Your thoughts on the present actions of the MPAA and RIAA
- Thread starter Legion
- Start date
They are perfectly within their legal rights.
Philosophically, one can question whether using the legal institution to uphold a business model is correct or not.
Me, personally, believe that if the idea of intellectual property is abolished or marginalized, the US will have nothing to offer the world and our way of life will drastically change.
If we cannot invest millions/billions into developing drugs without them being copied and undercut, we will stop.
If we cannot create "art" without being copied and given away free, it will stop.
As manufacturing goes to developing third world countries, and engineering talent goes to burgeoning 1st world countries, our intellectual property is the "last thing" we have to offer.
If, as the world's menial tasks becomes more mechanized, if we refuse to grant protection to the developers of ideas, there will be no basis for any economy. I fail to see how mankind can function.
Philosophically, one can question whether using the legal institution to uphold a business model is correct or not.
Me, personally, believe that if the idea of intellectual property is abolished or marginalized, the US will have nothing to offer the world and our way of life will drastically change.
If we cannot invest millions/billions into developing drugs without them being copied and undercut, we will stop.
If we cannot create "art" without being copied and given away free, it will stop.
As manufacturing goes to developing third world countries, and engineering talent goes to burgeoning 1st world countries, our intellectual property is the "last thing" we have to offer.
If, as the world's menial tasks becomes more mechanized, if we refuse to grant protection to the developers of ideas, there will be no basis for any economy. I fail to see how mankind can function.
The whole point of copyright is to compensate the artist for his/her work when publishers and others sell those works. It's that simple. Back when copyright law was created publishing companies were taking works and not giving a dime to the artist. As a matter of fact Thomas Edison shown just how ruthless industry can be when he tried to create and take over the motion picture industry. In other words when someone is making money off of your work they have to give you a share of the profits. That's copyright in it's intended form.
So what has happened to copyright now? A few things did. First the record labels found a loophole in the system in the fact that you can sign away your copyrights to another person. Thus the beginnings of the RIAA's stranglehold on it's artists, who they consider no more than "work for hire" employees. Then, with this control over all this music, they start pushing copyright laws to fit their own ends. This includes the incredibly high term limits of copyright as well as some of the new ammendments on the copyright books including the NET Act. Essentially copyright law has been twisted and mangled by years of lobbying and abuse by the entertainment industry.
The current witch hunt has absolutely nothing to do with revenue losses because the losses are truly negligible compared to the benefits (not to mention the losses to date are of the record industry's own doing). This is about control over exposure. You see P2P allows people to find out about music they never would have known existed considering all the other channels are controlled by the RIAA. BTW music labels are showing a strong increase in sales. It's just they are the independent labels. That is... the record labels who are not part of the RIAA and who are, in fact, competitors for your CD dollars.
Not a single independent label has complained about file sharing. You know why? Because they see the obvious benefits. Music is a form of art and as such should have channels of exposure that aren't so regulated and controlled like radio, MTV and even the record stores. What better form than one that is about sharing your favorite songs with others?
Nobody is selling the music in this model so artists aren't being deprived by not getting a share of the profits. Artists have a new way to promote their music that doesn't cost them a penny. Music lovers get to try out new music and YES they do buy records as a result (I point out the sales figures from the past four years shown sales were on the rise before the major labels attempted to skew the numbers).
Why is the RIAA making such a massive deal over something that shows more returns both in a business and artistic sense? Why are they spending all this money on attorneys and lobbyists when the losses that are shown are minimal (remember the losses are also their doing)? It's control. They know with P2P people will get exposure to music other than what many are calling crappy pop music. The fact the indies are gaining marketshare proves that point. It also shows a business model that can work for artists without the record labels.
The RIAA is out of control and all these tactics show the desparation they are actually in. I am waiting for them to sue the wrong person who has just enough information about every little misleading action they have done over the past several years and that person decides to counter-sue. Can you imagine ANY jury in this country, after hearing all the crap about the RIAA along with their misstatements about P2P and copyright law, who will NOT side with the individual over the corporation?
And now you have the RIAA issuing unsigned supoenas and sueing for up to 150,000 dollars a song? Putting people into bankrupcy because they uploaded 10 songs? Grow the fuck up RIAA, this isn't about lost profits, it's about control first and foremost. When is the last time you saw Britney spears out in the streets begging for quarters?
Not to mention, what the RIAA has is not proof of copyright infringement. An IP adress + a file name = proof? They expect people to shell out thousands for this?
