# RIAA suing Russian “pirate outfit” for $1.6 trillion



## Jimmy 2004 (Jan 2, 2007)

The Recording Industry Association of America has announced that it is set to sue Russian music firm Mediaservices for *$1.6 trillion*. Mediaservices also owns AllofMP3.com and allTunes.com and is accused of selling music illegally. Apparently the RIAA want $150,000 for each of the 11 million pirated songs. A spokesperson for AllofMP3.com claimed that the suit is unjustified because the company doesn't operate in New York and obeys Russian Copyright laws - it even pays some of its profit to the Russian equivalent of the RIAA, the Russian Organisation for Multimedia, which the RIAA argues has no right to exist. It has been no secret that the RIAA has been unhappy with Mediaservices, but this is the first real action they've taken.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## Homeless (Jan 2, 2007)

gl w/ that one...


----------



## Jimmy 2004 (Jan 2, 2007)

Homeless said:


> gl w/ that one...



It is crazy... the only way they could have a decent chance of winning would be to get Mediaservices to an American court - which I doubt they will.


----------



## pt (Jan 2, 2007)

Jimmy 2004 said:


> It is crazy... the only way they could have a decent chance of winning would be to get Mediaservices to an American court - which I doubt they will.



that would be funny
media services can just say:
*you can kiss my balls suckers...!*


----------



## ATIonion (Jan 2, 2007)

years and years ago making music was written and made by artists not by record labels...but when recording companies started to become monsters they change they music industry...its no longer about making good music,  but more about making alot of $$$$...

with that said i see a near future where p2p and other such systems of exchange will take back music and force many recording companies out of business....wouldn't it be nice to just have good music that was made for the sake of making it and not for the money........

i compare music and movies to going to an art museum....museums around here you can get in and walk around for free...you don't have to pay to look at anything....could you imagine paying $.99 to see a single painting? Hell no....so why should music be any different......because of the record labels is why....they will be their own undoing....


----------



## Seany1212 (Jan 2, 2007)

LOLOL, they want $150,00 for EACH song!!    , money grabbing morons, ATIonion i back that one.


----------



## WarEagleAU (Jan 2, 2007)

HAHA! I wish them luck with that. On that note. Well Put Onion. well put


----------



## bornfree (Jan 2, 2007)

Despite the bashing of the RIAA, copyright laws will always prevail in a court of law - as they should. The Russian's think they are immune from prosecution for facilitating piracy, but they are wrong. It may take some time but you can be certain that AllOfMP3 will be closed down too, just like every other illegal P2P piracy website. 

The courts have no choice but to enforce law and it's right to do so. Pirates will be forced to buy goods and services - just like every other citizen in society or go without. The marketplace determines prices. If you think the price of a product is too high then stop buying it. No one needs to steal - it's simply a bad choice they make and one that can land them in jail - as it should.


----------



## bretts31344 (Jan 2, 2007)

bornfree said:


> It may take some time but you can be certain that AllOfMP3 will be closed down too, just like every other illegal P2P piracy website.




LOL, you seriously think EVERY P2P site will be shutdown? You have to be kidding.


----------



## pt (Jan 2, 2007)

bretts31344 said:


> LOL, you seriously think EVERY P2P site will be shutdown? You have to be kidding.



in the dreams of the RIAA it will probabily happen


----------



## Track (Jan 2, 2007)

Even if they take down the websites, there is NOTHING to do against P2P because its just 2 ppl exchanging data over the internet, and no one owns the internet. The only way would be to make it illegel to rip ur CDs and have the files on ur PC.


----------



## Track (Jan 2, 2007)

ATIonion said:


> wouldn't it be nice to just have good music that was made for the sake of making it and not for the money........



If they couldnt make a profit off of it, they wouldnt be doing it.



ATIonion said:


> i compare music and movies to going to an art museum....museums around here you can get in and walk around for free...you don't have to pay to look at anything....could you imagine paying $.99 to see a single painting? Hell no....so why should music be any different......because of the record labels is why....they will be their own undoing....



No, thats because u get to keep the song, where as u cannot take the painting home. A museum is like a radio station where u can listen to songs just once, and u pay a little extra so that u can choose what songs are played.


----------



## ATIonion (Jan 2, 2007)

bornfree said:


> The Russian's think they are immune from prosecution for facilitating piracy, but they are wrong.



I don't pretend to know about international laws and how one country would go about suing another country...So what i say isn't set in stone....however who do they prosecute? how do they prosecute them? 

and who the hell has $1.trillion to payout anyway...if record labels have lost out on $1.6 trillion to this, then i have really under guessed the amount of P2P and piracy that occurs...




bornfree said:


> It may take some time but you can be certain that AllOfMP3 will be closed down too, just like every other illegal P2P piracy website.



I don't think that could happen....trying to stop all P2P would be like telling everyone to stop listening....the way in which P2P works may change to side step legal issues....



bornfree said:


> The courts have no choice but to enforce law and it's right to. No one needs to steal - it's simply a bad choice they make and one that can land them in jail



i agree that the courts have no choice but to do what they have to do.....and sure no one needs to steal...maybe in a life or death situation to steal could be justified...but we aren't talking about a loaf of bread or some milk for the baby...


