Limewire Strikes Back

[Serpento]

This got me all hot and bothered...

Limewire Hits Back Hard: Sues RIAA For Antitrust And Consumer Fraud

from the this-may-get-interesting dept

Last month, the RIAA sued Limewire after Limewire wouldn't agree to simply roll over and pretend the RIAA's interpretation of the Supreme Court decision in the Grokster case was actually what the Supreme Court said. The court actually said that services could be found liable, if they were shown to actively induce infringement. The RIAA and the MPAA pretended this meant that any file sharing network that had unauthorized content was flat-out illegal. Of course, that's a bit of a stretch. So, it already seemed like it would be an interesting case, but now Limewire has hit back even harder with counterclaims accusing the RIAA of antitrust violations, consumer fraud and other misconduct. Specifically, they seem to be making the case that the RIAA only wants to shut down Limewire because it is a competitive distribution mechanism that they cannot control, which helps compete with their monopolistic control on traditional distribution. It's an interesting claim that does make some sense, though the RIAA will simply try to paint Limewire as a tool for "thieves." As with many of these types of cases, there's probably a decent chance that the sides will settle before any decision is made, but in this case, it would be very interesting to see the actual outcome of any lawsuit -- both on the issue of whether or not simply running a file sharing network is inducement and on whether or not there really is an antitrust claim here. If the case does go forward and the RIAA loses on the antitrust issue, it could have a big impact on the traditional labels, and could actually be a catalyst towards forcing them to accept the changing nature of the market. This is becoming a case well worth watching.

source: http://www.shoutwire.com/viewstory/31141/Limewire_Hits_Back_Hard_Sues_RIAA_For_Antitrust_An d_Consumer_Fraud
Personally, I don't advocate the whole "illegal" thing, but I'm glad people are finally realizing the RIAA is flat-out lying and flexing their media muscle when it comes to the prosecution of file-sharers.

Discuss.

[Danger Bird]

I definitely advocate the whole "illegal" thing.

[peeted]

well i dont think that limewire etc should be illegal or are illegal but obviousley shariung coppyright files is illegal and the majority of files shared on filesharing networks are coppyrighted. personaly i have no moral problem with file sharing though, i regulaly torent albums and films, i usualy go out and buy em after if there any good though.

[LittlePound]

/\/\ thats' what i do. I download the songs to preview them and if i like them i go out and by the cd (if i don't like them i just delete the songs off my comp). I like to support the artists that i enjoy listening to.

[Yield]

I did that once, but then other people just take the whole album and burn them themselves. I wouldn't do this a) because I don't think that its right and b) because I don't know how.

[Electronic Wolf]

I like to download albums before I go out and purchase them because I want to know what I'm paying for. But I also download because albums are unreasonably priced.

[LittlePound]

I like to download albums before I go out and purchase them because I want to know what I'm paying for. But I also download because albums are unreasonably priced.

just depends on where you go. You can find albums cheap but you have to go to the right places. I listen to a lot of Christian rock bands (but that's not all i listen to), like Relient K, Pillar, Underoath, etc. but...i never go to Lifeway to buy them becuase htey're way overpriced there. I'd rather just go to walmart or somewhere else to buy them just becuase it's cheaper. It's ironic that "secular" places are able to sell christian albums much cheaper than actually christian stores do.

[Steerpike]

I only ever buy CDs online these days. There no small local music shops left that are any good, and FYE gouges their prices to insane levels. I'm not paying ****ing $28 for Chili Peppers album!

As for the lawsuit, about damn time. The RIAA needs to learn that when you back us into a corner, we're going to bite.

[gaslight]

I couldn't care less if its illegal, the RIAA will get no sympathy from me. The decentralisation of the music industry is the best thing that will ever happen to it.

[Surgicalgod]

Filesharing should be legal, you're not hurting the artist if you download the albu (even if you don't buy it later). They only get like a very small share of album selling profits; the rest they make off concerts, merchandise, etc...

[ChodaBoy]

What about those who produce the songs, create the art work, put out the promotions for the new songs, and the others behind the scenes? They need to be paid

[gaslight]

Filesharing should be legal, you're not hurting the artist if you download the albu (even if you don't buy it later). They only get like a very small share of album selling profits; the rest they make off concerts, merchandise, etc...

The point of decentralising the industry is to allow artists to be paid more directly for things like albums and songs, rather than having the money go to the labels.

[Dinosawesome]

I saw this on TorrentSpy, I say good work Limewire.

[Steerpike]

What about those who produce the songs, create the art work, put out the promotions for the new songs, and the others behind the scenes? They need to be paid

Actually, they only make marginally more than the artists. The reason CDs are so expensive is because the artists get maybe about 5-10 cents off an album sale, the album artwork designers get about the same, the producers marginally more, and the distributors and execs get the lion's share. It's a horriffically imbalanced system.

[Serpento]

^Exactly. I like the idea of decentralizing the system, to create a less capitalist market for artists. It'll promote smaller groups and growth in the craft.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

hey i'm entitled to a product without paying for it. wait what

[VomitStainedCretin]

Many bands I now listen to and own CDs of I would never have otherwise looked into if I didnt use Limewire. I make a point of trying to have mostly originals in my CD collection, so Im not hurting the industry. I dont want to end up buying an album on impulse because "Oh, i like their name/artwork/etc" and then find out it's sh1t.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

im allowed to break the law because it's convenient

[ChodaBoy]

I dont think buying some cd's of those you heard from Limewire justifies illegally taking songs. Its breaking the law, and if you did that in a store, you would expect to be prosecuted. The internet isnt exempt from the law

[Mr. Ron]

To all of you who are against downloading: What about albums and songs that can no longer be bought or found on the market? Albums that are out of print ect, would it be wrong for a fan of said albums be wrong in downloading them because of their scarcity?

