RIAA and Kazaa

[jinxed]

Or that more people are spending there disposable income on DVDs rather then CDs because they are viewed as a much better deal.

Heck, many DVDs used to come with the soundtrack for free, but the RIAA fought the movie studios, and now its very rare.

Nick

[ShooterJM]

Exactly, they don't realize that the value of a CD has been dropping and at the same time they've been increasing the price....

[bluefan101]

I wouldn't say that the idea of the single is dead. Maye for the general public it is, but for djs and radio stations it's still very prevelant. I know some djs that would pay <b>big</b> money to be the first one to drop a hot new song in thier club. For us it's all about being ahead of the game. If I can get a promo copy of a song that isn't expected to be released for another 3 months or so, that puts me ahead of the other guys, but it takes a while to get people used to it. But like I said, the general public doesn't see that. All I here is "more Nelly" or "can you play that 'it's your birthday' song?" It's played <b>all</b> day on the radio, you buy the cd, or download the songs, and then go to a club and want to hear it 50 times a night. Sorry, had to get that out...I know it's a little off topic, but I worked last night.

[joeyjoe367]

Originally posted by ShooterJM
Yeah what I find interesting is that when the RIAA shows the CD sales have slowed and therefore file sharing is at fault, NO ONE mentions the economic slowdown OR the fact that CD prices were raised.....

In a previous thread about a simmilar issue, I posted a screen shot of Time-Warner's financial reports concerning their music division. They were losing a lot of money.

I think that is the main reason for the increase in price of CD's as of late.

I don't necessarily agree that file-sharing is the only reason why CD sales have slowed. I personally think that the music industry has been putting out absolute crap for the most part, recently. Slow economy is also to blame.

I do agree that a significant chunk of that loss is due to file-sharing.

Part of the reason that the Recording industry doesn't decrease it's prices to... say $10 a CD is because the profit margin of those CD's would be cut in half. In order to make up for that loss in profits, sales would have to DOUBLE, just to break even.

I don't think twice as many people would go out and buy cd's right now if the prices went down. I would be much more inclined to buy more CD's, but I'm not going to go to the store and just buy CD's because they're cheaper. You have to like the music too.

Remember, the recording industry is just like any other firm in the US. It is a profit-maximising entitiy. It owes it to their stockholders.


oh, and metallica's argument about the slow-selling of their cd's... they just haven't realized that they suck now

[joeyjoe367]

Originally posted by Zumina
All of this fuss over a Rapper not being to afford yet another Bentley or a Rocker running out of Coke. I can't wait for this whole thing to backfire in RIAA's face in the form of a boycott. People sharing information (which is all MP3s really are) for free does not give RIAA the right to invade someone's privacy.

I just noticed this post. Wow.

Whether or not it's a rapper getting another bently, or jimbo blue-collar worker, it's THEIR money. You have no right whatsoever to take it from them.

...and you're right, sharing information is exactly what mp3's are. That information happens to be copywritten material.

You can't go get the recipe for Viagra and just start selling it or giving it away in mass quantities. They've got a patent on the product protecting them in this manner.

It's about intellectual property. That music belongs to the owner until it is licensed to you in the manner of buying the CD. Did you know that if you play music in a public place with more than 2 speakers, you need to get a license?


By all means, go ahead and boycott the recording industry. I've heard people wanting to do this for YEARS. Aparantly none of you who are so adamantly opposed to the recording industry are too lazy to get off your butts, or you represent such a small faction that you are not represented, and duely so.

[MagMan5446]

I haven't bought a record for years. Yeah I steal my music. Too broke to buy cds, and love music too much to not listen to anything.

And I just got a badass mp3 player.

[joeyjoe367]

[ShooterJM]

Originally posted by joeyjoe367
...and you're right, sharing information is exactly what mp3's are. That information happens to be copywritten material.

I'll consider stopping being furious with the RIAA's stance when they honor the 400 CD's worth of licenses that were STOLEN from my car. But as long as they contend that they sell a medium and not copywritten material...

[joeyjoe367]

...so if you pay for a car in cash, someone steals the car and the pink slip and you have no means to prove that you actually owned the car, is that enough to go to the police with?

I'm in the same boat. I had about 20 CD's stolen out of my car. I don't have the receipts for them, but I do have the old cases with the booklets, etc.. in them. If the recording companies would send me new CD's, I'd be more than happy.

If you have proof that you owned the CD's at one point, then I do believe they should replace those CD's for you. Unfortunatly they don't.