So going by this, I could infact download a IP spoofer, spoof MY ip adress to that of my neighbors than use Kazaa to upload hundreds of music files than laugh when he goes to court. This isn't evidence, this is bullshit and I feel sad for the families who don't know that the RIAA really doesn't have any solid evidence to support their case(nevermind issuing unsigned supoenas) to make them pay thousands of dollars.
While I do agree that serious offenders SHOULD BE DEALT WITH. However the way the RIAA is going about this, sueing people with little evidence, taking family's whose children downloaded a few songs to court is just sad. Goes to show you how desperate they are.
So what has happened to copyright now? A few things did. First the record labels found a loophole in the system in the fact that you can sign away your copyrights to another person. Thus the beginnings of the RIAA's stranglehold on it's artists, who they consider no more than "work for hire" employees. Then, with this control over all this music, they start pushing copyright laws to fit their own ends. This includes the incredibly high term limits of copyright as well as some of the new ammendments on the copyright books including the NET Act. Essentially copyright law has been twisted and mangled by years of lobbying and abuse by the entertainment industry.
The current witch hunt has absolutely nothing to do with revenue losses because the losses are truly negligible compared to the benefits (not to mention the losses to date are of the record industry's own doing). This is about control over exposure. You see P2P allows people to find out about music they never would have known existed considering all the other channels are controlled by the RIAA. BTW music labels are showing a strong increase in sales. It's just they are the independent labels. That is... the record labels who are not part of the RIAA and who are, in fact, competitors for your CD dollars.
Not a single independent label has complained about file sharing. You know why? Because they see the obvious benefits. Music is a form of art and as such should have channels of exposure that aren't so regulated and controlled like radio, MTV and even the record stores. What better form than one that is about sharing your favorite songs with others?
Nobody is selling the music in this model so artists aren't being deprived by not getting a share of the profits. Artists have a new way to promote their music that doesn't cost them a penny. Music lovers get to try out new music and YES they do buy records as a result (I point out the sales figures from the past four years shown sales were on the rise before the major labels attempted to skew the numbers).
Why is the RIAA making such a massive deal over something that shows more returns both in a business and artistic sense? Why are they spending all this money on attorneys and lobbyists when the losses that are shown are minimal (remember the losses are also their doing)? It's control. They know with P2P people will get exposure to music other than what many are calling crappy pop music. The fact the indies are gaining marketshare proves that point. It also shows a business model that can work for artists without the record labels.
The RIAA is out of control and all these tactics show the desparation they are actually in. I am waiting for them to sue the wrong person who has just enough information about every little misleading action they have done over the past several years and that person decides to counter-sue. Can you imagine ANY jury in this country, after hearing all the crap about the RIAA along with their misstatements about P2P and copyright law, who will NOT side with the individual over the corporation?
And now you have the RIAA issuing unsigned supoenas and sueing for up to 150,000 dollars a song? Putting people into bankrupcy because they uploaded 10 songs? Grow the fuck up RIAA, this isn't about lost profits, it's about control first and foremost. When is the last time you saw Britney spears out in the streets begging for quarters?
Not to mention, what the RIAA has is not proof of copyright infringement. An IP adress + a file name = proof? They expect people to shell out thousands for this?
So going by this, I could infact download a IP spoofer, spoof MY ip adress to that of my neighbors than use Kazaa to upload hundreds of music files than laugh when he goes to court. This isn't evidence, this is bullshit and I feel sad for the families who don't know that the RIAA really doesn't have any solid evidence to support their case(nevermind issuing unsigned supoenas) to make them pay thousands of dollars.
While I do agree that serious offenders SHOULD BE DEALT WITH. However the way the RIAA is going about this, sueing people with little evidence, taking family's whose children downloaded a few songs to court is just sad. Goes to show you how desperate they are.
Dr. Ffreeze
Regular
Legion,
Good question. Under the current law, if you duplicate and trade copy protected works of others without permission, you are breaking the law. The RIAA has every right to work within the law to protect those rights.
As far at the legal ramifications, I am unsure. I think people deserve the right to privacy, but also the RIAA has the right to protect their works. The RIAA should not have free reign to gather internet users real names with little to no evidence. The internet users should not have the ability to copy any and all works they want and share them with others with no fear of prosecution.
By the way, saying that the RIAA charges too much for music, and therefore it is ok to trade songs is the lamest excuse. The RIAA (and artists) can charge $1,000,000 per CD if they wish. It is theirs, not yours. I would think you and I would not buy the CD for that price, but that doesn't mean we can break the law and copy it as we see fit as if we had some god given right to listen the music.
