12 year old girl getting sued

[cherokee]

No I would go to K-Mart, Wal-Mart etc.... This is were a monopoly comes into play and price fixing! which the RIAA has done and have been caught doing.....

Great, then go to Wal-Mart and K-Mart to buy your music as well, they sell CD's too and their cheaper than retail music stores. There is no monopoly unless they are being sold by one company. Levis are sold by Levi Strauss and they demand a certain amount for their jeans but let a multitude of other stores sell them. Just like music, but I think you would hesitate to call a jeans manufacturer a monopoly.

 

[skyking1976]

So how about the use of avatars on this board? It seems there is a whole lot of copyrighted material being illegally circulated around here.

SK

 

[46Driver]

There may not be a "monopoly" but there could be "price-fixing" with all of the competitors in collusion.

 

[Styles]

But do you see Levi, wrangler, guess, and other Jean companies forming a separate corp. And price fix the price of jeans ???

What I'm trying to say is, what the RIAA has done in the past and doing right now is wrong, stealing copyright music is wrong, the way RIAA is going about it is wrong.

Hence I will not buy any music from record label the belongs to the RIAA or see an artists concert who is owned by a label the is part of the RIAA. I don't have a problem with any other label and will support them if I like the music.

 

[UnstableAviator]

Even if the RIAA cites a 30% loss in sales over the past three years, I still don't believe it is all due to downloading.

The recording industry isn't in an economic bubble, they have to be effected by economy downturns just like every other industry.

 

[Styles]

UnstableAviator is right...

In 1983, before CD's came out, LP albums cost about $6.98, and tapes about the same. Then CD's came out, costing TEN DOLLARS MORE! The industry's excuse was that CD's cost more to make, "better sound forever", and other rubbish. Now we know these all were lies. CD's now cost about 1/10th as much to press as records cost at their cheapest (and I'm speaking 2003 dollars here which are worth about half of 1983 ones). CD's STILL cost almost 20 bucks apiece. The record companies' excuse is that inflation has finally caught up, which is more bull**CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED**. In essence, they TRIPLED the price of CD's over LP's, got rid of LP's (to remove choice), got rid of singles (to make sure that you HAD to pay $17.98 to get the ONE song you liked), raped the consumer for over 20 years, formed cartels (which would have been illegal in 1983!) and now when the consumer finally has the ability to fight back they respond by bribing our lawmakers to maintain the status quo by passing the DMCA, throwing the Constitution out the window in the process. Yep..sure sounds like an upstanding business model and a fair deal for the consumer, huh?

The RIAA is evil!!!!!!!

 

[A Squared]

RIAA dug its own grave when they greedily RAISED prices when CDs came out. It actually cost them considerably less to print them in comparison to records and tapes, but they found they could charge more for them anyway, and did. Had they not done so, I don't believe file sharing would be what it is today.

Oh, please! It's amazing how quickly thieves become Marxists when it suits them. The price to produce isn't relevant. I think that almost everyone agrees that a CD is a superior product in terms of clarity, durability, and convenience. Take a look around. How many LP's, Cassettes and 8 tracks tapes are sold in music stores? Not very many right? Now, if you have an overwhelmingly superior product, why shouldn't you charge more? Because the People's Ministry of Art and Music has decreed that Brittany Spears CD's should be 75 cents apiece? No, if the demand for Product X is more than the demand for Product Y, Product X will be priced higher, unless you're in hte USSR, Oh wait, the USSR collapsed a few years back, didn't it? Huh, turns out that didn't work very well did it???? I wonder what the market price of Stas Namin CD's was? Yeah right, Who?

OK, let's go with the Jeans analogy. My favorite jeans are Levi's, 501's the kind with the button fly. Why? I dunno, probably because I've been brainwashed by their ads. Now, Levi 501's cost substantially more tha other Jeans. Why? no reason, there's nothing inherently more expensive about them, it's just that a lot of people prefer them, so they charge more. I like Levi 501's more than Wranglers, but not enough to pay the premium. After all, jeans are jeans, and Wranglers are pretty good quality (probably equal) so I buy Wranglers. So be it, maybe when I'm flying for United I'll buy 501's. In the meantime, I'm not going to steal Levis because I think the price is too high.

The same goes for Music. You don't like the price? Buy something else, There's plenty of independent labels that put out good music of all types. Even in my little city on the edge of the wilderness there a couple. But if you just have to have Brittany Spears' latest release, you're going to have to pay the going rate. If you don't like the going rate, don't buy it, but don't steal it either.


from Styles:

"Hence I will not buy any music from record label the belongs to the RIAA or see an artists concert who is owned by a label the is part of the RIAA. I don't have a problem with any other label and will support them if I like the music."

Right on, that I can agree with, I can't agree with stealing.

 

[SammyG]

Allrighty ladies and germs...it's time for the Sammy to jump in here.

Here are the facts, and they are undisputed.

Sharing files of copyrighted music is illegal.

The RIAA has failed to change with the times and failed to see that this would be a problem for them.

Now, I am so sick and tired of the RIAA villanizing people for being file sharing folks. Talking to people who share files as if files sharing was a grave a crime as kidnapping, it's just plain insulting when you consider how many truly serious problems we have in this world. The RIAA takes itself so freaking seriously in this way that it is risking a boycott, which I can very easily see happening sometime in the future.

They need to smarten up, and adapt to the changing times. Instead of using the slowest, most inefficient method (ie the US Court System)....they need to learn, and learn fast, a better way to distribute their product. Legal or not, file sharing is here to stay.

So RIAA, please quit trying to sound like some important establishment by villanizing the people who you have allowed through your inability to see the future, to steal your product. Use some logic, and fix your problem the smart way.

You leave your wallet hanging out, and someones gonna take it.

As for me, I am a file sharer, though not to the tune of thousands of files. It's still wrong, but I still sleep perfectly well at night. And I laugh at everyone who has the attitude that file sharers are a scourge on society.

Give me a freaking break.

 

[A Squared]

The RIAA has failed to change with the times and failed to see that this would be a problem for them.

OK, here we go with the "technology makes stealing easy, so stealing is OK" excuse.
So, by this rationale, if someone invented a relable lockpicking machine, which you could buy in any hardware store for 50 bucks, and it could pick most household locks in 20 seconds, burglarly would then be OK? And if your house got broken into it would be your fault for "failing to see it would be a problem" ?

Now, I am so sick and tired of the RIAA villanizing people for being file sharing folks.

why? you agree that they are thieves, why shouldn't we villanize thieves? "sharing" is a misnomer, it's not yours to share. You're stealing

You leave your wallet hanging out, and someones gonna take it.

There's an enlightened moral outlook, your mother must be so proud

As for me, I am a file sharer, though not to the tune of thousands of files. It's still wrong, but I still sleep perfectly well at night.

I'm not at all surprised. I'm also not surprised that you don't understand this isn't something to be proud of.

 

[Styles]

I aggree with SammyG and like I have been saying it is not the technology thats being used as an excuse. It the way the RIAA has bought the farm and screwed up. They failed so they are going to use (manipulate) the legal system to get what they want.

the RIAA is evil period......

I need to relax, drink a beer or two and shoot an ILS to KSFO with only 1/8 mile vis / rain / 20 crosswind at dark w/ no AP aww heck I will even throw in an engine failure...


got to love FS2004....