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 2, 2007)

Jimmy 2004 said:


> The Russian Organisation for Multimedia, which the RIAA argues has no right to exist.



Man, the RIAA really needs a damn reality check.


----------



## Fragman (Jan 2, 2007)

I can understand why the rest of the world hates the US they think they a the world police.

ppl in the US need to get a fucking life.


----------



## zekrahminator (Jan 2, 2007)

Nice find Jimmy, I heard about it in school today, and was going to post it, but... . From what I can tell...A- It's not possible for the lawsuit to actually go through. You can't sue a Russian company from New York, because Russia is not governed by the United States of America. B- $150,000 a song is outrageous and ridiculous, especially for a completely legitimate business in Russia. C- In the unlikely event that this gets into court and is actually accepted, they are asking an unreasonable amount of money. The gross national income of Russia is 1.5 trillion, and they're asking for 1.6. D- Once again, if this went through, a counter suit would be completely reasonable.


----------



## pt (Jan 2, 2007)

Fragman said:


> I can understand why the rest of the world hates the US they think they a the world police.
> 
> ppl in the US need to get a fucking life.



i don't hate the usa, just their government and some stupid laws


----------



## DMSMac_Consult (Jan 2, 2007)

I wouldn't be surprised if the case was dismissed outright on jurisdictional grounds, or transferred to a Russian venue where Russian law will prevail.

And $1.6 trillion?  If any judge actually considered letting a case proceed with such an egregious amount sought for damages, he should have his head examined.  Is this like the largest lawsuit in history?


----------



## ATIonion (Jan 2, 2007)

Track said:


> If they couldn't make a profit off of it, they wouldn't be doing it.




sure they would...music was around well before people started making huge profits from it....music is vital to all society.....music just wouldn't stop because you couldn't make money from it....




Track said:


> No, thats because u get to keep the song, where as u cannot take the painting home. A museum is like a radio station where u can listen to songs just once, and u pay a little extra so that u can choose what songs are played.




i think you're looking a little too deep into what i said....tho i see your point...i'm not sure how to argue such a topic....we all have ripped from a friends CD...back in the day it was cassette tapes....then cd, and now MP and whatnot......we have all either recorded or have a recording of a live concert....

I'm not saying this is all OK, but its clear that huge changes are coming...and i think after time it won't be an illegal thing to worry about...they can't control it really, and more and more people are going to P2P networks to get movies and music.....after time it can only hurt those industries..


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jan 2, 2007)

i'd just tell the riaa to fuck off and set the russian mafia on 'em.


----------



## Steevo (Jan 2, 2007)

With how easy it is to move content, the RIAA is soon going to be forced to try to outlaw music on the internet (fat chance) or to put their head between their legs and kiss their ass goodbye.


Private FTP, shared e-mail accounts, hell every messenger out there allows transfers. Talk to someone and get the new CD at the same time.


WTF do they think they are going to do about it?


----------



## ATIonion (Jan 2, 2007)

Steevo said:


> With how easy it is to move content, the RIAA is soon going to be forced to try to outlaw music on the internet (fat chance) or to put their head between their legs and kiss their ass goodbye.
> 
> 
> Private FTP, shared e-mail accounts, hell every messenger out there allows transfers. Talk to someone and get the new CD at the same time.
> ...





i agree...


now the question is      what will movies and music be like without the big $$$$ being spent on them....last i heard movie makers say they lose about 8% a year, and growing, to pirating....so we have a ways to go before that time...pretty obvious what would happen to the movie industry...they would have to sell a shit load of Pepsi ads in the movies, if they don't sell ads then the movies will begin to really suck...imagine DooM with guys in rubber suits like in Godzilla..lol....but do you guys think it will be good or bad for music industry???


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 2, 2007)

ATIonion said:


> i agree...
> 
> 
> now the question is      what will movies and music be like without the big $$$$ being spent on them....last i heard movie makers say they lose about 8% a year and growing....



I would atribute the movie industry losses on the fact that they keep churning out the same crappy movies over and over again and the number of crappy movies has grown leaps and bounds in the past years, while the number of good movies has declined sharply.


----------



## overcast (Jan 2, 2007)

ATIonion said:


> years and years ago making music was written and made by artists not by record labels...but when recording companies started to become monsters they change they music industry...its no longer about making good music,  but more about making alot of $$$$...
> 
> with that said i see a near future where p2p and other such systems of exchange will take back music and force many recording companies out of business....wouldn't it be nice to just have good music that was made for the sake of making it and not for the money........
> 
> ...


Museums are heavily financed mostly by wealthy private individuals. Often times you have to pay to attend artists exhibits. Your comparison make absolutely no sense. The record companies put up all the capital, produce the albums, pay all the people working on the albums, the artists, AND THEY OWN IT. They aren't allowed to defend what they own? Get a clue. These arguments are so stupid, you have absolutely ZERO right to their music. You are paying for a licensed copy of the music, you don't own it. Saying you have a right to steal their music is just ridiculous. These laws weren't created with the invention of distributable music/movies. They were created because people are stealing them. YOU CAUSED IT, YOU DEAL WITH THE REPERCUSSIONS.  You can't honestly believe that you have a right to free music and movies. I guess I have a right to free cars and houses right? Who is going to make this magical music for the sake of making music? Are you going to feed these people? Pay for their mortgages, their cars? A Communist country might suit you better.


