Music Industry Sends Warning to Song Swappers

Reuters ^ | April 29, 2003 | Sue Zeidler

[Drumbo]

is haveing artists promoted over public owned airwaves free? if it is to have their music played why is not my right to hear the music for free?

1. No, broadcasters pay royalties.
2. Because you don't pay royalities.

[rottweiller_inc]

the point is that things change and the recording industry uses false logic and alot of money to try to protect what they see as their turf. It's not their turf because they think it's fair and right, there's hundreds, if not thousand, of artists who can testify to the recording industrys' idea of fairness. The sun has set on the industry but they still have lots to sway people like you that their way was best.

[Petronski]

Imagine, one day, finding that all of those MP3s on your hard drive that you're illegally sharing out have been replaced by kiddie porn and email encrypted with your private key...

Making RIAA a distributer of kiddie porn...

[palmer]

That's a red herring, I use lots of CD's for backup and would never burn a song onto a CD in playable form (wastes space). I shouldn't have to pay a tax to fatcat record companies, mainly because it's those companies that would benefit, not artists.

[Poohbah]

Making RIAA a distributer of kiddie porn...

Prove that they did it...

[Poohbah]

Thank you for making my point.

[Poohbah]

You're using logic and common sense...

[Mister Magoo]

Uh, read my statement. I said a specific statute tailored to file-swapping, not the generic Lanham Act.

[The Grammarian]

And when someone hacks that too, I'll make sure not to respond in kind. ;P

[Bella_Bru]

The LA Slimes and the Washington ComPost demand that we only post excerpts. We do that. Others do not require that.

Yeah, and there 1000+ post threads whining about that too, even from the "file swapping is thiever" members.

As for the RIAA sending Trojan horses through Kazaa, et al., it would be nice if you didn't sound like you smugly hope they do so. There are better ways to handle file swapping. Apple's newest program, .99 for a song or 9.99 for a CD's worth (your choice of music) is a good start.

[Mister Magoo]

While your arguments are on point, you still haven't proposed a viable solution. The RIAA cannot stop file-swapping. They have tried for 5 years, and it has grown exponentially. There is nothing the RIAA can do about it. They must apply their efforts to realizing income from alternative sources or their clients will suffer.

[Grig]

"By swapping files they might otherwise have purchased,"

What about the swaping of files you would NOT have otherwise purchased? How do you demonstrate in a court of law what they otherwise would have done? What if they own an old record or cassete tape from the 80's of that music?

If the RIAA had a brain, they would put every song more than 2 years old online in a quality format and charge a small monthly fee for download access. They would be rolling in cash, and the artists too.

[Jhoffa_]

LOL! You do that..

Eventually, one of us will be proven right. (provided we aren't both banned before it happens.. In that event, we can flame each other via email when our side scores a point.)

[Not Insane]

What about when I read the paper someone leaves in the mensroom stall? What about when I watch a rented movie TWICE? What about when I record a song off the radio? What about when my neighbor loans me the movie he rented yesterday so I can watch it tonight?

What about when I buy a movie on DVD and let friends borrow it?

My brain hurts.

If you want to sell something, even intellectual property, it seems you need to offer something tangible with your intellectual property if you want to earn a living off it. With music, that would be a LIVE PERFORMANCE, just like in the old days.

[Poohbah]

While your arguments are on point, you still haven't proposed a viable solution.

If you don't like the RIAA's position, then don't buy their products--but don't steal them, either.

The RIAA cannot stop file-swapping. They have tried for 5 years, and it has grown exponentially. There is nothing the RIAA can do about it.

Yup. It's why this country's going to eventually crash--freedom requires self-restraint, something that we've spent 50 years or so not bothering to teach.

They must apply their efforts to realizing income from alternative sources or their clients will suffer.

OK, then you're basically saying that a portion of the purchase price of all storage media goes to the RIAA.

When the price goes to "free," there is no way to compete.

[palmer]

He has proposed a solution: a new tax to benefit politically connected record companies. I will have to pay it since I use recordable CD's but have never downloaded a single illegal song (I subscibe to emusic.com).

[Poohbah]

newest program, .99 for a song or 9.99 for a CD's worth (your choice of music) is a good start.

Compare the Apple program's costs with the Kazaa cost--0.00 for a song or 0.00 for a CD's worth.

[Poohbah]

Actually, I'm modeling it on existing arrangements between the RIAA and manufacturers of blank audio cassettes. If you've ever used a blank cassette, the RIAA got a taste of the action.

[Bella_Bru]

But it's a start. Whining about file swappers and threatening to send kiddie porn instead of Metallica's "Master of Puppetts" is just childish and solves nada.

[Mister Magoo]

Oh, brother. Every generation, once they reach the age of 50, thinks the younger generation has no values. Please. The country's not going to crash, or hell in a handbasket, or any of the other silly cliches that octogenerians like to proffer.

The digital transfer of music is here to stay.