Invasion of Piracy

So, I recently read about a lady who was charged by the RIAA $80,000 per song for 24 downloaded songs.

I was thinking, isn't making it illegal to download songs an invasion of privacy? On some technicality... Technically, couldn't you possibly be downloading songs just to have them stored on your computer in case of emergency, some scenario in which everything is destroyed, and having these songs stored on your computer increases the likelihood that this music will be salvaged?

Since the only reason it's illegal to download music is that they say it decreases the likelihood that you'll buy albums, since you're already listening to the music for free. Myself, I just store the songs on my computer in case of emergency. Actually, I'm performing a service to the world, IMO. :cheers2:

 

Lol you are performing a data backup?

 

Yes.

 

On second thought, it's actually kind of cool that the RIAA is cracking down on piracy (though the damages are way too steep.) Because nothing's obscure anymore -- you can just download it. There's just way too much.

 

That's not cool AT ALL.
Under the current system, the record companies have the majority of control the Top list has gotten smaller and smaller, the Top 40 is now a Top 20, and through the use of MTV and the like, they tell people what to listen to, and currently, the majority of people buy into it.
This makes music overall, less diverse, the average person's musical knowledge further limited, and the overall quality of the music absolutely irrelevant.

Down with the RIAA. And I applaud musicians like Radiohead, Moby, and Nine Inch Nails that take a stand against the RIAA.
And musicians like REM and Anti-Flag that aren't afraid to leave it's embrace.

And there are still plenty of obscure bands, I hardly ever run into a Focus or Lucifer's Friend band, or fans of the Katies or Casiotone for the Painfully Alone.

 

Who can be fooled into letting MTV determine what they should listen to...should be fooled into it?

You think music is more diverse due to P2P? I think it is kind of faded into shades of gray by it. There are just so many bands. Why should I download any one band over any other band?

I don't know. I'm definitely not pro-coveting your neighbor's money, aka RIAA. But there were good days pre-P2P. Maybe that's just me. When you had to buy the record to have heard a band...seems like pretty good times.

 

None of those bands would be giving there stuff away if they had not already made millions and millions of dollars in the past.

 

Ever heard of royalties, neonspectraltoast?

 

Radiohead made millions by releasing In Rainbows from their website, and allowing people to pay whatever each person thought was right. I felt much more comfortable sparing ten bucks, knowing that almost all of it was going directly to the band.

 

They made millions from the associated merchandise (£40 "discbox" including extra tracks, and a vinyl version of the album) plus, releasing the album in it's standard form (You payed for it). That's where their record label cashed in too. All credit for a good publicity stunt...but I struggle to think they did it all out of the kindness of their heart. It could be true...but I doubt it.

 

Eh, depends.
I think in the case of Trent Reznor, maybe. He helped his amateur friend get set up with a music download thing where you download for free, and thought it was a great way to get his friend''s music exposed and get him shows, and they were somewhat disappointed with how long it took to get him any attention; but obviously, he thought it was a good thing to try.

Noo cause then they're gonna keep blasting it out of their SUVs and grow up to make equally shitty music =(

No. I think it would get more diverse and competitive if P2P was the excepted norm.

But that doesn't mean there can be good times wihtout them.
There were some absolutely great bands the last few decades on the underground, and if they had the internet bands like the Butthole Surfers and Bad Brains could have got more exposed.


I think this song is quite relevant to the thread, I can't remember the book he based it off of, but apparantly it's almost a completely summary/paraphrase

 

NIN's record label collapsed shortly after they left.

Shouldn't they charge her 99 Cents for each song? an eye for an eye, not an arm for a finger nail.

 

That's what I was thinking, I mean, at the most, $5.
Juries are such tools.

 

The millionaire backer. They are the best.

 

Yeah, they are.

 

He wasn't paying for it at all as far as I know. From what I understood from the articles I read on it, they were long time friends and his friend was trying to get into the music business. So Trent Reznor set him up with a website and download system based off the one he uses, and advertised for him a bit.

 

check out the Pirate political party of sweden.

 

Fair enough. The point was, he is a rich dude. It was designed to ultimately SELL records. Not out of altruism.

 

Are you saying I should be paid royalties?

 

Erm, that will be a no.