----------



## ATIonion (Jan 2, 2007)

newtekie1 said:


> I would attribute the movie industry losses on the fact that they keep churning out the same crappy movies over and over again and the number of crappy movies has grown leaps and bounds in the past years, while the number of good movies has declined sharply.







ATIonion said:


> last i heard movie makers say they lose about 8% a year, and growing, to pirating....






i made an edit to what i said....they estimate 8% a year to just pirating...im sure they have a lose figured in the crap movies they put out tho...






overcast said:


> Museums are heavily financed mostly by wealthy private individuals. Often times you have to pay to attend artists exhibits. Your comparison make absolutely no sense. The record companies put up all the capital, produce the albums, pay all the people working on the albums, the artists, AND THEY OWN IT. They aren't allowed to defend what they own? Get a clue. These arguments are so stupid, you have absolutely ZERO right to their music. You are paying for a licensed copy of the music, you don't own it. Saying you have a right to steal their music is just ridiculous. These laws weren't created with the invention of distributable music/movies. They were created because people are stealing them. YOU CAUSED IT, YOU DEAL WITH THE REPERCUSSIONS.  You can't honestly believe that you have a right to free music and movies. I guess I have a right to free cars and houses right? Who is going to make this magical music for the sake of making music? Are you going to feed these people? Pay for their mortgages, their cars? A Communist country might suit you better.




argue what you want....thats apart of TPU, but remember when you read this stuff that its mostly opinions....to get all upset over a simple discussion is a waste...and it makes you look like a dick....


----------



## pt (Jan 2, 2007)

overcast said:


> Museums are heavily financed mostly by wealthy private individuals. Often times you have to pay to attend artists exhibits. Your comparison make absolutely no sense. The record companies put up all the capital, produce the albums, pay all the people working on the albums, the artists, AND THEY OWN IT. They aren't allowed to defend what they own? Get a clue. These arguments are so stupid, you have absolutely ZERO right to their music. You are paying for a licensed copy of the music, you don't own it. Saying you have a right to steal their music is just ridiculous. These laws weren't created with the invention of distributable music/movies. They were created because people are stealing them. YOU CAUSED IT, YOU DEAL WITH THE REPERCUSSIONS.  You can't honestly believe that you have a right to free music and movies. I guess I have a right to free cars and houses right? Who is going to make this magical music for the sake of making music? Are you going to feed these people? Pay for their mortgages, their cars? A Communist country might suit you better.



too bad comunism isn't like that in real life, i would become one


----------



## overcast (Jan 2, 2007)

ATIonion said:


> argue what you want....thats apart of TPU, but remember when you read this stuff that its mostly opinions....to get all upset over a simple discussion is a waste...and it makes you look like a dick....


So that's all you could muster in response to my questions?


----------



## Grings (Jan 2, 2007)

the riaa and mpaa allways quote lost revenues as if EVERY person who downloads/copies a movie album would have gone out and bought EVERY song/movie they have, whats more they work these amount out as a full retail price, in u.k. that would mean £19.99 a dvd or 15.99 a cd (even though most stores sell for much less than this). The fact is that in an 'ideal' world (no piracy) people would buy about 2/10 of what they get for free MAX

Also they're the recording industry assosiation of AMERICA, so what juristiction do they expect to get?, they should be pressing their government to hassle the russian gov into action


----------



## overcast (Jan 2, 2007)

pt said:


> too bad comunism isn't like that in real life, i would become one


Well that's the idea anyways


----------



## overcast (Jan 2, 2007)

Grings said:


> the riaa and mpaa allways quote lost revenues as if EVERY person who downloads/copies a movie album would have gone out and bought EVERY song/movie they have, whats more they work these amount out as a full retail price, in u.k. that would mean £19.99 a dvd or 15.99 a cd (even though most stores sell for much less than this). The fact is that in an 'ideal' world (no piracy) people would buy about 2/10 of what they get for free MAX
> 
> Also they're the recording industry assosiation of AMERICA, so what juristiction do they expect to get?, they should be pressing their government to hassle the russian gov into action


So if there was absolutely NO WAY for these people to listen to the music they want to hear, other than purchasing from stores. You're telling me , they just wouldn't listen to music?  I don't believe for one second these people would not be buying them if they couldn't just download them for free.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jan 2, 2007)

*lmao*

hrm...well the russian govt is basically run  by mobsters. their "riaa" equivalant is basically a group of thugs who demand cash from people making money off of other peoples work without permission. they are a long way from legit. then you have the real RIAA, a bunch of industry thugs using american govt force to push out fair trade use in its own country! ...the pot calls the kettle black.


----------



## overcast (Jan 2, 2007)

No one ever brings up how these artists are the ones signing contracts with these industry labels. The labels aren't holding them at gunpoint, they aren't releasing their music without consent, they aren't stealing their music. The artists and their lawyers know full well what is happening and what is going to happen before they sign. Why don't they just start up their own private label and distribute? Because the money is in the LARGE labels. If artists never signed contracts, there would be no record labels.