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

To all of you who are against downloading: What about albums and songs that can no longer be bought or found on the market? Albums that are out of print ect, would it be wrong for a fan of said albums be wrong in downloading them because of their scarcity?

:An interesting point but :lol: at the idea of someone only using their p2p service for music they couldn't buy elsewhere when they have the internets

[Serpento]

To all of you who are against downloading: What about albums and songs that can no longer be bought or found on the market? Albums that are out of print ect, would it be wrong for a fan of said albums be wrong in downloading them because of their scarcity? After a certain point of time, I think some music goes into the public domain. Still, I back that completely.

[Kif]

I think if albums we actually worth what you get, then I'd buy. I do download, and have bought to date 4 albums this year I think. I'd like to see some extras thrown into albums without having to buy a re-issue of it later on in the year (A lot of labels are doing that now, and it's annoying that they can't just include bonus tracks, CDs and DVDs from the start).

Still, filesharing will never be legal. Ever.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

I think if albums we actually worth what you get, then I'd buy. I do download, and have bought to date 4 albums this year I think. I'd like to see some extras thrown into albums without having to buy a re-issue of it later on in the year (A lot of labels are doing that now, and it's annoying that they can't just include bonus tracks, CDs and DVDs from the start).

Still, filesharing will never be legal. Ever.

extras are worse

the reissue of "wishbone ash - argus" had a bonus track and it totally ruined the ending of the album

It'd be better if they were just cheaper but they won't be is all

[beso negro]

I have this shown on my soulseek account, it is in the first folder you see:

!!!Legal Notice - Must Read Before Continuing!!!

WARNING for controversial reasons, if you are affiliated with any government, police, investigative, ANTI-Piracy group RIAA, MPAA, Universal Fox, any other movie production company or video game company or console manufacturer or distribution company or group, or any other related group, or were formally a worker of one, you CANNOT enter or download files from my computer. If you enter my computer you are not agreeing to these terms and you are violating code 431.322.12 of the Internet Privacy Act signed by Bill Clinton in 1995 and that means that you cannot threaten my ISP or any person(s) or company storing these files, and cannot prosecute any person(s) affiliated with my site all federal, state and local laws concerning the content of this site. By going any further into this SITE, you agree to all of the above, otherwise you must leave this site and do not go any further!

[ChodaBoy]

Surely that could easily be beaten if someone reported you, with proof. I.E. a screenshot

[PerpetualBurn]

I have this shown on my soulseek account, it is in the first folder you see:

!!!Legal Notice - Must Read Before Continuing!!!

WARNING for controversial reasons, if you are affiliated with any government, police, investigative, ANTI-Piracy group RIAA, MPAA, Universal Fox, any other movie production company or video game company or console manufacturer or distribution company or group, or any other related group, or were formally a worker of one, you CANNOT enter or download files from my computer. If you enter my computer you are not agreeing to these terms and you are violating code 431.322.12 of the Internet Privacy Act signed by Bill Clinton in 1995 and that means that you cannot threaten my ISP or any person(s) or company storing these files, and cannot prosecute any person(s) affiliated with my site all federal, state and local laws concerning the content of this site. By going any further into this SITE, you agree to all of the above, otherwise you must leave this site and do not go any further!

I hope you realise that the internet privacy act as a protection to such things is a myth.

Hence child pornographers being prosecutable.

[Zesty Mordant]

hey i'm entitled to a product without paying for it. wait what

essentially yes, considering that the majority of recording artists (ie. those who made the product) aren't against downloading.

[StrawberryFieldsForever]

I have currently 127 CD's exactly that I have paid for or recieved as a gift. About 126 (well that's an over-exaggeration, maybe 50) of those CD's I likely would not have bought without downloading a few songs off them first. MuchMusic is crap for finding new music, and the radio is no better. If someone reccomends me a band, I'll download some of their music. If I like 'em, I'll buy from 'em, that's the bottom line. If I don't like them, then I would never have bought music from them anyway, so it's not like their losing any money if I download a few songs.

My friends dad, before CD's came out, had approx 1200 records gathered over about ten - fifteen years. He was able to do this because records costed (if I have my facts right) about five bucks back in his day. On average, I'm now paying 20 bucks for a friggin CD...sometimes I find a good disk for ten bucks, but even more than that I'm stuck paying 30 bucks a CD (every single Chili Peppers CD I own was about 25 - 30 bucks, excluding By The Way, and I own every single Chili Peppers CD). I mean, no wonder people are turning to downloading.

I don't know, it's a complicated issue. Musicians alone should be making atleast half of what the CD is sold for to split between the few musicians in the group and/or guest musicians. Execs should be making **** all. Give them the 5 - 10 cents a CD.

[Mr. Ron]

:An interesting point but :lol: at the idea of someone only using their p2p service for music they couldn't buy elsewhere when they have the internets

There is some really hard to find albums out there. Sometimes p2p is the only way to get them. Especially foreign stuff.

