MPAA vs RIAA

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Yeah, but why bother going without when you can just download it for free. Not only does it fuck over the RIAA, but you get whatever you want to listen to. That's so much more satisfying.

[Guest MikeSC]

Yeah, but why bother going without when you can just download it for free. Not only does it fuck over the RIAA, but you get whatever you want to listen to. That's so much more satisfying.

Because I have a code of honor that I do not wish to toss by the wayside whenever it is convenient for me.

-=Mike

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

P.T. Barnum put it best, there's a sucker born every minute.

 

If you want to continue shelling out almost 20 bucks for a cd, or going without in this glorious Ghandi-esque hissy fit while the music you enjoy is available for free at your fingertips, please continue.

[Guest MikeSC]

P.T. Barnum put it best, there's a sucker born every minute.

 

If you want to continue shelling out almost 20 bucks for a cd, or going without in this glorious Ghandi-esque hissy fit while the music you enjoy is available for free at your fingertips, please continue.

I just don't buy the music. Nor do I download it.

 

I simply do without.

 

It's the right way to handle it. Remove myself from the equation. I'll listen to talk radio in my car instead of crappy music stations that populate the country. I'll watch MuchMusic instead on MTV, since they tend to have a better variety of artists.

-=Mike

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

You probably didn't listen to a whole lot of music in the first place though, right?

[Guest MikeSC]

You probably didn't listen to a whole lot of music in the first place though, right?

At one point I did.

 

When I realized that I was getting gouged, I curtailed that heavily and, instead, spend my money on DVD's and games instead of on music.

-=Mike

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Hello, it's Free. A few clicks. You won't get sued, I promise. What did the RIAA ever do for you? Screw those shifty crooks over with their own crookery.

 

Personally speaking, I'm not concerned with whether it's stealing or not. The artists (which are the only people on that end that I give a shit about) aren't the ones getting screwed over, the rotten middlemen that jack up the prices are.

 

Besides, most of the stuff I take the agonizing dialup time to download is some independent number that isn't even affiliated with the RIAA. Is THAT stealing? No.

[Ripper 0]

So people should do without music because the governing body over it is using bad business techniques?

Yup.

 

Blacks in Alabama went without the public bus service when they wished to protest the unfair and unconstitutional treatment they received on the buses. They ran their own buses or simply walked to work every day.

 

They did not ride the Montgomery buses and simply refuse to pay for them.

 

They showed guts. They did it the RIGHT way.

 

Maybe others should try and do the same.

-=Mike

And alot of them paid for seats on the bus and sat in the front, refusing to move. In away, taking a seat from the white patrons.

 

To truly protest, you come at it from different angles. Boycotting, downloading, same type of civil disobedience, different angles.

[Guest MikeSC]

Hello, it's Free. A few clicks. You won't get sued, I promise. What did the RIAA ever do for you? Screw those shifty crooks over with their own crookery.

 

Personally speaking, I'm not concerned with whether it's stealing or not. The artists (which are the only people on that end that I give a shit about) aren't the ones getting screwed over, the rotten middlemen that jack up the prices are.

 

Besides, most of the stuff I take the agonizing dialup time to download is some independent number that isn't even affiliated with the RIAA. Is THAT stealing? No.

And I have high respect for intellectual property and that which I do not have the right to use, I do not use.

 

I have friends who download full games for free. I refuse to play them.

 

I have friends who download full movies for free. I refuse to view them.

 

If nothing else, I am the one who ends up paying, as I'm forced to sell out a principle I have and I won't do that --- especially for a group as inept as RIAA.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

So people should do without music because the governing body over it is using bad business techniques?

Yup.

 

Blacks in Alabama went without the public bus service when they wished to protest the unfair and unconstitutional treatment they received on the buses. They ran their own buses or simply walked to work every day.

 

They did not ride the Montgomery buses and simply refuse to pay for them.

 

They showed guts. They did it the RIGHT way.

 

Maybe others should try and do the same.

-=Mike

And alot of them paid for seats on the bus and sat in the front, refusing to move. In away, taking a seat from the white patrons.

 

To truly protest, you come at it from different angles. Boycotting, downloading, same type of civil disobedience, different angles.

During the Montgomery boycotts, they just stopped riding, period, and let the city see how much they needed black patronage of the buses for it to turn a profit.

 

They increased their inconvenience to prove a point --- and they proved their point completely and totally.

