RIAA gets the finger..

Kelgar · Post by **Kelgar** » August 12, 2003, 3:48 am

...from MIT and Boston College.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... rld/111956

Anyone else find it pretty damn sad that these flakes are going after college kids?

Vaemas · Post by **Vaemas** » August 12, 2003, 8:15 am

I understand what they're trying to do, I just think they're going about it in the wrong way.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » August 12, 2003, 8:33 am

If they had any intelligence at all they would stop wasting gazillion dollars on hunting p2p users down (since they can never stop it anyway, between IRC, newsgroups, p2p users etc) and instead made CDs cheaper or better pay-to-download systems, they would actually earn money instead of losing a ton.

They also bitch and whine about CD sales going down, but they forget that CD sales were unusually high for a long period of time because most people were trading out their vinyls for CDs.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » August 12, 2003, 10:19 am

Porn continues to boast record figures (over 14 Billion last year) and everyone and their grandmother DLs porn. But somehow, porn studios still make a handsome profit.

I completely agree that studios need to adjust/adapt to the current market, not prosecute people and use scare tactics on their consumers. They are avoiding the main issue, which is that people have figured out how badly they are getting gouged for entertainment these days. Who is going to go to the store, buy a CD for $20 and a 100 CDR Spindle for $25, and not notice that something is a little fucked up in the cost ratio?

Am I the only one that remembers record studios saying that CD prices would drop once the technology caught on?

Furthermore, everything I own plays MP3s. Why buy a CD player ($250) and a 10 disc CD changer ($300) for my car, when I can fit 10 CDs worth of music on one disc and play it on a deck that decodes MP3? That's just common sense. Also, why bother buying the CD, converting it to MP3, then burnig it to a disc, when you can just DL the MP3 and eliminate a step in the process?

These companies need to start thinking like a modern day consumer and maybe they'll pull their heads out of their asses. Times have changed. Adapt or die. Either way, they will not get my pity.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » August 12, 2003, 11:13 am

The RIAA is also pissed that people aren't going to buy CDs that only have one good song on them. Before P2P, we didn't have a super easy way to sample before we bought. I'm shedding many a tear for O-Town and other truly suck boy bands not being able to afford all the bling they feel they deserve.

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » August 12, 2003, 12:17 pm

Too fucking bad for the riaa i say, they had people in their companies telling them all the way back in fucking 1998! to adapt or they are going to have problems. But no, the riaa got greedy and now they are fucking paying for it, they stole from us, now we are stealing back

Kargyle · Post by **Kargyle** » August 12, 2003, 12:45 pm

How exactly did they steal from you? I seriously doubt some representative of the RIAA ever stuck a gun in your face and demanded money, and I'm sure they forced you to buy their product. You may have paid more than you would have liked to for a CD, but that isn't really their fault, you bought it of your own volition after all. The RIAA has been guilty of price fixing, and they got dragged into court for it.

Now don't get me wrong, I hate the RIAA, I've been boycotting buying CD's for some time. That is the most effective way to protest to a company or oganization in our country. But, hating the RIAA doesn't suddenly give me the right to download music just because I refuse to support them with my dollars. The only mp3's I download are either a) songs I already own on CD and am too lazy to rip on my own, or b) when I'm trying to decide if a CD is worth buying. I would download a couple of track from the CD and see if they were any good. Now I don't even do that since I've decided I'm willing to buy any CDs.

Anyway, as much as I hate the RIAA, they do have a right to protect their property, however misguided their attempt may be.

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » August 12, 2003, 2:23 pm

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2000/05/cdpres.htm

Back in May 2000 this is what the ftc said

The Federal Trade Commission announced today that it has reached separate settlement agreements with Universal Music and Video Distribution, Sony Corp. of America, Time-Warner Inc., EMI Music Distribution and Bertelsmann Music Group (BMG), the five largest distributors of recorded music who sell approximately 85 percent of all compact discs (CDs) purchased in the United States to end their allegedly illegal advertising policies that affected prices for CDs. The proposed agreements would settle FTC charges that all five companies illegally modified their existing cooperative advertising programs to induce retailers into charging consumers higher prices for CDs, allowing the distributors to raise their own prices. The complaints are the culmination of an extensive industry-wide investigation by the FTC of these practices. The FTC's orders would require all the companies to discontinue their "Minimum Advertised Price" (MAP) programs in their entirety for seven years. The orders contain additional provisions to preclude the companies from maintaining the anticompetitive status quo.