[Eliminator]

I only ever buy CDs online these days. There no small local music shops left that are any good, and FYE gouges their prices to insane levels. I'm not paying ****ing $28 for Chili Peppers album!

As for the lawsuit, about damn time. The RIAA needs to learn that when you back us into a corner, we're going to bite.

The only music store in my town is FYE, and the nearest decent store is a half hour to an hour away.

So yeah, I support filesharing. Mainly I use it for getting things that are nearly impossible to get around here, which is usually the case. And I can't order albums offline, so yeah.

limewire sucks, though

[Steerpike]

I dont think buying some cd's of those you heard from Limewire justifies illegally taking songs. Its breaking the law, and if you did that in a store, you would expect to be prosecuted. The internet isnt exempt from the law

First of all, I would not know of about 90% of the bands I listen to if not for filesharing. And I've thrown plenty of my cash those artists' way, so if you still want to brand me a thief, then you seriously need to reassess your world view.

Second, sampling a few songs to get an idea of a band's sound is nowhere near the same as smuggling a dozen albums out of FYE in a trenchcoat.

Third, no one is saying that the internet is legally exempt. That was your own screwed up misinterpretation. However, the internet is a very unique telecommunication tool that has made obsolete many of the more draconian policies in the American entertainment industry.

Now, the RIAA believes that they can combat plummeting CD sales by treating the entirety of their consumer base as would-be criminals. But anyone who isn't oblivious to reality would realize that this isn't a problem that you can attack directly without creating a self-replicating opponent.

The first thing to do would be to cease these gratuitous lawsuits and stop being so bloody paranoid. The RIAA's disconnection from reality and hostile stance has only further destroyed the trust they may have had with their consumers. And after the whole Sony debacle... sweet fist-****ing Christ, they may never recover from that one.

In order for a business to succeed in the long-term, there needs to be a certain level of trust between the provider of goods and the consumer. The RIAA fails to understand this, and are concerned only with the net profits at the end of every quarter.

The second thing to do would be to stop gouging prices. Despite the fact that the retail value of CDs is going up, the artists aren't making more money. The executives are. Or at least they would be if they realized that very few people want to pay $20 to hear Tom DeLonge's latest display of audio masturbation. And with Suncoast/Sam Goody out of business, the market is getting even worse.

The answer to this dilemma should be obvious. But the lumbering, dying, diseased dinosaur that is the collective mind of the RIAA is too pompous and out of touch to understand it.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

essentially yes, considering that the majority of recording artists (ie. those who made the product) aren't against downloading.
essentially no, because the record company is against downloading

First of all, I would not know of about 90% of the bands I listen to if not for filesharing. And I've thrown plenty of my cash those artists' way, so if you still want to brand me a thief, then you seriously need to reassess your world view.

I steal therefore I am not a thief
uh

[Surgicalgod]

I dont think buying some cd's of those you heard from Limewire justifies illegally taking songs. Its breaking the law, and if you did that in a store, you would expect to be prosecuted. The internet isnt exempt from the law

Except it's not the same. Stealing from a store is very different, because cds aren't unlimited in supply. If I steal a CD, I'm affecting the store owner and the label directly. Now if I download a file, I'm not hurting anyone because the person whom I get it from won't lose it; I will just have another copy. It's not stealing because I will never buy an original album (even if they stop internet filesharing).

[Steerpike]

essentially no, because the record company is against downloading

If they're looking for sympathy, they bled it out a long time ago.

I steal therefore I am not a thief
uh

In effect, what I'm doing is no different from asking a friend to loan me a CD so I can see ahead of time whether or not it's worth buying. By your own logic, if you've ever listened to a friend's CD while you were riding in the car with him/her, then you are just as much a thief as me.

[The Haitian]

In effect, what I'm doing is no different from asking a friend to loan me a CD so I can see ahead of time whether or not it's worth buying. By your own logic, if you've ever listened to a friend's CD while you were riding in the car with him/her, then you are just as much a thief as me.

Except if you borrow a CD from a friend to listen to it, then they can no longer listen to it until you return it back to them. And once you return it then you can no longer listen to it. The point is that 1 CD = playback on 1 device at a time. It has nothing to do with listening to a CD while another person is present.

[Steerpike]

Except if you borrow a CD from a friend to listen to it, then they can no longer listen to it until you return it back to them. And once you return it then you can no longer listen to it. The point is that 1 CD = playback on 1 device at a time. It has nothing to do with listening to a CD while another person is present.

If we're going to get anal retentive about it, then let's say I ask for a burned copy. If I like what I hear, I buy the real thing.

If I like what I hear and buy the albums and merchandise, then what the hell is the problem?

[Roy.]

if the riaa really cared they would stop the library from buying albums and letting people borrow them for free. half of my mp3 collection comes from the library.

they just want to use excuses,they know in 10 years it could be possible that the current music industry might not exist anymore,leaving a lot of thier rich asses in the cold.

i believe it should be illegal to make a profit but i don't believe file sharing should be illegal. eventually this will fail them,just like when they tried to stop home recorder use. this is nothing new.

thing is you don't see the movie industry going this far? why cause they are making money so they don't care if someone borrows a dvd or gives it to someone else or copies it. the music industry cares cause they have failed and they wqant to drag as many down with them as possible.

