5 Reasons Not To Be Afraid Of The Riaa

[totallymadd]

Haven't even thought 4 once, that RIAA or anybody would pursue me for my "ILLEGAL" mp3's here in Poland.
Antipiracy storm raised few yrs ago by media, passed through, and everybody has forgot about it.
Fuck'em....

[Money Fist]

RIAA dont scare me
its that damn BSA connection that my peer guardian keeps rejecting

(who knows maybe they are keeping logs on all rejected connections
and one day will change to a whole new IP then retry all rejected)

I HOPE THERE IS NOT P2P JUDGMENT DAY
BEING PLANNED

[bozbontins]

In europe only twats who mass download to make a profit with bootlegs(in other words abusing the ideals of P2P sharing) need fear the RIAA.
u may call me a whiner but im not chicken to show my excellent films to share and any twat who doesnt show their files will get F off from me!!!!!

[Sid Hartha]

Originally posted by handsup@21 October 2003 - 21:40
Whats about classical music. I mean real classical music like wagner, berlioz etc.
These guys died long time ago. Copyrights?

cu hands

Not the music, but the recorded performance is copyright.

All those musicians in the orchestra - they eat, pay bills, etc.

[packman]

Originally posted by toddiscool@21 June 2003 - 06:09
I would count canada out of that list, and probably the rest. American laws are american laws. Our ISp's are still not aloud to give out our identities, our privacy is actually protected still (for how long who knows but right now it is). (canada that is)

Correct

That may be true but they still have the three stooges!



Jean Chrétien, Shawinigan, scary stuff.

[internet.news]

Originally posted by Paul@20 June 2003 - 14:38
1) RIAA is an American organisation. They have absolutely no juristiction outside the USA.

2) Potential targets of the RIAA are only people who download and upload several GB per DAY.

3) Even if you are one of the few who download so much music, then Kazaa Lite has an option to hide your list of shared files. It will then look like you share nothing at all.

4) There are millions of people in the USA alone that participate in file-sharing. Everytime the RIAA is in the news, they have 'caught' only a handfull of people (only 0 to 5 people per month&#33. So your changes of getting 'caught' are less than 1 to a million. Or virtually 0 when one of the reasons above applies.

5) Those few people that got 'caught' usually only received a warning letter. There are only a few cases known of people who actually got a fine. The highest one was $7,500 for some student that was sharing 1 MILLION mp3 files.


Conclusion: happy filesharing to everybody

one million wow, how many gb and how many cds that would be ?

[snez]

I picked up an upload for a software file.. The user was [[DONT]][[[F..K]]][AROUND].. The upload was aborted. Scared the pants off of me. This is with the privacy option. Is there really any safety.

[Rosepetal]

What I find interesting, is that it may not be all the sharing of music that has caused a decrease in sales of CD's (as reported on my radio station's news as to why they are suing everyone). It had already been studied and the fact that the U.S. and Cdn economies went down, spending in general went down. In addition, people have been sharing music since tapes were created. I made many tapes from friends and vice versa. Did that stop me from buying tapes. NO. I download some songs and have made some CD's but I have also bought CD's of those same artists b/c I knew I really liked the songs from previously listening to the downloaded versions. Why then was it not made illegal to share the music back then? Only now that we are connected to more people. It's rediculous, if you ask me.

And yes, in response to a previous comment about CD prices not be a scam, you would be correct b/c the majority of the public is obviously willing to pay for them at that price. But how about the fact that it is a scam in the sense that the artist barely makes a profit off of the sale of a CD, the producing company makes most of it and really does not pay the artist the amount they deserve. Artists make most of their money from royalties, so I guess the record company CEO's are more angry that they did not get a larger increase in their pay and bonuses which are grossly large.

[orcutt989]

thank you to whomever posted this.. i am terribly reassurred now.. i used to always shit my pants when i read about something. thank you so much. i dont leave peerguardian on all the time.

Originally posted by logan_scott_05@22 October 2003 - 01:31
It would take 5.7 years to listen to 1 MILLION mp3s with an average length of 3 minutes!
5.7 yrs??!  Why listen to all that music when you can just burn the ones you need to a CD & be about your business?  Besides who has the time (or the lack of a life) to listen to that many songs?

they dont do it to listen to the songs. they do it to share. so leechers like you can download that Nsync song you wanted.

[Phyltre]

Since the start of this topic, I'm really starting to wonder where this all ends. Obviously, the scare tactics will scare off the less courageous of us; I suspect that this group may be the majority. The Fasttrack system, as we all know, REQUIRES a large number of sharing users to fileshare correctly. The system will not perpetuate itself if the majority of users are scared off, then the reduced factions actually acted against.

P2P is serving a valid capitalist function here; the RIAA is stigmatizing music, not endorsing it by punishing consumers for finding other outlets than itself for a product. From a capitalist (not necessarily legal) standpoint, the consumer almost always goes for the best or most attractive deal. CD's are not that deal anymore. On the hard lines of cash flow, we digital consumers are merely acting predictably.

What the RIAA is 1.trying to gain reprofits and 2.being shortsighted. This is a wonderful way to boost music sales, if it were used properly--a more powerful "pay a monthly fee and download what you want" service has incredible potential here. But, instead, they're breaking all the rules of business; one does not ENTER INTO BATTLE with its target audience (the music lovers).

Anti-RIAA feelings will inevitably (and surely already have) begin to cause changes in the current music industry. The mechanism that has always protected the consumer, that of overriding supply & demand, has already begun to oust an outdated and overinflated marketing system. The will of the consumer can and definitely will assert itself in some fashion.

For the current flux, however, we must somehow stand our ground long enough to force changes. It is the only way the RIAA can be truly defeated. After all, simply because we have a law does not mean it is right. One of the things worse than breaking the law is making (or funding) a law in your own self interest that you know you cannot truly enforce. When a significant portion, a visible percentage of a population (some would say as high as 5-7%) does not see fit to follow a certain law, obviously there is a problem that needs to be addressed. But, of course, the RIAA is only concerned with the simplest, most Gestapo way of making money. Too bad they're turning into a legal Mafia to keep themselves around. And let me assure you--not everything they're doing is legal. They aren't the police, and they're out to make money. Obviously at any cost.

Music will always recover, but the RIAA hopefully won't.

Trust Capitalism!