"The FTC estimates that U.S. consumers may have paid as much as $480 million more than they should have for CDs and other music because of these policies over the last three years. These settlements will eliminate these policies and should help restore much-needed competition to the retail music market, consisting of $15 billion in annual sales. Today's news should be sweet music to the ears of all CD purchasers," said Chairman Robert Pitofsky.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » August 12, 2003, 5:23 pm

What does anything in this thread beyond the original post have to do with the RIAA?

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » August 12, 2003, 5:31 pm

that those 5 labels are the top 5 members of the riaa

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » August 12, 2003, 5:37 pm

what difference does that make?

its not the RIAA's job to come up with new ways of distributing music to make the people that steal it happy.

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » August 12, 2003, 5:38 pm

and its also not their job to make cd prices artificially high to rip off customers, or is it?

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » August 12, 2003, 5:39 pm

and its also not their job to make cd prices artificially high to rip off customers, or is it?

Or so the Germans would have you believe...

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » August 12, 2003, 5:42 pm

if that was a joke, it just flew way over my head

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » August 12, 2003, 6:05 pm

Sionistic wrote:and its also not their job to make cd prices artificially high to rip off customers, or is it?

The RIAA? No, it's not. The RIAA doesn't have anything to do with pricing distribution or content.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » August 12, 2003, 6:06 pm

kyoukan wrote:what difference does that make?

its not the RIAA's job to come up with new ways of distributing music to make the people that steal it happy.

If the RIAA wants my money, it IS their job to find a better way than charging me $20 for a fucking CD. It's certainly not MY job.

I'm just glad that they're not gonna be able to litigate away our Internet freedoms and privacy as easily as it initially seemed when they mass-filed the legal papers in DC.

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » August 12, 2003, 7:23 pm

kyoukan wrote:
Sionistic wrote:and its also not their job to make cd prices artificially high to rip off customers, or is it?
The RIAA? No, it's not. The RIAA doesn't have anything to do with pricing distribution or content.

the leaders of the riaa were selling about 85% of the cds at the time, i think they have a HUGE part in pricing!
oh and also

its not the RIAA's job to come up with new ways of distributing music to make the people that steal it happy.

no, they dont have to, but any business person will tell you that a company that fails to adapt to changes in the market will fail. Sueing your customers isnt going to make them happy either.
Take a look at this site. http://www.buymusic.com
While the site in its current state sucks, its still a step in the right direction. If they made this site 6 years ago, they would hardly have the problems they have now, but they ignored people inside their own company telling them to do it. Now they are paying for their mistake.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » August 12, 2003, 8:38 pm

masteen wrote:If the RIAA wants my money, it IS their job to find a better way than charging me $20 for a fucking CD. It's certainly not MY job.

I'm just glad that they're not gonna be able to litigate away our Internet freedoms and privacy as easily as it initially seemed when they mass-filed the legal papers in DC.

?

The RIAA doesn't want your money. They are a lobby and non-essential governing body for the recording industry.

Blame the record labels, not the people that represent them. It's not the RIAA's job to sell you records.

You're raging against the wrong machine.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » August 12, 2003, 8:43 pm

Sionistic wrote:the leaders of the riaa were selling about 85% of the cds at the time, i think they have a HUGE part in pricing!

The leaders? The leaders being who? The president of the RIAA? You think major record labels are going to listen to some lawyer when it comes to advice on how to make and market music?

no, they dont have to, but any business person will tell you that a company that fails to adapt to changes in the market will fail. Sueing your customers isnt going to make them happy either.
Take a look at this site. http://www.buymusic.com
While the site in its current state sucks, its still a step in the right direction. If they made this site 6 years ago, they would hardly have the problems they have now, but they ignored people inside their own company telling them to do it. Now they are paying for their mistake.