 

If a boycott on the music industry is desired, I'd support it 100%. I doubt it'd work, but I'd support that effort as RIAA NEEDS to suffer and they need to suffer mightily. Stop going to concerts as well and make sure the artists know that we expect them to fight RIAA if they are going to speak out against them.

 

But I will not support stealing anything as a means of protest.

-=Mike

[Ripper 0]

Um...no, my Uncle was one of the proud young folks to get arrested for not giving up her seats during the protest. They had meetings where they arranged the multi attack protest. They would refuse to ride for the most part (hurting the overall profits) and a few who had the temperance would pay to ride but sit in restricted seats, while others just protested outside the capital.

 

And it is not realistic to believe that EVERY artist can fight the RIAA because they don't have that kind of pull. If there are other options why are their artist still signing deals where they get paid 2.5 cent per CD sold in a good deal? There aren't many viable options outside of them...thats how a monopoly works.

 

Obviously downloading has caused them loss, and is causing them to adapt and change thier stragedies, therefore, it is working. You can't argue with the results of it.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Hello, it's Free. A few clicks. You won't get sued, I promise. What did the RIAA ever do for you? Screw those shifty crooks over with their own crookery.

 

Personally speaking, I'm not concerned with whether it's stealing or not. The artists (which are the only people on that end that I give a shit about) aren't the ones getting screwed over, the rotten middlemen that jack up the prices are.

 

Besides, most of the stuff I take the agonizing dialup time to download is some independent number that isn't even affiliated with the RIAA. Is THAT stealing? No.

And I have high respect for intellectual property and that which I do not have the right to use, I do not use.

 

I have friends who download full games for free. I refuse to play them.

 

I have friends who download full movies for free. I refuse to view them.

 

If nothing else, I am the one who ends up paying, as I'm forced to sell out a principle I have and I won't do that --- especially for a group as inept as RIAA.

-=Mike

Well, aren't you a goody little two shoes?

 

Goody little two shoes, Goody little two shoes...

 

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Because once people download the one or two good songs, they have no incentive to BUY the friggin' CD. They already HAVE what they want.

Read what you just wrote.

 

Maybe, if they changed the way they do business, and filled up the CD with good music, people would have more incentive to buy it?

 

It is, after all, more difficult to download an entire CD than just the one-hit-wonder that's selling it.

[Guest stardust]

Then lawsuits need to be filed. Independent stations need to charge Clear Channel stations with monopolistic practices and have the courts rule.

 

This is an issue for courts --- not dorky little thieves.

-=Mike

Have you not been paying attention to anything involving legislation this year, because this was all over the news not too long ago. But to help you refresh your memory, here are some links, and a quote from one of the articles, even.

 

http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2002/06/2...5/pfp_congress/

 

Taken from: http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2003/02/...ion/index1.html

 

While Feingold's legislation is no closer to being passed this year than it was last, and nobody is suggesting that Congress or the FCC will go so far as to re-regulate radio, the hearing did get the attention of the Justice Department, which for months has been sitting on requests to look into anti-competitive allegations about Clear Channel. Just hours after the hearings concluded, the DOJ contacted, for the first time, radio industry players who had indicated they'd be willing to cooperate with a Clear Channel probe.

 

It's too soon to tell whether the DOJ will launch such an investigation, but the fact that the DOJ is even making inquiries is a sign of just how much Clear Channel's radio exploits have become a political issue. Clear Channel has been forced to devote an increasing amount of money and time in efforts to fix its battered image, particularly inside the Beltway.

 

Last year the company opened a Washington office and hired Andrew Levin as its top lobbyist. Levin formerly served as counsel to Rep. John D. Dingell, Democrat of Michigan, the ranking minority member of the House Commerce Committee. (Salon was unable to contact Levin by press time.) And in early February Clear Channel announced that former Oklahoma Rep. J.C. Watts was joining the company's board of directors.

 

None of those headlines are good news for media conglomerates busy pressing their case for deregulation. Indeed, News Corp. chairman Rupert Murdoch quietly made the rounds on the eighth floor of the FCC in early February pressing his case with commissioners. No doubt, Murdoch and all the other major players would have preferred to make their case without the topic of deregulation itself becoming a political hot button.

 

But Clear Channel, a proven magnet for criticism, has given foes of deregulation ample ammunition, to the dismay of those who want ownership caps in other industries lifted. "It doesn't help to have this brouhaha," says one senior executive with a major television company. "We like consolidation, but Clear Channel gives it a bad name."