Why do you think the fines per individual offense are so obscenely high? If they were some pidly amount, even MORE large pirate rings would start up. The benefits would outweigh the negatives. Have any of you actually seen these court cases settle on $150,000 per individual offense? Hell no, the court decides the final fine. 

Stop carrying on about your rights to do this and that and this. You do NOT have a right to steal someone else's work, and you certainly don't care about the artists if you consider it.


----------



## pt (Jan 2, 2007)

overcast said:


> So if there was absolutely NO WAY for these people to listen to the music they want to hear, other than purchasing from stores. You're telling me , they just wouldn't listen to music?  I don't believe for one second these people would not be buying them if they couldn't just download them for free.



i won't, and if i did it would be like a cd a year or something


----------



## Jimmy 2004 (Jan 2, 2007)

overcast said:


> Stop carrying on about your rights to do this and that and this. You do NOT have a right to steal someone else's work, and you certainly don't care about the artists if you consider it.



People haven't got a right to share music over the net, that is true - but the problem in this case that I'm considering is whether or not the fact that the company was obeying the Russian laws should mean it will get off lightly. I would consider it unfair if I was arrested by because of a Russian law that doesn't exist in the UK.


----------



## overcast (Jan 2, 2007)

pt said:


> i won't, and if i did it would be like a cd a year or something


Well you are in the minority. People love music, a library of 100's of CD's isn't exactly uncommon.


----------



## cdawall (Jan 2, 2007)

im just going to put this out there but are they going to shut down internet radio just cause you can copy the songs off them? (thats how i get mines)


----------



## overcast (Jan 2, 2007)

Jimmy 2004 said:


> People haven't got a right to share music over the net, that is true - but the problem in this case that I'm considering is whether or not the fact that the company was obeying the Russian laws should mean it will get off lightly. I would consider it unfair if I was arrested by because of a Russian law that doesn't exist in the UK.


I agree, the international law stuff is a mess. Obviously. However my discussion is more in regards to the user comments on the subject. The majority feels that somehow these labels are the wrongdoers, and they have some type of right to steal music from them. So their fines are astronomical, so what? Why would you care if you are legally purchasing the music.


----------



## Grings (Jan 2, 2007)

overcast said:


> So if there was absolutely NO WAY for these people to listen to the music they want to hear, other than purchasing from stores. You're telling me , they just wouldn't listen to music?  I don't believe for one second these people would not be buying them if they couldn't just download them for free.



no im saying people wouldnt have the thousands of films and albums they do have, for example one of my friends has about 9000 albums on his computer, when he probably hasnt earnt enough money in his life to buy that many cd's


----------



## overcast (Jan 2, 2007)

Grings said:


> no im saying people wouldnt have the thousands of films and albums they do have, for example one of my friends has about 9000 albums on his computer, when he probably hasnt earnt enough money in his life to buy that many cd's


Right, which means he should not have them. This is Capitalism.


----------



## cdawall (Jan 2, 2007)

hey i have an idea for the RIAA why dont you go over to russia and try to collect your money


----------



## zekrahminator (Jan 2, 2007)

So much text so little time, guys, let me know if things get out of hand (or if people start insulting other people).


----------



## cdawall (Jan 2, 2007)

zekrahminator said:


> So much text so little time, guys, let me know if things get out of hand (or if people start insulting other people).



you smell bad 
j/k


----------



## tkpenalty (Jan 2, 2007)

wtf??? RIAA seriously needs to get sued for monopoly. Trillion dollars = stupid. RIAA needs to die and learn to keep to their own country. They just want money its obvious.


----------



## mout12 (Jan 3, 2007)

The RIAA could pay for the Iraq war.  Then all the hippies could stop b*tching.


----------



## mout12 (Jan 3, 2007)

Track said:


> If they couldnt make a profit off of it, they wouldnt be doing it.



I play drums at my church for free....


----------



## Steevo (Jan 3, 2007)

At .99 per song it isn't so bad. But what kills me is the "whole album only" purchases, if you like the two songs on this shit compilation, you must buy it all. It isn't like a movie, where you purchase something that you can rent first too see if you like it, or have a friend bring over to see if you like it.


It is like Talladega Nights, the only funny parts were on the previews, so why buy the movie? 


Why can I not watch Cars with my son, on my projector through component video? Cause the MPAA are assholes. So why are we forced to rip the movie to watch thus constituting piracy. I paid for the expensive shit to watch the fing movie on, but can't. 


It is dishonest on their part to make it so. Thus, I will not buy a movie that does me no good. I will rent and rip or find a torrent. Hell for the price of five movies I can buy another drive and store 50. 


Their logic makes no sense, and yes they are thugs. Same gestapo shit that parts if Chicago put up with and probably still do. "We will protect you for a fee, and if you don't pay we fuck you up."


I am the consumer, I make the rules, cause I have the gold.


----------



## overcast (Jan 3, 2007)

tkpenalty said:


> wtf??? RIAA seriously needs to get sued for monopoly. Trillion dollars = stupid. RIAA needs to die and learn to keep to their own country. They just want money its obvious.


