THE RIAA JUST GOT OWNED!!!!! mwuahahahahaha

[adosorken]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/34616.html

an incredible victory for the good guys

[oracle]

That seemed to be a story written by somebody biased against the RIAA, but I don't doubt it's a good ruling

[Diroga]

the thing is there is no difference form walking into a store taking a cd and downloading a song that you do not have the permisom to.

[adosorken]

the thing is there is no difference form walking into a store taking a cd and downloading a song that you do not have the permisom to.

That's a little ignorant (ok a lot ignorant) but you can believe that if you want to...

98% of bands dont care about the mp3 trade, since virtually all of their income comes from other sources. In fact, many bands put their own mp3s onto p2p filesharing networks personally, to get their music out there faster without waiting for the slowass powers-that-be (ironically, this is one of the places the RIAA is involved).

[Agamemnus]

The immediate difference, in that case, is that the company that is selling the CDs doesn't lose money. The long-term difference is hard to tell. However, whatever amount of money anyone in the music business is losing, it goes into some other area of the economy.

I think if people want to play music that would otherwise be available at a store, and buy something else, that generally actually improves the economy, because the money actually goes to people who need it, IE clothing, tech, car, etc. companies. If you look at the amount of debt that so many Americans have, it wouldn't hurt them not to make it bigger.

Call it individual wealth redistribution.... as opposed to the government stealing from everyone and giving to the poor, you take matters into your own hands...

[eQuuskia]

Agamemnus: That is a very curious way of seeing the situation, and I had not looked at it in those terms. But you do have a point. In general competition, all companies compete for the spending dollar of the public. So you are correct, the money the CD companies lose is going elsewhere in the economy. I believe the record companies need to stop their bickering and actually produce music that the public likes. Perhaps they will sell more. And as adosorken indicated, almost all of a band's income does not come from CD sales, it comes from tours, performances and other nonmusic related sales (think J. Lo's fashion and perfume line). In fact, it is usually during doing enough tours that bands and artists can break even with the record company, or actually start generating some profit. It takes many artists a lot of work to be able to get to where they are now. TLC, a very famous group, hardworking, and in my opinion, good singers, have gone bankrupt before, even after their CD was #1 and had sold over a million copies.

If you follow some of these artists' lives carefully, they open businesses which have nothing to do with music in order to obtain extra income that the record company cannot touch. For example, Ricky Martin opened his own restaurant in Florida. J. Lo has her own line of clothes, perfume, and other fashionware (I am sure everyone remembers the shades). Thalia, a Mexican singer, has her own fashionline and made an alliance with Kmart of PR to distribute her products. All income the record companies cannot touch or have a say about. So please do not fool yourself for one minute that lack of CD sales are really hurting the artist. An artist obtains from $.60 to a $1 per CD. At the price a CD is now, about $16 average, to whom do you believe the rest of the money is going to? I believe you can answer that question yourself.

[SJ Zero]

the thing is there is no difference form walking into a store taking a cd and downloading a song that you do not have the permisom to.

Of course there is. Just like there's a difference between inserting a hack card into your satellite reciever and hijacking a satellite for your own purposes.

It doesn't make downloading music right, but it's a slippery slope when you've decided the two have no difference.

Ironically, the RIAA does NOT think the two are the same, and their actions have shown such. The criminal punishment for shoplifting in this case would be FAR less than the millions of dollars they're suing individuals for. PLUS, the individuals would have greater rights, and the RIAA wouldn't be involved (in case you haven't noticed, they're not a law enforcement agency, as much as they like to pretend they are), so the accused would have certain unalienable consititutional rights, as well as a guarantee to a free trial. In addition, many of these cases would end up with a hefty, but payable fine, and for first-time offenders, almost certainly no jail time. Worst of all, individuals can't fight, because they if they happen to lose, they're destroyed(can YOU pay back millions of dollars in damages?).

Remember, the RIAA are a bunch of lying fascists who hate democracy. They hate America. The only thing they love is money, and if they can circumvent American law and democracy, they've proven that they will. Don't sympathize with them, because they'd just as soon sue you for 10 million dollars for downloading the latest Micheal Jackson single.