 

...The results, says the owner of one Southeastern advertising agency, would, "be a disaster for small business, or anybody smaller than Clear Channel." The executive, who requested anonymity, says local Clear Channel radio-sales reps, wielding leverage drawn from an unprecedented stable of stations in his market, routinely bully agencies and clients.

 

"Clear Channel will do anything they can, threaten me, go to my clients directly, anything to get control of the markets. And once they've got that control they can do whatever they want, including raise the rates," he says. "They're a clear example of what can happen with deregulation. They've ruined radio, as far as I'm concerned. And now they're licking their chops to be able to control more of what the public sees and hears."

 

http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/relea...2003128910.html

 

http://dir.salon.com/ent/clear_channel/200...rust/index.html

 

http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2002/08/0...nnel/index.html

 

Go here and you can read all about how radio DJs were striking against Clear Channel earlier this year.

 

 

People have been trying to introduce legislation to help end the Clear Channel monopoly, and people have been taking more legal measures than downloading music. You suggested boycotting or striking. Well, lookee there, those New York radio DJs were striking against Clear Channel. And yes, an agreement was reached, but you act as if no one has been trying to do anything legally to take care of the problem Yes, they have been. But all those DJs really managed to do was keep their jobs, not keep Clear Channel from deciding what artists get played on the radio and which ones don't. And with Clear Channel hiring former Congressmen, you can bet that it's pretty much an uphill battle. And all of those links were just taken from the first page of my Google search. There was a lot more, including articles about how with Clear Channel's "support the troops" rallies earlier this year, they also managed to get into Bush's back pockets, thus making it even harder for legislation to get passed.

 

Bottom line is, people are trying to go about this the legal way, and nothing's getting done.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

It kinda doesn't help to bust up the giant RIAA monopoly when they're so in the pockets of the government that Orrin Hatch proposes destorying people's computers for this stuff.

[NoCalMike 0]

Aren't companies supposed to adjust and modify business practices according to the will and demand of the consumer? That is usually the way it works. If the RIAA doesn't like file-sharing, then don't try to stop it, as it will NEVER WORK, try to embrace it and find a way for the technology to work out for both the provider and consumer. I would definately pay for a service where I could download the obscure songs/scores/soundbytes I like. I won't however, pay for a service that tells me what I am supposed to enjoy listening too, which many of the pay-for-play services have tried to do.

 

Anyways, I have no loyalty to the the RIAA. I do have loyalty to the artists however, and you won't find any mp3 on my computer from an artist that supposedly is against file-sharing. The RIAA's monopoly should be broken up, along with the growing monopoly of clear channel and their attempt to rid not only tv & radio, but now the internet, of anything not to their liking.

[Big McLargeHuge 0]

During the Montgomery boycotts, they just stopped riding, period, and let the city see how much they needed black patronage of the buses for it to turn a profit.

 

They increased their inconvenience to prove a point --- and they proved their point completely and totally.

 

If a boycott on the music industry is desired, I'd support it 100%. I doubt it'd work, but I'd support that effort as RIAA NEEDS to suffer and they need to suffer mightily. Stop going to concerts as well and make sure the artists know that we expect them to fight RIAA if they are going to speak out against them.

 

But I will not support stealing anything as a means of protest.

-=Mike

But nobody's boycotting music as a whole. They're just working around the RIAA to get their music.

 

Like those during the Mongomery Boycotts, they didn't stop working or traveling around the city. They just didn't ride the bus.

[Guest MikeSC]

Because once people download the one or two good songs, they have no incentive to BUY the friggin' CD. They already HAVE what they want.

Read what you just wrote.

 

Maybe, if they changed the way they do business, and filled up the CD with good music, people would have more incentive to buy it?

 

It is, after all, more difficult to download an entire CD than just the one-hit-wonder that's selling it.

With a cable modem, it takes how long to download an entire CD?

 

15 minutes?

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

Then lawsuits need to be filed. Independent stations need to charge Clear Channel stations with monopolistic practices and have the courts rule.

 

This is an issue for courts --- not dorky little thieves.

            -=Mike

Have you not been paying attention to anything involving legislation this year, because this was all over the news not too long ago. But to help you refresh your memory, here are some links, and a quote from one of the articles, even.