What does any of that have to do with the RIAA? Do you even know what the RIAA is?

And just for arguments sake, exactly why does the fact you don't like how record labels distribute their music make you think you then have a right to steal it?

Kguku · Post by **Kguku** » August 12, 2003, 8:44 pm

kyoukan wrote:
Sionistic wrote:and its also not their job to make cd prices artificially high to rip off customers, or is it?
The RIAA? No, it's not. The RIAA doesn't have anything to do with pricing distribution or content.

"RIAA members create, manufacture and/or distribute approximately 90% of all legitimate sound recordings produced and sold in the United States."

Also..
"Its mission is to foster a business and legal climate that supports and promotes our members' creative and financial vitality."

Which again is THEIR mission statement. Part of that fostering is to come up with solutions to the problem, and to push for new methods of distribution and handling, of which their clients are screaming for, AND The artists themselves have been asking for, however it is lost on the "membership" because if they prove a business model over the internet can work, it'll then allow artists to independalty distribute their own work, and they, the recording industry, would lose out on their inflated prices due to price fixing.

I'm not promoting piracy, but I am against RIAA being jackasses and not actually working to fix the situation, and instead do what they can to scare their customer and try to maintain the status quo.

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » August 12, 2003, 8:55 pm

the riaa represents these labels, so i am going to blame the riaa on these matters

The leaders? The leaders being who? The president of the RIAA? You think major record labels are going to listen to some lawyer when it comes to advice on how to make and market music?

those 5 labels are the biggest sellers in the riaa, what these 5 labels do influences the other labels, so for now i am going to call them the leaders, and of course they arnt going to listen to lawyers when it comes to making money, i never said that, but i have said many times that they didnt even listen to people INSIDE their companies telling them they are going to get in trouble in the next 5 years.

What does any of that have to do with the RIAA? Do you even know what the RIAA is?

yes i know what the riaa is. And as i stated in the begining of this post, they represent the labels, so i will refer to them because its much easier then refering to each and every label.

And just for arguments sake, exactly why does the fact you don't like how record labels distribute their music make you think you then have a right to steal it?

im not the only one that didnt like their distribution, the government didnt like it either. I never once said downloading copyrighted music was legal, I said it was fair. They knew their practices would get them in trouble and they ignored it. Instead of making the internet and people their friends they made them their enemy. And once I beleive they are truly trying to make the customer happy I will stop supporting piracy.
edit: wow that was a big typo

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » August 12, 2003, 9:05 pm

Kguku wrote:"RIAA members create, manufacture and/or distribute approximately 90% of all legitimate sound recordings produced and sold in the United States."

Now were getting somewhere. RIAA members.

"Its mission is to foster a business and legal climate that supports and promotes our members' creative and financial vitality."

Which again is THEIR mission statement. Part of that fostering is to come up with solutions to the problem, and to push for new methods of distribution and handling,

No, all of that fostering is doing what they think is what is going to resolve the situation. At the moment they think that suing the fucking christ out of anyone who downloads music is the right way to go. I don't agree with that, but I don't blame them for trying to do their job.

The RIAA isn't obligated to come up with a new way of distributing music that makes everyone happy.

Your problem (and a lot of other people's problem) is you think that allowing people to pay to download MP3's is some sort of brilliant distribution method that is going to magically stop rampant internet music piracy, make consumers happy, benefit the artists and change the face of the music industry forever in a dazzling shower of happiness and rainbows so joyous that even Lars Ulrich will stop fucking whining. Although it doesn't take a whole lot of brainpower to figure out that that is an even more moronic idea than trying to sue everyone in the world.

If you allow anyone to pay like two dollars to download a perfect digital master MP3 of a song, what is going to stop them from just putting it up on Kazaa or sending it to all their friends anyway? It's not going to benefit the recording industry or artists a whit. Hell somewhere along the line someone had to pay for the music that you are downloading anyway, so who cares where it came from originally, a CD or a legal download from a record label?

