[CP5670]

Then we're agreed. Let's go and get drunk.

And of course do math, which is what I am doing at the moment. trying to prove that this dumb thing converges...

Hey, you were the one who picked the 50 years of age. They'd be better off going after an adult in general. Prosecuting a child because they download Britney Spears singles = bad. Period.

Whatever, I am just giving an example. Make it 20, 200 or whatever if you like. And why is it bad, period (that is compared to an adult)? This idea is pretty absurd, and I think you well know it but don't want to admit it.

And please spare me your bull**** explainations CP. No offense, but you speak like the only thing you know id statistics. Go have a social life and judge people then. No offense intended but you act as if you know people. Well, by staying inside 24/7 you don't.

As Stryke once said, it gets really funny how people repeatedly say "no offense" followed by something intended to be offensive. But don't worry, you don't offend me. Anyway, this is a pretty lame response to my arguments since it doesn't address anything I said, and yes, offense is intended.

[Hunter]

Sounds to me like cowards willing to sue a far weaker opponent than face a far deadlier one.  Bastards.  As for their corporation, they can stuff it.  They better not come and tell me what I can do with *my* own produced music, because that's the kind of mistake they'd make.

[CP5670]

I don't think they can do anything to you if it's your own music, unless you get it published and marketed through them.

[phreak]

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

--7th amendment
src: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment07/index.html

a CD costs how much now?

[Flipside]

How long I wonder until 'Industry' decides that all these people making their own music freely available over the Internet are 'damaging their industry' as well. This will probably start hidden behind a fabric of 'This band is releasing records in a style that is simlar to one of our artists, which we have copyrighted'?

Flipside

[01010]

I think most peoples problems stem from the fact that they're unwilling to be viewed as a criminal. I download music and yes sometimes I will download a few songs I like and not buy the album, I am a music pirate and I can accept that, if someone decides to sue me then fair game.

That's not to say I'd give them a penny whatsoever but I can accept what I do is piracy and CAN have an adverse effect on an artists profits.

However, if the artists weren't paid such a ****ing pittance in the first place I'm pretty sure that there'd be half as many that gave a **** about their music being downloaded.

Also, the record companies need to realise how big a threat online distribution will be to them if they don't act now and jump in on it before someone else does, I'm personally suprised that a lot of the larger indie labels aren't looking to undercut the bigger companies on the online front. They' d save themselves distribution costs as well as having to pay shops to actually stock their CD's. That alone would be a hell of a saving to both consumer and company.

[Flipside]

I think it's more a question of exposure, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that there are many record companies doing exactly this, it's just they cannot afford the advertising and media power of the larger Industries, and are so constantly pushed back out of the Limelight.

Flipside

[pyro-manic]

I think the solution to this is: buy it off amazon! Got Dance of Death (the new Iron Maiden album) for £8.50, when it's £12 in the shops! I personally don't download music (can't say the same about everything, though...), 'cos 1: I prefer to support artists that I like by buying their records, and 2: I hate listening to music on a computer anyway - sounds much better pumped through a proper sound system...

As for the RIAA, though - **** 'em. I HATE big-ass corporations that are terrified of a shrinking profit margin, 'specially American ones. Anyway, their excuse for all this is that they have to protect their sales, which have fallen 30-odd percent in the last few years. Well, did you ever think whay this could be happening? Just possibly because the music industry is pumping out a huge pile of crap. Every single group or singer sounds exactly the bloody same, the songwriting and musicianship is practically non-existent (Busted, anyone?), and bands are being signed purely because they sound exactly like something else that has been popular recently (Good Charlotte is a case in point). If the record labels want to make some decent money, then they need to get some decent ****ing music to publish!

[diamondgeezer]

Originally posted by 01010
IHowever, if the artists weren't paid such a ****ing pittance in the first place I'm pretty sure that there'd be half as many that gave a **** about their music being downloaded.

You have seen the Napster Bad toon, right?

[01010]

Originally posted by diamondgeezer

You have seen the Napster Bad toon, right?

Yes.

[Galemp]

I support services like Apple's iTunes, where you can legally download songs for 99 cents apiece. If this gained wider support, smaller bands and artists could be featured on iTunes and gain almost 100% of the profits from their song sales, without the middlemen of the publishing industry.

