Music Industry To Abandon Mass Suits

After years of suing thousands of people for allegedly stealing music via the Internet, the recording industry is set to drop its legal assault as it searches for more effective ways to combat online music piracy.

The decision represents an abrupt shift of strategy for the industry, which has opened legal proceedings against about 35,000 people since 2003. Critics say the legal offensive ultimately did little to stem the tide of illegally downloaded music. And it created a public-relations disaster for the industry, whose lawsuits targeted, among others, several single mothers, a dead person and a 13-year-old girl.

Instead, the Recording Industry Association of America said it plans to try an approach that relies on the cooperation of Internet-service providers. The trade group said it has hashed out preliminary agreements with major ISPs under which it will send an email to the provider when it finds a provider's customers making music available online for others to take.

Depending on the agreement, the ISP will either forward the note to customers, or alert customers that they appear to be uploading music illegally, and ask them to stop. If the customers continue the file-sharing, they will get one or two more emails, perhaps accompanied by slower service from the provider. Finally, the ISP may cut off their access altogether.

Read the entire article at WSJ.com.

Comments

[Admiral Petty]

Seems fair enough, and not suing ordinary people for millions is a good thing too.

[Axl_Explosion]

Yeah, that seems like a reasonable comprimise, however keeping track of that is gonna be a major pain, lol. I mean, are they gonna look for patterns or is it just if you log on to, like, limewire, or whatever p2p you use and download a song a red light is gonna go off in some office somewhere?

[turtlicorn]

sounds good to me

[Silas S Thompso]

Sounds like it'll work a little slower than they'd like. But I bet it'll work.

[I-AM-NOT-GOD]

Sounds like it's aiming at the uploaders more than the downloaders, but a compromise none the less.

[Slicer666]

IMO this is a way better idea than trying to get tons from average joe in court.

[silversoulcage]

I read this story like a week ago on yahoo news.

This isn't even the whole story, it's not just uploaders it's people who download to. One of the prospective agreements will let the ISP's send you a bill for the downloaded music.

I think it's all ridiculous anyway, music is a right not a privilege .

[Its_Rock77]

I-AM-NOT-GOD wrote:

Sounds like it's aiming at the uploaders more than the downloaders, but a compromise none the less.

well they are definitely the root of the problem.

[_A.D.I.D.A.S._]

ISPs would never agree to this. They will lose customers.

[silversoulcage]

_A.D.I.D.A.S._ wrote:

ISPs would never agree to this. They will lose customers.

Thats what I was thinking, I'd find the most off the grid unheard ISP and get their most expensive service.

[CapnKickass]

silversoulcage wrote:

I think it's all ridiculous anyway, music is a right not a privilege .

Huh... I didn't know that. Are you sure?

[silversoulcage]

CapnKickass wrote:

silversoulcage wrote:

I think it's all ridiculous anyway, music is a right not a privilege .
Huh... I didn't know that. Are you sure?

I'm not sure if you're trying to mock me or not so I'm really not sure what to say.

The point of it though, was that they'll never take music from you. So **** em.

But no it's not literally a right.

Once again didn't know if you were mocking me or not.

[srpv92]

I'm sure either AOL or SKY have already starting participating in this...

[silversoulcage]

srpv92 wrote:

I'm sure either AOL or SKY have already starting participating in this...

Double posts are fun.

But yea they'd be the first ones to jump on board.

[apm505]

silversoulcage wrote:

CapnKickass wrote:

silversoulcage wrote:

I think it's all ridiculous anyway, music is a right not a privilege .
Huh... I didn't know that. Are you sure?

I'm not sure if you're trying to mock me or not so I'm really not sure what to say.

The point of it though, was that they'll never take music from you. So **** em.

But no it's not literally a right.

Once again didn't know if you were mocking me or not.

He was mocking you since the music in question is most definitely a privilege and not a right. Maybe the music we make on our own instruments is free, but the music produced by others and copyrighted and put under contract to be sold is totally not yours unless you pay for it. Personally I don't care what methods they implement to download because I know people who download will always get their shit if they want it. There are too many and too many of them are smarter than these companies.

[ironman316]

Zip files ftw... Lol

[Lex Davids]

Not sure if this will work, the only incentive for doing this is money. If i were an ISP and this was in effect i'd just market myself as the provider that refuses to engage in this kind of activity. I bet you anything the number of users for my internet service would sky rocket.

Checked

[LewisMasonx]

ironman316 wrote:

Zip files ftw... Lol

This. People will start zipping music, or using different codings to fool browsers when uploading.

[new_age_reject]

We are winning guys.
This is will not succeed.