The problem with internet piracy and digital copying is exponentially more harmful than pre-internet piracy concerns. Without the internet and digital copying, if I wanted to make a copy of an album for a friend I had to put a second tape in the cassette recorder and play the whole tape in its entirety to copy it. And if he wanted to share his copy then he had to do the same thing. If it was a whole CD I would at least had to burn it onto a CDR. Either way it costs me money and time every time I want to make a copy.

With digital sound files all I have to do is put it out on the internet and let 30 people download it in an hour or a hundred people while I sleep. Then they put it out to 100 more, and those 1000 put it out to 100 more each, etc. etc.

Are you aware of any technology that exists that makes files you would pay a record label to download uncopyable and untransferrable so only you would own it? Do you honestly think an online distribution of download on demand MP3's from record labels would be good? Do you think it would reduce piracy?

Do you really think the major concern of record labels is rogue music artists breaking out and making and distributing music on their own? They can do that now without any difficulty; they just won't benefit from the label's massive marketing and hype machine, great relationships with huge radio corporations like clear channel and experienced and competent tour organizers and administrators, not to mention the millions and millions of dollars labels invest in new artists.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » August 12, 2003, 9:08 pm

Sionistic wrote:the riaa represents these labels, so i am going to blame the riaa on these matters
The leaders? The leaders being who? The president of the RIAA? You think major record labels are going to listen to some lawyer when it comes to advice on how to make and market music?
those 5 labels are the biggest sellers in the riaa, what these 5 labels do influences the other labels, so for now i am going to call them the leaders, and of course they arnt going to listen to lawyers when it comes to making money, i never said that, but i have said many times that they didnt even listen to people INSIDE their companies telling them they are going to get in trouble in the next 5 years.
What does any of that have to do with the RIAA? Do you even know what the RIAA is?
yes i know what the riaa is. And as i stated in the begining of this post, they represent the labels, so i will refer to them because its much easier then refering to each and every label.
And just for arguments sake, exactly why does the fact you don't like how record labels distribute their music make you think you then have a right to steal it?
im not the only one that didnt like their distribution, the government didnt like it either. I never once said downloading copyrighted music was legal, I said it was fair. They knew their practices would get them in trouble and they ignored it. Instead of making the internet and people their friends they made them their enemy. And once I beleive they are truly trying to make the customer happy I will stop supporting piracy.
edit: wow that was a big typo

That's unbelievable. You think stealing is justified because they aren't trying to make you happy.

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » August 12, 2003, 9:17 pm

how did you draw that conclusion? because i said they arnt trying to make their customers happy? fine let me rephrase that. Instead of trying to satisfy their customers they tried to rip them off, but then people learned about it and now they are having these troubles.
They ripped me off, now im ripping them off

Kguku · Post by **Kguku** » August 12, 2003, 10:00 pm

kyoukan wrote:The RIAA isn't obligated to come up with a new way of distributing music that makes everyone happy.

I never stated they are obligated, however, again, part of their own mission statement is to foster a healthy business, and to do that is to think and create new ideas and ways of distributing the work to the customer base.

Your problem (and a lot of other people's problem) is you think that allowing people to pay to download MP3's is some sort of brilliant distribution method that is going to magically stop rampant internet music piracy, make consumers happy, benefit the artists and change the face of the music industry forever in a dazzling shower of happiness and rainbows so joyous that even Lars Ulrich will stop fucking whining. Although it doesn't take a whole lot of brainpower to figure out that that is an even more moronic idea than trying to sue everyone in the world.

Again, I never stated that this was the end all and be all solution, however it is a step in the right direction Will it stop piracy? No. Did I say it will? No. Did you jump to conclusions thinking I was some sort of brain dead LONG LIVE TEH INTARNET BUSINESNORZ)ZR) peddlar? Yes. No model will ever be perfect, and there never will be an overall solution to the problem. But if you offer a multitude of venues for people to purchase something that they want, at reasonable prices, you cut down on what the RIAA is trying to fight, which is the casual pirater, who if given an affordable alternate and EASY means, will take it.

Do you honestly think an online distribution of download on demand MP3's from record labels would be good? Do you think it would reduce piracy?

