[Stealth]

Originally posted by Charlotte
The lack of understanding of even the most basic elements of psychology is astounding in this place. I bet you guys don't go out often

yeah.  good one.  when in doubt, always start insulting the people arguing, instead of just the arguing... right?  wrong[/b]:  that's stupid.

Lowering cd prices (for instance) does. So let 'em do that.

No it doesn't.  even if they make CDs $0.01, the majority of people are just too lazy to go out, when on their fast internet connection they can download an entire CD and burn it in the time it would take them to get in the car, go to Walmart or Target or wherever, and buy it... plus they don't waste gas, plus they can be downloading it and doing something else in the meantime...

[Slasher]

Originally posted by Stunaep


Good point. That's another american thing. Europeans in general don't have a tenth of your lawsuits.

Plus, at least some people sue when they have something to gain. This case is so vague and unprovable, that I'm willing to bet good money on that the girl will end up paying nothing.

Apparently an anti-RIAA group has offered to pick up the $2000 tab.  It doesn't say if they'll be covering legal fees and whatnot.

http://news.com.com/2100-1027_3-5074227.html

[Martinus]

[color=66ff00]Ok methinks everyone is forgetting that CP argues simply for the sake of arguing...

Just ignore. Why is that so hard?
[/color]

[Stealth]

another thing, on that link about two posts up... apparently the girl is saying she's "very sorry" and that she didn't know it was illegal... although she was using Kazaa, and was sharing over 1000 MP3s...

i think that's a little suspicious, because anyone who uses Kazaa, and particularly anyone with over 1000 MP3s (that's quite a lot for a 12 year old) KNOWS about the RIAA crackdowns... it's a known fact!  if she carried on downloading, then she obviously had it coming!  i know many people that stopped filesharing because of the new enforced rules.  just because she's 12 years old did she think she was going to be exempt from it?  And a $2000 fine is NOTHING[/size]... NOTHING at all... other people are getting $15,000 and $25,000 fines for the same thing.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Stealth
No it doesn't.  even if they make CDs $0.01, the majority of people are just too lazy to go out, when on their fast internet connection they can download an entire CD and burn it in the time it would take them to get in the car, go to Walmart or Target or wherever, and buy it... plus they don't waste gas, plus they can be downloading it and doing something else in the meantime...

So explain to me why sales of CD singles in America are actually UP this year?

The simple fact is this. RIAA are spouting a bunch of bulls**t. Most music that has been released recently is aimed at 14 year old girls. It's all Britney Spears/Cookie cutter boy band crap. The result is that everyone apart from the 14 year old girls have stopped buying albums. If a song comes out people might buy the single but considering albums now cost around £14-15 no one is willing to pay that much for one.

THAT is the problem. Instead of suing 12 year olds RIAA should concentrate on telling the big companies to make something worth buying. Then they might see an improvement in their sales figures.

[Woolie Wool]

Originally posted by Stealth
another thing, on that link about two posts up... apparently the girl is saying she's "very sorry" and that she didn't know it was illegal... although she was using Kazaa, and was sharing over 1000 MP3s...

i think that's a little suspicious, because anyone who uses Kazaa, and particularly anyone with over 1000 MP3s (that's quite a lot for a 12 year old) KNOWS about the RIAA crackdowns... it's a known fact!  if she carried on downloading, then she obviously had it coming!  i know many people that stopped filesharing because of the new enforced rules.  just because she's 12 years old did she think she was going to be exempt from it?  And a $2000 fine is NOTHING[/size]... NOTHING at all... other people are getting $15,000 and $25,000 fines for the same thing.

But where would she get the info from? We're all a bunch of computer fanatics; she's a girl in a low-income housing project. It's not like she's browsing computer geek news. For all we know she and her mother might not read or watch the news at all.

And a $2000 fine for a low-income housing resident can be worse than a $15,000 fine for someone with a decent income. They might be dead broke.

[Woolie Wool]

Originally posted by karajorma


So explain to me why sales of CD singles in America are actually UP this year?

