I'm So Goddamn Sick Of The Riaa.

[Geiseric]

I don't care whose side you are on when it comes to IP, but I think we have all had enough of the RIAA's war against consumers. Everywhere I turn, there is an RIAA advertisement telling me I am committing a horrible crime, taking money from the poor musicians, killing creativity, etc. As a student, I see people getting ridiculously huge settlement requests monthly, and with the recent DoJ ruling that the utterly insane $9,250 per song decision in Duluth (I really wish I had been there, I would have taken pictures of the jury, and would be currently beating the shit out of them) was perfectly rational. This is because.. get this: IT COULD HAVE SPREAD TO AN (unknown) LARGE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE, so they needed the punishment to fit the largest possible crime. Lets think about this for a second. You break the law, running through a red light, because you are in a hurry and there is no one else in sight on the intersecting road. 4 cars behind you follow your lead. 2 minutes later, a police officer pulls you over. You are charged not only with your infraction, but the other 4's as well, plus because there is the possibility that there was many, many more after, you are charged with... lets say 10 other infractions of the same kind. This is not exactly the same, but the closest thing I could think of offhand. The point is...She did not commit the crime for them, she may have enabled them, but she only committed theft (thinking rationally) only once, and then given it away multiple times. Not to mention, the idea of getting a conviction for charges not only impossible to prove, but quantitative random in nature is completely unheard of in any other aspect of the justice system. So why the hell is it ok in an already heavily disputed realm of law (IP)?
I hate the idea of the jury in the first place, I have always had an issue with average joes making major decision when they have not an ounce of education or experience in the matter, and to have some random idiots in a middle of nowhere city in MN (I live here, and even I know that) make a decision that destroys a woman and her family financially for a crime so arbitrary it is laughable, truly shows why the pubic has no business in government.
On to my main issue: the war of the the RIAA (a fiendish conglomeration of the publishing side of the music industries representatives, formed as a invisible hand that they could use without worry of bad pr coming back to haunt them) on their consumers, and their public statements that it is our (the general public) fault that their revenue is fading. Guess what? Industries change. Those who can't keep up by changing with it, fall behind. You made a major fuck-up, buddy. You attacked your consumer, tried to sell them a less functional product, pumped up your prices beyond reasonable range, and alienated a lot of customers. THIS IS NOT OUR FAULT, THIS IS YOURS. OWN THE HELL UP. It is the nature of IP to cause stagnation in industries of any kind, and music is not any bloody different (see the case of Michal Boulton and *his* steam engine for an example of how this has occurred since the inception of IP) and it is the nature of capitalism to move constantly forward, leaving behind those sitting on their haunches and staking a claim, one of the few benefits of the economic system.
Now the RIAA is knocking on our doors not only demanding restitution for their perceived loss, they want to set an example. The funny thing is, they keep saying that, and they keep keep "setting an example" over and over again. And nothing changes. Their product gets worse. DRM becomes more constricting. In slightly related news, Steve Jobs pitched DVDs that you could rip without fear of legal repercussions, for an elevated price from regular DVDs. You know what that means? Absolutely nothing. They are selling fair right usage right back to you. Which you might not know you have, because of an ad campaign that leads 75% of the population to believe they are criminal.

I'm done for now, but I could go on for hours. Maybe I will later, I don't feel that much better, if anything I feel more angry.

Edited December 8, 2007 by Geiseric

[erufiku]

Hard to reply to such an assertive post, so all I can write is: Agreed.

Ever since the whole RIAA/MPAA witch-hunt began, I refuse to pay for music and movies, because every cent I spend will go towards sueing some poor sod for downloading a crappy Britney-Spears-esque-starlet song. Only exceptions I make is buying directly from the artist (eg. on the street or through their webpage) and independent/world films.

Then again it depends what kind of stuff you're into. It's been ages since I watched anything from Hollywood and the few times I actually bothered to tune into a "hit-station" are enough to reaffirm that it's the same old crap all over again. I know other people absolutely *must* have that third prequel to the second sequel in the special collector's edition that includes a replica of the director's nail clippings.

Don't know about US laws but here in Canada if you only download without uploading, the man can't do anything about it. So, one word: rapidshare

[Cybersist]

Thats pretty much the rule here in the US, you can get away with download, but once you are a seeder, you are breaking the law.