[Steerpike]

the music industry cares cause they have failed and they wqant to drag as many down with them as possible.

Not quite. They did fail in that they didn't listen to the people who warned them how big the internet was going to be. But instead of trying to regroup and compensate for missing the boat, they're trying to sink it. They're oblivious to the fact that their draconian tactics, price gouging, and stubborn adherence to an outdated system are what's killing them.

This is not a problem that can be solved by treating your entire consumer base as criminals.

[The Haitian]

If we're going to get anal retentive about it, then let's say I ask for a burned copy. If I like what I hear, I buy the real thing.

If I like what I hear and buy the albums and merchandise, then what the hell is the problem?
Well burning a copy to give away is illegal. The point is that one person bought one CD. That person has no right to copy it and then distribute it around. If that person wants to let someone preview the music, then they can cough up the original and lose their ability to listen to it until it is returned to them. That gives the person who 'borrowed' the CD an incentive to actually return it.

You may throw away your burned CDs and buy the original but you are a minority. That's like stealing a Lexus from a dealership and driving it around for a few weeks. Then you dump it somewhere and go buy one because you decided you liked it.

[Steerpike]

Well burning a copy to give away is illegal.

The person who gave it to me didn't make any money. In fact, they'd have to spend more money to acquire the blank CD. Copyright law was meant to protect intellectual property from being sold by an outside party with permission or authority.

The point is that one person bought one CD. That person has no right to copy it and then distribute it around.

Why not?

If that person wants to let someone preview the music, then they can cough up the original and lose their ability to listen to it until it is returned to them. That gives the person who 'borrowed' the CD an incentive to actually return it.

You could do that too. But there's still no guarantee that a second copy will ever be bought.

You may throw away your burned CDs and buy the original but you are a minority.

So I should be raked over the coals because of other people?

That's like stealing a Lexus from a dealership and driving it around for a few weeks. Then you dump it somewhere and go buy one because you decided you liked it.

A more accurate analogy would be I'm taking the car for a test drive before buying it. Of course, I may not buy the exact one I test drove. I may buy the same model in a different color.

If I listen to some pirated songs and I like them, the band will get my money. The way you try to describe me, I literally shoplift a bunch of CDs and then buy the ones I liked. That's hardly what I do. The band is getting my money. They're not losing any money from me. I did not directly shoplift an album, I listened to somebody else's. Contrary to the picture you seem intent on painting, there is a difference.

[Skydive_Stu]

You may throw away your burned CDs and buy the original but you are a minority. That's like stealing a Lexus from a dealership and driving it around for a few weeks. Then you dump it somewhere and go buy one because you decided you liked it.



except uh you know, the fact that a lexus is worth about 10 000 cds. And the fact that one lexus probably contains like 10 000x the resources a CD has.

And the fact that the people producing lexus's (lexi?) don't treat people like convicts. It has gotten to the point where I refuse to spend more than 20$ on a CD (vinyl however, I will possibly go over). And if I see somewhere that I can get it for free, I'll go for it.

It's not hurting anyone, but it isn't helping people. And quite frankly, I don't care. I have better things to do with my money (see: FOOD) than to hand it over to someone who won't even notice that extra $10 000 that dropped into their bank account until the end of the quarter.

[Zesty Mordant]

essentially no, because the record company is against downloading


but they didn't make the original product, they just distribute it. I'm just bypassing their role by downloading it.

[The Haitian]

The person who gave it to me didn't make any money. In fact, they'd have to spend more money to acquire the blank CD. Copyright law was meant to protect intellectual property from being sold by an outside party with permission or authority.

Whether or not they made money is insignificant. The fact is that you're getting music for free. It's up to your personal moral standards on whether or not you will actually go buy the music after listening to it. So even if the intellectual property hasn't 'lost' money per say, it's losing potential money because not everyone buys the albums they like.


Why not?

That should be obvious but it's not their intellectual property to give away freely.


You could do that too. But there's still no guarantee that a second copy will ever be bought.

I know that, but people not buying music that they don't like is not a problem. The problem is people not buying music that they do like.


So I should be raked over the coals because of other people?

In this case, yes. What you're doing is illegal regardless of how you try to justify it.


A more accurate analogy would be I'm taking the car for a test drive before buying it. Of course, I may not buy the exact one I test drove. I may buy the same model in a different color.
Not really. A test drive is controlled by the dealership's rules. The car isn't in your possession illegally leaving you with the moral decision of whether or not to keep the stolen property.


If I listen to some pirated songs and I like them, the band will get my money. The way you try to describe me, I literally shoplift a bunch of CDs and then buy the ones I liked. That's hardly what I do. The band is getting my money. They're not losing any money from me. I did not directly shoplift an album, I listened to somebody else's. Contrary to the picture you seem intent on painting, there is a difference.
Justify it however you like but it is just as illegal as walking into Wal-Mart and physically stealing it.



except uh you know, the fact that a lexus is worth about 10 000 cds. And the fact that one lexus probably contains like 10 000x the resources a CD has.

And the fact that the people producing lexus's (lexi?) don't treat people like convicts. It has gotten to the point where I refuse to spend more than 20$ on a CD (vinyl however, I will possibly go over). And if I see somewhere that I can get it for free, I'll go for it.