 

http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2002/06/2...5/pfp_congress/

 

Taken from: http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2003/02/...ion/index1.html

 

While Feingold's legislation is no closer to being passed this year than it was last, and nobody is suggesting that Congress or the FCC will go so far as to re-regulate radio, the hearing did get the attention of the Justice Department, which for months has been sitting on requests to look into anti-competitive allegations about Clear Channel. Just hours after the hearings concluded, the DOJ contacted, for the first time, radio industry players who had indicated they'd be willing to cooperate with a Clear Channel probe.

 

It's too soon to tell whether the DOJ will launch such an investigation, but the fact that the DOJ is even making inquiries is a sign of just how much Clear Channel's radio exploits have become a political issue. Clear Channel has been forced to devote an increasing amount of money and time in efforts to fix its battered image, particularly inside the Beltway.

 

Last year the company opened a Washington office and hired Andrew Levin as its top lobbyist. Levin formerly served as counsel to Rep. John D. Dingell, Democrat of Michigan, the ranking minority member of the House Commerce Committee. (Salon was unable to contact Levin by press time.) And in early February Clear Channel announced that former Oklahoma Rep. J.C. Watts was joining the company's board of directors.

 

None of those headlines are good news for media conglomerates busy pressing their case for deregulation. Indeed, News Corp. chairman Rupert Murdoch quietly made the rounds on the eighth floor of the FCC in early February pressing his case with commissioners. No doubt, Murdoch and all the other major players would have preferred to make their case without the topic of deregulation itself becoming a political hot button.

 

But Clear Channel, a proven magnet for criticism, has given foes of deregulation ample ammunition, to the dismay of those who want ownership caps in other industries lifted. "It doesn't help to have this brouhaha," says one senior executive with a major television company. "We like consolidation, but Clear Channel gives it a bad name."

 

...The results, says the owner of one Southeastern advertising agency, would, "be a disaster for small business, or anybody smaller than Clear Channel." The executive, who requested anonymity, says local Clear Channel radio-sales reps, wielding leverage drawn from an unprecedented stable of stations in his market, routinely bully agencies and clients.

 

"Clear Channel will do anything they can, threaten me, go to my clients directly, anything to get control of the markets. And once they've got that control they can do whatever they want, including raise the rates," he says. "They're a clear example of what can happen with deregulation. They've ruined radio, as far as I'm concerned. And now they're licking their chops to be able to control more of what the public sees and hears."

 

http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/relea...2003128910.html

 

http://dir.salon.com/ent/clear_channel/200...rust/index.html

 

http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2002/08/0...nnel/index.html

 

Go here and you can read all about how radio DJs were striking against Clear Channel earlier this year.

 

 

People have been trying to introduce legislation to help end the Clear Channel monopoly, and people have been taking more legal measures than downloading music. You suggested boycotting or striking. Well, lookee there, those New York radio DJs were striking against Clear Channel. And yes, an agreement was reached, but you act as if no one has been trying to do anything legally to take care of the problem Yes, they have been. But all those DJs really managed to do was keep their jobs, not keep Clear Channel from deciding what artists get played on the radio and which ones don't. And with Clear Channel hiring former Congressmen, you can bet that it's pretty much an uphill battle. And all of those links were just taken from the first page of my Google search. There was a lot more, including articles about how with Clear Channel's "support the troops" rallies earlier this year, they also managed to get into Bush's back pockets, thus making it even harder for legislation to get passed.

 

Bottom line is, people are trying to go about this the legal way, and nothing's getting done.

Legal remedies AREN'T quick. It's not fun, but you have to allow the system to work.

 

Do you think Bell was split up overnight? Heck, Bell was WORSE than RIAA or Clear Channel could ever hope to be --- and it took DECADES for them to get split.

 

But they got split up --- and it was for the best.

 

It didn't make those who hacked the phone system anything other than common criminals.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

Um...no, my Uncle was one of the proud young folks to get arrested for not giving up her seats during the protest. They had meetings where they arranged the multi attack protest. They would refuse to ride for the most part (hurting the overall profits) and a few who had the temperance would pay to ride but sit in restricted seats, while others just protested outside the capital.

 

And it is not realistic to believe that EVERY artist can fight the RIAA because they don't have that kind of pull. If there are other options why are their artist still signing deals where they get paid 2.5 cent per CD sold in a good deal? There aren't many viable options outside of them...thats how a monopoly works.

