should only cost me $1.80 if I want it on 128kbps MP3.

Or base it off the Lossless compression ratio. That would make 128kbps mp3 around 6-7x cheaper than the album. This business of low bitrate mp3's only costing $3-$4 cheaper than the hard copy is silly.

 

[marvin]

I feel particularly contrary today.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon118 That is ridiculous. I don't know or care if she did pirate those songs or not, but that sum is absolutely absurd. What a farce that court must be to actually entertain the notion of a sum that large. I can assure you she was not responsible for that large of a loss in revenue.

It's the law. Welcome to a representative democracy where the subjects don't even care enough to learn the laws, much less affect them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by necropimp i wonder how much of that 9 grand per song goes to the artists... oh yeah NOT A ****ING PENNY WILL the artists should sue the RIAA

RIAA members provide the artists many services. They're around to handle recording, mastering, promoting, distributing, etc. duties for the artist. In turn, the artist gets a cut per song sold. No RIAA members, no commercial value, no money. Artists know this, which is why they sign contracts with RIAA members.

RIAA members created the RIAA as a way of maximizing their power by presenting a united front for the music industry. Combating illegal distribution is merely one of the services the RIAA performs for its members. The benefit for the artists from the lawsuits comes from the damage done to illegal distribution channels, which may increase CD sales.

Realistically, unless it's in a contractual agreement with the artists, I seriously doubt the artists would win a suit. Or even get to court. Not to mention many current "artists" are only in business because RIAA members made them. They know exactly what would happen if they crossed the RIAA.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sarchi Also, people shouldn't pay for mp3 files. It's immoral.

I'd love to hear how it's immoral. Especially since you seem to be implying that paying for mp3s is somehow worse or more immoral than buying CDs and vinyl.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redo /img/forum/go_quote.gif Pay per bitrate of the mp3 vs CD release. So if the CD costs $20 and is 60min long, call the cost $1 for 3minutes of CD quality. If I download 128kbps mp3/aac, it should cost 11.023x cheaper. So a $20 album should only cost me $1.80 if I want it on 128kbps MP3. Or base it off the Lossless compression ratio. That would make 128kbps mp3 around 6-7x cheaper than the album. This business of low bitrate mp3's only costing $3-$4 cheaper than the hard copy is silly.

You're not paying per megabyte, you're paying per song. The vast majority of costs for the record industry are incurred in areas other than distribution.

 

[Redo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by marvin /img/forum/go_quote.gif You're not paying per megabyte, you're paying per song. The vast majority of costs for the record industry are incurred in areas other than distribution.

I understand how it works, I'm merely throwing a thought out there.

 

[AndyRx7]

Why would the RIAA pick a low-income aboriginal single mother (as she is being described) to bring its test case against? Is this supposed to make people think, if they'd go after someone like her they'd go after me too, so I'd better not download? Seems like a pretty risky PR strategy, especially if they lose on appeal.

Also, with respect to the fundamental notion that what this woman did is deserving of criminal sanction, how do we get past the problem that a large proportion of society views this behaviour as acceptable and in fact behaves this way? To me it seems incoherent that common behaviour falling within accepted normative standards can be characterized as deviant and punished harshly. Must not the conclusion be that such a law must be illegimate and should be changed (or is not in fact law at all, depending on one's legal theoretical stance).

Think about it for a second - haven't every one of us shared a measly 24 songs? Are we prepared to characterize ourselves as criminals? I would argue that I am not a criminal, and I bet you'd do the same.

At my law school (in Canada), on the first day of our first-year property law class, our professor downloaded an album on the screen in front of us. Mind you, our Copyright Act protects our right to download music for private use, but nevertheless, the broader normative point is clear.

 

[Sarchi]

So basically it's a cartel. Thanks, I guess you made my point for me...

 

[Sarchi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyRx7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Why would the RIAA pick a low-income aboriginal single mother (as she is being described) to bring its test case against? Is this supposed to make people think, if they'd go after someone like her they'd go after me too, so I'd better not download? Seems like a pretty risky PR strategy, especially if they lose on appeal.

They're scared ****less. Scared that artists will seize the power of the internet, distribute their music independently, and render a gazillion dollar industry obsolete.

Think executives....old guys....BIG pensions.

 

[AndyRx7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sarchi /img/forum/go_quote.gif They're scared ****less. Scared that artists will seize the power of the internet, distribute their music independently, and render a gazillion dollar industry obsolete. Think executives....old guys....BIG pensions.

Desperate measures for desperate times? Seems to me like just begging for a consumer revolt... risky!!! I guess you're right, it demonstrates how truly weak they understand their position to be. Suits me.. Economically speaking, it would be a great social benefit to oust what is effectively distortionary rent seeking with little benefit to either the producers or consumers of the relevant goods. A richer market with lower prices, lower transaction costs, and more competition, isn't that the point of a market economy??

 

[marvin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyRx7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Why would the RIAA pick a low-income aboriginal single mother (as she is being described) to bring its test case against? Is this supposed to make people think, if they'd go after someone like her they'd go after me too, so I'd better not download? Seems like a pretty risky PR strategy, especially if they lose on appeal.

There are a fair amount of cases involving the RIAA winding their way around the courts. This one just happened to come out first. Either way, it's not a bad first case. If they win this one, it's all downhill from there. They're going to win every single other damned case they run into. All or nothing isn't a bad strategy when you're not holding a great hand.

Also, most people are sensible enough to settle rather than go head to head with a multibillion corporate juggernaut.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyRx7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Also, with respect to the fundamental notion that what this woman did is deserving of criminal sanction, how do we get past the problem that a large proportion of society views this behaviour as acceptable and in fact behaves this way? To me it seems incoherent that common behaviour falling within accepted normative standards can be characterized as deviant and punished harshly. Must not the conclusion be that such a law must be illegimate and should be changed (or is not in fact law at all, depending on one's legal theoretical stance).

That's why you elect people to office. If they screw up, you're supposed to haul their asses out. The fact that Americans don't do this allows nonsense like this and restrictions on our civil rights to increase.

Also there's a little thing called jury nullification. This case is a perfect example of when it should be used and why it exists. But as noted before, most Americans barely bother to learn the basics of our legal system. Something this complicated is far beyond their comprehension.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sarchi /img/forum/go_quote.gif So basically it's a cartel. Thanks, I guess you made my point for me...

I guess you'd need to explain it further because I don't quite understand what you're trying to say.

 

[Arainach]

Of COURSE they won. Any case they don't have a sure shot of winning they just drop charges rather than risk losing. It's happened plenty of times before.

 

[AndyRx7]

Re: the cartel characterization, I think what is implied is that it is a coordinated effort by the current oligopolists to indirectly sustain high prices and control distribution, by manipulating the regulatory framework in such a way as to sustain an inefficient, socially non-beneficial business model through stigmatization of the alternative business model. Or something like that!