PDA

View Full Version : RIAA.... let's settle it since we ARE the customers


fedge
11th September 2003, 17:45
and "the CUSTOMER is ALWAYS RIGHT!!!!"


Since the RIAA is now dictating terms to all the internet community it way past time to make a shout back.

In old times when the king of a country had a court minstral I don't really think that the minstral had the king put people to death for singing his songs. Nor was there fights over the "RIGHT" to be able to sing another traveling minstrals songs(forgive any spelling).

Now we come to an age in History that everything is for sale. And even the VERY THINGS we have in our OWN HOMES purchased with our OWN HARD EARNED MONEY is subject to rules pertaining to the fact that you cannot duplicate, nor modify any of the content. IE> music cds, dvd's, videogame councils.. etc. Or if you do you cant give the information nor the copies to anyone else for them to use for a limited time.. etc...etc... so even though you buy a product the company still has rights to dictate to you(by the way since when could a corporation or company or group act like a governing body..???) what ,where , and when you can use their product...etc.


SO, all that being said.. I myself would be willing to PAY for the right to dl mp3's for my own use. However, all the files available leagally are either not great quality/price. I mean 99 cents for a single mp3.. what if an album(cd) had 15 tracks on it.. it would cost you the price of cd to buy every track.. if you were so inclined. AND cd's that are continuous mixes... (techno etc) dont work as single tracks, they need to be in one mp3 format, and a cue file...

WHAT R U WILLING TO PAY>>>>>for lets say mp3 at 190kbps.. or even (let us dream AC3 dolby digital 5.1 content music @ 448 or lower bitrates)

Wilbert
11th September 2003, 18:06
Well, I would never buy MP3/AAC/WMA with drm on it.

t3ch
11th September 2003, 20:02
I'm going to PAY a company, give them my hard earned cash, with nothing to show? If I'm gonna fork out the money for an album, I want the case, booklet, and cd sitting in front of me. Granted I rip all my cds (my pc speakers are awesome) and only pull em out in the car, I still refuse to pay money for something I could just download/rip anyways.

edit >> Oh yeah, if they ever do host sites where you can buy music, they better be in a lossless codec.

edit edit >> I selected 2 answers:

I dont pay and never will, for any music I dl!
I only buy cds, mp3's suck.. id like to see AC3 sound instead.

Conflicting, yes. I download any and everything. To be honest a lot of it I don't even get a chance to listen to (sure not gonna pay for those). However, if I listen to something often and really like it, I'll buy it (actually, today I bought the all american rejects cd).

Wilbert
11th September 2003, 20:52
Conflicting, yes. I download any and everything. To be honest a lot of it I don't even get a chance to listen to (sure not gonna pay for those). However, if I listen to something often and really like it, I'll buy it (actually, today I bought the all american rejects cd).
You are close to violating rule 6.

@all,

If we can't discuss this without violating any rules, I will close this thread.

sh03z
11th September 2003, 21:53
I think 20 cents a song would be nice...
.20x15=3 bucks for an album...minus the cover and shit, plus you buy your own CDR


That's what I think...I don't want to violate rule #6, or go to jail, that's why I pay for shit now :-/

The RIAA is getting a little "metallica" but I deal with it

Doom9
11th September 2003, 22:46
Considering that with downloadable music you don't get the physical goods and have to pay yourself for delivery, I think 50 cents would be a reasonable amount. $0.99 per song is a bit much, that comes to the same amount as a regular CD and online distribution must be significantly cheaper. There's no CD pressing plant, no distribution, no middle man, no booklet designer, etc and the price would have to reflect that. Also, the music should be without DRM crap. If I buy a CD (that's what I'm doing so far... I have to find a legal service offering 192kbit/s MP3s without DRM befure I'll consider online music), I can play it on my stereo, burn it onto my own compilation CD, put it on MiniDisc or play it on my portable MP3 player. Obviously, if I bought a song electronically I'd be expecting the same possibilities. I have already been burned by online purchases once so I have ample reason to distrust anything that is bound to a certain machine. I even had a $50 software DVD player license get lost by a reinstall and of course the company I bought it from didn't remember my purchase. That was the last time I gave that company my money and the last time I'll trust any non transferable license.

