Riaa

[RealitY]

Originally posted by OlderThanDirt@7 May 2003 - 00:51

I don't think we'll be hereos as the main motive abroad is "greed" for many of us.

To classify file-sharers as merely "thieves," to me, is a far too simplistic tag. But certainly, this is the tag the industry wants to see accepted as the proper tag. They want the public to accept the notion of industry=good and sharing=evil. And more than that, they want sharers themselves to feel the same way ... to feel guilty about what they're doing ... to forget about what's been done to them as music consumers and just "take it up the ol' wazoo."

First I can only add that the "greed" abroad will be, and is to be, used as ammunniton against us all to remove yet another piece of our freedom.

Alhough, the tag may be simple it is REALITY. we are seen as "greedy children" (sorta harmless, but bad) at large, I do not believe anyone sees them as the good guys. In addittion, I personally will feel far from guilty, nor will I forget, or justify what I do by referring to the past.

[RealitY]

Originally posted by Jibbler@7 May 2003 - 04:27
Since I rarely buy music, I miss this the most. I miss overwhelming feeling of standing in front of the CD rack, browsing this Tuesday's new releases. I miss the inner city kid, wearing a Best Buy tshirt, making $5 an hour, cashing me out. And I also miss the perfectly wrapped, yet impossible to open shrinkwrap hologram. What kind of futurist space material is this shit made out of?

C'mon guys, you can't get that online. Can you?

As I do as well, since this expereince is now long forgot, but yet here is a different type of high to be able to get what you want, when you want, and fast (provided you have broadband, as the the experience becomes quite frustrating at 56k), regardless of financial status. What would I call this, well maybe...
Power or Control?

[OlderThanDirt]

First I can only add that the "greed" abroad will be, and is to be, used as ammunniton against us all to remove yet another piece of our freedom.

I agree the "greed" color will be broadbrushed over every P2P user and used as you say, but you and I use P2P for different motives. But, I'm not trying to justify anything by referring to the past. Because file sharers know what the music industry did to them as music consumers ... starting before Napster was even born ... we need to make sure we're not the only people who remember. If necessary, sharers need to rub the public's nose in the misdeeds of the music industry ... even if those misdeeds have nothing to do with a sharer's motive for sharing. More now than ever, when laws are being considered to our detriment, we need to enlighten those who don't know (or who have forgotten) that the industry's sheets are far from clean ... and that a great injustice was given a wrist-slap. By making a black/white situation appear grayer, the public at large (and their lawmakers) might not be so quick to accept those "pieces of freedom" being removed. In fact, some may get downright ornery.

On that note, I have some tentative good news. An abbreviated version of my article has gotten preliminary acceptance by USA Today. It's going before their editorial board for consideration. I should know something soon (I hope), either way. In short, if it gets accepted and published, I'll have done my part to keep this in the public eye. If its rejected, well ... at least I tried.

[OlderThanDirt]

P.S. to last -- Speaking of USA Today, read their May 5th Editorial (click here).

[TIDE-HSV]

Let us know if it gets accepted. I have a contact with them, but, unfortunately, it's with the sports department.

[OlderThanDirt]

Let us know if it gets accepted. I have a contact with them, but, unfortunately, it's with the sports department.

Will do. Hehe, if my luck at getting published holds its recent course, it's not likely. But, hope springs eternal ... especially after reading that editorial I linked to in my last post. Apparently, USA Today doesn't think much of the music industry's mindset. So, my article might meet a friendly eye. Knock on wood.

[RealitY]

Originally posted by OlderThanDirt@7 May 2003 - 20:12
Because file sharers know what the music industry did to them as music consumers

Wow, no matter how much I attemt to play on the other side of the fence (as much as I am willing), I am yet to "beat" you down on days gone past about what the "bigger thief" had done. Don't be confused, I enjoyed your artice, as it could open up a shallow minded view quite easily

First, many file sharers...
Do not partake here for stories they may not even remember.
Most find it "fun and free", and we all love free, even the rich.
There seems to be many that get a thrill in getting it before it can be got.
Many are here for alotta porn, less and less for music.
Not to offend but just the other side of your coin,
are sure you still wish to fight with and for us?

As for me in all my confusion, well after 200+ posts...
I believe as when I was younger, if I cruised to my freinds house and he had a copy of Zep on a new LP, I grabbed the extra high quality tape (mx I think), and spun a copy. Nope didn't pay for it, and if someone wanted to make a copy of mine, go at it. I figuerd the original "dude" owned his and wanted to "share" and so forth. No flatfoot was gonna check my tapes in my walkman and bust me for that while I was jaywalking.

I don't think it matters that you bought that music at one time, nor do I think the act of '82 means crap when potentially crammed up against the DCMA. You do seem to make a case for what you download based on this though, but is this to set you apart from those you are on a crusade with, or do wish to give us purpose in our "greed"?

I am little grown up now and know the REALITY of the law and am concerned with the future to be handed to our children. In all, or at least for the moment, I don't believe they will win. They are just not important enough while being a dying breed to get that much power and control, it's to late, they're desperate, and their train has left, while they st d at the terminal. In the end, either we will be left alone or not (at all).

[Ad]

the RIAA can stick themselves up there ass

[RealitY]

Who is in that picture? I must know.

[OlderThanDirt]

I don't think it matters that you bought that music at one time, nor do I think the act of '82 means crap when potentially crammed up against the DCMA. You do seem to make a case for what you download based on this though, but is this to set you apart from those you are on a crusade with, or do wish to give us purpose in our "greed"?

Sigh. I admit that I feel a bit like Don Quixote, tilting at windmills. But, I guess that's just me. My anger at the music industry ripoff is just a more recent anger. And because of this anger, I'm willing to overlook what you refer to as "greed" in some P2P users. My overall anger, however, runs much deeper than anything the music industry has been doing. For an insight into that, read this short thread. If you want to accept the current REALITY and do nothing about it, that's your choice. There's a much bigger rights battle going on right now of which the electronic battle is just a part. Whenever I can, I let my elected representatives know about it (in writing, not by email which is too easy to ignore). Others do, too. And, whenever I can, I pepper a publisher or two with my thoughts on the issue. Whether or not I make it to print doesn't matter much to me (though getting paid is a good feeling, hehe). But doing something about it does matter ... to me, anyway.

P.S. FWIW, read this recent article as well and pay particular attention to the last sentence:

Just as a government investigation of payola in the 1960s was justified on the grounds of it being in the consumers' interest so too, in my opinion, is a review required into the activities of the RIAA.

Are the sins of the past REALLY of the past ... or are they continuing under some other guise other than MAP? My article, as I said, is meant to keep the RIAA's dirty laundry fresh in the public eye. This article is much more concise.