Boycotting the RIAA is a sacrifice: STOP downloading!

[killswitch1968]

There's often talk of 'Boycotting' the RIAA (because of 'high' CD prices or because they sue people) but in reality filesharers would rather 'boycott' only to the extent to which it benefits them.

The common boycott mantra is to stop buying CDs and instead download the music. How convenient that while "Sticking it to 'The Man' " you have the added side-effect of free music. And how is this helping the p2p movement? If anything you are only LEGITMATIZING the RIAA's claims that p2p hurts CD sales. Then guess what happens? Courts start believing them and will make it continually easy for them to sue people.
Stop downloading music, by doing so you only further their claims.

So what SHOULD you do?

BOYCOTT EVERYTHING.

Not just CDs, but merchandise, websites, music television, radio stations, and especially mp3s. The good news is that the RIAA isn't concerned about ALL mp3s, just ones under their vile parent companies: Universal, Warner, Sony, BMG, and Vivendi. And these companies produce crap. Utter, utter crap. It's quite possibly the worst garbage ever to pollute the ears since the dawn of music.
"But I can't live without my Dre!"
Too bad. Why would you want music from someone who thinks you're a thief anyway? Screw 'em. Stop the spread of this trash by not buying CDs, not watching MTV, and not uploading his 'music. That's real empowerment. Many of these artist you lovingly download hate you and what you're doing, and applaud the RIAA's tactics. How dare you support them by uploading their content?

"So what the hell is RIAA music?"
http://www.boycott-riaa.com/membership
Avoid these labels like the plague; for I can guarantee each band has sold their integrity to the RIAA in exchange for a record contract.

People that got sued by the RIAA deserved it, not for copyright enfringement, but for simply spreading bad taste and empowering an already overly powerful regime. Boycotting is not meant to be easy or convenient, it's a sacrifice that we need to pull off the whole way.

[MikeHunt]

hmmmm. a manifestio it seems...yeah..there is a lot of good music out there that isn't riaa...but hey ..you are really askin a lot. Boycott Everything?
Sure most of the cRap that is out there is sh*t...so why buy it...download it for gratis...that's boycott enough for me.

[notbob]

So what SHOULD you do?

BOYCOTT EVERYTHING.

how about this idea--i'll do what i want, and you can STFU

works for me anyway

how about the recent manifesto at boycott RIAA that called for sharing only independent artists? idiots.

[mojo-ris-in]

how about this idea--i'll do what i want, and you can STFU

works for me anyway
Me too...LOL

[RJ5500]

No, I don't see myself stopping downloading anytime soon. Or any time at all, for that matter.

I am a lover of music and will download all I want.

[killswitch1968]

I hope you all realize your replies unequivocally support everything my original post said:

"[B]ut in reality filesharers would rather 'boycott' only to the extent to which it benefits them."


"[S]o why buy it...download it for gratis...that's boycott enough for me."

Uhh because that's not a boycott, that's self-serving and will ultimately destroy your intended aims: Stopping the RIAA. Unless of course your aim is simply to get free music, and you use the 'boycott' as some moral shield. In which case download away, just don't call it a boycott.



how about this idea--i'll do what i want, and you can STFU
works for me anyway
how about the recent manifesto at boycott RIAA that called for sharing only independent artists? idiots.
Clearly such belligerence is reflective of the self-serving argument I just made. You can do "what you want", but don't think for a second that you are boycotting anything, destroying the RIAAs coporate fortress, or aiding the p2p movement.

However I never said don't download music, I said don't download the RIAA's music. Big difference. I upload all kinds of great music, all without fear of prosecution or guilt.

Manifesto, good way to put it actually. With this method you get:
1. Exemption from being sued
2. Great music
3. Stopping the reign of control by the big labels.

What other arguments exist in opposition?

[Omyn]

That would kill off p2p if we all did that.

I'm all for the freedom of art, I dont think it should be priced, art should be displayed and shown throughout the world.

Either way, backing off would just make it seem to everyone else that RIAA p2p tactics are working.

I think that by going underground your just proving to the rest of the world how wrong it is, when in fact it doesnt really have anything to do with morals in the first place, you can argue with me if you want, just my idea...

And as long as they keep fighting the RIAA, there will only be one major outcome, either we stand together to save p2p, or it gets forced to the point of underground darknets fearing the government and their next step.