[blaghostbla]

A day when people won't pirate music, wouldn't that be great. Now I don't pass judgment on others, or how they wish to obtain their music; but as someone stated previously, the music that artists make is their own, you don't have a "right" to just steal it illegally. Hopefully this will help reduce the amount of piracy, but I don't see it as having a significant impact. At least it shows that the record companies are getting smarter now. Look forward to more solutions such as this in the future.

[remx15]

sounds like a bad idea to me...maybe they should do 2 things:

1: recession. your sales drop. get used to it.
2: stopsigning every 2 bit artist you can find, every Jay-Z wannabe, and every emo crap band you can find, and focus on putting out real music, that isnt $20 for 11 2.5 minute songs.

[mashizz]

i don't think this will work. If most ISPs do this, then people will just search for other ISPs and those companies will get rich, while the others get poor. Then, either the other ISPs will have to stop what they're doing or become bankrupt or be bought out and monopolies will form, which happen to be illegal

[death_rider]

They should just give up already. Unless they make downloading a life sentence to jail i doubt people will stop. Downloading is way to convenient adn helpful

[.:!j.man!:.]

They arnt going to be able to stop people downloading ilegaly, ever
once its up anyone can see it. like letting go of a baloon filled with helium... you arnt getting that baloon back down.

[Chuck Norriss]

I will roundhouse kick the ISP in the face and get any music i want

[shredding king]

did u ever think maybe musicians have 2 spend money on things like rent an equipment

[undeadcorpse]

i like understand, and the only reason i don't download is because i actually like to help the bands i love.

not a bad way to combat it, but ass usual people will find a way around it for shore

[Megadeth2011]

So they will still make you pay for the music, just not in court?

[Admiral Petty]

mashizz wrote:

i don't think this will work. If most ISPs do this, then people will just search for other ISPs and those companies will get rich, while the others get poor. Then, either the other ISPs will have to stop what they're doing or become bankrupt or be bought out and monopolies will form, which happen to be illegal

Nah, if it became a law that all ISPs had to do it, it wouldn't really affect their business.

[SurferRosa92]

"The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side."
-hunter s. thompson

[RedNovember]

notice how it says making music available.

The trade group said it has hashed out preliminary agreements with major ISPs under which it will send an email to the provider when it finds a provider's customers making music available online for others to take.

Seriously? So all we have to do is NOT share our music and we're good? EMAIL ME IF YOU NEED TO KNOW HOW THIS IS DONE. [e-mail]

[blaghostbla]

"The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side."
-hunter s. thompson

These people aren't doing anything illegal, and they, like the artists, are just trying to make money. Yes, many of them are greedy, it's true, but all businessmen and greedy to some extent, and all businesses are out to make money. All of you should stop trying to look for excuses to justify your actions.

[assparade69]

no way in hell this will work.

[nickyjohnson]

hasnt this already started in britan?i heard about this months ago

[Kurt-Corgan]

Chuck Norriss wrote:

I will roundhouse kick the ISP in the face and get any music i want

Funny, Chuck Norris doesn't know how to spell his own name.

And meh, I will still pirate, anyway I can. Arrrr.

[AngryGoldfish]

"And it created a public-relations disaster for the industry, whose lawsuits targeted, among others, several single mothers, a dead person and a 13-year-old girl."
- Oh, now that the dead people are being offended by the ISP abiding by the law, they have to cease their allegations? That make's perfect sense.

[nickyjohnson]

AngryGoldfish wrote:

"And it created a public-relations disaster for the industry, whose lawsuits targeted, among others, several single mothers, a dead person and a 13-year-old girl."
- Oh, now that the dead people are being offended by the ISP abiding by the law, they have to cease their allegations? That make's perfect sense.

no,it means the stupidity of it all has got to the point where dead people are being sued for music piracy :P

[hotdog_warmcat]

remx15 wrote:

sounds like a bad idea to me...maybe they should do 2 things:

1: recession. your sales drop. get used to it.
2: stopsigning every 2 bit artist you can find, every Jay-Z wannabe, and every emo crap band you can find, and focus on putting out real music, that isnt $20 for 11 2.5 minute songs.

This guy wins.

[Admiral Petty]

blaghostbla wrote:

"The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side."
-hunter s. thompson

These people aren't doing anything illegal, and they, like the artists, are just trying to make money. Yes, many of them are greedy, it's true, but all businessmen and greedy to some extent, and all businesses are out to make money. All of you should stop trying to look for excuses to justify your actions.