 

Obviously downloading has caused them loss, and is causing them to adapt and change thier stragedies, therefore, it is working. You can't argue with the results of it.

The ends do not justify the means.

 

I oppose abortion. I could go out and kill every single lawmaker and judge who support it until so few are left that it becomes illegal.

 

Would the ends justify the means? No matter how bad I feel abortion is --- would getting rid of it justify my criminality?

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

During the Montgomery boycotts, they just stopped riding, period, and let the city see how much they needed black patronage of the buses for it to turn a profit.

 

They increased their inconvenience to prove a point --- and they proved their point completely and totally.

 

If a boycott on the music industry is desired, I'd support it 100%. I doubt it'd work, but I'd support that effort as RIAA NEEDS to suffer and they need to suffer mightily. Stop going to concerts as well and make sure the artists know that we expect them to fight RIAA if they are going to speak out against them.

 

But I will not support stealing anything as a means of protest.

                  -=Mike

But nobody's boycotting music as a whole. They're just working around the RIAA to get their music.

 

Like those during the Mongomery Boycotts, they didn't stop working or traveling around the city. They just didn't ride the bus.

They avoided the bus system. They attacked their target.

 

They did not commit crimes.

-=Mike

[Lightning Flik 0]

15 minutes?

-=Mike

Considering I just have DSL and I've downloaded 180MB of files in less than that, a whole CDs what. Maybe 1/3 of that?

 

You get the picture.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

With a cable modem, it takes how long to download an entire CD?

 

15 minutes?

-=Mike

How long does it take to find a good copy? Generally, the copy of a song on Kazaa with 72 users sharing it is the one that took little to no time for quality.

[Dr. Tom 0]

I've written numerous essays on the internet decrying the RIAA, their refusal to change their business model to embrace the digital age

I see this argument listed time and time again everytime this issue is discussed and I wonder what else do music fans want?

The ability to download the music they want, store it on their PCs, listen to it when they want, burn it to a CD if they want, and export it to a portable player if they want. Basically, they want full rights over the MP3 file once they have it, which, if they're paying for it, only seems fair.

 

For example, fee-based music services such as itunes and pressplay are much more prevelant now than they were a year ago.

iTunes is Apple's baby, not the RIAA's. The RIAA only wishes Pressplay and MusicNet were that successful. Heck, is MusicNet even still around? The problem is that the RIAA wants to dispense digital music on its own byzantine terms, which are not the terms people want to see. Downloads from the RIAA expire after thirty days and can't be copied to a CD or portable player. This is despite the fact that you've paid for the download.

 

Tell me again how the RIAA is embracing the digital age? The genie is out of the bottle and there's no way it's going back in. All the RIAA's doing now is trying to shove the stopper back in, and it's not working very well at all. Of course, calling music downloaders terrorists and trying to have them treated as such under the Patriot Act (a measure that was thankfully struck down; common sense does occasionally prevail in DC) doesn't help their cause or their public image. The RIAA has been inept at this from the very start. The old business model is dying.

 

To add to that, some labels are slashing retail prices of albums...

Years ago, the RIAA lost a class-action lawsuit regarding the price-fixing of CDs. After making the paltry payouts, the prices of CDs came down not at all. Now, years after the fact, some prices are finally coming down into the $10 range. Whither the RIAA, whatever will they do without that extra $8 of price-gougin... er, profit, on that $0.25 CD?

 

Don't get me wrong, I agree that it's almost criminal of the record industry to expect you to pay upwards of 20 bucks for a CD only for you to get home and enjoy 2 or 3 tracks...

Almost? They lost a class-action lawsuit and did nothing. It IS criminal.

 

I think if anybody has any other suggestions on what else could be done to get you to walk down to your local stores and buy an album or two, then you might as well speak now.

We've been speaking. We've been doing it for years. The RIAA needs to fully get behind the digital model and realize that the on-demand electronic distibution of music is the way of the present and the future. They need to stop treating consumers like criminals and give them full fair use rights over the songs they download. And a few major artists need to break away from the RIAA and offer their entire albums foen downloading for $5 or so. A lot of people would jump on that, and if enough bands started going that route, the RIAA would have to follow suit or die.

[Dr. Tom 0]

"Slavery of the artists"?

 

The "big" groups can, if they WISHED to do so, refuse to play ball with RIAA. They could pressure their labels to not have THEIR work fall under RIAA control whatsoever.