The simple fact is this. RIAA are spouting a bunch of bulls**t. Most music that has been released recently is aimed at 14 year old girls. It's all Britney Spears/Cookie cutter boy band crap. The result is that everyone apart from the 14 year old girls have stopped buying albums. If a song comes out people might buy the single but considering albums now cost around £14-15 no one is willing to pay that much for one.

THAT is the problem. Instead of suing 12 year olds RIAA should concentrate on telling the big companies to make something worth buying. Then they might see an improvement in their sales figures.

Agreed.

[WMCoolmon]

think that's a little suspicious, because anyone who uses Kazaa, and particularly anyone with over 1000 MP3s (that's quite a lot for a 12 year old) KNOWS about the RIAA crackdowns... it's a known fact!

No, it isn't. I could easily download that many MP3s and still not know anything about the RIAA, if I only used Kazaa. I think the only places I've heard about the RIAA has been on the forums I visit, and maybe one or two sites.

On the other hand, ignorance of the law is no excuse, so it *is* still legally acceptable to punish her. Is it really morally acceptable, though?

[Flipside]

It's nice to know that the RIAA with it's massive media and financial backing is doing so much to protect us from such well known evil forces as 12 year old girls

Seriously though, it's a question of (1-3) What the girl did, and (4-6) The RIAA using her as an example for it.

1 : Legal/Illegal
2 : Right/Wrong
3 : Mostly Harmless/Mostly Damaging
4 : Fair/Unfair
5 : Effective/Pointless
6 : Media viable/Media suicide

My own opinions are :-

1 : Illegal
2 : Wrong
3 : Mostly Harmless
4 : Unfair
5 : Pointless.
6 : Media Suicide.

4 Points to the little girl, 2 to the RIAA, not really the best call on their part

Flipside

[Stealth]

Karajorma, Flipside, WMCoolmon, and Woolie Wool:

I don't use Kazaa, i hardly ever download MP3s nowadays, but i've heard it because of the radio, people talking about it, etc.

now, even if she hadn't heard of the RIAA crackdowns, SURELY she knew that MP3 downloading is illegal!  (i highly doubt that an honor student wouldn't know that... i mean after all, she is pretty used to downloading music...)

See, in every country in the world, it doesn't matter if you know you're doing something illegal or not... if you're caught doing it, you can't plead "oh but i didn't know it was wrong!"... you get punished for it regardless.  there's a junior in college who's also been fined $15,000 for file sharing.  he's got to come up with this money on his own, and he's a full time student that has to pay for classes, board, food, etc. with only part time jobs during the summer.  i feel no sympathy whatsoever for this girl, in fact, i'm glad she got caught, because it will send a message to all young teenagers (or pre-teenagers) that are still continuing to download MP3s etc. that the RIAA doens't give a **************** whether you're 10 years old or 100 years old... if you're breaking the law, you're going to get punished... end of story.

and she got away lightly... very lightly... in fact in the end she's probably going to end up with more money than she started with, since many people would gladly pay her fine and legal fees.  i think it's a good lesson to everyone that said "oh well it's just idle threats, they'll never actually take any action".

But where would she get the info from? We're all a bunch of computer fanatics; she's a girl in a low-income housing project.

That's no excuse, as i've covered above in my post... i never surf the internet looking for news.  i've heard about this from word of mouth, and from occasionally listening to the radio.  and this girl apparnetly is no fool when it comes to downloading music... she wasn't caught with 2 or 3 MP3s, she was caught with over 1000, and still using Kazaa... unless she never left the house, never talked to anyone, etc. she'd have known about how what she was doing was wrong.  i think the reason she kept it up is the "Oh it'll never happen to me" attitude... although when using Kazaa i'm sure she had to install it at sometime, and so she must have read the Kazaa user contract.

I think there's no "moral issue" involved here... they are sueing 200 and something odd people, one of them randomly happened to be a girl... now tell me why she should be exempt from punishment although she was doing the same thing everyone else is getting punished for! If they let her get away with it, now THAT would be morally wrong.