It's not hurting anyone, but it isn't helping people. And quite frankly, I don't care. I have better things to do with my money (see: FOOD) than to hand it over to someone who won't even notice that extra $10 000 that dropped into their bank account until the end of the quarter.

The value of it makes no difference. And there are plenty of cheap legal alternatives to mainstream record stores. (I buy lots of albums through CD clubs)



but they didn't make the original product, they just distribute it. I'm just bypassing their role by downloading it.

The record company does more than just distribute albums. They market the artists so you and me actually know who the artist is. Once they start losing too much money then they are gonna charge artists more. So I hope you like listening to those crappy home recorded albums from all your up and coming bands.

[Skydive_Stu]

The value of it makes no difference. And there are plenty of cheap legal alternatives to mainstream record stores. (I buy lots of albums through CD clubs)
The record company does more than just distribute albums. They market the artists so you and me actually know who the artist is. Once they start losing too much money then they are gonna charge artists more. So I hope you like listening to those crappy home recorded albums from all your up and coming bands.


There are lots of albums that are not available through CD Clubs, and much of the time those clubs arent even possible for canadian citizens.

(oh and btw here in canada its legal to download, just not to share so I dont really know why I argue.)

Also, if EVERY band goes down the ****ter like you described then the bands themselves will learn to produce album. Even if they dont own the equipment they can find a place to rent and use the equipment there, lots of bands already do this.

[Zesty Mordant]

The record company does more than just distribute albums. They market the artists so you and me actually know who the artist is. Once they start losing too much money then they are gonna charge artists more. So I hope you like listening to those crappy home recorded albums from all your up and coming bands.

that wasn't what I was explicitly talking about. I was referring to the notion that I don't have to depend on record labels if i want to get music straight from the producer.

and besides, I've found more music online, as well as through smaller record labels that promote downloading than through major label plugging.

Also, music production technology has advanced to the point and been more economically feasible in that home/smaller label production is beginning to rival major label producing.

[Steerpike]

Whether or not they made money is insignificant. The fact is that you're getting music for free. It's up to your personal moral standards on whether or not you will actually go buy the music after listening to it. So even if the intellectual property hasn't 'lost' money per say, it's losing potential money because not everyone buys the albums they like.

When I find a stereotypical Jew who's willing to cry for those unborn FYE receipts, I'll let you know.

That should be obvious but it's not their intellectual property to give away freely.

But the CD is their property. By your own logic, putting stuff up on eBay should be punishable by massive fines. But that clearly isn't the case.

I know that, but people not buying music that they don't like is not a problem. The problem is people not buying music that they do like.

I'm not those people, so why are you spitting on me?

In this case, yes. What you're doing is illegal regardless of how you try to justify it.

So because I gave the RIAA money to get albums from artists I like, they're entitled to sue me blind and get the rest of my money in one fell swoop?

Not really. A test drive is controlled by the dealership's rules. The car isn't in your possession illegally leaving you with the moral decision of whether or not to keep the stolen property.

But I'm not actually stealing a Lexis. I'm cherry picking a couple songs, then deleting them from my harddrive once I have the album. I can't see how this is the same thing because it isn't.

Justify it however you like but it is just as illegal as walking into Wal-Mart and physically stealing it.

Well in that case I might as well live it up.
/holds you at gun point

Give me your wallet.

[Serpento]

When I find a stereotypical Jew who's willing to cry for those unborn FYE receipts, I'll let you know. That made my week.

I completely agree with Steerpike; technically it's still illegal, but you're gonna end up pouring money into the system which would have barely benefited the artists nor the labels anyway, by eventually buying the whole album. It's very akin to streaming an album to get a taste of it, only you get low-quality ready-to-use copies of some songs for free. I don't know why you get in such a tizzy over downloading some songs, then finally being the good little capitalist everyone else wants you to be. Sure, it's morally wrong to a point (since like I said, you eventually pay it all back,) but consciences are very easy to shut up.

[mullets suk]

I think most of your analogies/ comparisons are kinda off. Some one brought up the movie industry. First of all the movie industry does not have this big of a problem, and when they do THEN you are going to see them taking action. Think about it, how many people do you know (that are not computer geeks) that can copy a DVD on to a comp? When coping movies=coping songs then movie buffs are going to be pissed.

also for everyone here that say they only preview the cds. how many people do you know actully do that? Most people i know have thousands of songs all gotten online, and i ask about a cd collection and they have 5 really bad cds.

im not defending te RIAA and its a good thing what limewire is doing. But come on in the end judges will only see the thieves part. maybe in the next generations when judges and lawyers and wot nots are all techies then maybe something will change, but i doubt anything HUGE will happen.

also some one said something about not finding a cd store except FYE. i think maybe you should look a little harder. unless you live in the middle of now where (then why is there an FYE?)

[Steerpike]

I think most of your analogies/ comparisons are kinda off. Some one brought up the movie industry. First of all the movie industry does not have this big of a problem, and when they do THEN you are going to see them taking action. Think about it, how many people do you know (that are not computer geeks) that can copy a DVD on to a comp? When coping movies=coping songs then movie buffs are going to be pissed.

And when they do take action, we can only hope that they don't treat their entire consumer base as criminals in order to compensate for their short-sightedness.

also for everyone here that say they only preview the cds. how many people do you know actully do that? Most people i know have thousands of songs all gotten online, and i ask about a cd collection and they have 5 really bad cds.