Indeed, besides, the greedy people continue to live the same lifestyle regardless of sales, it's the little guys that get laid off who are really hurt by it. The little guys are the ones you hurt when you steal, plain and simple.

[str84ever]

The only music i download is music i can't go down to my local HMV and buy it.

Once HMV starts stocking Cows albums i will gladly go and purchase them but you can hardly complain or sue people for downloading albums that retailers do not stock.

[Choogly]

Isn't gonna work, and besides, file sharing has only helped the bands. Yes, it is often cited that record sales are way down-but bands have always made the majority of their money off of merchandise and touring. Is it a bad thing that your favorite bands will go on tour? Also, buying music from anywhere but a concert means the artists will only get a fraction of the price, as opposed to at a concert where they can control the money. Also, file sharing has helped underground bands tremendously by giving them publicity of some kind, because people are less hesitant to download an album than to spend money on it(after all, they might not like it, they haven't heard of this band), and if they like the band, the chances are much higher that they will buy merchandise or tickets. The bands are still richer than most people will ever be, and if money is their only concern, isn't it only right to show them that money isn't what matters; its the MUSIC.

[thereverendsoup]

Ohhh boy, all the Dudley Do-rights are out in force today! "Stealin's bad, mmmkay..." Right. Except me and most of my friends have extensive record collections on top of what we download. And downloading has gotten us all into a lot of bands we wouldn't have otherwise heard (and bought records from). Not to mention things that are out of print and very difficult to come by.

Sure, it's illegal. But there's a reason RIAA labels are struggling and a lot of indies aren't: because most of what the RIAA labels put out is the audio equivalent of a John Grisham novel. Fluffy, boring crap marketed to people who don't know what a record is and really don't care enough to actually buy one. The problem is they're targeting music at people who don't care about music enough to want to pay for it. If they were smart what they'd be doing is targeting the types of people who still buy vinyl. For us, mp3's are a pretty piss-poor substitute. Everything I download, I buy if I can find it in a proper format. I don't know any vinyl geeks who wouldn't.

[blaghostbla]

Isn't gonna work, and besides, file sharing has only helped the bands. Yes, it is often cited that record sales are way down-but bands have always made the majority of their money off of merchandise and touring. Is it a bad thing that your favorite bands will go on tour? Also, buying music from anywhere but a concert means the artists will only get a fraction of the price, as opposed to at a concert where they can control the money. Also, file sharing has helped underground bands tremendously by giving them publicity of some kind, because people are less hesitant to download an album than to spend money on it(after all, they might not like it, they haven't heard of this band), and if they like the band, the chances are much higher that they will buy merchandise or tickets. The bands are still richer than most people will ever be, and if money is their only concern, isn't it only right to show them that money isn't what matters; its the MUSIC.

First off, record companies are now slowly starting to dip into bands' tour sales, merchandise, among other things, in order to make up for album sale deficits. From a business standpoint, they're slowly gaining more control of the band. Bands only make a fraction from cd sales? What we have here is a paradox of sorts. Because of the slump that the record company is in, they must take more from cd sales to pay for everything, from the cost of the cd's, to the boxing, distribution, and eventually salaries. You make it sound as if the band are the only people that deserve the money from cd sales. And the slump is largely caused by pirating, and don't even try and make it sound as if that's not a direct cause. Yes, I love MUSIC like you do, but they're selling a product, a product that people steal. If a million people say that 2+2=5, is it true? If a million people illegally download does it make it right? Don't say that it has "only helped the bands." Yes, it's true that pirating has helped many underground bands, but it's a double edged sword. If you think of it this way, with the slump record companies are struggling to sign any band they can find that will give them a buck, most of them being shitty. Good acts getting exposure is always a good thing, but a right from a wrong is still wrong. Even in the old days, the bands that had something amazing to offer in sound, and were determined, were able to build up a substantial fanbase.

[Guitar x Dude 7]

while i try my best to understand where the music biz is comming from, to me, i just cant help but find this a tad silly. the music industry, and the way people get theyre music is bound to change over the course of time, and to try and fight that, sounds silly, and pointless.

theyre are both positives and negatives to downloading music, while it hurts the big record lables (such a shame right?) it can really help the smaller indie labels get bands out there, and it allows listeners, to discover much more music, if they can go home and download 3-4 albums in one night, as opposed to maybe buying 3-4 albums in a month. which gets more kids out at shows, because they are then able to discover bands they never would have listened to.

bottom line, fighting change in the music biz, seems pointless, this could be a really positive change, if handled correctly. the record lables are just going about it all wrong.

[Tedward]

why dont they just make music cheaper and easier to buy? Not everyone listens to 50 cent and Britney Spears, and not everyone can spend $30 a CD.