As for your post: I wholeheartedly agree. What the RIAA is doing is ridiculous and is more of the part of the problem, not the solution. I personally am more of a fan of the indie electronic/techno/trip hop, and those artists are more likely to independently release records. But in the case of Radiohead's concept, I think it is a great idea and was glad to purchase the cd.

[Scalliwag]

I go to concerts and buy CD's etc. directly from their marketing people at the concerts. When it comes to lawyers I firmly believe they have wrecked the music industry.
I avoid paying any duty fees towards any money that goes to their pockets.

[thecoalition]

i was on Oink and when it got shut down I almost cried. Haven't been able to get on any good new music torrent community quite like it. Waffles.fm needs to re-open their invites

[Christama]

I've been downloading music since the days of Napster. Why? Because CD prices continue to rise. If I have to pay $18.99 for a CD just to find out I enjoy one song, then I feel like about 15 bucks of that is wasted. I don't like using ITunes, so I can't download just one song. So I look to do it for free.

I used to love Metallica, but ever since Lars Ulrich started this crap, I've lost a lot of respect for them.

[ori]

Great post man. I completely agree. I've bought 3 cd's in the last five years and that it just because I love the Killers way more than I should. I only really listen to music at work and that is on other workers ipods that they downloaded.

As for films I've been to a theatre twice in my 3 years at college. I would rather just watch IFC then buy the indie films I like or I just watch what my roomate rents which are normally indie films also. It seems like their has to be a better way to go about the issue of music rights than prosecuting random seeders and making examples of them.

[Sdzier2]

I don't support major record labels at all. I havent bought a popular cd in at least 8 years. I do however buy many mix cd's from local dj's. I download a lot of music as well but I support the local guys for two reasons: I like their work and they deserve the money, and I cant really find the music anywhere else.

Talking about things getting screwed over by the recording industry, how about demonoid getting the boot? That killed me because I would get a few movies a week from there. Oh well, I'll just wait until demonoid moves off shore somewhere...

[Geiseric]

Epic PB reference for the win. That was one of the most amusing stories I had ever read.

[Charley]

I hate the idea of the jury in the first place, I have always had an issue with average joes making major decision when they have not an ounce of education or experience in the matter, and to have some random idiots in a middle of nowhere city in MN (I live here, and even I know that) make a decision that destroys a woman and her family financially for a crime so arbitrary it is laughable, truly shows why the pubic has no business in government.

I fully agree with this (actualy the whole post as well)
but for this part i would like to say i never want a trial by jurry becuase your fate is then in the hands of 12 ppl to stupid to get out of jurry duty


(i know i misspelled alot of words but its 5 am and im a little inibriated right now.)

[TheScotsman]

I love jury duty!
It will make you realize these are not people you would want to decided what to order from the take away, much less your future.

Things I have heard from other jurors:
1)She HAS to be guilty, or they wouldn't have arrested her.
2)I watch cops, and I have never seen them chase anyone that wasn't guilty.
3)I don't like the way he looks, he looks like my ex husband who beat me. (it was a DV verbal battery, and the judge wouldn't dismiss her for that fine display of impartiality)
4)If they don't just pay the fine we are supposed to make sure they do next time.
5)He did it, or his mom would be in the room to help him, she must be mad.
6)I was arrested 6 times for DUI and every time I was guilty.
7)They keep records of how we vote, if they don't like it we will get audited. (no shite? welcome to Amerika, comrade!)

I figure it's my duty to vote against the state at any possible opportunity.

All should have been weeded out, none were. Impartial jury, sure, right... my hairy bobby.

[Sariél]

You want to talk about getting screwed by th record company, try working for them! I think ALL the majors now put a standard 90 day hold on any invoice submitted. Pissed me off. Now I bill only to the studio or producer.

Yes, I was on OINK, and Demonoid. What we were doing was STEALING. Man up. Admit it. All the justifications are crap. You were taking a product and not compensating the legal owner. I may disagree with WalMarts policies, but that doesnt mean I think its OK to shoplift there.

And Christma, I lost all respect for Lars the first time I heard the raw, unedited drum tracks. Ask Eric, the guy who spent weeks editing the "live" drums for the boxed set a few years back.

[entrailsgalore]

Im a musician and downloading doesnt bother me. I make little to no money off anything I do to begin with, so I could really care less who DL's my videos/music. infact id prefer people download my music, free advertisement. So in the end Im saving myself money by let them DL my shit, and I also just saved a bunch of money by switching my car insurance to gieko.