Explain to me why I should be held responsible for the actions of people I've never met before and who may not even be in the same city/state/timezone/country as me.

also some one said something about not finding a cd store except FYE. i think maybe you should look a little harder. unless you live in the middle of now where (then why is there an FYE?)

There are a few mom & pop shops around, but they seldom if ever have anything I like.

[mullets suk]

Explain to me why I should be held responsible for the actions of people I've never met before and who may not even be in the same city/state/timezone/country as me.

tell me why i have to be responsible for actions made by one stupid person who did something stupid

[Steerpike]

tell me why i have to be responsible for actions made by one stupid person who did something stupid

You're not.

I just misread your post. The crusader I've been arguing with above seems intent on lumping me in with the pirates who never buy CDs as if I influenced their decision or some equally crazy ****. And I've grown weary enough to the point it's become a knee-jerk reaction.

I'm just tired of being treated like a villain for refusing to participate the traditional way in a dying, obsolete, ineffective system with draconian rules and very little incentive to do things the big guys' way.

[mullets suk]

i get you point.

Also has anyone noticed how some CD's are going down in price. Like Damone's and Rise Against's new album where both $10, yet cd's that have been out for decades is still $15+, does anyone know why?

[Scuba_Steve]

i get you point.

Also has anyone noticed how some CD's are going down in price. Like Damone's and Rise Against's new album where both $10, yet cd's that have been out for decades is still $15+, does anyone know why?


some newer independant labels insist that their albums are sold at a certain pricepoint i'd guess.

for instance, I have never once seen a mr.bungle album for over 10$ canadian, so I'd be willing to bet mike patton (cause he is a nice guy) doesnt like screwing his fans so he set a max price.

[Jude]

i get you point.

Also has anyone noticed how some CD's are going down in price. Like Damone's and Rise Against's new album where both $10, yet cd's that have been out for decades is still $15+, does anyone know why?

Probably because music sellers are starting to catch on that people don't want to pay ridiculously inflated prices for CDs now that downloading is universal and that if they want to keep selling they're going to have to lower prices significantly.

[slashjunior]

How can people say that record companies are stuck in the past? Millions of tracks are now on places like iTunes Music Store and Walmart. Apple has been at the forefront of moving the music industry forward, and slowly but surely it is getting there. However, people then complain it doesn't feel the same as a CD, with no cover sleeve etc. One person said his friends dad used to beable to get records for $5...you have to take into account inflation. $5 twenty years ago is similar to like $10 now. Back when your parents were young they couldn't afford to fly abroad or buy things like iPods and all these gadgets we can afford now. So if anything CD's have fallen in price. You can pick up CD's from places like Amazon, Walmart and Best Buy for as little as $7. Check out the Amazon Marketplace which is usually lower than Amazon's prices.

With people buying less and less music and downloading it for free they are shooting themselves in the foot if they are expecting CD prices to be lowered. How can record companies lower prices when they don't get the revenue to invest in more effective ways in distributing music? At the end of the day they still need to profit to move forward as a business and pass the rewards onto the customer.

The music industry however is far from perfect. There definately needs to be some more competition, which will help accelerate the process where record companies improve quality and/or lower their prices.

Although, at the moment record companies still play a fundamental part in the music industry. The majority of sales are still from CD's. While services such as iTunes are moving in the right direction, many people (myself included) still prefer CD's. To distribute, market, produce and do what ever else that sells a CD then that requires a lot of capital. The people with the money i.e. the record companies are the only ones who have the money to do this. You couldn't really go into a bank and ask for a $100,000 loan for your debut album and promise that it is going to be huge. They will probably laugh at you in the face because it is such a huge risk, plus they would think they or you are not expert enough to be considered. The music industry is pretty volatile anyway. Even singers dubbed the next Madonna more than often turn out to be flops and lose the record companies millions. So until online distribution develops further, record companies will still continue to call all the shots, unless the public stopped buying CDs all together. However, that isn't going to happen so the record companies aren't going to budge until technology and competition improves.

[yourstruly]

I own just over 60 CDs, but only around 15 or so of them are real copies. And I do plan to replace every single burnt copy with real ones.

But take NOFX for example. I own all of their albums, but none of them I purchased. But instead I own a NOFX hoodie which was $60, a t-shirt which was $30, and a patch which was $10, which comes to $100. Obviously NOFX doesn't give a ****, because they are rich anyway, get the merch money and now have me as a promotor, which in turn will make them more money.

AFI aswell. I have most of their albums. But if I didn't download those first few AFI songs to get a taste, then eventually a few albums I wouldn't own a AFI hoodie which was $70 and in turn promotes their band and makes them more money. Also the $51 I just spent so I can go to their show in a few weeks.

The RIAA can choke on my dick and die for all I care.

[Steerpike]

How can people say that record companies are stuck in the past? Millions of tracks are now on places like iTunes Music Store and Walmart.

Oh wow, iTunes! It only took the RIAA like, what... 10 years to figure this out? If they had any clue, they would have done this years ago.

Apple has been at the forefront of moving the music industry forward, and slowly but surely it is getting there.

Apple =/= RIAA

However, people then complain it doesn't feel the same as a CD, with no cover sleeve etc.

You're never going to please everybody.

One person said his friends dad used to beable to get records for $5...you have to take into account inflation. $5 twenty years ago is similar to like $10 now.