[2mins2midnite]

they could start using tapes and vinals again

if all the music labels do that, people have no other choice other than to listen to the radio or buy the stuff

[asator]

str84ever wrote:

The only music i download is music i can't go down to my local HMV and buy it.

Once HMV starts stocking Cows albums i will gladly go and purchase them but you can hardly complain or sue people for downloading albums that retailers do not stock.

Not really a valid excuse, there's still 7digital, iTunes etc...
Or if you want a physical copy then there's things like Amazon...

[asator]

2mins2midnite wrote:

they could start using tapes and vinals again

if all the music labels do that, people have no other choice other than to listen to the radio or buy the stuff

Sorry about the double post, but...

You can get vynals onto a computer. That would solve nothing.

[thereverendsoup]

asator wrote:
You can get vynals onto a computer. That would solve nothing.

Hah, "vynal." Vinyl generally sounds like shit when you rip it. I think it would solve quite a lot. Any idiot can make a decent CD rip, but it takes actual skill to make a decent vinyl rip.

[2mins2midnite]

music is a privilege.
but making people pay like £20 for 8 tracks on a CD with a bit of paper inside, it is insane!

[LasPlagas]

That's a much better way to use resources. Don't sue them, find ways to stop it! It's good to hear some huge conglomerate making a smart decision for once!

[Chaosinborn]

I promise to buy music when the music is sold by the artist and the artist is making money.

checked.

[Nick B]

anyone that says downloading music is stealing is an idiot. copyright infringement yes, but stealing, no. you've all been hypnotized by the RIAA haha. you're not taking anything from the companies by downloading a song. there is no physical object that someone paid for that you are taking away.

i hate the music industry. screw them. yeah, it was needed before information sharing was at the level it is now (and has been for the past 10 years), but they are completly not needed anymore. they're nothing but a bunch of money hungry selfish bastards haha.

bands can promote themselves now. they don't need to make 316816516981 copies of a cd to distribute to every store in the country.

it shouldnt be based around comercialism and sales, it should be based around sharing your music and performing your music. if someone wants a hard copy, they can burn it to a cd themselves or buy a copy at a show (thats made by the band or a company working FOR the band).

what we have here is a bunch of lazy musicians that care more about money than their own music. if they cared about their music, they'd put on a good show, and they'd make money.

ultimately, there is absolutely no need for a middle man anymore. plus killing the music industry would result in actually good music being popular.

[JamesxHetfield]

will this affect canada. I only download what i cant find. but i dont want to get kicked off ofmy internet

[blaghostbla]

anyone that says downloading music is stealing is an idiot. copyright infringement yes, but stealing, no. you've all been hypnotized by the RIAA haha. you're not taking anything from the companies by downloading a song. there is no physical object that someone paid for that you are taking away.

WRONG.

copyright infringement- unauthorized use of material (aka "intellectual property") covered by copyright law. Stop kidding yourself, just because it's not physical doesn't mean that it isn't stealing. In essence copyright infringement is stealing.

If you had an idea for some crazy invention and you had it patented it would be protected by these laws. If I STOLE the idea from you and made millions, well I guess then that's too bad, because you can't physically hold an idea. Same goes with music...it's intellectual property. /Pwn

And btw, until you meet everyone in the music industry,I don't think you have a right to call them all "a bunch of money hungry selfish bastards haha." In the eyes of the public, the bad apples have spoiled the whole lot. Perhaps it's you who has been hypnotized....haha

[Nick B]

The offense being committed is correctly named copyright infringement, the RIAA, MPAA, SIAA etc. like to call it stealing to try and equate it to more a serious crime where the victim is actually deprived of the stolen article to make it sound worse than it actually is. And gullible idiots believe them.

Also, who here is making millions by downloading music? Your point doesn't even apply. Sure, crack down on the guys trying to sell burned copies of albums, to hell with them. Unfortunately for your worthless argument, I doubt anyone here does that.

Here's the fact. Pirating music is not stealing. Anyone that says otherwise is obviously wrong and probably stupid. It is copyright infringment, but that does not make it stealing.

And to show you an example, I'll give you a situation that actually applies. Is it stealing if I go to an art gallery and take a picture of someone's painting? Not to reprint it and sell it or anything, just to look at. No, because the painting is still sitting there in the gallery.

And there you have it, a real pwning, as you internet nerds like to call it.