Those are the real villans here. We want cheap, instantly avaliable music, but we also want to support our favorite artists so they continue doing their thing. Cutting out the recording industry and letting the money flow directly from listener to musician (with the minor kink of Apple) should be optimal.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by GalacticEmperor
Those are the real villans here. We want cheap, instantly avaliable music, but we also want to support our favorite artists so they continue doing their thing. Cutting out the recording industry and letting the money flow directly from listener to musician (with the minor kink of Apple) should be optimal.

And that is exactly why RIAA want to shut down internet distribution of music and webcasting. They don't give a damn about stuggling artists. What upsets them is that the middlemen (who pay them!) will have to stop screwing both the artists and the general public.

[Stealth]

Originally posted by Tiara
This is just ****ing outragous. I mean, sueing an adult for downloading, but a ****ing 12-year old just pisses me off.

Land of the free... Yeah... right...

The 12 year old girl obviously knew about the new crackdown on downloading illegal MP3s... even my sister, who's 10 and doesn't ever use the computer, knew about the RIAA crackdowns... so obviously this girl did... and she kept downloading them, which is plain stupid... what did she think just because she was not considered a legal adult that she would be exempt from the rule?

if it was an adult obviously the fine would be greater than $2000... but yeah, i think it's wrong to make examples out of people like this.

[Top Gun]

Just a little note: the RIAA is not designed to be popular, that's why all the controversial lawsuits are carried out in their name and not in the name of the record companies they represent, it means they suffer less because of it.

Example: a million people saying "I hate the ****ing RIAA"

will cause less bad PR than

"I hate ****ing Sony, Bertelesman, Vivendi, Virgin, Universal, EMI etc"

[Tiara]

...

I'm not talking to you guys anymore. You guys are just plain scary. The day you guys get an governemnet position of any kind is the day this world is truly doomed. (aimed at those who think its good to prosecute kids in public)

Prosecuting children... sheez... Deal with the real ****ing criminals first. Like murderers and drug dealers and ****. Put your money in that, not going after little girls. Its pathetic.

If you want an example, screw the **** out of an adult.

[Stealth]

Originally posted by Tiara

Prosecuting children... sheez... Deal with the real ****ing criminals first. Like murderers and drug dealers and ****. Put your money in that, not going after little girls. Its pathetic.

If you want an example, screw the **** out of an adult.

so you're not just arguing that they shouldn't have gone for a girl, you're arguing that they shoudn't be going for anyoneviolating the RIAA rules... right?  cause that's the impression i got.

[Tiara]

Originally posted by Stealth


so you're not just arguing that they shouldn't have gone for a girl, you're arguing that they shoudn't be going for anyoneviolating the RIAA rules... right?  cause that's the impression i got.

Read my ****ing post. I'm sorry but I specifically said if you want an example prosecute the **** out of an adult NOT a child. You even quoted it.

Read before you act.

[Stealth]

this 12 year old girl shouldn't be an exception.  she violated the rules, she must get punished... i mean do you really think that they should just let her continue downloading illegally just because she's 12?  well where's the limit then?  

if you violate the rules, you get punished... this may come as a shock to you, but in the society we live in, just because you're a 12 year old girl makes no difference... perhaps it does in how big the fine or punishment is going to be, but you're not exempt from illegal activities because of age or gender


EDIT:

you say:

Deal with the real ****ing criminals first. Like murderers and drug dealers and ****.

i say:

you're arguing that they shoudn't be going for anyoneviolating the RIAA rules

makes perfect sense to me

[Tiara]

Jezus ****ing christ... Am I dealing with brainless people here? I never said she shouldn't be punished. But 2000 dollar fine and a public prosecution is just too much for a 12 year old. The public part is the biggest concern here. If they want public humiliation go for an adult, not for child gor crying out loud.

Sheez...

[Stealth]

Originally posted by Tiara
Jezus ****ing christ... Am I dealing with brainless people here? I never said she shouldn't be punished. But 2000 dollar fine and a public prosecution is just too much for a 12 year old. The public part is the biggest concern here. If they want public humiliation go for an adult, not for child gor crying out loud.

Sheez...

wtf is wrong with you.  you contradict yourself in every statement!!!

I never said she shouldn't be punished

Prosecuting children... sheez... Deal with the real ****ing criminals first. Like murderers and drug dealers and ****. Put your money in that, not going after little girls. Its pathetic.

If you want an example, screw the **** out of an adult.

do some research... a $2000 fine is next to nothing...  public prosecution i'll admit is not right because of her age, but the punishment i don't think there's anything wrong with