Yes, I do. Why? Because it gives people choices and options. Choices that the PUBLIC, which is the people who PURCHASE the music, what they have been asking for. But with reading your post, you seem to come across that thinking maintaining the status quo, and not working towards satisfying your customers is how a business should work. If I took that philosophy at my work, I'd be out of a job, because my customers would be going elsewhere. Right now there is not much in the way of alternative choices, and the record companies want to keep it like that because they know it will result in lost sales on their end.

Do you really think the major concern of record labels is rogue music artists breaking out and making and distributing music on their own? They can do that now without any difficulty; they just won't benefit from the label's massive marketing and hype machine, great relationships with huge radio corporations like clear channel and experienced and competent tour organizers and administrators, not to mention the millions and millions of dollars labels invest in new artists.

This I do think is a concern for record companies. Why? Because this runs the risk of cutting into their profits by empowering artists with an easier method of being independant yet still distributing their work to the masses.

Also note that the labels massive marketing and hype machine was already abused to help price fix CD costs at an inflated rate, which they were caught on. I have no doubt there is probably some other dirty book keeping behind closed doors as well, but that's life.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » August 12, 2003, 11:05 pm

I've never really heard of a massive public outcry of alternative ways to buy music. I only ever hear it in "this is why I steal music" arguments. Is the general public really totally demanding a way of delivering legitimately purchased music digitally via the internet? I'm not really a market researcher in this area so I don't know, but my first guess would be no.

Also, it doesn't take a major record label to cut, record, print and distribute an album. You can do it for relatively cheap if you want. The advantage of doing it with a label is using their marketing clout to get stores to stock it and people to want to buy it. When you sign a deal with a label, you are signing it to get their support, not to use their recording studios for free.

If music was available digitally on the internet via major record labels absolutely nothing would change in that aspect.

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » August 12, 2003, 11:13 pm

imusic had about 5 million paid downloads, that shows people are willing to pay for music, and that was on mac, if it was pc then there should be more, im saying should because buymusic.com hasnt been up for too long yet, not enough time to determine it a sucess or not. But judging by thier selection and low user-friendly browsing it looks grim

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » August 12, 2003, 11:22 pm

Hi. My name is Bubba Grizz and I download music that I didn't pay for. Am I worried that I may get caught and get in big trouble? Not really but I do have my concerns. I don't feel that I download all that much music to really get noticed. Maybe 2-3 songs a quarter if that.

Would I consider paying to download songs from a legitimate site? I don't know for sure but I am leaning towards no. If I can find the song I am looking for someplace like Kazaa I would most likely download it there. If I really needed the song for something (wedding, bday, web design) and I had no recourse but to either buy the cd or pay to download it, I would pay to download it.

Question: Is it legal to take a CD you own and rip the tracks into mp3's and put them on your computer?

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » August 12, 2003, 11:37 pm

its legal, you are allowed to have digital back ups of media you own, its the sharing thats ticking off the riaa

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » August 13, 2003, 8:16 am

The silly thing is, for me I quite often use MP3s to preview CDs I am considering buying. So in fact it works pretty much like going to the store and listening through the CD, just that I don't have to actually go there in case I don't like it.

In other words, I might download illegal music but I sure as hell still buy CDs. They don't lose money on me, and I know a lot of others that do the same thing.

I am also one of those who might consider paying to download high quality songs. Music is a huge part of my life, and I want good quality for it. At the same time, I got all of my CDs in MP3 format as well since that is what I use on the discman, the MP3 player I use to work out etc.

So final word is.. they wont manage to stop illegal downloads and they are silly to waste money fighting it instead of working with it.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » August 13, 2003, 9:39 am

Gotta love the bitorrent pirating whore called Kyoukan attacking others

masteen · Post by **masteen** » August 13, 2003, 10:43 am

The artists aren't getting rich from CD sales. The only ones who get any kind of decent cut of their record sales are the really big acts. To say that we're stealing from the artists is a lie. We're stealing from the record companies.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » August 13, 2003, 11:08 am

George Carlin once said... "Have you ever noticed that most of the women who are against abortion you wouldn't want to fuck in the first place?"

I think that statement applies to this situation.