[Nick B]

And sorry for the double post, but yes, your last paragraph does hold some weight. I should have specified. I'm sure there are tons of people in the music business that truly care about the music, but considering that the RIAA (do you know what those letters stand for?) are apparently trying to screw everyone over to try and boost their sales, I would say that there's a whole lot more than a couple bad apples in the music industry.

[A_Lesser_Evil]

the way the American economy is going i don't see people buying more Cd's anytime soon, deff not at 20-25 dollars each. maybe the record companies should lower the price of the CD to something we can actually afford. That way we don't have to download it.

[blaghostbla]

First off, stop calling people you don't even know stupid or nerds or gullible. I don't even know what point you're trying to make in your second paragraph. My argument never applied to people who burned copies and sold them for profit, that never even crossed my mind; the "millions" was just a reference to how an idea, like music is considered "intellectual property." Just because some people are too stupid to realize that isn't my fault. Here's my point: pirating is in essence stealing, sugarcoat it all you want. When you download an album you obtain a product, a piece of intellectual property illegally. A product that many people, not just the musicians, put a lot of time, money, and manpower into. It is THEIR intellectual property, they have ownership over it. When you download it you essentially take their product and steal it. What part of intellectual PROPERTY don't you understand? The RIAA's (Recording Industry association of America, wow I guess I did know that) comparison is completely justified.

Also, your worthless example is completely faulty. A better example would be if some guy was giving away free copies of tickets to get in to see the paining. Like many people would think, why pay for a ticket when I can get one for free? If you paid to see the painting, then by all means take a picture. And if the painting was free to look at originally, then it is not even relevant to this case as music distributed by the recording industry costs money to obtain. And their YOU have it, a real pwning, as you call it.

[FightinIrishPJ]

all i know is that i'm in a band, and we give away our music for free, because that's what we feel is right. Actually, we ask people before we give them our CD "why do you want it" and if they say "in case you make it big, it'll be worth lots of money" then we sell it to them for 3 bucks, just because other people shouldn't profit off of us, but if they say "we like your band" or anything like that, then we hand them a copy.

i think music should be illegal to distribute if someone other than the artist is making money off it. This includes record labels and other **** like that. They do nothing but steal from the artist too. Let musicians make money by playing shows and getting the profits from it.

[blaghostbla]

And sorry to double post...but it's funny how your...Nick B...rebuttal suddenly became grammatically correct and sounded rather intelligent. Too bad it was all full of hot air.

[silversoulcage]

FightinIrishPJ wrote:

all i know is that i'm in a band, and we give away our music for free, because that's what we feel is right. Actually, we ask people before we give them our CD "why do you want it" and if they say "in case you make it big, it'll be worth lots of money" then we sell it to them for 3 bucks, just because other people shouldn't profit off of us, but if they say "we like your band" or anything like that, then we hand them a copy.

i think music should be illegal to distribute if someone other than the artist is making money off it. This includes record labels and other **** like that. They do nothing but steal from the artist too. Let musicians make money by playing shows and getting the profits from it.

You said it all man.

Think of it this way. Either way you cut, the bands are still going to be getting ****ed. AND the whole argument about maybe they should put out a good ****ing album once in awhile, is completely true, I buy albums for bands that I think deserve money for their art. If a band only has one song thats kind of ok then why am I going to go buy the album? Thats stupid. AND if every major bands albums didn't all sound the EXACT SAME than I'd be more inclined to buy an album but personally unless I think the band deserves money than **** them, their not getting my money.

[Nick B]

You say to stop calling people idiots, and then directly imply that I'm stupid. If you're going to throw insults, don't bitch when others do it.

And your situation doesn't apply because you're talking about a case of someone using someone else's idea to make money, which has absolutely nothing to do with downloading music for your own pleasure. In other words, you're using a situation that doesn't relate to the one at hand to try and make your point seem more valid, which it isn't.

And for the billionth time, what part about copyright infringement NOT being stealing do you not understand? If it was stealing, it would be called stealing, not copyright infringement. You're not stealing anything.

In what way are you stealing someone's intellectual property? That's like saying you're stealing someones house by walking on their yard. You're trespassing, but you're not taking anything. Think man, or are you so stuck to your ignorant opinion that you can't accept anything except it? And I know, because I used to say the exact same thing as you, until I got my head out of my ass.

And I'm not trying to justify pirating as morally ok. I'm saying it isn't stealing.

And no, my example is not faulty. There is a painting that you can go and look at (and you can do this all day long with music, there's free, legal places to listen to songs on the internet, never mind the radio, listening to a friends copy (or should we have to pay for that too, by your logic?), etc.), but you can't take it with you. Just like you can listen to a song on the radio, etc. but you can't replay it as much as you like (the only difference between the two being that because of the nature of a song, it only plays for a certain period of time, where as a painting you can look at for as long as you'd like). So, would it be stealing to take a picture of someone's painting? By your exact logic, yes, it would be, because you're walking off with a copy of their intellectual property.