Another thing I don't agree with the Recording industry on.

[ShooterJM]

Yep I have jackets, jewel cases, even the upc codes are still on there. Just not all receipts.

See but when I buy a car, I am paying for material possesion. That's my point. When I pay for a license I pay for a right for X amount of time.

I think we agree on this. In order to maintain a copyright only argument, the RIAA needs to enact a replacement program.


Hey does anyone know who will be enforcing these MP3 silver bullets and computer snooping?

[joeyjoe367]

Shooter, I'm actually contacting Tower Records and the Webmaster of the RIAA website for information on this. I'd very much like to get CD's replaced.

I too have the jewel cases, etc... sitting around, and no receipts either.

[hitech]

Originally posted by ShooterJM
In order to maintain a copyright only argument, the RIAA needs to enact a replacement program.

No, they do not HAVE to. You agree to whatever license they have when you purchase the license. If you purchase windows, do not make a copy of the CD and loose it Microsoft does not have to replace your copy. What do you think the chances of getting them to are?

However, you could probably make a copy of the same CD yourself without any problems.

I'm not defending the RIAA. I don't like them either. But you can't claim that they have to. They don't.

[Jack & Coke]

UPDATE...

FYI...


from: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...herlands_kazaa

Kazaa Not Responsible for Swapping!

Technology - AP

Court: Kazaa Not Responsible for Swapping
Fri Dec 19, 1:25 PM ET Add Technology - AP to My Yahoo!


By ANTHONY DEUTSCH, Associated Press Writer

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands - The makers of Kazaa, the world's most popular computer file-sharing program, cannot be held liable for copyright infringement of music or movies swapped on its free software, the Dutch Supreme Court ruled Friday.



The decision upheld a 2002 appellate-court verdict in Amsterdam that dismissed a suit filed by Buma/Stemra, which protects the interests of the music industry.


Buma/Stemra had demanded that Kazaa stop offering free downloads from its Web site, or face a daily fine of $124,000.


Kazaa's Media Desktop software is one of a variety of file swapping programs used by tens of millions of people worldwide. Kazaa alone has 3 million to 4 million users at any given time.


Kazaa said the ruling, the first by a national court dealing with the legality of file-sharing Web sites, affirms not just the legality of its software, but all file-sharing programs.


"This victory sets the precedent about the legality of peer-to-peer technology across the European Union (news - web sites), and around the world," Kazaa founders Niklas Zennstrom and Janus Friis said in a statement distributed on the Internet. They called the ruling a "historic victory for the evolution of the Internet and for consumers."


In the United States, a federal judge already has dismissed the entertainment industry's lawsuits against two rival file-sharing services, Grokster Ltd. and StreamCast Networks Inc., saying they could not be held liable for what their users do with the software. That ruling has been appealed, with a decision expected in February.


A parallel case against Kazaa's parent company, Sharman Networks Ltd., remains pending in the lower U.S. court, before U.S. District Judge Stephen V. Wilson in Los Angeles.


Sharman also has filed a countersuit accusing entertainment companies of violating antitrust laws by stopping Sharman and its partner from distributing authorized copies of music and movies through Kazaa. A ruling on the countersuit is expected in early January.


Sharman is incorporated in the South Pacific island nation of Vanuatu with main offices in Sydney, Australia.


Buma/Stemra said it regretted the court hadn't dealt with the broader issue of the legality of file-sharing programs, leaving the group in a similar position as the American recording industry, which has sued individual song-swappers for tens of thousands of dollars in damages.


"We now have the unpleasant situation that only the consumers who swap music can be held accountable for copyright violation," said Cees van Rij, the head of legal affairs at Buma/Stemra.


But Buma/Stemra spokeswoman Noortje de Bakker said the agency hoped it wouldn't have to take similar action in the Netherlands. She said the group was promoting the use of paid alternatives such as Apple Computer Inc.'s iTunes Music Store, MusicMatch, Rhapsody and the revamped, legal Napster (news - web sites).


The IFPI, an organization representing the international recording industry, called the Dutch ruling a "flawed judgment, but still leaves no doubt that the vast majority of people who are using file-swapping services like Kazaa are acting illegally whatever country they are in."


The IFPI said the ruling is based on a "one-sided presentation of the facts" by Kazaa. It said that because Kazaa is able to control and filter user content, it should "be held responsible for infringements taking place on its service."

[TransMan]

Well imm pretty sure they wont sue me cuz i only dl porn on Kazaa and i dont think they care about that