One of my life's principles:
"Just do the right thing, no matter how easy or how hard, just do the right thing"
Dr. Ffreeze
PS. Oh, by the by, I fail at that lots. =P (but I do try)
Good question. Under the current law, if you duplicate and trade copy protected works of others without permission, you are breaking the law. The RIAA has every right to work within the law to protect those rights.
As far at the legal ramifications, I am unsure. I think people deserve the right to privacy, but also the RIAA has the right to protect their works. The RIAA should not have free reign to gather internet users real names with little to no evidence. The internet users should not have the ability to copy any and all works they want and share them with others with no fear of prosecution.
By the way, saying that the RIAA charges too much for music, and therefore it is ok to trade songs is the lamest excuse. The RIAA (and artists) can charge $1,000,000 per CD if they wish. It is theirs, not yours. I would think you and I would not buy the CD for that price, but that doesn't mean we can break the law and copy it as we see fit as if we had some god given right to listen the music.
One of my life's principles:
"Just do the right thing, no matter how easy or how hard, just do the right thing"
Dr. Ffreeze
PS. Oh, by the by, I fail at that lots. =P (but I do try)
I agree that RIAA has a right to protect their property.
However, they have no right to:
-artificially inflating prices. (they had to settle a price fixing suit)
-screwing the artists of their rightful paycheck.
-bribe(lobby) politicians to continuosly extend how long a copyright can be protected before it enters the public domain.
I doubt that the situation is as dire as Russ suggests it is. Many countries complain of the brain drain effect caused by the US. This is where the bright young people of many nations leave to come to this country. As long as we continue to provide freedoms that are sought/hungered after, we dont have much to worry about.
later,
epic
However, they have no right to:
-artificially inflating prices. (they had to settle a price fixing suit)
-screwing the artists of their rightful paycheck.
-bribe(lobby) politicians to continuosly extend how long a copyright can be protected before it enters the public domain.
I doubt that the situation is as dire as Russ suggests it is. Many countries complain of the brain drain effect caused by the US. This is where the bright young people of many nations leave to come to this country. As long as we continue to provide freedoms that are sought/hungered after, we dont have much to worry about.
later,
epic
Also their is a very small movement starting that wants to see copyright laws limited to more reasonable period. 14 years plus 14 years if renewed.
BTW drug companies could spend less on advertising prescription drugs and more on R&D.
later,
epic
BTW drug companies could spend less on advertising prescription drugs and more on R&D.
later,
epic
Morality aside... Can the RIAA even stop or curtail the massive piracy on the internet, or is their money better spent doing other things.
Taking down things like Napster was like throwing rocks at a hurricane.
I don't see it happening, the Internet is global in scope and filled with loopholes at every corner. No conceivable software is going to be able to slow piracy more than a few months at best.
They would literally have to hire tens of thousands of people to police IRC channels, warez sites and the like. Coupled with the ability to detect IP addresses and all the various infringements on privacy that would entail.
Taking down things like Napster was like throwing rocks at a hurricane.
I don't see it happening, the Internet is global in scope and filled with loopholes at every corner. No conceivable software is going to be able to slow piracy more than a few months at best.
They would literally have to hire tens of thousands of people to police IRC channels, warez sites and the like. Coupled with the ability to detect IP addresses and all the various infringements on privacy that would entail.
Granted, their money would be better spent coming up with better DRM schemes and education, but it doesn't make them morally wrong to expect money for their product.
Or, if you suggest, piracy is inevitable, how should we deal with it? Can we move to an economy based on resources which can't be protected?
Or, if you suggest, piracy is inevitable, how should we deal with it? Can we move to an economy based on resources which can't be protected?
Copy rights, patents and trademarks are all different.
Here we are talking about copyright, which is NOT patent. Drug comapnies don't come into this.
Keeping on topic, publishers can go screw themselves in my opinion. They charge too much and screw the artist. I actually support the artists I like -- I do buy CDs -- but I don't like how I inadverdently support publishers far more.
I've come to the conclusion that buy CDs does basically nothing to support an artist. It's actually buying their t-shirts and going to their concerts that really makes a difference.
Here we are talking about copyright, which is NOT patent. Drug comapnies don't come into this.
Keeping on topic, publishers can go screw themselves in my opinion. They charge too much and screw the artist. I actually support the artists I like -- I do buy CDs -- but I don't like how I inadverdently support publishers far more.