Open your damn eyes man. And, if it isn't obvious enough, I believe it was you that started with the ridiculous pwning crap. I was making fun of your use of an immature internet slang term in a debate that should be above the maturity level of a 3 year old. So good job showing that off!

And, I'm done arguing with you, you're obviously on the losing side of this argument, and it's pointless to continue it. Have a nice life.

[Deacon Blues]

the music industry is just pissed that now the power and real earning potential is back in the hands of the artist and not the suits and jerkoffs who have taken advantage of creative people for too long.

learn to swim

[tamotots]

Chuck Norriss wrote:

I will roundhouse kick the ISP in the face and get any music i want

HAHAHA

[blaghostbla]

Don't throw insults in the first place, buddy. That's not how big boys talk. The point is valid in the sense that it isn't profitable, rather that it has ownership, ownership over something that is not physical, that's all. Forget about the money, I can see that it's confusing you. You can admit though that there is some correlation between copyright infringement (taking without permission) and stealing. As far as walking on someones yard, wow way to pull off something that doesn't relate to anything, your examples just get sillier by the moment. Listen I don't care, pirate all you want. Just don't go around saying stuff like

you've all been hypnotized by the RIAA haha. you're not taking anything from the companies by downloading a song. there is no physical object that someone paid for that you are taking away.

and

i hate the music industry. screw them. yeah

. You want to see childish statements, look no further than your original post. I mean am I even talking to the same person that made the original post. Open your eyes, I used to think like you all way back when. Go ahead and pirate all you want, I don't give a crap what you do. But don't try and justify it by saying I'm not stealing or doing anything wrong. Really man if your rebutals were as well put together as your original post, which sounded like something a retarded 10 year old put together, then I wouldn't have gone off on such a hinge.

[Nick B]

Ugh, I can't stand it. I specifically said I wasn't trying to morally justify pirating music, or do you not even read my posts? And then you say my example doesn't relate, but don't make any effort to actually say why and how it doesn't relate (comparing intellectual property (as you so strongly pointed out in a previous post) with physical property). Maybe you're just too slow to be able to see correlations between examples, it'd make sense looking at the crap you posted.

I also like how you take my "yeah" out of context to make it appear more childish. You're using such immature tactics that I can't but doubt your ability to reason.

You criticize and criticize and offer nothing in return. Pathetic. Not to mention your unbelievably hypocritical behavior. Give the posts a good once over and you'll realize how absolutely retarded you appear, and if you don't, then I guess "appear" is far too soft a word.

Lastly, when I start a debate, or argument with someone, I intentionally fix my grammar as to not let it affect the conversation and to make sure I am properly understood. When I'm lazily typing my reaction to something, I don't bother with it.

Ok, I can really leave this now knowing that you have nothing more to offer. And before you say it, because I know you will, yes, it was immature of me to make a rebuttal after stating that I was leaving the argument.

[GUNIT!]

let's just be realistic. i believe it's obvious that all they want is money. i don't see why music has a price in the first place.
the only motive i would agree with this is if the RIAA is trying to help (good) artists stay afloat. i'm rambling.

[guy_mtx]

the music industry expects you to have milllions of pounds that you spend on nothing but CDs. they need to wake up, for christs sake! nobody can afford to buy more than a few CDs per month, and they're naive for expecting you to. and then they expect you to buy it all again if you wanna put it on your iPod. hmmmm, no thanks. people would buy music if it were cheaper, if music stores didn't stock the very basic mainstream range, and if albums weren't so full of filler.

[Mr.Loomis_shred]

Does anyone else agree that Nick B should just stop?

Anyway, whoever said that record companies should stop signing every other band they see is completely correct! When i really like a band i have absolutely no problem paying for their album.

For me, i'd prefer to cut out record companies and find another way for it to work! Have recording studio's etc independent and the band comes in, they pay to record their album. They get companies in different countries to distribute their albums or simply have deals with the likes of amazon so they are in complete control of the money they get from their sales, bands organise their own tours etc. I duno how full proof that is as it is only an idea but what the hell.

If we stick with our current record companies i think they need to start finding a way to use this pirating community to their advantage instead of clashing heads with it.

