[File sharing up 10% after RIAA threatens users] -
File sharing up 10% after RIAA threatens users
Discuss File sharing up 10% after RIAA threatens users
Posted by: Martin
Taken from GotAdmin.net:
[quote]The Recording Industry Association of America's announcement on June 25 that it will start tracking down and suing users of file-sharing programs has yet to spook people, say developers of these applications.[/quote]
Very impressed at the RIAA for doing this... they screwed themselves over again. :p
Posted by: Ecniv
LOL!!! Good stuff!
Posted by: devlish96
i wonder how they would do it? LOL!
Posted by: chalk
Ha!
I hear there are stealhy peer2peer already cropping up.
You would think they'd work with evolving tech, not threaten their customer base...Go corporate bigwigs! Future headlines "The RIAA to copywite 1's, 0's"
Posted by: loneryder
They're not going to stop people from sharing. It's impossible to what I can see. The RIAA is only encouraging them, as suggested by the 10% increase. There's just too many programs out there that can do this and there's always a way around it when one goes down.
Kevin.
Posted by: Quantum
Why does the RIAA threaten to sue users who download music yet complain why those same people don't buy music CDs?
Posted by: loneryder
there are people out there that download music for backup purposes and others who download just because they don't want to pay for it. Hey, I admit I download stuff I don't own originally. Most music CDs only have one or two good songs on it and you have to pay for all the songs on the CD. If they could compile the popular songs together, that would be different. There would still be ppl downloading though.
Kevin.
Posted by: Quantum
Best way to combat piracy is in the store. Imagine a database of MP3s. You select the songs, name of the CD, and CD cover. They make it for around $2-3 and people wil flock to the stores. Of course, the suits will say it's not "cost effective" but it would cut back on downloading especially if they can burn Ogg Vorbis files which sound better than MP3s.
Posted by: loneryder
I have thought about that at one time before. I think it's a great idea if they could do that. Why pay around $10 for a CD that has that one song you like when you can pay, say in your example $2 or $3, for the songs you like. I'm willing to buy from the store if they do that.
Kevin.
Posted by: chalk
I also read somewhere ... maybe on this forum, heh.
The person had a good point about getting the latest songs he liked on newer medium. He stocked his collection with the records he liked...then 8-tracks came and he got those...then casettes came and he upgraded then...finally CDs. He points out that he has bought the same songs multiple times from the industry - and now they want to sue him for downloading the songs? IMHO the record industry has been gouging the consumer for many years...every time a new medium comes along - but now they have lost control.
Posted by: loneryder
Hey chalk, I never thought about that before. It's true though, I have a couple of CDs at my house that has the same copies of the songs available now. That's just not right to give us the same things again.
Kevin.
Posted by: ZhengHe
I couldn't agree more. Even when I try I still get the same songs on 2 or more CDs. I just thing that just isn't fair and the prices! Don't get me started. I agree with Quantum and loneryder. First CDs are way to expensive. Think of all the things you could buy with what you pay for maybe 2 CDs. Has you retching doesn't it. I think that if record companies reduce their overinflated CD prices there would be a deep drop in P2P sharing, which is what the RIAA wants right? Also I really feel kind of like I've wasted my money when I buy a CD and I only like maybe 2 or 3 songs. Gives me a big empty feeling, like I've been ripped off.
If record companies would have a database of songs and let you compile your own CD with a CD name and a CD cover to boot as Quantum suggested then I would be 100% more apt to buy CDs. I'd probably buy a lot more and enjoy them a lot more too, which is what music is really for right; enjoyment, relaxation, whatever it is that you get out of your music. So in other words record companies should let you custom burn your own CDs of course keeping the quality of the music standard as it would be in a CD. This I believe would further motivate people to buy CDs.
A third thing; CDs where out, just like everything else. So in whatever amount of time it takes for your CDs to wear out, say about 10-20 years you no longer have or can listen to that song. Is that fair? I think not. Once you buy a song it should be your property, so if a CD wears out you should be able to redeem it for the songs you have lost on it, assuming they still exist. I mean I understand them charging you for the CD and stuff that you'd need to burn the new songs on, but yo shouldn't have to continually pay for a new song. Just doesn't seem fair. Come to think of it if Record companies sold a better quality version of MP3s they wouldn't even have to worry about the CDs wearing out and they'd probably make a bigger profit since they don't need to manufacture any CDs, although this is assuming that everyone would have a MP3 player, which is wishful thinking, but probably not likely.
I believe that that the people who P2P are not the bad people that the RIAA says. I think the RIAA has created the predicament that it is in, at least to a greater extent, and if it would stop arresting people and logically think it over how to they could reduce P2P sharing that they would come to these conclusions and it would be better for everyone, although as loneryder says, "There would still be ppl downloading though". This will probably be a constant problem, but the RIAA isn't helping it. If they did try to implement some of the stuff thats been mentioned I think they would be helping consumers and helping themselves.
Thats my 2 cents.
Posted by: OIDanTheManIO
The RIAA SHOULD be after those that allow others to download their files, not the people that do the downloading. It goes the same for drug dealing, if you can eliminate a major dealer that deals to everyone else, you can stop the flow of drugs completely, but that's just my assumption.