[Stealth]

The RIAA using her as an example for it.

just for the record, the RIAA is not using her as an example... they mentioned her name among the other 261 (?) people they're fineing, and the media got ahold of how she's only 12 years old and made a big deal out of it... if it's anyone's fault for the publicity of it all it's the media, not the RIAA... they're doing their job. a nd in the end it's done nothing but benefit her, since it's likely (very likely) she won't have to pay a cent in the end, and it'll send a nice message to all other underage MP3 downloaders who think they can get away with it

[Flipside]

The question I am dealing with here is not to do with whether the girl knew what she was doing or not. It is actually completely irrelevant whether she did or not, if ignorance is no defence then knowledge is not a conviction.
You are right, the RIAA is doing precisely what it was created to do, but it has hit a stumbling block in the form of the very thing they represent, the Media.
There is the recording Media, who are being made more and more aware of the fact they are being ripped off. Regardless of whether people choose to download MP3's or not, I did not say that I myself used Kazaa either, you will note I classed it as both illegal AND wrong.
What I am saying is that the other kind of Media, i.e the Visual Media got their hands on the story, and it all broke loose. Why is this? Because the visual Media pamper to the wishes of the majority, it is financially the only route they can take. However, the record companies churn out Media and expect to [I[Change the public[/I]. It's all very well paying money for an album thats playlist goes 'crap, crap, crap, oh I like this one, crap, crap.... etc'. There is the option of buying singles of course, but unless you are into Britney Spears or some other such teenybopper music, happy hunting!
Personally, I write my own music and listen to old school Vangelis and FSOL, so it doesn't bother me, but I can understand peoples frustration.
At the end of the day, I do not condone the sharing of MP3's, but it WILL continue, I did not condone chip cloning, but how many people here have an Athlon processor?  The Music Industry will just have be competitive like the rest of the market if they wish to survive., and stop using the RIAA to throw their tantrums.

Flipside

[Stunaep]

Originally posted by CP5670


So I know what a first-grader thinks like. And what is a "good people's person?"
 

Exactly my point. You don't. Having seen first graders in your life doesn't make you know what they think like. Having SOME social skills helps

[CP5670]

Ok methinks everyone is forgetting that CP argues simply for the sake of arguing...

Just ignore. Why is that so hard?

The answer to that is simple: everyone in this thread is doing the same, and ignoring it would deprive them of extra fun. Remember, if they didn't like arguing, they would not be in here, as nobody here can get anything out of this aside from possibly fun.

Exactly my point. You don't. Having seen first graders in your life doesn't make you know what they think like. Having SOME social skills helps

um, I can still observe others interacting without bothering with it myself. I will quote myself here instead of writing the same thing again:

I think you agree on what I said about the first-grader's behavior, since none of you are arguing on that point itself but keep going onto something else.

[Stunaep]

Okay, I'm taking psychology classes at school, I've got 7 years worth of experience in communicating with them, and I most definately know that in such cases they will NOT give you the finger.

Okay, so maybe they will give YOU the finger.

They can give the finger to each-other, to people they feel they're equal with. Adults are bigger, more evolved, and generally a symbol of power. Work it out.

Anyway,

No it doesn't. even if they make CDs $0.01, the majority of people are just too lazy to go out, when on their fast internet connection they can download an entire CD and burn it in the time it would take them to get in the car, go to Walmart or Target or wherever, and buy it... plus they don't waste gas, plus they can be downloading it and doing something else in the meantime...

This has to be the SINGLE, MOST STUPID argument I have ever heard. CD quality, in any case is better than MP3 quality. Mp3 quality reaches CD quality at 300 kbps and up. With CD's you get 20 songs at once, you don't have to wait for an hour to download them, then buy a CDR to burn them, then wait for a quarter hour to finish them burning. You get a guarantee that they work on EVERY cd player. You get a cool cover. If the cd's would cost about $6-7, insdead of the $16-17, I'd buy them daily. Not only because it's cheaper, but it makes me feel like I'm paying enough for what I get, therefore I spend more.