You just don't get it. A monopoly suit? Monopoly on what exactly?


----------



## pt (Jan 3, 2007)

Steevo said:


> I am the consumer, I make the rules, cause I have the gold.



so true, and musicians gets most of their money in concerts not in selling cd's


----------



## Juntao (Jan 3, 2007)

*Hmmm*

Well from what I understand piracy in Russia has gotten so bad the media companies release screener like region 5 movies over there just to compete with it. The US would never go that route though. I think it would be easier if they actually decided to stop overcharging for the movies but I have no idea. I know some friends that got letters from the MPAA. But alas, i am just here for the video card stuff so nevermind my comments. I just wanted to type something.


----------



## xvi (Jan 3, 2007)

Fragman said:


> ppl in the US need to get a fucking life.



Because each and every person in the US is exactly like you see on your local media, right? Other countries criticize us for believing in our media too much because that's what _their_ media told them. Hypocrites anyone?


----------



## xvi (Jan 3, 2007)

Steevo said:


> At .99 per song, it isn't so bad.



Yeah, but some people don't feel like paying $10,000+. Especially starving college students.


----------



## Steevo (Jan 3, 2007)

If you need 10,000 songs a year then perhaps you need to recognize that your want to be entertained is becoming a addiction. For me, the music that I choose is mostly free. I know alot of DJ's through one. And have access to all their works.




And begging anyones pardon, the "free" program Audicity for recording and editing files also allows recording from any source, be it streamed, or otherwise. Perhaps not the cleanest of files, but for free VS putting on crap software? And the ability to clean the file up some.



Any music video, any time. Or video and audio capture via a few free plugins. What happened to people being creative?


----------



## Saurian (Jan 3, 2007)

CD's costing 16 dollars+ when little of that money goes to the artist anyways, is rediculous. I'd happily pay 10-12 bucks for every album I wanted if 3/4 of it went to the folks that made it - and the rest made to the facilitator (ie, the record company). 

In all honesty, I buy more music then I ever have before. I will go on a binge of downloading music (Usually downloading 4-10GB over a couple of days) and then going through that to find what I like. If I find that I like the majority of the album, I'll go snatch up the CD. However, its an injustice to all to have to buy a CD with 1 good song, 1 decent song, and 12 filler songs. And if I'm going to pay for music, I'm getting a damn hard copy. 

That said, I have the urge to blow 50 bucks on allofmp3 right now, haha.


----------



## xvi (Jan 3, 2007)

Steevo said:


> If you need 10,000 songs a year then perhaps you need to recognize that your want to be entertained is becoming a addiction.



I didn't say anything about _per year..._



> And begging anyones pardon, the "free" program Audicity for recording and editing files also allows recording from any source, be it streamed, or otherwise. Perhaps not the cleanest of files, but for free VS putting on crap software? And the ability to clean the file up some.



Then the RIAA will start up the same argument that we had with VHS. How many times have you seen a movie that's been recorded from the TV? Or better yet, copied from a friend?
It's going to be the same story here except that the RIAA has the ability to catch a couple people.
People record movies from the TV just as People can (and should be able to) record music from the radio.

Personally, I'd rather download a high bitrate copy from the pirate community rather than fumble around with software to capture a web stream/radio.


----------



## Solaris17 (Jan 3, 2007)

ATIonion said:


> years and years ago making music was written and made by artists not by record labels...but when recording companies started to become monsters they change they music industry...its no longer about making good music,  but more about making alot of $$$$...
> 
> with that said i see a near future where p2p and other such systems of exchange will take back music and force many recording companies out of business....wouldn't it be nice to just have good music that was made for the sake of making it and not for the money........
> 
> i compare music and movies to going to an art museum....museums around here you can get in and walk around for free...you don't have to pay to look at anything....could you imagine paying $.99 to see a single painting? Hell no....so why should music be any different......because of the record labels is why....they will be their own undoing....



well said bud.


----------



## Wile E (Jan 3, 2007)

overcast said:


> No one ever brings up how these artists are the ones signing contracts with these industry labels. The labels aren't holding them at gunpoint, they aren't releasing their music without consent, they aren't stealing their music. The artists and their lawyers know full well what is happening and what is going to happen before they sign. Why don't they just start up their own private label and distribute? Because the money is in the LARGE labels. If artists never signed contracts, there would be no record labels.


They don't start their own label because it is too expensive. Have you ever seen a band go into a bank and ask for a loan to start a label? I have, and the bank's reaction isn't pretty.

I, in no way advocate piracy, but the labels are the bad guys. They're the reason CDs cost so much to produce or buy. The have their hands in every facet of the music industry, and they control the prices of everything from studio time for the artist, right down the final purchasing price of the CDs for the consumer, and every step in between. It's an extremely crooked and cutthroat business, right on par with Hollywood, if not worse. The ones that are hurt the most are the artists, not the labels.

But, like I said, I do not advocate piracy. Stealing is stealing. But the RIAA and labels need their heads examined. These amounts that they sue for are unjustified.


----------



## overcast (Jan 3, 2007)

xvi said:


> Yeah, but some people don't feel like paying $10,000+. Especially starving college students.