I've come to the conclusion that buy CDs does basically nothing to support an artist. It's actually buying their t-shirts and going to their concerts that really makes a difference.
Ok...so if we don't buy CDs from the retailer, why would they continue to buy them from the distributer? Why would the distributer continue to buy the from the record label? Why would the record label continue to pay artists?
And yes, Saem, I agree, copyright is different than patent, however it still focuses on the same concept: intellectual property.
And yes, Saem, I agree, copyright is different than patent, however it still focuses on the same concept: intellectual property.
zidane1strife
Banned
What if I could share my memories(ok, sp I'm exaggerating a little here...)... I couldn't cause they're the IP property of the RIAA and MPAA!!!
You, know I can lend my cds to my friend, or go over to their house and see/hear this so called IP for free...
Artists should ONLY CHARGE for their ORIGINAL ART, that is to say: A.) a live performace/transmission, or mass broadcast(which gives profit to stations, etc), B.) paintings, statues, etc... C.) Interactive entertainment(since that is basically the orig. art, they can charge for it.)
The rest should be FREE, after a few years at most!!! I'll become a part-time artist/painter, and I wouldn't mind people trading pics of my works.
As for other forms of IP, after a few decades at most the copyright should be void, we need tech/art/etc to enter public domain, and allow for further improvements....
OH NO!!! what about capitalism?!? We don't need that to run the world, it can stay as part of the social structure in the form of status giving funny money transactions.
Dr. Ffreeze
Regular
zidane1strife,
Sorry, I don't quite get this one.
Sure, you bought the CD. You can listen to it, or you can let another listen to it. That is no problem, the only problem is when you start copying it and you and him can listen to it at the same time. (from my understanding)
That is well and good. You think that artists should only charge for their original art. That is not the way the law reads now. If you want the law changed, then work towards those ends. My entire argument is, when you break the law, you should not be surprised when called on to answer for your actions of breaking the law. If you don't like the law, then get it changed.
My argument only ever been about people breaking the law. Who should make the money is of no issue to me. If it is against the law, and you do it, then be a man about it and pay the price. The punishment does need to fit the crime, but many people don't even admit that copying songs is a crime. That is what boggles my mind.
Take responsiblilty for your own actions.
Dr. Ffreeze
Sorry, I don't quite get this one.
Sure, you bought the CD. You can listen to it, or you can let another listen to it. That is no problem, the only problem is when you start copying it and you and him can listen to it at the same time. (from my understanding)
That is well and good. You think that artists should only charge for their original art. That is not the way the law reads now. If you want the law changed, then work towards those ends. My entire argument is, when you break the law, you should not be surprised when called on to answer for your actions of breaking the law. If you don't like the law, then get it changed.
My argument only ever been about people breaking the law. Who should make the money is of no issue to me. If it is against the law, and you do it, then be a man about it and pay the price. The punishment does need to fit the crime, but many people don't even admit that copying songs is a crime. That is what boggles my mind.
Take responsiblilty for your own actions.
Dr. Ffreeze
The RIAA/MPAA are well within their rights to sue end users. However, being well within their rights doesn't necessarily equate to good business practices.
People will flock to whatever provides them with the services they want, be it legal or illegal. The music industry frankly is only going to defeat piracy on a wide, long term, scale if they setup services that make economic sense, and provide the user with what the "free" services are providing. That is, unlimited music from every genre, ability to burn and copy music where they see fit, and the ability to download at any bitrate.
I emailed listen.com and told their customer service flat out, I would use it and purchase 79cent songs if they allowed me to copy my songs to my IPOD and burn it to a CD without any extra charges on top. Not only that, but I want the ability to download at any bitrate I wish. I only like 320K bitrates as that is the only compressed bitrate that provides true CD quality, especially through speakers. 128K simply sounds like shit. Services like listen.com simply cannot provide the same service as the Fasttrack and Gnutella clients do because in that scenario they simply won't win. They have to provide higher quality and services.
They wrote back that they will take my suggestions into consideration, but frankly I'm not expecting much. Until then, I'll continue to download music tracks and burn the CDs I currently have, to my hearts content.
For example, seniors in florida purchase their drugs in Canada and import them, but they do it because it saves them money on their limited budgets. Instead of trying to find ways to cut costs, the drug companies are trying to formulate legislation that would make this illegal. I mean, what is the point of customer satisfaction then if you're forced to accept an overpriced product from a monopoly? The RIAA and MPAA are monopolies in this same manner, and until they "break up," people will find ways to get around their consumer-abusive practices, legal or not.
