RIAA suing file swappers

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Trend Fader, Sep 9, 2003.

  1. Music lovers could really make them pay for this. If a significant percentage of people just stopped buying music and concert tickets for a couple of months, they'd get the message.

    Or you can continue to be ripped off.
  2. gaj


    if you want to hurt the labels, don't buy albums.

    if you want to hurt the musicians, don't buy concert tix / t-shirts/etc.

    there's a lot of musicians who couldn't make money off of the terrible contracts with labels, but DID make a living from the road.
  3. I've got nothing against touring bands. I'm thinking about the mega acts that pretty much are the labels. A few of them have been fronting this assault on file swappers, notably Metallica. I'll never buy anything that has their name on it.
  4. Metallica's whole thing a year or two ago against the file swappers was nothing more than a publicity stunt. I have friends in the business. Metallica hasn't produced shit in the past few years, and their whole assault on file sharing was nothing more than trying to revive an era of butt-rock that has long since passed...

    Personally, I prefer NOT to subsidize the recording industry by NOT buying recordings, and instead pay the artists more directly by using the cash I'd spend on recordings to go to shows (and I ONLY go to smaller shows at privately owned venues -- none of this football stadium tour sponsored by lexus where you gotta pay $8 to park your car and walk half a mile BULLSHIT)...this way I cut out the greedy, monopolistic middlemen who use some of the revenues from albums that I buy to force the likes of kid rock and brittney spears down everyone's throats...

    personally, i think the last part about kid rock is reason enough NOT to buy new recordings...
  5. And to think that in the beginning for Metallica, they wanted people to bootleg their shows with tape recorders. That way the name and music would get out in the public domain. Funny how things/attitudes change.


    Artist make their money by touring and mechandise sales, not from record sales. The recording industry makes the money from record sales.


  6. gaj


    to add one minor detail:

    "except those artists who are megastars and have renegotiated their contracts".

    basically, when a superstar artist / group is a free agent, they usually get great deals...sometimes, not even related to future album sales!
  7. The DMCA gives the RIAA gestapo like powers by allowing them to issue subpoenas through a COURT CLERK instead of an actual judge. It is pure bullshit. Also, how are they going to keep others in Canada from sharing files, where laws state that it is LEGAL to share? They can't do anything.

    The RIAA is fighting a losing battle. Their business model is flawed. Why would a DVD movie, which costs millions to produce, cost $15.99 when the sound track to that same movie cost $18.49?

    The price gouging is over. Where is my settlement check from the price fixing lawsuit against the RIAA? Until I get paid back some money from the price gouging they engaged in during the 1990's, they can kiss my ass.
  8. I've probably downloaded and shared over 1000 songs. I'm expecting a lawsuit with my name on it pretty soon. Any advice from the legal pundits?
  9. amen!

    did you see this commercial yet, aphie? http://elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=327178#post327178
    #10     Sep 9, 2003