Oh, and if you're not getting your music in legit ways, please feel free not to share it because we don't want to attract any unwanted attention. The RIAA, MPAA and BSA would weep looking at my collection of CDs, DVDs and fully legit software and I'd like to think that most people here do respect other people's creations and just want to excercise their rights as paying customers.

Hiro2k
11th September 2003, 23:01
Originally posted by Doom9
Oh, and if you're not getting your music in legit ways, please feel free not to share it because we don't want to attract any unwanted attention. The RIAA, MPAA and BSA would weep looking at my collection of CDs, DVDs and fully legit software and I'd like to think that most people here do respect other people's creations and just want to excercise their rights as paying customers.

In Sociology that's called an Ideal Culture, and usually differs greatly from the Real Culture.

I however also agree with you Doom9, it would be nice if people actually respected one another and didn't steal. But lets face it, the Music Industry did this to itself by letting this situation get out of control and not acting sooner. They stubornely hoped to produce more CD's and expected people to buy them. 18$ for a CD is too much, I'll take the free radio.

sh03z
12th September 2003, 00:04
uh...
I think RIAA sucks...well anyways, I respect them because they're an authority, so I buy my music now.

dwflo
12th September 2003, 00:37
I think the RIAA is way out of line.

It would take a lot more effort by the Music/Video Industry to gain my trust. I for one come from that industry and know first hand their attitude.

dwf

t3ch
12th September 2003, 01:32
Oop, sorry mods. The specifically mentioned #6 said no links of any sort, I didn't realize talking about it at all was implied; my bad.

I however also agree with you Doom9, it would be nice if people actually respected one another and didn't steal.

I like to consider it sampling, more than anything. I really think the RIAA is going about this the wrong way. Thanks to the internet, I've been in contact with so much more music than ever would have been possible otherwise. If I hear about a new band, I can sample a few songs (mostly songs hosted on the respective bands websites, actually) and see if they're something I like, instead of paying $15 for a cd to realize it sucks. It's only stealing if you would otherwise buy it, IMO. Sampling is more like eating a bag of skittles in the store, and paying afterwards :devil: :D

Arkay
12th September 2003, 01:52
Personally I think the RIAA have been money grabbing for far too long.

It's their own stupid fault that they are now losing out because they were too stubborn and too "fixed" into their monopoly that they couldn't foresee what technology was about to do to them.
They have to face the fact now that "irrespective of the law", music is a freely available commodity. They could have controlled distibution... but they didn't, and it's too late now.

If they now want to get into the game then they have to turn the technology around to their benefit. By that I mean that if they put in the effort and produce something that is not currently available at a quality level that is not currently available then yes, they can sell it and yes, I will buy it, because they will be offering me something that I cannot get anywhere else. i.e. A product that I want.

What they currently have is a product that anyone can get, anywhere, anytime... For free. Anyone with an ounce of Sales and Marketing understanding recognises that it's all about supply and demand and at present the demand is being met without them. It's time they supplied something new. If it costs them 5 years of their profits to produce then so be it. It's only fair that they should have to spend some of the fat they've been skimming for so long.

You can't afford to stand still in the media industry with technology moving at the pace it does.

A business that fails to keep up is a business that fails. Sitting back and bleeting about it is all fine, but will get them no-where. They have to re-invent themselves and they have no idea how.

For me. If they can take my listening pleasure to new heights, then they'll have my interest, but listening to them carry on about copyright breach, righful ownership and a general "but it's not fair" attitude, is in my opinion, counter productive and plain stupid.

The reality is that if the RIAA disappeared tomorrow people would still create music and people would still listen to music (whether purchased legally or not)... They are really an un-necessary middle man. What they are upset about is the fact that the world has finally realised.


Cheers,
Arkay.