People will flock to whatever provides them with the services they want, be it legal or illegal. The music industry frankly is only going to defeat piracy on a wide, long term, scale if they setup services that make economic sense, and provide the user with what the "free" services are providing. That is, unlimited music from every genre, ability to burn and copy music where they see fit, and the ability to download at any bitrate.
I emailed listen.com and told their customer service flat out, I would use it and purchase 79cent songs if they allowed me to copy my songs to my IPOD and burn it to a CD without any extra charges on top. Not only that, but I want the ability to download at any bitrate I wish. I only like 320K bitrates as that is the only compressed bitrate that provides true CD quality, especially through speakers. 128K simply sounds like shit. Services like listen.com simply cannot provide the same service as the Fasttrack and Gnutella clients do because in that scenario they simply won't win. They have to provide higher quality and services.
They wrote back that they will take my suggestions into consideration, but frankly I'm not expecting much. Until then, I'll continue to download music tracks and burn the CDs I currently have, to my hearts content.
For example, seniors in florida purchase their drugs in Canada and import them, but they do it because it saves them money on their limited budgets. Instead of trying to find ways to cut costs, the drug companies are trying to formulate legislation that would make this illegal. I mean, what is the point of customer satisfaction then if you're forced to accept an overpriced product from a monopoly? The RIAA and MPAA are monopolies in this same manner, and until they "break up," people will find ways to get around their consumer-abusive practices, legal or not.
zidane1strife
Banned
Suppose I hear a tune many times, I'll probably be able to remember it quite well... so I basically have the song in my head.
Ok, so we ain't at a point where we can download mems, but still I can play that song again(especially if it's instrumental), I can record it and trade it... With advanced voice synthesizers... one day I may be able to fully reproduce the original.
Hmmm, what If I live elsewhere.... In any case, many of those laws are quite old and the new.... hehe... I've heard many a comments about the DMCA... none where nice.
Laws that are nothing but meaningless garbage should not be obeyed, and yes I'll try to do something to change them...
j/k mode on/
I'll also try to buy my own island some day so I won't pay any kind of tax, with solar/wind energy, and rain water reservoirs and purification systems, and a lifetime supply of long-lasting rations(just in case I can't buy real food.), I'll be set.
NO laws shall apply to me there, and just in case any nation tries to interfere, I'll also get a few ICBMs....
j/k mode off
Indeed.
I won't go in depth as many of these other, well spoken posts.
I know the numbers show that more than 60% of the U.S. population is d/l'ing copyrighted material from P2P systems. Does the RIAA think that they can stop them all? Probably not. Is this a last attempt to grab hold of the old, pre internet days? Yup.
It's common knowledge that artists don't make any money off of record sales. Even bands like Metallica, who sell millions of CD's only get $1 from each sale. Imagine what the average band gets? Then take out they're expences (legal, manager) and they have less. A band makes money by playing live. The record industry doesn't have they're hands in that till. To say that if the RIAA is shot down and stopped that people will stop making art is abusrd. There where artists before the internet, tapes, records and there will be after.
The RIAA is at fault for not adjusting to what this new technology has brought. They spend more money trying to find ways to stop people from d/ling music and from ripping from CD's that they are spending no time changing they're business plan for the 21st century.
Do I think it's right to take things that don't belong to you? No. Do I condone it? No. I do think they asked for it. CD's came out in the late 80's right? They are cheaper to make. So why did prices stay above cassette? I used to buy a tape for $12 new. CD's have always cost $18+ unless you go to a Best Buy or discount store. I hate the fact that I was taken advantage of for so many years. I wanted better sound quality and I had to pay through the nose for it.
I don't know what the future has in store for the RIAA, but the music industry will survive. Probably a bit lighter, but it will survive.
I know the numbers show that more than 60% of the U.S. population is d/l'ing copyrighted material from P2P systems. Does the RIAA think that they can stop them all? Probably not. Is this a last attempt to grab hold of the old, pre internet days? Yup.
It's common knowledge that artists don't make any money off of record sales. Even bands like Metallica, who sell millions of CD's only get $1 from each sale. Imagine what the average band gets? Then take out they're expences (legal, manager) and they have less. A band makes money by playing live. The record industry doesn't have they're hands in that till. To say that if the RIAA is shot down and stopped that people will stop making art is abusrd. There where artists before the internet, tapes, records and there will be after.