Well then those people need to decide whether obtaining 3 new songs every single day is worth more than a year of college education.


----------



## overcast (Jan 3, 2007)

Wile E said:


> They don't start their own label because it is too expensive. Have you ever seen a band go into a bank and ask for a loan to start a label? I have, and the bank's reaction isn't pretty.
> 
> I, in no way advocate piracy, but the labels are the bad guys. They're the reason CDs cost so much to produce or buy. The have their hands in every facet of the music industry, and they control the prices of everything from studio time for the artist, right down the final purchasing price of the CDs for the consumer, and every step in between. It's an extremely crooked and cutthroat business, right on par with Hollywood, if not worse. The ones that are hurt the most are the artists, not the labels.
> 
> But, like I said, I do not advocate piracy. Stealing is stealing. But the RIAA and labels need their heads examined. These amounts that they sue for are unjustified.


WELCOME TO CAPITALISM.


----------



## Steevo (Jan 3, 2007)

It is interesting that you will not argue the grounds that they act like thugs, and recording from alternate sources is wrong.



Like the FM recording that a Creative card can offer, but was omitted for a short time due to pressure from RIAA. 



Hands in every pie.


----------



## Jimmy 2004 (Jan 3, 2007)

Let's be careful guys, we don't want to get into flame wars and obviously there are some conflicting descisions here. Civilised discussions are fine, and at the moment this thread is ok but if it does get worse I expect the mods will close it quite quick.


----------



## xvi (Jan 3, 2007)

overcast said:


> Well then those people need to decide whether obtaining 3 new songs every single day is worth more than a year of college education.



In the eyes of many college students, pirating is still an option. They don't care if it's legal or not. Of the millions of people who do it, how is anyone going to notice one more?

There are lots of ways to share music without the use of the internet (where the RIAA can try to stick their noses in). The internet should be private anyways..


----------



## overcast (Jan 3, 2007)

xvi said:


> In the eyes of many college students, pirating is still an option. They don't care if it's legal or not. Of the millions of people who do it, how is anyone going to notice one more?
> 
> There are lots of ways to share music without the use of the internet (where the RIAA can try to stick their noses in). The internet should be private anyways..


That's the same excuse people who don't vote give. "Well my one vote doesn't mean anything anyhow". If everyone had that attitude, it adds up. Get it?


----------



## xvi (Jan 3, 2007)

overcast said:


> That's the same excuse people who don't vote give. "Well my one vote doesn't mean anything anyhow". If everyone had that attitude, it adds up. Get it?



True. Of course I would never condone pirating. The only change RIAA will make in the pirating world is that we'll see more secure or alternate ways to transfer files between users. DRM will most likely flop and open source will prevail. Isn't this what we've seen before?


----------



## Steevo (Jan 3, 2007)

xvi said:


> DRM will most likely flop and open source will prevail. Isn't this what we've seen before?



Not too much though, just due to the stupidity of many users.


----------



## Grings (Jan 3, 2007)

the fact that any hmv sale will have loads of albums for £3.99 yet charge £15.99 for a chart cd shows that these huge 'loss of revenue' figures are bo*&^%s!

i myself have about 450 cd's yet i do download albums (if i like it i buy it, as the quality from my expensive cd player is far better than even lossless wma etc, even through an x-fi crystalizer)

same with movies too, not sure about hdmi vid cards, but my ati avivo's component(no not composite) output cant touch my dvd player with a £70 rgb scart cable


----------



## Wile E (Jan 3, 2007)

overcast said:


> WELCOME TO CAPITALISM.


No, more like WELCOME TO MONOPOLIZATION. The labels control everything in the music industry, literally everything. Thru shady back doors deals, pay offs, blackmail, etc., etc. They're as bad as politicians. Once again, I don't believe that pirating music is acceptable, but neither is the music industry's behavior. More thought should be put into effects of piracy on the artists. Screw the labels, they don't deserve to be defended by anyone. Nor do they deserve to recieve the damages that they ask for. Piracy should be dealt with just like shop lifting, Or, on the larger scale of this case, like any other stolen goods operation. No such operation that I've ever read about has ever caused, or been forced to pay, $1.6T. That's flat out ridiculous. You can scream capitalism all you want, to me what the labels are doing is nothing short of highway robbery.


----------



## Gwargor (Jan 3, 2007)

Fragman said:


> I can understand why the rest of the world hates the US they think they a the world police.
> 
> ppl in the US need to get a fucking life.



What does the RIAA have to do with the US government? Some people just bash to bash I guess.


----------



## ex_reven (Jan 3, 2007)

if we didnt pay for music, it would become a pastime rather than a profession

therefore musicians would no longer earn money, meaning less people would be interested in music and on the whole there is a diminished chance of developing young artists who are charged with keeping music modern and updating music into the next generations. In finality, this means that our future generations might not have music to look forward to in the next hundred years.

If you look at art, the process is similar. The dark ages (as thought by many modern kids) was not a time of no technology, excitement or cavemen. The dark ages was a period in time where ART and LITERATURE was at its lowest esteem of development, religious texts and the artworks previously thought as beautiful became stagnant ideas. The only thing that rescues us from these 'dark ages' is the new talent we find in every generation, without which, further evolution of the human race becomes impossible.