But by backing off what kind of stand will that bring us, nothing but a loss, anyway I dont see your little speech stopping millions of everyday people from stopping something that they love to do.

Hell if normal everyday people didnt get off their ass and move to america to fight off the brits we would still be drinking tea and listening to flat humor on some comedy show :p

Theres only one thing in this world that changes things, its opposition, without it you just sink into whatever is to come, but if you try hard enough you can make a difference.

Now if we could only stop that damn patriot act from taking effect :]

[killswitch1968]

That would kill off p2p if we all did that.

Wrong read the whole post before replying. I said stop downloading shitty RIAA music, and START downloading awesome indie stuff.


I'm all for the freedom of art, I dont think it should be priced, art should be displayed and shown throughout the world.

Agreed.


Either way, backing off would just make it seem to everyone else that RIAA p2p tactics are working.
Wrong. Once again I'm not saying "stop using p2p", I'm saying stop using p2p for shitty RIAA music. Use it for getting indie stuff. The RIAA would soon find that while p2p usage is increasing, nobody is infringing on their copyrights. It would go against everything they've been telling us.


When in fact it doesnt really have anything to do with morals in the first place, you can argue with me if you want, just my idea...
Agreed, copyright infringement is not theft.


But by backing off what kind of stand will that bring us, nothing but a loss, anyway I dont see your little speech stopping millions of everyday people from stopping something that they love to do.
It's not backing off it's INCREASING our stance. Not only will we be cutting them off at the knees finacially (not buying CDs), but legally as well. Now they can't get ANY money from us, we don't have to listen to their monopolized trashy music, and we can use all the p2p we want without fear. It's perfect for all parties involved.

[RJ5500]

Keep in mind that the RIAA (and it's many label subsidiaries) control a very large number of popular artists.

Since the artists don't release the music independently, it leave me no choice but to download RIAA music. Not all music is crappy.

[notbob]

Wrong read the whole post before replying. I said stop downloading shitty RIAA music, and START downloading awesome indie stuff.




sure

let's all screw the musicians that actually were smart enough to stay away from the RIAA in order to punish the RIAA--brilliant!

as an added bonus, the RIAA won't have to worry about p2p cutting into their profits anymore, and can gain complete market domination

with a mind as sharp as yours, you should get a business degree

[killswitch1968]

sure

let's all screw the musicians that actually were smart enough to stay away from the RIAA in order to punish the RIAA--brilliant!

as an added bonus, the RIAA won't have to worry about p2p cutting into their profits anymore, and can gain complete market domination


Umm what the hell are you talking about? I said SUPPORT all the artists that were smart enough to stay away.

And they can't have market domination if no one is buying OR downloading their product. Once again read the whole post, sheesh!

[notbob]

Umm what the hell are you talking about? I said SUPPORT all the artists that were smart enough to stay away.

And they can't have market domination if no one is buying OR downloading their product. Once again read the whole post, sheesh!

what part of "download indie stuff" implies paying for music?

the boycott RIAA article i mentioned either went as far as to say only share indie stuff (along with a lot of useless profanity)

that helps nobody but the RIAA

[killswitch1968]

what part of "download indie stuff" implies paying for music?

the boycott RIAA article i mentioned either went as far as to say only share indie stuff (along with a lot of useless profanity)

that helps nobody but the RIAA

Just so you know: p2p generally increases CD sales, ESPECIALLY of obscure bands. People who download independent band music feel obligated to support them financially, either through merchandise, concerts, or CDs. A lot of indie bands don't even care if you buy their shit, they just want to be heard. This philosophy is the opposite when it comes to the Big Label music: Who the hell thinks Madonna or whoever-the-hell-is-popular-I-haven't-watch-pop-music-media-in-3-years deserves more money? In such a case people don't buy their crap. But they do upload their crappy music, and that's what I'm saying has to stop. Not because it's stealing, but it's indirectly supporting the RIAA.