The RIAA is at fault for not adjusting to what this new technology has brought. They spend more money trying to find ways to stop people from d/ling music and from ripping from CD's that they are spending no time changing they're business plan for the 21st century.
Do I think it's right to take things that don't belong to you? No. Do I condone it? No. I do think they asked for it. CD's came out in the late 80's right? They are cheaper to make. So why did prices stay above cassette? I used to buy a tape for $12 new. CD's have always cost $18+ unless you go to a Best Buy or discount store. I hate the fact that I was taken advantage of for so many years. I wanted better sound quality and I had to pay through the nose for it.
I don't know what the future has in store for the RIAA, but the music industry will survive. Probably a bit lighter, but it will survive.
Dr. Ffreeze
Regular
zidane1strife,
Hmmmm......
Dr. Ffreeze
Hmmmm......
Dr. Ffreeze
Dr. Ffreeze
Regular
Lostman,
GAAAAAAAAHHHHHH. /sigh
How were you taken advantage of? You wanted a CD. It was $18. You thought, wow that it a high priced CD.... mmmm, well it is worth it. And you buy it for $18. Please explain how that was someone taking advantage of you? You yourself said that you wanted better quality, so there was a demand for it. The fact that you paid for it told them that the extra quality was worth $18 to you.
Do they owe you good quality music?
Lets say you are a carpenter and made chairs for to sell and you charged $50 per chair. If someone thought wow, that is a bit high priced, but.... I think I will take it, and more and more people kept buying your $50 chairs. Why on earth would you feel the need to lower your prices? Maybe you could sell more, but that is not a given. If you kept selling them for $50, that is your prerogative. At no time had you ever taken advantage of anyone. If they want the chair, they buy it. If not, they don't. Easy....
A few years go by, look you bought a better saw. You can now make 2 chairs in the same time you used to make 1. You still charge $50 and they still sell them. WOOT, you just made more money per chair. Evil? nope......
I just don't understand the logic,
Dr. Ffreeze
GAAAAAAAAHHHHHH. /sigh
How were you taken advantage of? You wanted a CD. It was $18. You thought, wow that it a high priced CD.... mmmm, well it is worth it. And you buy it for $18. Please explain how that was someone taking advantage of you? You yourself said that you wanted better quality, so there was a demand for it. The fact that you paid for it told them that the extra quality was worth $18 to you.
Do they owe you good quality music?
Lets say you are a carpenter and made chairs for to sell and you charged $50 per chair. If someone thought wow, that is a bit high priced, but.... I think I will take it, and more and more people kept buying your $50 chairs. Why on earth would you feel the need to lower your prices? Maybe you could sell more, but that is not a given. If you kept selling them for $50, that is your prerogative. At no time had you ever taken advantage of anyone. If they want the chair, they buy it. If not, they don't. Easy....
A few years go by, look you bought a better saw. You can now make 2 chairs in the same time you used to make 1. You still charge $50 and they still sell them. WOOT, you just made more money per chair. Evil? nope......
I just don't understand the logic,
Dr. Ffreeze
Joe DeFuria
Legend
Tagrineth said:Saem is correct. And besides, when you buy a CD, you're paying the retailer who already paid the distributor for the CD, so technically the single sale of a CD is meaningless.
The implication being that the retailer and distributor provided no "value add" to the CD?
I guess it doesn't cost anything for that CD to be promoted, advertised, manufactured, and shipped to a store that's paying rent, paying employess and stocking untold inventory 95% of which you personally don't care about in order to more or less ensure thy have the 5% that you do...
I don't get about half of the logic in this discussion.
RIAA has every right to try and protect the illegal use of their products. Artists who want to use a different model to market, promote, advertise, and sell their music, also have a right to do that. If some artists shun the traditional model, that doesn't make the traditional model wrong or worthless.
If some artists shun the traditional model, and people believe that piraters do so as "protest", then the RIAA bashers are in for a rude surprise. Piraters don't pirate "for the cause." They pirate because they are more concerned about getting something for nothing. That's all. If brick-and-morter CD outlets go away, and if the "defacto model" for distribution becomes $0.10 per song downloaded. Then guess what. They will pirate that too. Because FREE is less than $0.10. And they can pirate 10,000 songs for nothing, vs. paying $1,000 for it.
They want something and therefore value it, yet they believe they "deserve it" without paying its supportable market value. They refuse to acknoeldge that hey, just because they want it, doesn't mean they can afford it.
Similar threads
