Record industry's latest stab at consumers

davester1234 · #1 06-26-2003, 02:11 AM

Well, it seems as if the record industry is set to SUE those sharing large numbers of files.

Can they really pull this off?

I dunno, but it sure is a doozy of a strategy.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/interne....ap/index.html

Maggot · #2 06-26-2003, 05:30 AM

Well....*maybe* they can get some people downloading a LOT of stuff, but I don't think that'll be possible becouse they would then be hacking into peoples computer and using spyware and as we all know that is illegal....but who knows, let's wait and see.

Soup Kitchen Studios · #3 06-26-2003, 06:06 AM

No, it is perfectly legal. They just search the file sharing programs, get the ip address of the offending user and trace them back to their ISP. ISP's are now required to provide the RIAA with info to contact offending users, thanks to a ruling earlier in the year.

jay ratkowski · #4 06-26-2003, 08:42 AM

You don't even have to get through the first sentence to realize that article is BS.

"The Recording Industry Association of America, citing substantial sales declines"

Yeah, name an industry besides the unemployment offices that haven't seen a drop in business lately. So now you can sue because your product is becoming obsolete? Time for the record industry to just get with the times and SELL more music in a digital format over the internet. It's working for Apple, and if they can have a successful business strategy, anyone can.

I'm going to open a store that sells movies only on VHS. Then I'm going to sue all of you buying DVDs or copying tapes. Watch out!

darren wilson · #5 06-26-2003, 08:50 AM

I agree with Jay. They've had their heads up their asses about Internet music distribution for nearly a decade now.

My understanding is that they're not really going after heavy downloaders. They're going after the big uploaders who have thousands and thousands of songs freely available on their systems.

Reaper · #6 06-26-2003, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jay ratkowski

You don't even have to get through the first sentence to realize that article is BS.

"The Recording Industry Association of America, citing substantial sales declines"

Yeah, name an industry besides the unemployment offices that haven't seen a drop in business lately. So now you can sue because your product is becoming obsolete? Time for the record industry to just get with the times and SELL more music in a digital format over the internet. It's working for Apple, and if they can have a successful business strategy, anyone can.

I'm going to open a store that sells movies only on VHS. Then I'm going to sue all of you buying DVDs or copying tapes. Watch out!

Well said, and I agree wholeheartedly. This is why I regard the RIAA as the biggest **** the world has ever seen. No other industry goes so far and so violently against anyone who takes away from their sales. That said, what they're doing is perfectly legal. It still doesn't mean they're not ***holes, though.

guitarkatana · #7 06-26-2003, 12:15 PM

I agree with Jay completely. The record industries should just get with the times and start marketing music via downloading.

And yeah, right now I highly doubt that people stealing music over the internet is a top concern of our government.

OME · #8 06-26-2003, 03:49 PM

What is there - 6 giant companies - that control music distibution?
They wanna sue the consumer because they are losing control of us
and what we choose to buy. We should sue them for paying almost $20
for a CD.

I remember taping songs from the radio when I was a teenager...
Was that illegal? Maybe I should hide the basement tapes along with
my TV recordings of VHS tapes.

The - Giants - need to provide us with a better selection of music,
there's hundreds(millions) of artist out there to sign, but we only see the same 20 artist rotation on the TV and Radio.

Reaper · #9 06-26-2003, 06:12 PM

Well, we're not exactly "choosing what we buy"... file-sharing is illegal... and I'm guilty as hell on the taping charge.

What we really need is a boycott. You could never mount one large enough to bring them down, but they need a good, swift kick in the nuts. Think about it. If they jack prices up even further, they'll lose more customers. Otherwise they'll have to lower the prices. I'd feel badly about the artists, but not badly enough to prevent me from doing it.

OME · #10 06-26-2003, 06:29 PM

I can totally understand the legalities of it and agree it is illegal
BUT I think the best thing for the companies to do is just drop it b4
they seriously damage the music industry.

On the good side, file sharing has pushed the artist to include bonus
goods along with their CD's. i.e. internet vids and links

Free DVD
St. *cough* Ang *cough* er.

(my other post was cut short, I had to leave the PC)

jay ratkowski · #11 06-27-2003, 08:54 AM

In reality, the record companies are mearly treating us like a bunch of children (which we are, but not in the way they want, hehe). They seem to believe that if they punish us enough, keep saying 'no', we will all suddenly learn to do the right thing. Except, you can take some hardcore warez-addict, who has been upset with the record industry for probably many years, destroy his life and take all his money (possibly throw him in jail) and just expect him to start loving the RIAA again. I know if I actually got sued in this big joke of a campaign, I would never buy a CD again afterwards. That would REALLY sour my views of the music industry to the point of no return.

However, once they stopped going after file sharing programs (Napster, Kazaa, etc) and started going after individuals, I've noticed things getting worse. Now any chat forum you go to will have SEVERAL long threads about this issue with a TON of very unhappy people. Yes there are still some that say "Don't steal from artists" but they generally have quiet voices. There are a HUGE number of people out there who have a tarnished view of the recording world and the more these suits come about, the worse it is going to get.

On a side note, before anyone complains too much about pricing and selection of CDs, watch where you shop. Yes CDs ARE overpriced and generally the selection of artists available is poor, but the bulk of that is the store you buy from. Even Best Buy still has a large selection of CDs in the $10-12 range, as do many small shops. Yet places like Virgin (ie satan) still sell Mott the Hoople for $18.99. If you want to start somewhere in that war, you'll have to go to the stores. They determine the markup and what labels/artists they carry. There are tons of great artists out there that are signed to a label, but that doesn't mean a store wants to stock it.

davester1234 · #12 06-27-2003, 10:40 AM

Its funny watching the record companies squirm.

There going to realize eventually that they will NEVER stop this. There going to have to bend over, take one up the poop-shoot, and start giving good REASONS for people to buy things.

either that, or they will have to accept the further decrease in their profit margins by spending hundreds of millions a year suing people for downloading britney spears' 'crazy'.

hehe, it just doesn't work for them. Can anybody say screwed?

I'm not advocating stealing, but I rather enjoy watching the record industry take a steal-toed boot to the nads, over and over again.

And how the heck are you going to PROVE that any one person committed illegal activity just because internet mp3's are on their computer?
As somebody who studies law, I assure you there are more loopholes in that than johnny cocherane found in the case against O.J.

Reaper · #13 06-27-2003, 12:45 PM

Loopholes like a fishnet... effectively, they have to prove that you never owned that CD. Otherwise, you can argue that you lost it, it was destroyed or stolen, and that you wanted to replace it. Not a very likely story, but probably enough to create reasonable doubt and blow their case.

In short, they're screwed, they know it, and they don't like it. Unfortunately, they've got a powerful ally in Congress (who they're probably buying out), and in the federal courts.

BTW, davester, I believe it's "poop-chute", not "poop-shoot"....

Gresh · #14 06-27-2003, 01:13 PM

The bottom line is this and it is an irrefutable fact of the business world in the technology age....if a product can be represented in a digital format, the margin will drop to zero. Companies that fail to alter their strategy to conform to this fact of life will ultimately fail....they may go kicking and screaming all the way, but they will fail if they don't create an alternate revenue stream strategy. Essentially what we are witnessing here is a big shock factor delay tactic/social litmus test all balled into one. I think it's a bad move, but it might possibly be for the purpose of gauging consumer response to the idea rather than a lashing out.

davester1234 · #15 06-27-2003, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reaper

BTW, davester, I believe it's "poop-chute", not "poop-shoot"....

hehe, you say tomato, I say tomat-oh! LOL!

Poop-chute it is!