I wish I could get more albums for $10. I'm not paying ****ing 30 bucks for a Chili Peppers album.

Back when your parents were young they couldn't afford to fly abroad or buy things like iPods and all these gadgets we can afford now.

Mostly because things like iPods didn't exist.

So if anything CD's have fallen in price.

Bought my first CD when I was 12 for $13. It was an Offspring album. These days, I'm lucky to find a decent album for less than $16-17. It adds up pretty quick.

You can pick up CD's from places like Amazon, Walmart and Best Buy for as little as $7. Check out the Amazon Marketplace which is usually lower than Amazon's prices.

I would rather stab myself in the face with a soldering iron than shop at Walmart. But that's a whole 'nother debate.

With people buying less and less music and downloading it for free they are shooting themselves in the foot if they are expecting CD prices to be lowered.

But you can't deny that dsitributors are really gouging prices. I'm not paying FYE $18 for a Danizg album. If they're going to **** me in the wallet like that, they better include a reacharound with that deal.

How can record companies lower prices when they don't get the revenue to invest in more effective ways in distributing music? At the end of the day they still need to profit to move forward as a business and pass the rewards onto the customer.

They could probably start by not treating their customers like criminals at worst, cattle at best.

The music industry however is far from perfect.

Nooooo ****!

To distribute, market, produce and do what ever else that sells a CD then that requires a lot of capital. The people with the money i.e. the record companies are the only ones who have the money to do this.

In the independent film scene, there's a saying. Anybody who can write a check can produce.

The music industry is pretty volatile anyway. Even singers dubbed the next Madonna more than often turn out to be flops and lose the record companies millions.

That's mainly because they sink a shitload of money into building these people into being stars. The current mentality in the music industry is that spending a lot of money now on making on artist exceptionally famous makes more money than working decent promotion on a lot of different artists all at once.

This works, but only in the short term, and is a system that can topple at any moment because of its narrow dependence. Whereas a system with lots of artists doesn't suffer too much in the long run if several flop and fade away.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

Bought my first CD when I was 12 for $13. It was an Offspring album. These days, I'm lucky to find a decent album for less than $16-17. It adds up pretty quick.

but it's not like there has been an actual $3-4 increase in prices in real terms
But you can't deny that dsitributors are really gouging prices. I'm not paying FYE $18 for a Danizg album. If they're going to **** me in the wallet like that, they better include a reacharound with that deal.
don't buy the cd if the price is too high

They could probably start by not treating their customers like criminals at worst, cattle at best.
but they don't do that

This works, but only in the short term, and is a system that can topple at any moment because of its narrow dependence. Whereas a system with lots of artists doesn't suffer too much in the long run if several flop and fade away.
it hasn't toppled yet

[Steerpike]

don't buy the cd if the price is too high

Hence why people download.

but they don't do that

Being okay with taking a 6-year-old girl to court for downloading nursery rhymes that have been in the public domain for ages hardly sounds like good customer relations to me.

it hasn't toppled yet

People are starting to figure out that coughing up almost $20 for a couple of singles and a lot of filler every year or two isn't a good deal. The system needs to either change, or fall.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

I own just over 60 CDs, but only around 15 or so of them are real copies. And I do plan to replace every single burnt copy with real ones.

But take NOFX for example. I own all of their albums, but none of them I purchased. But instead I own a NOFX hoodie which was $60, a t-shirt which was $30, and a patch which was $10, which comes to $100. Obviously NOFX doesn't give a ****, because they are rich anyway, get the merch money and now have me as a promotor, which in turn will make them more money.

AFI aswell. I have most of their albums. But if I didn't download those first few AFI songs to get a taste, then eventually a few albums I wouldn't own a AFI hoodie which was $70 and in turn promotes their band and makes them more money. Also the $51 I just spent so I can go to their show in a few weeks.

The RIAA can choke on my dick and die for all I care.


I've said it before and I'll say it again; if you want to help the artist, don't buy CDs, or merch (except off their website); but go to gigs. The artist actually gets a fair cut of gig money.

[mullets suk]

But take NOFX for example. I own all of their albums, but none of them I purchased. But instead I own a NOFX hoodie which was $60, a t-shirt which was $30, and a patch which was $10, which comes to $100. Obviously NOFX doesn't give a ****, because they are rich anyway, get the merch money and now have me as a promotor, which in turn will make them more money.

AFI aswell. I have most of their albums. But if I didn't download those first few AFI songs to get a taste, then eventually a few albums I wouldn't own a AFI hoodie which was $70 and in turn promotes their band and makes them more money. Also the $51 I just spent so I can go to their show in a few weeks.


haha you got ripped off, yet you still payed for it so really you shouldnt be complaining. Also thats why DIY is so great, you can make your own shirts for fractions of the cost while at the same time promoting the band.

[xdarnold]

hey, check it out - here's my fave: a friend of mine played this for me. and you gotta hear it, they're just like the Yard Birds! anyways my fave is the Rave ups's "what do you want?" super feedback fuzz distortion goodness! you can look in theraveups It is their website

[miranda825]

hey, check it out - here's my fave: a friend of mine played this for me. and you gotta hear it, they're just like the Yard Birds! anyways my fave is the Rave ups's "what do you want?" super feedback fuzz distortion goodness! you can look in theraveups It is their websiteSounds awesome, I know that guy was in Santana some years ago, wasn't he?