[SoulMusiq77]

guy_mtx wrote:

the music industry expects you to have milllions of pounds that you spend on nothing but CDs. they need to wake up, for christs sake! nobody can afford to buy more than a few CDs per month, and they're naive for expecting you to. and then they expect you to buy it all again if you wanna put it on your iPod. hmmmm, no thanks. people would buy music if it were cheaper, if music stores didn't stock the very basic mainstream range, and if albums weren't so full of filler.

Uhhhhh.....ignorant much?

[Korzack]

Paying a band their fair share for what they create is fair enough, but TBH more money per CD goes to Labels and store owners than ever goes to the creators. What does your typical label do, anyway? They work as a musicians' bank, from what I understand (Which isn't much of the industry side, so knowledged corrections are welcome), so an artist can afford to record and promote their stuff, and then take a cut of the profits. And what, they suddenly "Own" that stuff then? You never see this slavery bullshit happen in any other business. There is a need for labels in music, but in not nearly as controlling a manner. Imagine if you took out a loan from your bank, and they then decided they wanted 10% of your paycheck, and then all of a sudden, anything you do becomes their property, to use how-ever. We'd have bloody Strikes! A better idea would be to have 'Em behave like a bank itself - i.e., to lend the money to a band for whatever the collective parties feel are needed - Recording, post-production, promotion etc., and then the band pay back like they would a regular Loan, agree rates etc., etc.,

[quazitron]

blaghostbla wrote:

Yes, I love MUSIC like you do, but they're selling a product, a product that people steal.

ARGH. When are people going to understand this. Music iracy is *not* theft. It is *not* stealing. By definition. It's a very different crime. It's copyright infringement; just the same as manslaughter is very different to murder and carries a very different penalty.

I reiterate what others have said; downloading music actively introduces people to artists' work. I have lost count of the number of albums I have bought that I otherwise wouldn't have, because I have downloaded the MP3 first. When I love an artist, I want it in CD format for the fact that it's tangible and the fact that it's better quality.

The only artists who are suffering in this mess are the record company engineered idiots like the Spice Girls or Take That that aren't real music anyway. That stuff is the stuff taking the hit, and that stuff is only serving the global conglomerate record companies anyway.

Music industry: The gravy train has pulled to a halt. You have to figure out a better way to make money off the backs of music. Right or wrong, get over it. The end.

[quazitron]

blaghostbla wrote:

Yes, I love MUSIC like you do, but they're selling a product, a product that people steal.

ARGH. When are people going to understand this. Music iracy is *not* theft. It is *not* stealing. By definition. It's a very different crime. It's copyright infringement; just the same as manslaughter is very different to murder and carries a very different penalty.

I reiterate what others have said; downloading music actively introduces people to artists' work. I have lost count of the number of albums I have bought that I otherwise wouldn't have, because I have downloaded the MP3 first. When I love an artist, I want it in CD format for the fact that it's tangible and the fact that it's better quality.

The only artists who are suffering in this mess are the record company engineered idiots like the Spice Girls or Take That that aren't real music anyway. That stuff is the stuff taking the hit, and that stuff is only serving the global conglomerate record companies anyway.

Music industry: The gravy train has pulled to a halt. You have to figure out a better way to make money off the backs of music. Right or wrong, get over it. The end.

[blaghostbla]

Jeez man, I have plenty more to rebut. But speaking of funny things it's funny how you just ignored all the points in my original post and just seemed to attack the one thing you could defend, the one thing that someone can defend with an opinion, namely whether it's stealing or not. Your examples just became silly man, trespassing and stealing, that doesn't even come close to relating? I have plenty more to offer, as I see that there's still plenty of holes in your argument, but this has gone past the point of silly, and I'm done wasting time with someone that so apparently has their head up you know where. Whatever...

[quazitron]

blaghostbla wrote:

...can defend with an opinion, namely whether it's stealing or not.

It's not an opinion. It's a fact. Talk to a judge. Talk to a lawyer. Talk to anyone in the legal profession. Piracy is copyright infringement and nothing more. It is not stealing. Period.

Authors put many more hours into a book than a musician does into a song. Many more. Do they get a cut every time someone borrows the book from the library? Do they get a cut every time someone lends the book to a friend? No.

They get money when they sell books. Musicians get money when they sell CDs. If the musicians' music isn't good enough to make people buy it, but only download it, the problem is not with the consumer.

[blaghostbla]

Right, in the eyes of the law it may just be copyright infringement, the law specifies in that manner I suppose. You must admit though man, that morally copyright infringement borders what many would consider stealing, at least I do. Maybe not to the effect that the RIAA wishes to, but definitely not to the effect that certain people try to hide away from it do. Your last point does make sense I suppose, though certain people do seem to want to forget the fact that because of the slump that the record industry is in, more labels are now trying to dip into other areas, such as merchandise, tours, etc...