Marb

Post by **Sylvus** » August 13, 2003, 12:25 pm

Kylere wrote:Gotta love the bitorrent pirating whore called Kyoukan attacking others

Read the thread again, a little more carefully this time. Nowhere in the thread did she attack anyone for piracy. In fact, her first several posts were trying to clarify what the RIAA actually was. Then she moved on to attack someone's justification for why stealing isn't wrong.

When you're launching a personal crusade against someone, having your facts straight only strengthens your position. Of course, it could just be that saying words like "whore" makes you giggle. If that's the case, by all means, carry on.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » August 13, 2003, 12:39 pm

one thing that is for sure is that media companies are totally fucked.

they think they are fucked on the music side?

DVD burners are $150 now and media is $1 per disc.

they are just trying to figure out now how to handle digital music piracy, and with the proliferation of high speed connections all over the place, the average joe is pretty close to becoming a movie pirate as well.

media companies are totally fucked. they have no strategy and they are trying to go about the process in an impossible way. A legal strategy will fail.

The only route to a successful strategy is to provide a solid market alternative. Whether or not the RIAA is "responsible" for doing this or not, this is the only route in my opinion that will achieve their desired result, and that is recouperating a portion of their lost revenue stream. The old days are gone forever.

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » August 13, 2003, 12:45 pm

the problem is that americans love instant gratification. Why wait for a movie to come out on video when you can download it to view it at home? While i doubt movie theaters will go away, I beleive we are going to see movies comming out on home versions sooner and sooner.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » August 13, 2003, 12:50 pm

Sionistic wrote:the problem is that americans love instant gratification. Why wait for a movie to come out on video when you can download it to view it at home? While i doubt movie theaters will go away, I beleive we are going to see movies comming out on home versions sooner and sooner.

i prefer to see GOOD movies in the theater, because my TV sux. My stereo is awesome, but the TV blows. SO i could either sink $1200 into a nice 36" HDTV monitor, or i could go see 120+ movies. And since i go to about 3-4 movies a year, that pretty much careers me through the rest of my natural life to get to the break even point

i had burned Signs on VCD before it came out, just to do it. And VCD sucks dick. I cant believe anybody would watch that shit. But DVD is a different ballgame. It just depends on if the source is going to be final release or what type of pre-release edit (which there are tons of in movies).

Anyways, yeah lots will watch it at home, but for me getting out of the house, going to a nice movie with the wife still offers things that can't be replicated in the home (yet).

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » August 13, 2003, 12:56 pm

going to a nice movie with the wife still offers things that can't be replicated in the home (yet).

Just find a group of kids in your neighborhood and pay them to sit behind your couch at home and talk the entire time you watch the movie. Add a cell phone or two, and possibly even a 6' 2" man with a cowboy hat on to sit in front of you, and I think you've pretty much nailed the theater experiance.

Drive-ins > Theaters

You're in your own little world at a drive-in.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » August 13, 2003, 1:04 pm

LOL

yeah well i usually go to movies the kiddies arent really interested in

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » August 13, 2003, 1:09 pm

Voronwë wrote:one thing that is for sure is that media companies are totally fucked.

they think they are fucked on the music side?

DVD burners are $150 now and media is $1 per disc.

they are just trying to figure out now how to handle digital music piracy, and with the proliferation of high speed connections all over the place, the average joe is pretty close to becoming a movie pirate as well.

media companies are totally fucked. they have no strategy and they are trying to go about the process in an impossible way. A legal strategy will fail.

The only route to a successful strategy is to provide a solid market alternative. Whether or not the RIAA is "responsible" for doing this or not, this is the only route in my opinion that will achieve their desired result, and that is recouperating a portion of their lost revenue stream. The old days are gone forever.