Hiro2k
12th September 2003, 02:24
@ Arkay

Very Well Put Sir

cypher_soundz
12th September 2003, 03:48
The only reason i would d/l a song would be because i can't be bothered to rip it off my CD's, i own allot of Cd's and they are all original , Internet radio's and p2p have helped me broaden my view and made me buy more original Cd's, to pay for a mp3 is just stupid , it would be like buying a poor quality CD divx encode, transfered to VHS :p. I use mp3/ogg/aac etc to archive my collection for easy listening and for backup purposes. But i will never pay for a mp3 when for a little more i can buy the CD and make my own mp3(for back up).

Regards
cyph

ppera2
12th September 2003, 13:13
I think that poll misses option: I have slow Internet connection, and all this is outside of me.

SeeMoreDigital
12th September 2003, 13:14
Downloading music from the web has much to do with how our social lives have changed. Everything is far more disposable now!

Eeee, when I were a lad, we did'nt have all these computerized toys. Music came in the form of a 12" vinyl LP 0r 7" single (and later compact cassette) and if we did'nt take care of them they would very quickly sound like crap!

I've still got just about all of my vinyl records, including a rather massive collection of 'picture discs'. Remember these anyone?And even though most have been replaced by CD I just can't seem to part with the vinyl.

This makes me wonder how attached todays consumers are with regard to their music collections! Do todays consumers take time out to really sit down and listen to their music 'however they aquired it'?

I don't know. We have hardware manufacturers in one corner. Making hugely expensive DVD & Super Audio CD players together with amps and speakers etc. Not to mention the discs themselves! And in the other corner we have software manufactureres compressing the hell out of the same music so we are able to listen to it at any time of day and on any suitable device!

At the end of the day I prefer good quality sounding audio and I don't mind paying to listen to it. But I do mind paying too much for it!

Cheers

PS. The sound quality of DAB radio in the UK has gone right down the pan recently. Anybody know why?

Doom9
12th September 2003, 14:32
I like to consider it sampling, more than anything.This is perhaps the hottest issue in all of this, because it's a moral question rather than a legal one. In the eyes of the law, both are the same. However, I find it a bit strange as well that the industry claims losses due to people who have no interest whatsoever in getting the product if they had to pay for it. It is still wrong, but if a college student pirates a $30'000 software you cannot reasonable assume that he'd have the means to pay it so it makes no sense that the company that made the program claims it lost $30k. Personally I don't have a definitive answer to this issue either.
Now, if you download a certain song first, then decide you like the music and buy the entire album, I don't think the RIAA should sue you for $150'000 (that's the max they charge per song). In the end, they got more than if you hadn't downloaded the song. However, if you keep the song without payment then the situation is different.

The problem with music is that there is no alternative product. You cannot decide to get your music from a non RIAA sanctioned source so you are bound by their prices, and being the only source, they have in fact a monopoly and can fix prices (and they've been found guilty of doing just that). Perhaps, if the US government investigated the RIAA a bit more they'd find that this organisation is harmful to the industry and would abolish it. I have no idea what effects this would have, but perhaps it would open ways to more consumer friendly prices, and prices that are determined by the market, not some all powerful monopoly organization. In basic economics you learn that monopolies are bad (with a few exceptions... certain government monopolies actually ensure more fairness for the population), so I think it's legit to ask how things would work if that monopoly were abolished.

SeeMoreDigital
12th September 2003, 15:07
so I think it's legit to ask how things would work if that monopoly were abolished. You make a darn good point. The RIAA not only effects what happens on your site of the Atlantic but also on our side.

There's no doubt that somethings going to have to change. Suing end users is not a very good answer. Too much of a knee jerk reaction in my opinion.

We all like our audio entertainment. And I think it's fair to say that what's happening now with the RIAA is being looked at very closely by the movie distribution companies around the world.

It's a shame that everthing should come down to, how much money is being lost. As they should never been allowed to amass the fortunes they've made (and in some cases lost) in the first place!

So if the movie companies don't want to quickly follow suit they better get the actors to agree to more realistic fees. Maybe the big stars should settle for their expenses, a shiney trailer and a percentage of the movies profits!

Why the hell should a star get paid tens of millions to be in a movie. Were we, the customers ever asked if this was a good idea?