[quazitron]

blaghostbla wrote:

Right, in the eyes of the law it may just be copyright infringement, the law specifies in that manner I suppose. You must admit though man, that morally copyright infringement borders what many would consider stealing, at least I do. Maybe not to the effect that the RIAA wishes to, but definitely not to the effect that certain people try to hide away from it do. Your last point does make sense I suppose, though certain people do seem to want to forget the fact that because of the slump that the record industry is in, more labels are now trying to dip into other areas, such as merchandise, tours, etc...

Oh don't get me wrong my friend. I am a (mostly) law-abiding citizen. I pay my taxes, I help old ladies across the street. I am a nice guy. But my problem with the propaganda regarding piracy being stealing is that it tars me with the same brush as real criminals who take things from a store without paying. And that's a dangerous thing to do from a sociological perspective.

Morally is my downloading an MP3 wrong? I guess it is. Yes, hands down. But what's the morality in a CD costing $20 and the artist receiving cents of that? Sure; distribution, marketing, and promotion all add up. And sure, all those people involved deserve their cut. But as someone else pointed out earlier, artists can now promote themselves. They can make their own websites. They can distribute their own music. The simple fact of all this is that the power is now back in the hands of the artist and the need for the middleman is dying. The record industry needs to harness this and work with it, or become a relic.

The way I see it, right now it can go either way. But whatever happens, ultimately, I am going to listen to the music I want to listen to, in the way I want to listen to it. Litigation or lobbying will not stop anyone.

As they say in England; The Law is an Ass. Some laws count to people and are for the greater good. Some laws don't matter to people and cannot be enforced or observed.

For decades now, we have been told what to listen to. The record industry have forced their way to the top of radio playlists to plug a poor 'artist'. They don't have control now. That's it. It's over as they know it, so this is just kicking and screaming as they fight for artificial control that they once had. Adapt or die. It's evolution in the music world.

:

[JKingXbassX]

You have to look at the bright side about internet piracy. Its a way to get your name out there. Music has been blown into just a money maker. Whatever happened to the day where people would be on the road 365 a year, making as much as an average American?
Music is loosing its essence, all people want to do is get famous and make money.
This is a great idea to counteract piracy, but all those who are leading to the decline of music in general. If you like an artist and want to support them, go ahead and buy their album, buy the tickets to their concert. If you call yourself a "fan" of the group then you will elicit your support. No one wants to waste their money on bad music, especially an unheard of group. Go ahead under those extraneous circumstances I believe it to be alright to download their music, but if you taking a liking, go out and support them. Without your support only these one hit wonder bands that you and I will admit should not have ever seen the light of day. What happened to the days of Guns N' Roses? All the great bands from the 70's? 80's? What about the Grateful Dead? Without the support of all their devout fans what would they be in an industry of today? The industry is changing, it is not like it was 10 years ago, and it wasn't the same 10 years before that. This industry changes with the decades, its how the companies adapt that makes the music scene what it is today. Im no big fan of guitar hero, but if thats what it takes to get people to be aware of whats up and coming then there it is.

[laserlifex]

I'm not really sure how they track people who are using programs like Limewire, BitTorrent and SoulSeek to download music illegally, but there are thousands of music blogs around (usually hosted on Blogspot) that offer whole albums up for download which only takes a matter of minutes, this is gonna become even more popular in the future. People download all sorts of things, how would they tell when people are downloading albums from sites like Megaupload and Rapidshare? which are linked to by blogs that are completely legal like the Torrent sites, since they do not actually host the files and are merely linking to them.

[gabrielr]

RedNovember wrote:

notice how it says making music available.

The trade group said it has hashed out preliminary agreements with major ISPs under which it will send an email to the provider when it finds a provider's customers making music available online for others to take.

Seriously? So all we have to do is NOT share our music and we're good? EMAIL ME IF YOU NEED TO KNOW HOW THIS IS DONE. [e-mail]

thats pretty dumb. if everyone stops uploading, who will you download it from?

[drewsy]

Admiral Petty wrote:

mashizz wrote:

i don't think this will work. If most ISPs do this, then people will just search for other ISPs and those companies will get rich, while the others get poor. Then, either the other ISPs will have to stop what they're doing or become bankrupt or be bought out and monopolies will form, which happen to be illegal

Nah, if it became a law that all ISPs had to do it, it wouldn't really affect their business.

i wouldnt hav the plan iv got now it would b alot smaller i hardly use wat iv got now iv hav a cheap nothing service