[mushrat]

You want to talk about getting screwed by th record company, try working for them! I think ALL the majors now put a standard 90 day hold on any invoice submitted. Pissed me off. Now I bill only to the studio or producer.

Yes, I was on OINK, and Demonoid. What we were doing was STEALING. Man up. Admit it. All the justifications are crap. You were taking a product and not compensating the legal owner. I may disagree with WalMarts policies, but that doesnt mean I think its OK to shoplift there.

And Christma, I lost all respect for Lars the first time I heard the raw, unedited drum tracks. Ask Eric, the guy who spent weeks editing the "live" drums for the boxed set a few years back.

And there you have it boys and girls. The real truth behind the matter. If you are honest enough to admit you are stealing the stuff, then I feel you should be able to do so with a clear concience...

I pay for Rhapsody for music streaming. I don't DL music from the internet anymore, and I haven't bought a cd is years. I find used cd places and sites like half.com and ebay to be good for finding cheap music.

[Geiseric]

But why should you have to go through alternative methods of procuring music simply becuase the industry is out of control? That's the heart of the issue: the formerly main method purchasing cds is simply no longer reasonable. Everyone knows this. $20 for a piece of plastic that cost 20 cents to produce is simply not reasonable. So why encourage the market at all? The reason we have no alternatives is because the big publishers were allowed to be in control of all methods of music being available to people... so why not just cut them off?

Meanwhile, perhaps a paradigm shift amongst musicians will move towards cutting the leech publishers out of the loop, but for now, I see no reason to encourage the market at all. In awe-inspiring words of Trent Reznor, "steal and steal and steal some more and give it to all your friends and keep on stealin'". Not that I entirely agree with the whole concept of "stealing" being applicable to IP. This is not something that is intrinsic to IP, it has been defined as such by the industry more recently. In reality, this concept is still fairly young, but it is shocking to me to see how may people buy into it. Ask yourselves... what have you done by downloading an mp3? Have you removed property from its owner? No? The information is not theirs, as the rip has either been recoded if drms were removed, or encoded as a file from a cd. Either one of these methods completely changes the data involved to something other that is different in shape and form, but similar in concept. Lets move on then. What have you done? You have ensured that you will not purchase the mp3 from an industry source. This means one thing to the industry: they have projected purchases according to market surveys and previous purchases, and by getting your media from another source, you have neglected to fit into their projected profits. This is the crime that they seek "justice" for. For failing to purchase when you were projected to. So this is not a "crime" of an individual, rather of the market as a whole. So again I say: We no longer need them. They are a dying industry, and are fighting like a starved rat to cling to the last shreds of meat on the bones of the market. Let them die, stop throwing them scraps. Edited December 18, 2007 by Geiseric

[shisha fan]

they need to get rid of all the lawyers and record label bosses so that more money goes directly to the artists, that way the price of cd`s can be drastically lowered. too much people that don`t even come near an instrument benefit from the hard work of musicians.

[streyed]

dude i agree with you completely. A statement made by John Carter makes it seem like this is a game they are playing. The way he says it makes it sound like they take pleasure in hunting down college kids to sue, over a single song.
A study was done showing that in 200-2001, the RIAA cut back the amount of artists invested in, yet STILL made more than they ever have. Yet they complain we are taking away revenue, when we really are not taking away all that much.
IP is not so much their problem as physical piracy on the streets. there are building over there with huge press machines devoted to burning and selling pirated material. This is where they are losing their money. the RIAA/government pisses me off when it comes to this stuff

[erufiku]

Comparing downloading stuff from the internet to shoplifting is just bloody stupid, mate. In fact, I think I know where you got it from... Perhaps the little trailer they put on the DVD before they let you see the feature that you already paid for? I never really understood this: if someone rips the DVD and posts it on the internet, that hypothetical person is sure to remove this announcement along with any FBI warnings. So, basically it's designed to scare the poor sods that shelled out their hard earned bucks in the first place. Now let's build on that: basically, they are terrorizing the people who already pay for the content into believing that getting it in any other way is amoral and will bring upon the infringer all sorts of woes, from millions of dollars in lawsuits to burning in hell for the whole of eternity (hope you get the allusion here).

As an individual that still possesses at least half a brain, I refuse to support these kinds of practices. The scary part is that most people can't boast a quarter of a brain and end up buying into associating illegal downloads with mortal sins.

Having said this, I am off to look for a decent DVD Screener of American Gangster.

[Bryantos]

But why should you have to go through alternative methods of procuring music simply becuase the industry is out of control? That's the heart of the issue: the formerly main method purchasing cds is simply no longer reasonable. Everyone knows this. $20 for a piece of plastic that cost 20 cents to produce is simply not reasonable. So why encourage the market at all?

Sorry, but it costs alot more than 20 cents to make that CD. Sure, you can buy loads of blank CDs for cheap, but the time, effort, money put in to get studio time, and money to edit the tracks justifies the price tag.

You obviously don't make music to not see this. I don't make music, but my friend is in a popular local band, and it cost them $1000 to make a 10 track or so CD. (My numbers may be off a little bit, but thats the rough numbers I remember) How many CDs would they have to sell at 20 cents to make a proffit? A tit load.

Also, if you don't want to buy entire CDs, than there are tons of ways to sample or listen to entire tracks. Like Mush mentioned, he uses Rhapsody, and there are also other places to stream music like YouTube, Myspace, and even Amazon.com lets you sample tracks for free. You can then decide what you like an purchase the individual tracks on a variety of programs.

Personally, I think you're angry that you're easy free method of obtaining media is being targeted for what it actually is. Stealing. Its no different from walking out of the store with a CD in your pocket without having paid for it.

I pirate music. I know it. I know the consiquinces could be severe if I'm caught, and I have been. Atleast I know what I'm doing is wrong. Its just too good to stop doing it.

Also, since you're agains't "The Man", than think of it this way:
Bands know how to make music. Their so busy making music that most bands can't market their own product themselves, so they find/pay someone to distribute the music for them, and the band in return recieves money from the distributor. Since the distrubutor is providing a service, they mark up the prices so that they can in turn recieve a proffit, or otherwise they'd be providing a service for free, and thats just not good business.

So you're angry to pay people who distribute music that you would probably have otherwise not heard about?



I'm a firm believer in "less QQ more PEW PEW".

That is all.

[Geiseric]

You obviously know nothing of economics.*God, how often do I begin a refute with this comment? Its just so hard for me to take anyone seriously on the subject with they are just miming what they have heard! Read up a bit, think a little more on the subject, and then post! Stop going with your gut!* Disregarding small local bands, which I would be happy to pay for, you have to think of the sheer scale on which these albums are sold. My comment of 20 cents is an overstatement, but with production costs included, its still pretty damn close to that. The RIAA wants you to believe its quite higher. They are lying to you. I have BEEN is several bands, and it in fact NOT THAT FUCKING EXPENSIVE to produce an album. If I was so inclined, I could produce an album for the price of the stamping of the cds, with all the production done by me. And just to let you know, for the majority of artists, it isn't the sales of albums that they live on, its the live performances where the leach of the recording industry is not taking the majority of the profits.

Even as such, I have never really been inclined to produce and sell albums, because I disagree with the concept. For thousands of years, musicians have shown their skill by PERFORMING, not making one release of a digitally enhanced macabre mimicry of skill. The idea is the art of performance is in the actual PERFORMANCE, mistakes and random inprov included. This is a concept that seems to have been lost on the western culture of musicians through years of inbreeding and stagnation. I say, let them lose their profit, and die, to usher in a new era of musicians who have relearned this. I really don't care what you have to say, it has all been said, and I really doubt anyone else who knows anything of music and economics does either, you are simply miming what has been told to us for years through the RIAA. If you have any doubts, go ahead and check on the RIAA site for how much they believe an album is really worth. Its quite laughable, and a true sign of an industry gone mad. Its happened before in many other industries, and it is happening right now here, with piracy on the rise and with no end in sight.
If you truly believe what you are doing is wrong, why the hell are you doing it, anyways? It doesn't make you brave or honest to admit that, it shows you have no moral strength or character whatsoever. To continue to engage in a behavior you believe is wrong (abstract and foolish as the concept is) for the sake of convenience is despicable. I do what I do because I understand why I should not do otherwise, and refuse to behave as deemed appropriate by the industry because I believe what they are doing is wrong, and the only way to stop them is to NOT FUND THEIR WRONGDOING. I'm done here. Edited December 24, 2007 by Geiseric