So yes, let 'p2p sharing to encourage autonomous music'.
Simultaneously I hope you enjoy watching a part of human life dredge slowly into the gutter.


----------



## trodas (Jan 3, 2007)

Let's hope RIAA suxxkas lose it


----------



## pt (Jan 3, 2007)

trodas said:


> Let's hope RIAA suxxkas lose it



YEY 
I'M A COMUNIST


----------



## Steevo (Jan 4, 2007)

ex_reven said:


> if we didnt pay for music, it would become a pastime rather than a profession
> 
> therefore musicians would no longer earn money, meaning less people would be interested in music and on the whole there is a diminished chance of developing young artists who are charged with keeping music modern and updating music into the next generations. In finality, this means that our future generations might not have music to look forward to in the next hundred years.
> 
> ...




"The dark ages" was a time where the iron hand of religion bonded with government power to try and keep the populace under its control. If it didn't say what the bible taught, then it was hearsay, and if it did, then it was just more to confuse the mind. So anything that was not approved by the governmental religion, was treason, or sacrilege. 


To be honest, the RIAA, and their ability to pocket politicians is like a mainstream religion, where if you do not belong, then you are a outcast and deserve nothing. And if the RIAA had it their way, you would not have it any other way. You would be spoon fed your entertainment, and use your hard earned money to pay for their exuberant lifestyle. So in essence, the american revolution was a breaking of the antagonistic ties to that lifestyle, a gracing of freedom from oppression. 


The RIAA and other human made corporations (oil, insurance, etc...) are who really rules this country. Think about it, no insurance, you go to jail, no oil, you go NOWHERE. When did it happen that we needed to be told how to live, think, act, pay out our monies, listen to, drink, eat. It was when we gave that trust to these companies, we entrusted them with our money, and they took it and made a place for themselves that we cannot seemingly do without. 



So who here is to blame?


----------



## ex_reven (Jan 4, 2007)

Steevo said:


> "The dark ages" was a time where the iron hand of religion bonded with government power to try and keep the populace under its control. If it didn't say what the bible taught, then it was hearsay, and if it did, then it was just more to confuse the mind. So anything that was not approved by the governmental religion, was treason, or sacrilege.



in a way yes, but it wasnt as heavy handed as you described
for example, artists back in that time could not publish non christian artworks (in christian european lands) not because they would be punished, but because it was seen as against the norm. Back then they didnt have alot of people willing to commission artists (pay them) to create unpopular works, especially since the majority of the rich were devout and respected christians who relied on their ties to the upper class in order to remain at the top of society.

By commissioning a painter (real painters were rare, due to the fact that few people could afford them) who painted non normal scenes, against the conventions of the art at that time would have been a pointless risk to their own livelyhood. Because of this, art and literature could not evolve into anything more than the conventions deemed it could. They were restricted by rules that existed to maintain religious stability. If art was created of normal everyday subject matter, what does that say about artworks of Christian icons? They would indeed become ordinary, and the Catholic church was unwilling to allow that to happen.

But it was in no way punishable by law, that only really happened in times such as the Spanish inquisition, and even that was restricted to a landmass, not a major global epidemic.


----------



## ATIonion (Jan 4, 2007)

trodas said:


> Let's hope RIAA suxxkas lose it




man thats great....did you find that somewhere or did you just thow that together yourself??


----------



## ex_reven (Jan 4, 2007)

Steevo said:


> The RIAA and other human made corporations (oil, insurance, etc...) are who really rules this country. Think about it, no insurance, you go to jail, no oil, you go NOWHERE. When did it happen that we needed to be told how to live, think, act, pay out our monies, listen to, drink, eat. It was when we gave that trust to these companies, we entrusted them with our money, and they took it and made a place for themselves that we cannot seemingly do without.
> 
> So who here is to blame?



You cant blame anyone, the rule of the world is to populate or perish.
And while you might think that these companies are uber corrupt, you would be surprised to see how much of their infrastructure is devoted to things like helping the environment, customer assistance and maintaining the order of society.

Sure there are issues, but they only exist because of loopholes that exist in the laws we have written, and loopholes develop because our laws cannot keep up with constantly evolving human nature and human behaviour. And as for everyone being for themselves, of course we are? When hasnt humanity existed for itself or a nation at the expense of another?


----------



## Steevo (Jan 4, 2007)

ex_reven said:


> You cant blame anyone, the rule of the world is to populate or perish.
> And while you might think that these companies are uber corrupt, you would be surprised to see how much of their infrastructure is devoted to things like helping the environment, customer assistance and maintaining the order of society.
> 
> Sure there are issues, but they only exist because of loopholes that exist in the laws we have written, and loopholes develop because our laws cannot keep up with constantly evolving human nature and human behaviour. And as for everyone being for themselves, of course we are? When hasnt humanity existed for itself or a nation at the expense of another?



Enron.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070103/ap_on_bi_ge/exxonmobil_global_warming
Bids on rebuilding in Iraq, Louisiana, or anything else. Nahh, just let one overpriced company do it.


What has populating to do with insurance and other big companies running the country and the world.