[yourstruly]

haha you got ripped off, yet you still payed for it so really you shouldnt be complaining. Also thats why DIY is so great, you can make your own shirts for fractions of the cost while at the same time promoting the band.I wasn't complaining about anything..

I've said it before and I'll say it again; if you want to help the artist, don't buy CDs, or merch (except off their website); but go to gigs. The artist actually gets a fair cut of gig money.I think the merch i'm buying, is from a person who buys it off the band sites then re-sells it in NZ.

[TheGoat]

You can buy an album from Itunes at 10$. I prefer to buy the cd album instead of downloading the songs from itunes. I dont know what's the quality of the songs in itunes but i don't think it is better or equal than the original cd. IMO Itunes fees should be cheaper and that might help a bit downloading illegal music.

[Simon__Thats_All]

Downloading instead of purchasing does hurt artists. All moneys spent by record companies on recording an album/promoting it/pressing/distribution etc all has to be paid back by the artist. The means of paying it back was artist royalties from album sales. Which means, if people aren't buying albums, it takes the artists that much longer to pay back their loan, and so much longer to start making money off album sales. The fall in album sales since P2P came in to effect has meant record companies in America (Though as far as I'm aware not the rest of the world yet) have started docking performance royalties as well as artist royalties so they can actually recoup their money. This means, arguably thanks to illegal downloading, artist now aren't making their money off their gigs like they used to - that money's going to their label as well.

I used to download a fair bit of music, now I don't download any. The thing about downloading for samples before buying albums, most bands have websites where you can listen to snippets if not entire songs from their inventory to get the taste of their music to decide whether or not you want to buy. It disappoints me to see people who call themselves musicians flat out refuse to buy albums.

You can buy an album from Itunes at 10$. I prefer to buy the cd album instead of downloading the songs from itunes. I dont know what's the quality of the songs in itunes but i don't think it is better or equal than the original cd. IMO Itunes fees should be cheaper and that might help a bit downloading illegal music.
I don't imagine iTunes downloaded albums would be any better quality than MP3, and MP3 is not good quality music.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

It's silly how buying an album of itunes comes to about the same as buying the CD, when it's low bitrate and you don't actually get the CD and it's in some really hopeless apple format

[TheGoat]

It's silly how buying an album of itunes comes to about the same as buying the CD, when it's low bitrate and you don't actually get the CD and it's in some really hopeless apple format

Yep, thats exactly my point.

[Serpento]

I used to download a fair bit of music, now I don't download any. The thing about downloading for samples before buying albums, most bands have websites where you can listen to snippets if not entire songs from their inventory to get the taste of their music to decide whether or not you want to buy. It disappoints me to see people who call themselves musicians flat out refuse to buy albums. Not really; most bands do have free samples to stream, but almost always it's from either their newest album or best work. Plus, they can't be bothered to spend the fees to host more than a few (5-6 at the very most) songs anymore due to all the Godawful gouging of customers domain hosts do nowadays. Yet, sometimes there are third-party sites that host more of their work, due to a lack of songs on the real band site. Unfortunately, they are few and far between, and are technically illegal if they're not affiliated with the band personally.


I don't imagine iTunes downloaded albums would be any better quality than MP3, and MP3 is not good quality music. iTunes' MP4 and AAC files are probably about one step above MP3's, which is still nowhere near CD quality. I personally turned to downloading as a front against iTunes in the very beginning, after I learned they took almost all the sales money and coughed up royalties of 5-10 cents per album's worth of songs sold.

[PerpetualBurn]

I just don't like paying a lot of money for so many albums. So I steal them from Soulseek.

At least I'm not engaging in all the meaningless sophistry.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

PB gets it.

[PerpetualBurn]

Oh, and did I mention that I bought a t-shirt at a concert once so that makes it okay?

[Serpento]

The fact that you went to the concert makes it OK in my book.

[PerpetualBurn]

I paid for some stuff so I get to nick the rest for free.

[Serpento]

Exactly.

[Fatty]

I paid for some stuff so I get to nick the rest for free.

Same here so i better get some more stuff for if they lose.


Its a bit unfair because im a big metallica fan but there cd's arent made to last there made to serve a minimal time(8 months maybe more or less)then they expect me to buy the album again i almost have every metallica album and only one hasnt stuffed up yet and that probably will soon.


and btw haha Aston Villa beat Sheffield United(even though i like sheffield :p )


haha while writing this message im listening to Dont Download This Song by weird al

[PerpetualBurn]

What the hell are you talking about? Sheffield United haven't played Aston Villa yet this season. The last time we played Villa was in the cup and we won 3-1.

Idiot.

[Fatty]

What the hell are you talking about? Sheffield United haven't played Aston Villa yet this season. The last time we played Villa was in the cup and we won 3-1.

Idiot.

ah **** yeah that was reading...


ah for the loss you got me there :(

[PerpetualBurn]

How could you possibly confuse Reading and Villa?

[Fatty]

How could you possibly confuse Reading and Villa?

i got the blades mixed up with reading, im a villa fan.

[PerpetualBurn]

That's even dumber.

[Fatty]

haha all i knew is that we beat one of the teams the came up and that was reading although we drew with watford.:amaze:

[Aaron]

I definitely advocate the whole "illegal" thing.
I agree, except for the use of the term "illegal", it's not in my opinion.