Actually, I said "virtual slavery of the artists." It's not actual slavery, but it's pretty close. Many bands don't earn back the advances they get on their contracts. The RIAA owns the master tapes from the recording session, despite the fact the artist has to pay for the studio time and equipment usage out of their own pockets. The RIAA has a lot more say with respect to what songs get released as singles, if any. That's a very shitty work-for-hire arrangement.

 

What I'd love to see, like I just mentioned above, is a few large artists completely break with the RIAA and offer their entire albums for download thru their web sites. The RIAA would have to adopt a similar model or remain stubborn and die. Personally, I'd hope for their stubbornness to linger, but that's just me.

[JHawk 0]

I want you to explain one thing to me, and I mean this in all seriousness.

 

You've been saying "But it's stealing. You're breaking the law." We've been saying the law is stupid and you're all "But it's the law."

 

My question for you is this. If breaking the stupid laws is so wrong and evil and makes you such a bad person...

 

Then how the hell do you explain Jesus Christ, who was arrested more than some career criminals?

[Guest stardust]

Legal remedies AREN'T quick. It's not fun, but you have to allow the system to work.

 

Do you think Bell was split up overnight? Heck, Bell was WORSE than RIAA or Clear Channel could ever hope to be --- and it took DECADES for them to get split.

 

But they got split up --- and it was for the best.

 

It didn't make those who hacked the phone system anything other than common criminals.

-=Mike

I never said legal remedies were quick, nor do I expect changes to be made overnight. I don't think anyone does. But the fact remains that Clear Channel has a lot of government ties, and a lot of government backing that they probably shouldn't have, which makes it even harder for any legislation to pass that would actually help to end the monopoly Clear Channel has on the radio market, and the very large, very iron-clad grasp it has on the concert market.

 

In the meantime, though, while legislators are trying to do something about this, it's taking a very long time for anything to get done. So what are we as consumers supposed to do, sit back with our thumbs up our asses waiting for the day years down the road when Clear Channel is no longer the monster it is today? Wait for the RIAA to stop filing lawsuits against 12-year-olds for downloading the Full House theme? Boycott all music and do without? No thanks. I happen to love music, and I can't imagine going one single day of my life without it. But at the same time, I don't like being told by Clear Channel and the RIAA what I can and cannot listen to, which is the very same argument just about everyone else is making--we as consumers want choice, and the RIAA and Clear Channel are not willing to give us that freedom of choice.

[iamsherm 0]

The ability to download the music they want, store it on their PCs, listen to it when they want, burn it to a CD if they want, and export it to a portable player if they want.  Basically, they want full rights over the MP3 file once they have it, which, if they're paying for it, only seems fair.

I can't say I disagree. Those that do take advantage of the subscription services and pay for their mp3s should be given the opportunity to download, store, and transfer that file as they choose. But how do you go about doing that, yet still prevent that file from being shared with millions of people - that aren't paying a dime - on the internet?

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

Having read this thread and it's forerunner, I can safely say that the argument consists of:

 

1. TheMikeSC says it's stealing.

 

2. Other people put forth their reasoning, which includes problems with ClearChannel, RIAA, current state of mainstream music, decline of the singles market etc.

 

3. TheMikeSC writes a longer post... about how it's stealing.

[Dr. Tom 0]

I can't say I disagree.  Those that do take advantage of the subscription services and pay for their mp3s should be given the opportunity to download, store, and transfer that file as they choose.  But how do you go about doing that, yet still prevent that file from being shared with millions of people - that aren't paying a dime - on the internet?

You can't. Technology can't be restrained by bullying and legislation. If the RIAA would offer such a service, they would have to do it with the knowledge those files could easily be shared across P2P networks. Then again, Metallica, who's been as anti-P2P as any band, included a free password to the Metallica Vault with the St. Anger CD. The most interesting part is that the banner that greeted you after you logged in said, "Download. Burn. Share. Kick Ass. (emphasis added)

 

It's the right thing to do for consumers who have been squeezed by artificially high CD prices for years, though. To its credit, the RIAA is now offering amnesty to those who admit to downloading and sharing music, wipe their shared directories and drives, and promise not to do it again. How enforceable that is is very debatable, but it does appear that the RIAA is learning that subpoenas are not going to get them out of the PR chasm they've dug for themselves.