Cheers

t3ch
13th September 2003, 01:37
This is perhaps the hottest issue in all of this, because it's a moral question rather than a legal one. In the eyes of the law, both are the same. However, I find it a bit strange as well that the industry claims losses due to people who have no interest whatsoever in getting the product if they had to pay for it. It is still wrong, but if a college student pirates a $30'000 software you cannot reasonable assume that he'd have the means to pay it so it makes no sense that the company that made the program claims it lost $30k. Personally I don't have a definitive answer to this issue either. Now, if you download a certain song first, then decide you like the music and buy the entire album, I don't think the RIAA should sue you for $150'000 (that's the max they charge per song). In the end, they got more than if you hadn't downloaded the song. However, if you keep the song without payment then the situation is different.

exactly :) Goes right along with: "It's only stealing if you would otherwise buy it, IMO."

Honestly I had a point and didn't post to reiterate, but I completely forgot what it was. heh need sleep, eyes are glazed over and body is weak... must stay awake... there are forums to whore :D

edit >> typo

Neo Neko
18th September 2003, 06:27
Originally posted by Hiro2k

But lets face it, the Music Industry did this to itself by letting this situation get out of control and not acting sooner. They stubornely hoped to produce more CD's and expected people to buy them.


But that does not give anyone the right or license to download or share. And it is those very actions that have exacerbated the situation so much that not only does it now involve price fixing but digital rights as well. It is allways better to fight a war on one front. Through P2Pers innapropriate actions the consumer has been worked into a corner. The companies who are being legitimatly victimised by P2P are now pushing DRM and other measures to systematically reduce consumer rights that have always been protected in the past. Something they have dreamed about for years anyway. But P2Pers give them the clout to push such arguments and win! And in the end it is all for naught. DRM will never stop the real offenders whether they are the corporate price fixers or the real digital media pirates. DRM at best poses tons of incompatablility issues, reduced customer sattisfaction(Which is already pittifully low), and reduced product functionality. There is nothing good about DRM for any involved parties. It merely skirts the real issue which P2Pers have drawn attention away from. Namely price gouging/fixing, xenophobic monolithic corporate structures, and a total lack of best interests for anything but the cash flow.

Originally posted by Arkay
Personally I think the RIAA have been money grabbing for far too long.

It's their own stupid fault that they are now losing out because they were too stubborn and too "fixed" into their monopoly that they couldn't foresee what technology was about to do to them.


Point of distinction. The RIAA should not be mistaken for the companies they represent. The RIAA at it's best and worst is a political lobbying group sponsored, controlled, and made up of many of the major name lables. The RIAA has never done and never will be guilty of price fixing. They merely further facilitate it through the actions of P2Pers. And actually the RIAA is rather unfixed and much more technology savvy than most of the companies they represent. Just in the opposite direction everyone needs to be heading.

Originally posted by Arkay
They have to face the fact now that "irrespective of the law", music is a freely available commodity. They could have controlled distibution... but they didn't, and it's too late now.


It is never to late for them. Because without them there can not be much legal distribution period. They represent such a large piece of the market. And even if every new artist in the world signed to empathetic independant lables we would still not be able to leave the big lables behind for another 70 years or more. They have vast libraries of everyones favorite music which have ungodly copyright periods that will only expire durring the time of your children or your childrens children. It serves no purpose but to facilitate their tight controlls on the industry. Therefore we can never just leave them behind without great pains. Things like giving up the Beatles, Pink Floyd, etc, etc, etc, (Insert Influential Group Here). Then again there will be ones that will be a joy to leave behind. By by Briteny, suck on this Eminem, TAKE THAT METALICA!

Originally posted by Arkay
If they now want to get into the game then they have to turn the technology around to their benefit. By that I mean that if they put in the effort and produce something that is not currently available at a quality level that is not currently available then yes, they can sell it and yes, I will buy it, because they will be offering me something that I cannot get anywhere else. i.e. A product that I want.


The crux for everyone at the moment is that it is a very "them or us" culture and not just us as it should be. Neither side is much for seeking mutually bennificial solutions.

Originally posted by Arkay
What they currently have is a product that anyone can get, anywhere, anytime... For free. Anyone with an ounce of Sales and Marketing understanding recognises that it's all about supply and demand and at present the demand is being met without them.