Money talks and bullshit walks. 

Say what you want about how great these companies are, and every company, but when it comes down to it, they are there for the almighty buck, and will do what ever it takes to make it.


----------



## ex_reven (Jan 4, 2007)

Steevo said:


> Enron.
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070103/ap_on_bi_ge/exxonmobil_global_warming
> Bids on rebuilding in Iraq, Louisiana, or anything else. Nahh, just let one overpriced company do it.
> 
> ...



what about shareholders, shareholders are one of the major reasons for the proliferation of a company and its will to expand. And just about every single first world living person is a shareholder in any one company. You cant just say the company is evil for what it does, like enron, they have other peoples pockets to make happy other than their own.

As for population, its an expression based upon a historical event in white society where other races were welcomed in order to create a global community of trade to stop the diminishing empires of the west and the growth of the communist threat. And what better to reestablish a foreign country in need of aid than one company with billions of dollars (albeit unstable ones) at its disposal, rather than a few that lack the funding or infrastructure to work together to actually make progress rather than a propaganda gain.


----------



## Steevo (Jan 4, 2007)

ex_reven said:


> what about shareholders, shareholders are one of the major reasons for the proliferation of a company and its will to expand. And just about every single first world living person is a shareholder in any one company. You cant just say the company is evil for what it does, like enron, they have other peoples pockets to make happy other than their own.
> 
> As for population, its an expression based upon a historical event in white society where other races were welcomed in order to create a global community of trade to stop the diminishing empires of the west and the growth of the communist threat. And what better to reestablish a foreign country in need of aid than one company with billions of dollars (albeit unstable ones) at its disposal, rather than a few that lack the funding or infrastructure to work together to actually make progress rather than a propaganda gain.



You remind me of someone I used to know. It is a good thing.



Shareholders receive in many instances a "pep talk" of how the company is going to  do. And how they plan on making money. All the while the long namers give themselves raises or use the excuse that a private jet is a company expense. My wife runs a company, and it is amazing what you can write off if you have big enough balls and a good lawyer. Hell, the company I work for and the people that I see everyday. 



What good is a dollar if it means nothing? At the current world rate Asia will overtake the US as the largest economy in OUR lifetime. Feed your fire with that. A populace filled with "illegal copies, warez, hacks, cracks" and some of the most intelligent people in the world for raw logic. Every civilization has it's time in the world. Our will be ending shortly due to the fact that most are fat, lazy, unoriginal bastards that "appreciate the smell of perfume, to that of sweat". Our society is plagued by the notion that enough schools, with enough dollars, and enough gifts, and enough young people, will amount to something. But it seems that it again  is the underdog that is coming from behind to nip at the heels of the so called fast runner. 



So while the people complain about not being able to buy their son that Porsche as a graduation gift, their life will mean no more than a finger in a glass of water when it is withdrawn. And their whiny bitching about supposedly losing money to all the bad people who can't afford a sniff of what they have will amount to mere wind. It has been so for every generation, to fight for what they want, then try to keep their ground against the current generation.


----------



## ex_reven (Jan 4, 2007)

Ive enjoyed this discussion and you make some very good, valid points. 
I was merely trying to point out the fact that the reason for corruption is not in the nature of a corporation or body of franchises, but instead within ALL people. 

We are all corrupted in some way, whether it be through action, physique, thought or word.



> What good is a dollar if it means nothing?


What good is life at all? What is its purpose, if not to be greedy? What does life have to do with anything, and does it all become meaningless anyway in death. I hate the thought.


----------



## trodas (Jan 4, 2007)

*pt* - looks like me too. Weird thing is, that I feel like to kill some commies, instead of becoming one. So it is just a propaganda that is trying to safe their fat a$$ses 


*ATIonion* - I find that on 4chan.org ... I posting the link to the site w/o being clickable for purpose, because that is image board where most pictures are not only not worksafe, but well... well judge for yourlsef. I have fun sometimes, so...  


*ex_reven* - 





> What good is a dollar if it means nothing?





> What good is life at all? What is its purpose, if not to be greedy? What does life have to do with anything, and does it all become meaningless anyway in death. I hate the thought.



Get used to it. First at all, dollar means nothing. Since 1971 you can't even exchange it for gold (!) so it become just worthless green papers. (I was pretty amazed that, since I come to that conclusion myself, Fidel Castro make such statement first - damn suxxka, he has a advantage, lol)
Now there is only one purpose in life - to get along with others and contribute as much to mankind envolve, as possible. Being greedy did not make you contributing to anything except spreading hate and regressing mankind back to barbarous age.
And the fact that we all going to die did not make our actions irrelevant. It is more like how we are remembered, what we accomplish. History will not remember just greedy suxxkas. History will remember these that helped to make it, by lunching Sputnik, by discovering America and proving that world is not flat, these who sail over the world, these who first put a man on space, those who get man on the Moo.
What do you think will history remember Bill Gates? As 640 is enought for everyone? Or as greedy suxxka that get rich on stoping the computer operations system envolving for 20 years at least? (and we did not get rid of winblows completely yet, some ppls still use it)

Do something worth remembering or perish in the time.


----------

