Stop the RIAA law suits!!

[crpietschmann]

http://www.eff.org/share/petition



Stop the RIAA Lay Suits! Sign the petition that the EFF is going to send to congress.

[Arc]

Nah, I think people should quit stealing music. I don't think people should goto jail or anything for stealing a few songs but they should be forced to pay a fine equivelent to the price of each of the songs they stole or distributed.

However, that said, The money from the fines should not goto the Record companies, it should goto the artists IMO.

[crpietschmann]

Wow, ARC!!

That's the first intelligent thing I've heard you say.

[Arc]

Really? I'm still waiting for you to say something intelligent. Not holding my breath though.

[mastermind94]

we should stop complaining about RIAA and stuff. Artist makes good music, they need the money out of it. Just like if u make an awesome code, u publish it and someone just steals and copy it. RIAA are simply doing their job and their job is to protect artists.

[crpietschmann]

Yeah, but the money they get from sueing people doesn't go to the artists! It just goes to sueing some more people. How does that support the artists!!

[mastermind94]

yea i agree this is stupid.... they sue to support themselves.

[Crunch]

Maybe suing people doesn't put money in the artists' hands, but how does ripping off musing and paying nothing for it do anything better?

[crpietschmann]

Originally posted by Crunch
Maybe suing people doesn't put money in the artists' hands, but how does ripping off musing and paying nothing for it do anything better?

Does listening to the radio get the artists paid?

Those two questions are so similar.

If I like a song or artist enough I will buy there album. I want to support musicians that make music I like so that there will be more music that I like being made.

I do agree with you, however. I think that there is no difference in "stealing" music and suing people for downloading music. In the days before CD burners, people would copy music onto cassettes and give them to there friends. Some would even tape the songs off of the radio. Those two things are still done today, and the RIAA could care less. The only reason they are suing downloaders is because they can actually reach them legally.

The RIAA, Artists, and Fans need to meet in the middle. Basically, album prices need to be lower. People don't want to pay $15 or more per album. I think that $10 would be a fair price. And apparently I'm not the only one. Apples iTunes have albums for sale at $10 per album or $0.99 per song. Now that is affordable, reasonable, and the artists are still getting paid.

Now all the RIAA needs to do is get the price for cd's to be around $10 in the music stores, and it should increase the demand for CDs enough that the demand to download music illegally online will decrease.

It's all basic economics. When there isn't enough demand for your product, then you must increase the demand somehow. And the easiest way to do that is to lower prices.

Without music fans there would be no musicians and no RIAA. The RIAA and the consumers need to meet half way. The MPAA some how learned how to deal with consumers being able to copy movies with their VCR. Now, the RIAA needs to do the same.

[Crunch]

//Does listening to the radio get the artists paid?

Actually, yes. The direct chain of money is Advertiser -> Radio Station -> ASCAP/BMI -> Artist. The advertiser is paying for your "free" music, and of course the cost of this is passed along to the consumer (that would be you and me).

//It's all basic economics. When there isn't enough demand for your product, then you must increase the demand somehow. And the easiest way to do that is to lower prices.

The problem isn't with demand, it's with the ease of theft. The reasoning behind people ripping off music isn't "Well, if it was 10 bucks instead of 15 I'd pay it" - it's "why the hell should I pay anything if I can get it for free so easily??"

//The MPAA some how learned how to deal with consumers being able to copy movies with their VCR.

The two things are not very similar - for one thing, it's not reasonable for the average person to download a full-length movie at theater quality across the internet. For another, regarding VCR tape copies, the MPAA isn't really as happy with the situation as you think.

[crpietschmann]

My point is that the MPAA isn't suing people for it.

And yes, if the cds were cheaper I know I would buy them, because if its affordable, I don't mind supporting the artist that made it. And, most people who really like an artist will actually buy their music instead of just copying it for free.

There is a demand for free music, and a demand for paid music. They need to increase the demand for the paid music, so that the demand for free music goes down. It is very simple, and Apples iTunes is doing with their $0.99 per song, and $10 per album.

[Crunch]

//My point is that the MPAA isn't suing people for it.

Most probably because it's impractical, not because they think it's hunky-dory.

//And, most people who really like an artist will actually buy their music instead of just copying it for free.

Sorry, maybe I'm just a little too cynical, but I think that's a load of crap. Even if each song cost a penny, I think the vast majority of people who rip off music today would suddenly start paying for it instead. Do you have statistics that show Apple's approach has lessened the pirating of music?

[duc]

I can't believe they actually think they can completely stop it. What losers.

[cid]

Ok instead of charging people thousands of dollars per song why not just charge a set price like a 1.99 per song. And then in turn return the money to the artist it was taken from. So then people are not over charged and the artist get their cash.

[duc]

Originally posted by cid
Ok instead of charging people thousands of dollars per song why not just charge a set price like a 1.99 per song. And then in turn return the money to the artist it was taken from. So then people are not over charged and the artist get their cash.

I don't follow at all. Songs aren't even 1.99 they are .99 cents

[cid]

I just gave an example. I came up with a number off the top of my head. But it makes sense to charge people what they owe instead of thousands of dollars.

[holly]

Well, I think if they brought the prices of music down then people
would not entertain copying and everybody would be happy...

[NotLKH]

I agree! Its because things cost so much, that people decide to rip stuff off.

Heck, If diamonds were free, nobody'd steal them!

Face it, thieves can rationalize all they want, but they're still thieves.

Lock 'em all up!

[crpietschmann]

Originally posted by NotLKH
I agree! Its because things cost so much, that people decide to rip stuff off.

Heck, If diamonds were free, nobody'd steal them!

Don't you mean if diamonds where $10 nobody would steal them? Thats the thing, if you can't stop it with lawsuits, you must do something else. If something is broke you must fix it. And, sometimes you must do more than one thing to solve the problem. There is never one single, simple solution to any problem.

Most people want to support the artists they like. Which would you rather do? Buy five CD's for $50, and download the other 5 CD's. Or, would you rather spend $100 and buy all 10 CD's?

They must do what everyother industry does. When demand decreases, you must lower prices in order to increase demand.

Lower album prices = Lower stealling music
Its as simple as that.