But it is being illegally met any way you look at it. And that is never going to do. As it is completely outside the way supply and demand should work. They "DO" provide a service. And they "DO" add value from time to time. So they "DO" deserve some compensation. Granted the actions they have taken thus far "DO" make you want to screw them over. But someone has to be the bigger person.


Originally posted by Arkay
It's time they supplied something new. If it costs them 5 years of their profits to produce then so be it. It's only fair that they should have to spend some of the fat they've been skimming for so long.


More than that needs to be done. Just opening up reasonable online distribution is never going to be enough. Because once it is open they will simply quietly sneek up the prices again like they have done with every media. At first it is generally super expensive. Then when everyone catches on demand goes way up and price goes way down. Then the slow creep kicks in till it is as expensive or more than the day the service/technology was introduced. It is insidious and not going to be solved by online distribution. And while we are at it we need to increase artists rights and compensation as well. They are often a very quiet and abused side of the debate.

Originally posted by Arkay
You can't afford to stand still in the media industry with technology moving at the pace it does.


But you can't shift your paradigm any day of the week to match the way the wind blows. These companies are downright huge for all intents and purposes. You will never get them to do anything quickly even though they could. Like governments there is buearocracy and red tape. What ever system they come to it will be anylised and re-anylised and seriously thought about before they make their decision. Should they go with things like MP3 which everyone is familliar with or AAC which will save them money for bandwidth etc. What about lossless services? As you can see it is not as simple as "Hey lets just set up an em-pee-three shop!".

Originally posted by Arkay
A business that fails to keep up is a business that fails. Sitting back and bleeting about it is all fine, but will get them no-where. They have to re-invent themselves and they have no idea how.


Oh they know how. Trust me on that. They are simply like most people resistant to change. They like the way the current system is working and do not want to upset the ballance. They want things to go back to the way they were. It would mean less investments in diversification of marketing, retailing, and business practices on their part. If the government told them they must do online sales and held them to a standard they could have web shops up so fast it would make your head spin. But they are pushing the issue of those blatantly wrong and agravating P2Pers. Whether or not the labels have opperated in bad faith is still verry much unproven. The past record says they have. But the past does not dictate the present or the future. So any new indescretions must be proven. But no one is doing that because of the labels and RIAA shouting "Look at the P2Pers! Look at the P2Pers!" but what ever you do don't look here. And sadly enough it is more or less working.

Originally posted by Arkay
For me. If they can take my listening pleasure to new heights, then they'll have my interest, but listening to them carry on about copyright breach, righful ownership and a general "but it's not fair" attitude, is in my opinion, counter productive and plain stupid.


It is very much a typical brother sister relationship. Both of them are wrong but trying to scream blody murder louder than the other so they don't get the blame. If we are going to hold them to those standards the we need to hold ourselves as well. To whit no one is.

Originally posted by Arkay
The reality is that if the RIAA disappeared tomorrow people would still create music and people would still listen to music (whether purchased legally or not)... They are really an un-necessary middle man. What they are upset about is the fact that the world has finally realised.


Cheers,
Arkay.

As pointless and moronic as much of what the RIAA does is they have a legitimate gripe. Offered up on a silver platter by us. Two wrongs don't make a right but three lefts do. Everyone needs to change but no one wants to. Instead they cite eachother for their stubborness. P2Pers are not some enlightened consumer culture as they would have you believe. Merely greedy opportunists just like the record labels. The fan to the flame. The rock for the hard place. The white hot needle in the eye of sensibility.

Originally posted by Doom9
This is perhaps the hottest issue in all of this, because it's a moral question rather than a legal one.


Granted it depends a bit where you live. But it is very much a legal question. As much as it is a moral one.

Originally posted by Doom9
In the eyes of the law, both are the same.


Common morality and law can often have a disparraging gap between the two. Law generally outlines widely held moral beliefs. But in the US at least political minorities have been allowed to broadly interprit things and force their views and morals on the majority for fear of discriminating against those minorities. Things like how the US always seems to side with Israiel, removing "under god" from the pledge of alegience, etc. [Self edited for length and content :(]

Originally posted by Doom9
However, I find it a bit strange as well that the industry claims losses due to people who have no interest whatsoever in getting the product if they had to pay for it.