[Ace]

Originally posted by Stunaep
You get a guarantee that they work on EVERY cd player.

Not really, thanks to the 'copyprotection' placed on some audio CDs thanks to our RIAA and big business buddies we all love and buy from otherwise they wouldn't be so large. Missing bits that some CD players can't compensate for...

[CP5670]

Okay, I'm taking psychology classes at school, I've got 7 years worth of experience in communicating with them, and I most definately know that in such cases they will NOT give you the finger.

Okay, so maybe they will give YOU the finger.

They can give the finger to each-other, to people they feel they're equal with. Adults are bigger, more evolved, and generally a symbol of power. Work it out.

I suppose you have tried it? This "symbol of power" comes mainly from their behavior; the adult will retain it until he starts throwing petty insults, at which point the kid will see an equal who is ready to compete instead of putting himself on "higher" ground like other adults, and the rest is obvious. Nobody is going to spontaneously burst out crying because of that.

But we have strayed off topic here. Tell me exactly how the adult could better cope with this particular situation than the 12-year old who has her parents. The girl is in a much better position than any adult would be, because her parents will be the ones doing the talking, paying and whatever else.

[01010]

Originally posted by CP5670


I suppose you have tried it? This "symbol of power" comes mainly from their behavior; the adult will retain it until he starts throwing petty insults, at which point the kid will see an equal who is ready to compete instead of putting himself on "higher" ground like other adults, and the rest is obvious. Nobody is going to spontaneously burst out crying because of that.

But we have strayed off topic here. Tell me exactly how the adult could better cope with this particular situation than the 12-year old who has her parents. The girl is in a much better position than any adult would be, because her parents will be the ones doing the talking, paying and whatever else.

I agree that the 12 year old is in a much more comfortable situation than the college students being sued for $15,000 however the fact that what is being done is morally bankrupt still remains.

Stealth: Having 1000 mp3's is not an indication of knowledge as far as I can tell, also, I have over 1600 MP3's and almost all are CD rips, which I feel I'm well within my rights as a consumer to do,  so how do you know that this is not the case with this young girl?

[Kamikaze]

I'm rather tired about all this "RIAA is perfectly okay since they're on the legal side of things", yes in a court this is the case, until/unless law changes. However, industry works by serving people, namely consumers. There are a few ways of making money off of consumers, you can try to brainwash them into accepting your ways even if they're a disadvantage to consumers, you can try to accept the consumer demands on distribution, you can monopolize and try to kill competition to force acceptance, make a better product and so on. The action to take depends on other factors.

With the RIAA it is clear that a large portion of consumers are unhappy and will not "consume" the RIAAs product, mainly because of better alternatives (competition). What the RIAA needs to do is compete with the competition outside of suing them to death, because that'll never end the issue (unless p2p is completely banned or something). They also need to accept consumer demands.

At the moment they are gambling on the judicial system being on their side and "toughing it out", instead of "evolving". I think this is mainly out of greed, possibly out of uncertainty (of business success [However, they do know their old model used to work, they're trying to force it to still work]). This isn't acceptable for consumers (their values are more affecting than the industries, assuming they can think for themselves).

A change benefits unhappy consumers, but what can they do? It seems doubtful the RIAA would listen to polite suggestions, requests, and demonstrations. So consumers are left with a few choices, deprive the RIAA of income to force a conclusion or let the RIAA keep their consuming desires in check. Whatever the technical legalities of the matter, industry cannot survive without consumers and consumers want industry to serve them how they like, it is natural and expected for consumers to act towards a better balance.

I think simply saying "IT'S ILLEGAL!" is being short-sighted (however I believe that it is probably better to damage the RIAA using legal means, like just listening to independent music or buying music from a reasonable source).

[Tiara]

Originally posted by Woolie Wool


Why not? Do they have to pay a fee to sue?

No, we have something we call 'common sense'.