[Bryantos]

You obviously know nothing of economics.*God, how often do I begin a refute with this comment? Its just so hard for me to take anyone seriously on the subject with they are just miming what they have heard! Read up a bit, think a little more on the subject, and then post! Stop going with your gut!* Disregarding small local bands, which I would be happy to pay for, you have to think of the sheer scale on which these albums are sold. My comment of 20 cents is an overstatement, but with production costs included, its still pretty damn close to that. The RIAA wants you to believe its quite higher. They are lying to you. I have BEEN is several bands, and it in fact NOT THAT FUCKING EXPENSIVE to produce an album. If I was so inclined, I could produce an album for the price of the stamping of the cds, with all the production done by me. And just to let you know, for the majority of artists, it isn't the sales of albums that they live on, its the live performances where the leach of the recording industry is not taking the majority of the profits.

Even as such, I have never really been inclined to produce and sell albums, because I disagree with the concept. For thousands of years, musicians have shown their skill by PERFORMING, not making one release of a digitally enhanced macabre mimicry of skill. The idea is the art of performance is in the actual PERFORMANCE, mistakes and random inprov included. This is a concept that seems to have been lost on the western culture of musicians through years of inbreeding and stagnation. I say, let them lose their profit, and die, to usher in a new era of musicians who have relearned this. I really don't care what you have to say, it has all been said, and I really doubt anyone else who knows anything of music and economics does either, you are simply miming what has been told to us for years through the RIAA. If you have any doubts, go ahead and check on the RIAA site for how much they believe an album is really worth. Its quite laughable, and a true sign of an industry gone mad. Its happened before in many other industries, and it is happening right now here, with piracy on the rise and with no end in sight.
If you truly believe what you are doing is wrong, why the hell are you doing it, anyways? It doesn't make you brave or honest to admit that, it shows you have no moral strength or character whatsoever. To continue to engage in a behavior you believe is wrong (abstract and foolish as the concept is) for the sake of convenience is despicable. I do what I do because I understand why I should not do otherwise, and refuse to behave as deemed appropriate by the industry because I believe what they are doing is wrong, and the only way to stop them is to NOT FUND THEIR WRONGDOING. I'm done here.

I do know a thing or two about economics, such that money is only worth how much you think its worth. You obviously don't think that $20 (I'm pretty sure CDs are cheaper than this, by the way, but I couldn't tell you) of your money is worth 12 tracks. I understand that.

Like you said, we're talking about macro-economics. Large scale economy. Large scale. How many main stream popular artists (DJs excluded) produce, edit, and distribute their music on a large scale? If it was a large amount, then there would be no need for the record lables and production companies you consider to be "The Man". Like I said, they're helping the bands by providing a service to them.

Rather funny that you tell me I have no moral character for doing something I know is wrong. I'm sure you know the effects of smoking are bad for you, yet you still smoke because you accept the fact that everytime you in hale you're slowly destroying your lungs and that you get enjoyment out of smoking. Its the same thing with downloading music for me. I know that what I'm doing is considered stealing, but I enjoy the music I download and the easy access I have to it, so I keep doing it.

Enjoy being done here. I'll miss you.

[Geiseric]

I said I was done, but I have one last thing to say. Mostly because I am with my family and most of their conversation makes me want to impale myself on the tree to end the stupidity of it all, so I ran off with my laptop.
"Like you said, we're talking about macro-economics. Large scale economy. Large scale. How many main stream popular artists (DJs excluded) produce, edit, and distribute their music on a large scale? If it was a large amount, then there would be no need for the record labels and production companies you consider to be "The Man". Like I said, they're helping the bands by providing a service to them."

Its called a scam. I can set up a modest but more than effective studio for under 2 grand. They are not providing a service, they have convinced them that they need them because if the artists figured out that they could easily produce and advertise their own work on the cheap, and then keep the profits, they would be left behind. This is a paradigm shift that is very obviously occurring as we speak, with more and more artists producing their own music as time passes, and now even publishing via means other than standard.

As to the morality of smoking... really... quite the weak argument. Recreational use of drugs has never been a been an issue amongst religions (the historic decision makers in the realm of morality), and it really again is a matter of your personal belief. If I believed it was wrong, I would not do it.