But this is the crux if the missunderstanding. What business do they have downloading if they are not going to buy? Maybe them downloading increases sales. It has never been proven. But what has been shown time and again is that their actions are indicitive of changing attitudes in society. A change for the worst.

Originally posted by Doom9
It is still wrong, but if a college student pirates a $30'000 software you cannot reasonable assume that he'd have the means to pay it so it makes no sense that the company that made the program claims it lost $30k.


Quite honestly it depends. Many students have their parents pay their way. Granted there are those that have loans out the wazoo. :D But somewhere along the line there is often someone who can pay. And fining for the 30k is not just to compensate for the so called lost sale. It is a decision for punitive damages. As such it is more a punnishment than anything else. Just like people getting millions of dollars from tobaco companies for relatives who knowingly smoked themselves to death is supposed to be some kinda punnishment. Fair? I doubt it. But that's life. :(

Originally posted by Doom9
Personally I don't have a definitive answer to this issue either.
Now, if you download a certain song first, then decide you like the music and buy the entire album, I don't think the RIAA should sue you for $150'000 (that's the max they charge per song). In the end, they got more than if you hadn't downloaded the song. However, if you keep the song without payment then the situation is different.


True. A better more controlled system needs to be designed with this in mind. Personally I would be happy nevery buying a CD again in my life and pay a $10 a month subscription fee for a service that allows me free access to listen to anything in the lables library. As long as the service is widely avalible on several devices and allows for a single mobile license instead of a per device license. That would be the most mutually benneficial solution I can see. And if someone was enamored enough with an album they could order the hard copy. Who could not afford $10 or so a month? And that is garonteed income to the lables whether or not you make use of the subscription for a given time.

Originally posted by Doom9
The problem with music is that there is no alternative product. You cannot decide to get your music from a non RIAA sanctioned source so you are bound by their prices, and being the only source, they have in fact a monopoly and can fix prices (and they've been found guilty of doing just that).


It is not so clear cut as that. The lables are not a monopoly in the exact same way Microsoft is not a monopoly. Which means they are but they muddy the waters just enough so that is hard to see. And remember the RIAA is not a record lable. The RIAA makes nothing and sells nothing. ;)

Originally posted by Doom9
Perhaps, if the US government investigated the RIAA a bit more they'd find that this organisation is harmful to the industry and would abolish it.


If that were the only issue perhaps. As things stand now there is a lesser of 2~3 evils issue going on. Who is less evil? The record companies. The RIAA who represents the record companies interests. Or the P2Pers? What we need is a visible association of consumers to represent our interests in this fray. People for Ip Sharing Services via Equitable Distribution. P.I.S.S.E.D. for short. ;) :D

Originally posted by Doom9
I have no idea what effects this would have, but perhaps it would open ways to more consumer friendly prices, and prices that are determined by the market, not some all powerful monopoly organization. In basic economics you learn that monopolies are bad (with a few exceptions... certain government monopolies actually ensure more fairness for the population), so I think it's legit to ask how things would work if that monopoly were abolished.

Indeed. If only people asked more questions. The world would be a better place. Sometimes it is more pleasant to take thigs at face value than to realise the underlying truth. The niceties of our day to day relationships with those around us and those we enconter for example. But then my brain starts to hurt.:sly:

Titillan
19th September 2003, 03:33
I have to say that I make my own mix's and basicly the RIAA is telling people who download MY songs that it is wrong without my concent?

What a bunch of BS.

I think they need to pull their head out of their A$$.

*Just my two cents*

-+>Aaron :angry:

midi
19th September 2003, 12:20
but if a college student pirates a $30'000 software you cannot reasonable assume that he'd have the means to pay it You're completely missing part of the equation. The RIAA has said they are going after people who share very large amounts. A large portion of the damages in these cases are not due to lost sales from one person, but from the many many people who downloaded off that person.

MaXiMuS
23rd September 2003, 14:00
.99 - .50 as long as there is no DRM :devil: