We Are The Winners!

[squishyboboball]

Now see, I must be an anachronism. I believe in buying the CD if its really good stuff. I just like to check out all the tracks before I give someone $20. Supporting the artist IS important to me, as long as the artist remembers who they need to survive. I like supporting Ani Difranco and the other RBR records folks because they DON'T play RIAA's little games.

I also only think its worth money if the artist has talent. Artists like Coldplay, Fisher, Tori Amos, etc deserve every penny, while posers like Avril Levigne deserve to be taken out and shot for crimes against art. If I hear "Complicated" one more time I'm going on a 4 state killing spree, I swear.

So, people who work for a living get paid, people who sing into a synthesizer that does all the work for them get reemed.

[Illuminati]

I can agree with that, and personally I do use a system of 'Try to see if should buy' - But the ones which I buy are usually the ones which I know are worth my money, both in their price & what they can do. It means that I can truly buy the ones which IMO deserve to be paid for with my small amount of cash.

Isn't a shame that the only way to truly 'demo' how a program performs is to get a hacked copy of the full thing and try that? :unsure:

[gonenuts15792]

I would pay for the music if they had it for download for 5 cents and then you could do anything you want with it.

[Damnatory]

Originally posted by Longdong@14 June 2003 - 10:05
if they made CD's and DVD's a reasonable price in the first place they might not have been in such a dilemma. I don't see why i should pay £15 for a music CD which costs PENNY's to make. Same goes with the DVD's, i think £5 is more reasonable!
Agreed

Except in the US it sometimes depends on the distributer on how much they tack on as their price. The best place to buy CD's in town is Best Buy, a local electronics store, where CD's cost between $13.00 to $18.00. Most other places around here charge between $16.00 and $24.00.

Now why the hell would you charge that much money for CD's when you know that people can go out and buy 100 CD-r's for alittle more then you would pay for 1 CD. Then I can save 99 CD's worth of money on things that are mortally needed. (like food for my family)

100 x $15.00 = $1500 = Fuck the RIAA

1 x $34.00 (100 CD-r)= Major money saver = Still fuck the RIAA :angry:

[tuvas]

I would probably just turn on the radio if they start suing people like the rumor's going around, but hey, maybe that's just me.

[Meehowski]

Q.I.D.

[RealitY]

Originally posted by Damnatory@28 June 2003 - 19:56
100 x $15.00 = $1500 = Fuck the RIAA

1 x $34.00 (100 CD-r)= Major money saver = Still fuck the RIAA :angry:
Hey I get 100 CDR's for $19.95.

That's $0.20 each
Labels, electric etc...
Final product well under $0.50.

After all these years...
Who's getting f**ked now.

[ISthisLEGAL.com]

ITS THE RIAA THAT WANT TAKING TO COURT..... £20 FOR A DVD AND THEY HAVE THE CHEEK TO CALL US THIEFS!

[sparsely]

/me now shares files at RIAA_BOYCOTT_Buy_No_CDs@Kazaa

let em sue.
bitches.
<_<

[Darkshade]

:huh: I personally thought that corporations like Microsoft would be the first to sue for the bootlegging of over-hundred-dollar-computer (overpriced) programs. I guess they haven&#39;t because broadband is not yet widely spread and those programs are quite large. Oh, btw, I don&#39;t feel bad bootlegging from the media because I feel it&#39;s a fair exchange for the constant bombardment of advertising from the media. With all of the damn advertising, they should be sued for attempted mind control :unsure:

[winters]

MS doesn&#39;t care because they make the majority of their money from selling their products directly to computer companies like dell who put their OS on their computers. These companies pay for the os which then gets included in the price (at a discount usually). I dont think they would make much money from people going to the store to buy their OS. Businesses are where they get most of their money aswell since they have to buy copies of the OS for all of their cpus.

And programs like adobe are used by video editors not normal people since most wouldn&#39;t be willing to shill out &#036;900. Businesses are again willing to so they make most of their money there.

It would seem obvious that the RIAA would be the frist to attack because they are the ones that are getting everything stolen from them. They make huge profits off their sales seen by artists making millions of dollers. Even though artists sitll make millions of dollers they are alarmed by the rising amount of users and the comonness of file sharing. However while they think they will be getting a advantage over the public for suing the people who host massive amounts of FILES wether they may be music or not they cannot tell (if the person has no find more from same user disabled through kazza lite). What will happen is that many of the existing people who file share will only buy artists that they truely like and will just listen to the radio for music or move to another form of pirating or just stop buying music all together. There will be some people who will move back to IRC for music but even there you could be targeted. Eventually some artists will get mad at their declining fan base and decide to drop away from the RIAA and start selling their work for realistic amounts of money.

And while it may be the dream of many of the people here that technology will prevail and beat them i think that they have already cornered the filesharing community.

They will soon lower the leval and start attacking even small music piraters. The only filesharers who will be safe will be ones with dynamic ips (because unless the ISP logs who is using what ip at that time it will be hard to say which customer was sharing hte files) or the people who decide to get fake ips and just route through them. Then the RIAA will try to get that ip addy and they wont find a company.

They cant get the filesharing company because it isn&#39;t in a country with copyright laws. So the only place left to attack is the users.

The RIAA already gets paid for blank cds (which is utter bs) they shouldn&#39;t start bitching but however make their product either more affordable or more worth buying rather than downloading (ie having dvd&#39;s with music vids or extra footage or by lowering the price.

I cant even really see what is going to happen with this because there are many possibilities and many factors. Im just going to wait it out and download what music i will (i dont download much music mostly videos).

[RealitY]

Originally posted by winters@29 June 2003 - 04:42
The only filesharers who will be safe will be ones with dynamic ips (because unless the ISP logs who is using what ip at that time it will be hard to say which customer was sharing hte files)
Well, I have a dynamic IP which via my router I can change my MAC and have a new IP every 2 minutes, though my ISP does keep a complete log for about 90 days.

[Damnatory]

Originally posted by Darkshade@29 June 2003 - 03:15
bootlegging of over-hundred-dollar-computer (overpriced) programs.
Yeah no shit, like Adobe Photoshop 7 = &#036;659 and Macromedia Flash MX = &#036;650 for a god damned program.

K-lite&#39;s saved me over &#036;3000 in programs so far.

[RealitY]

You would have never bought them anyway, ya theif. :lol: :lol:

[MenderOne]

Riaa should get a LIFE, hell even without filesharing, we can STILL get music for free, just record it off the radio :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: what&#39;s the F**kin difference , JEEZ Wake UUUP RIAA&#33;

[MattP]

84 users onine | 5,119 files (85 GB)

Is everyone becoming paranoid of being sued? Then if that is the case than ask yourself who truly has won.