Exactly. There pants are down, all the way to the ankles. Now, if they were on the ball, and had the foresight to to plan & implement a legal distribution system, they could make money on it...or could they? As it stand right now, when I go looking for music online, I very often have to go through a big search to find a QUALITY rip of the songs I am looking for. More often than not I find 128kps MP3's that sound lke shit. 192 is mucho better, but I can still hear a definite difference between them and music from CD. Higher bitrates are tough for me to find easily.
NOW if the labels had there act together, and had availible easy access for a LARGE number of songs/CD's at a good quality bitrate for a good price, they might be in business...for a while at least. Buyers would then put these songs up on their share list, and it would be availible for free...so then why pay for it, like kyoucan said.
Whether or not the labels can put together a profitable internet MP3 service is VERY questionable, but had they got in this at a much early datem I'd say they would be able to reap at least some success.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » August 13, 2003, 1:15 pm

exactly skogen.

i would buy shit left and right if i knew i was getting a quality MP3.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » August 13, 2003, 1:18 pm

Fairweather Pure wrote:Drive-ins > Theaters

You're in your own little world at a drive-in.

Drive-ins absolutely suck. Mono sound, yay.

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » August 13, 2003, 1:18 pm

yup, p2p programs are flooded with those fake and low quality mp3's. The riaa claims they had nothing to do with them, funny that when hackers messed up riaa's website they found tons of those very looped files

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » August 13, 2003, 1:23 pm

Personally I usually only DL music to see if I like it as Skogen stated the quality just isn't there. If I really like it I'll go buy the CD. Maybe that is the key, the record companies should offer 96bit or lower version so people could get a sample of if it sucks or not (note this would kill Metallica these days as their new disc sucks big green donkey balls). Then if you wanted the quality version you could go purchase it at the store FOR $8 to $10, no more of this $16 crap. They would still make a shitload of money, probably even more than that have been recently if they could do something like this.

My question is... how do I get on the "Cool - all the popular people are there" banner next time

Cheers!
Marb

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » August 13, 2003, 1:24 pm

Drive-ins absolutely suck. Mono sound, yay.

I'll take a wild guess here and assume you haven't been to a drive-in movie in a decade or two.

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » August 13, 2003, 1:25 pm

what i think would really help record labels would be to give out more samplers. Lets say you buy a cd, coupled with that cd is a sampler cd with various artists from the label

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » August 13, 2003, 3:21 pm

Sylvus wrote:
Kylere wrote:Gotta love the bitorrent pirating whore called Kyoukan attacking others
Read the thread again, a little more carefully this time. Nowhere in the thread did she attack anyone for piracy. In fact, her first several posts were trying to clarify what the RIAA actually was. Then she moved on to attack someone's justification for why stealing isn't wrong.

When you're launching a personal crusade against someone, having your facts straight only strengthens your position. Of course, it could just be that saying words like "whore" makes you giggle. If that's the case, by all means, carry on.

Nah Sylvus, but when a pirate is getting symantic with other pirates when in fact all are thieves it irks me. Reality is that MP3 sharing is wrong, fact is that it is not going to go away anymore than people making cassettes for their friends did.

Too bad Napster had to come about, when it was FTP servers no one cared at a corporate level, but once the AOLusers get involved things get silly.

Truant · Post by **Truant** » August 13, 2003, 3:23 pm

Sylvus wrote:
Kylere wrote:Gotta love the bitorrent pirating whore called Kyoukan attacking others
Read the thread again, a little more carefully this time. Nowhere in the thread did she attack anyone for piracy. In fact, her first several posts were trying to clarify what the RIAA actually was. Then she moved on to attack someone's justification for why stealing isn't wrong.

When you're launching a personal crusade against someone, having your facts straight only strengthens your position. Of course, it could just be that saying words like "whore" makes you giggle. If that's the case, by all means, carry on.

It's pointless. Kylere just searches for all posts by kyoukan and then follows them up by saying something completely offbase with the argument and calling her cunt or whore.

Wow sounds a lot like some other people on this board too now that I mention it.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » August 13, 2003, 3:40 pm

Nah Truant, in this case she is a whore, a whore who changes sides in a argument just to argue, AKA a hypocrit.

Truant · Post by **Truant** » August 13, 2003, 3:56 pm

Can't you read? She didn't change sides. She never said anything about pirating being wrong. She was criticizing those who said the RIAA made them pirate because they didn't want to pay the cost of a cd at a store. (which by the third definition of whore, would make them whores, not kyoukan)

Read, please.