Replies

Wizzer go follow the links provided, the info's there.

Trust me, I'm quite familiar with the details of the MAP case. Here's what I was trying to get you to acknowledge: Nobody was convicted of "price-gouging" OR price-fixing. The labels settled, which does not establish guilt. That was my point.

Look, if you like the idea of a "free market" that isn't actually free, then you'll love the MAP suit and settlement. If you like the notion that consumers are helpless victims forced to buy CDs at prices they're uncomfortable with, then you'll love the idea of filing a "claim" to get money from the record labels. And if you like these things, I wonder if you call yourself a conservative.

I see, so because they settled when the writing was on the wall that they were going to be guilty, that gives them moral clout? Be real. Settlement is done for one of 2 reasons, 1 you don't have the financial ability to defend yourself (Hardly the case for the RIAA) or 2 you are guilty and don't want to get a GUILTY verdict in the courts... because then you can keep that Plausible Deniability argument you are slinging around viable. Every settlement ever signed in the past 50 years of any size always has as part of its clause NO ADMISSION OF WRONGDOING... doesn't mean the defendant isn't guilty as sin.

Clinton's can't practice law for 5 years, but he wasn't found guilty by a court... Sounds like you are the one throwing around liberal arguments.

Collusion whether you like it or not is illegal... anti-trust laws exist for a reason.. you make think they are bad, but I don't agree. RIAA are pond scum, they run their business horribly, and then blame their ineptitude on others. The real reason the RIAA is pissed about DFS is because it undermines their CONTROL on the distribution chain... and that is far more important and a threat to them in their minds than anything else.

Fact is they haven't changed their approach in 20 years, and they are being left in the dust. DFS should have been embraced by the RIAA, instead they view it only as a threat. Reality is there ineptitude has put them in this position, and they want to scapegoat their poor business management and actions away from theselves.

Amazing, there is nothign conservative about collusion, price fixing and market manipulation. I don't consider the RIAAs market practices a bastion of coservative principles, nor do I consider Enron's or Global Crossings practices such. Just because they are public companies, doesn't mean that there actions somehow are not destructive, illegal or immorral. Free Market is only free if it is free, collusion is not free... you can argue anti-trust laws are a bad thing if you want... history has proven monopolies do not benefit the marketplace or the consumer.. obviously blind ideology makes you wish that this were true... but its not.

THe RIAA has no one to blame for its troubles but itself... pure and simple.

The real threat is, that artists won't need the RIAA anymore, they will be able to distribute their own material independent of the labels, and that is the real fear... not illegal swapping, but them losing their control. It's only a matter of time before a big named group releases an albumn with no label at all behind them.... DFS is what is going to allow this to successfully happen, and that's where the real fear is... it has nothing to do with john q freshmen downloading the latest Nsync song.