Analogman Posted October 2, 2007 Author Share Posted October 2, 2007 File-sharing on the docket: groundbreaking RIAA case goes to trial Tuesday By Eric Bangeman | Published: October 01, 2007 - 11:10PM CT Duluth, MN Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Kicking_Television Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 I would imagine that college kids are big, if not the biggest, filesharers, so scaring the shit out of a certain percentage of them and perhaps ruining a few spring breaks probably goes a long way. I dunno. I would never hook up to one of those P2P things. I have enough problems as it is. My campus, which supplies every student with a laptop and free internet is in the top 20 colleges targeted by the RIAA in the nation and our campus bought a server which blocks P2P from their servers. It may be a pain in the ass but I think the university in the long run is saving their students some money from lawsuits lol. Check it, the penalties aren't too stiff Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Analogman Posted October 3, 2007 Author Share Posted October 3, 2007 Sony BMG's chief anti-piracy lawyer: "Copying" music you own is "stealing" By Eric Bangeman | Published: October 02, 2007 - 09:12PM CT Duluth, Minnesota Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ction Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 So, wait...me ripping an mp3 from a CD I purchased is music theft? Awesome. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
cryptique Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 So, wait...me ripping an mp3 from a CD I purchased is music theft? Awesome.Now that I know you're a criminal, you're even sexier than before. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
a.miller Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 Note to the RIAA: WAKE UP! Times are changing and you should too. It's like trying to sell horse trailers outside of an automobile plant. With the advent of home studios and savvy independent labels, big record companies need to serve only as a distribution channel. No more million-dollar studio bills, etc. No more fucking the artist by paying them $.50 per record. If I were the RIAA, I'd probably be upset too. But engaging in litigation as opposed to restructuring you business plan is a large mistake. Why not spend that litigation money on bringing in new people with new ideas on how to save your corporation, instead of attacking those people that allowed the gross success in the first place. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Synthesizer Patel Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 I think this bears repeating. Whose revenues aren't harmed by illegal music downloads? Everybody who can't afford to go down the old fashioned route of music promotion. If you can put a song out on the internet for free and it be spred for free around the world, then every record you sell as a result will be profit, as you're paying nothing for promotion. However, if you spend an insane amount of money on pushing a band, then you've got to sell a lot of records before you break even. Hopefully that goes some way to answering your question. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
stickman Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 They just sent out more letters pretty recently. A couple of kids at my school got caught. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ction Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 Everybody who can't afford to go down the old fashioned route of music promotion. If you can put a song out on the internet for free and it be spred for free around the world, then every record you sell as a result will be profit, as you're paying nothing for promotion. However, if you spend an insane amount of money on pushing a band, then you've got to sell a lot of records before you break even. Hopefully that goes some way to answering your question. I'm probably just reading your post incorrectly, but huh? If you don't spend a lot of money promoting a band then all money you do end up getting from cd sales is pure profit? Is this a special deal bands and labels work out with studios and pressing plants before hand? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Synthesizer Patel Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 I'm probably just reading your post incorrectly, but huh? If you don't spend a lot of money promoting a band then all money you do end up getting from cd sales is pure profit? Is this a special deal bands and labels work out with studios and pressing plants before hand? Yeah, if you want it to be. Or you could just take it to mean the difference in "profit" between a band that spent money on conventional advertising, to a band that used more modern/internet methods - disregarding any other element, as that could be viewed as equal in both instances, and therefore of no value to the point being made. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ction Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 I honestly have no idea what you are talking about now. But I already know that I'm going to disagree when I figure it out. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Synthesizer Patel Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 I honestly have no idea what you are talking about now. But I already know that I'm going to disagree when I figure it out. Bill has 1 bag of apples (200 apples in a bag), and Jamal has 1 bag of apples (again, 200 apples in a bag).They both grew them in the same conditions, paying for the same local farmer to harvest their crop - the farmer charged Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ction Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 Which one made the most money? I still can't figure out how any of this relates to the blog entry by Virgil (Suburban Home Records) describing in detail how illegal downloading is hurting his bands and label. Please try another analogy. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Synthesizer Patel Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 I still can't figure out how any of this relates to the blog entry by Virgil (Suburban Home Records) describing in detail how illegal downloading is hurting his bands and label. Please try another analogy. Oh, . . see . . . it never did. It related to the thing I originally quoted by Ninjas E. Liverwurst. That being, "I think this bears repeating. Whose revenues aren't harmed by illegal music downloads?" Maybe that's why it's hard to catch my drift. It's all about Bill and Jamal now, forget Virgil! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ction Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 I think this bears repeating. Whose revenues aren't harmed by illegal music downloads? The underlined word above - in the post you quoted - is a link. To a post (by me), containing another link to a blog post by Virgil of Suburban Home Records. Detailing how his small label is harmed by illegal music downloads. You could read that if you wanted to, or you could continue to write strange fiction about guys selling apples. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Synthesizer Patel Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 So, if i removed the first sentence from the quote you'd understand what I said? Seeing as how that seems to be where the confusion has arisen from, rather than the second snetence, which was the question I was answering. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ction Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 I think I understand your overall position - that you are entitled by birth to download other people's music for free and that they should just learn to at least accept it, if not thank you for it like they should because you are in fact helping them. That I've got. Then there's the apples, which is where you lose me...mostly because you use metric money and I have no idea what that equals. My position is that maybe, I don't know, you could read the first hand account of a guy who claims to be negatively impacted by illegal music downloading. Which you semi-kinda quoted and responded to in the first place. Then you can either continue to maintain your original position or perhaps realize that maybe it's not as simple as you make it out to be with your apple story. You could also decide to claim the guy is lying, and that his bands and label are actually more successful than they otherwise would have been. That would help me kill the rest of the day. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 I think I understand your overall position - that you are entitled by birth to download other people's music for free and that they should just learn to at least accept it, if not thank you for it like they should because you are in fact helping them. That I've got. Then there's the apples, which is where you lose me...mostly because you use metric money and I have no idea what that equals. My position is that maybe, I don't know, you could read the first hand account of a guy who claims to be negatively impacted by illegal music downloading. Which you semi-kinda quoted and responded to in the first place. Then you can either continue to maintain your original position or perhaps realize that maybe it's not as simple as you make it out to be with your apple story. You could also decide to claim the guy is lying, and that his bands and label are actually more successful than they otherwise would have been. That would help me kill the rest of the day.I didn't read this whole post. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JUDE Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 For the record, I ordered those five Drag the River CD's from Suburban Home Records on Sean's reccomendation, therefore I helped out old Virgil and the bands on his label (well one now defunct bany anyhow) and I don't really care for apples all that much. However if that Otis disk thing ever gets done I'd like a taste please. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 The crux of the argument that the rationalizers make appears to be that illegal downloading increases exposure and increasing exposure increases album sales which increases revenue. That seems like a logically convincing argument to me but also an unprovable one. It also puts the decision about how to market and how to drive revenues into the hands of the consumer instead of the artist. And that doesn't seem fair to me. Seems it should be the artisit's choice, no? Clearly there are some artists that do not agree with the argument that illegal downloading increases revenue. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Synthesizer Patel Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 I think I understand your overall position - that you are entitled by birth to download other people's music for free and that they should just learn to at least accept it, if not thank you for it like they should because you are in fact helping them. That I've got. No, that's not it at all. But, I like what you've done there. My position is that maybe, I don't know, you could read the first hand account of a guy who claims to be negatively impacted by illegal music downloading. Which you semi-kinda quoted and responded to in the first place. Then you can either continue to maintain your original position or perhaps realize that maybe it's not as simple as you make it out to be with your apple story. You could also decide to claim the guy is lying, and that his bands and label are actually more successful than they otherwise would have been. That would help me kill the rest of the day. I could also claim that maybe people don't want to buy the music on his label as much as they did a few years ago, seeing as how musical tastes change; and the fact that he is incapable of knowing how many people are downloading his bands music for free in fact makes his claims, at least, a touch questionable from a scientific point of view. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 [quote name='JUDE Quote Link to post Share on other sites
EL the Famous Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 i like how one of the kids in the apple story is named jamal. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Synthesizer Patel Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 [quote name='JUDE Quote Link to post Share on other sites
EL the Famous Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 truth. i can get behind any analogy that involves someone named jamal. sorry ction, you lose. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.