[notbob]

Just so you know: p2p generally increases CD sales, ESPECIALLY of obscure bands. People who download independent band music feel obligated to support them financially, either through merchandise, concerts, or CDs. A lot of indie bands don't even care if you buy their shit, they just want to be heard. [blah]

feel free to provide evidence at any time

people who download music want free shit. if you think otherwise, you are deluded. i used to buy dozens of cds a month--obscure stuff, indie stuff. now that i can get it for free, i spend the money on computer hardware to hold more free stuff. there are dozens more like me in the dc music hubs.

i will never pay again, and lousy arguments like yours or the RIAA's aren't persuading me

[killswitch1968]

feel free to provide evidence at any time

people who download music want free shit. if you think otherwise, you are deluded. i used to buy dozens of cds a month--obscure stuff, indie stuff. now that i can get it for free, i spend the money on computer hardware to hold more free stuff. there are dozens more like me in the dc music hubs.

i will never pay again, and lousy arguments like yours or the RIAA's aren't persuading me

http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/news/editorial/3192442.htm
http://www.phataudio.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=42
... one of many. Zeropaid itself has even had a news article from a different study.

Well it's a good thing people like you are the exception and not the rule. Otherwise the RIAA would have a case, and all their assertions would be correct: P2P is killing CD sales.
I don't believe that for a second. I've always known people who love their art will pay for it. You are an exception. Now who's the greedy one?

And I bet if you went to those DC hubs a lot of those people gladly pay (the generally cheaper) prices on indie CDs, and then upload it to the network.

[wonderboy2005]

how about this? most people here arent downloading music for the sole purpose of spiting the RIAA - i know im not. im here for the free tunes. you cant argue with free. i really dont care what the RIAA thinks of it, or the artists for that matter. (just so you know though, many of the artists under the RIAA's dominion dont care that much about P2P) if you want to go off on your little self-righteous crusade against the recording industry, you go right ahead. just dont expect the masses to follow - most dont share your views.

dont get me wrong, im all for disenfranchising the RIAA, but its not that big of a deal to me. besides, i havnt found any really good indie artists, atleast none that could hold a candle to my favorite artists, who happen to be under the RIAA's jurisdiction.

[Kyle06]

how about this idea--i'll do what i want, and you can STFU

works for me anyway

how about the recent manifesto at boycott RIAA that called for sharing only independent artists? idiots.


damn you beat me to saying it lol

[Siskabush]

Im dont download for crushing the RIAA/CRIA, I download for getting my trance fix, something the RIAA/CRIA does not market or pay attention to in North america.

Check all your pay sites for example, try finding DJ Quicksilver, DJ Tiesto, or any other european trance artist

You wont get much, if anything

And Puretracks put a parental advisory sticker on the "DJ Quicksilver" CD. WTF?? there are no goddamn lyrics in his music!!! Idiots!

[tvaddict817]

Well mounted arguement killswitch. I think that most people probably justify their downloading with boycott of the RIAA when in fact they are proving the RIAA's point that downloading causes a loss in sales. I will keep downloading mainstream songs because I like them, but I will also continue to buy $9.99 CDs that I like. However, if I ever get sued, I will boycott the RIAA completely and only listen to music on the radio or listen to indies.

[Kedamono]

I know I can get by just fine without ever listening to another professionally produced song ever again. RIAA or otherwise.

However, it takes a team effort of millions of consumers to make it work; and that's just not going to happen.

[killswitch1968]

how about this? most people here arent downloading music for the sole purpose of spiting the RIAA - i know im not. im here for the free tunes.

So you admit to being greedy? And if your only defense is 'inflated' CD prices then it's a lousy argument. There are bigger things at stake here then free music; especially since your actions indirectly support the RIAA. Take a stand, show some balls, and SACRIFICE. Besides, you can have free music, just make sure it's bands that don't suck unlike the one's on the big labels.


dont get me wrong, im all for disenfranchising the RIAA, but its not that big of a deal to me. besides, i havnt found any really good indie artists, atleast none that could hold a candle to my favorite artists, who happen to be under the RIAA's jurisdiction.

Oh I see. You'd like to see the RIAA go away so long as you don't have to lift a finger to do it.
I'm willing to bet your favorite artists are two-bit hacks who sold themselves to the industry for fame. I mean they had to right? We all know the debilitating contracts these companies offer, you'd be a moron for signing them, or just looking for profit. And morons and profiteers don't make good music.
If you haven't found good independent artists you haven't been looking hard enough. There's a TON more independents than signed bands, and they hold about a million candles to the cack that's signed to the labels. Once again finding the bands isn't as simple as turning on a TV or listening to the radio, but the rewards are incredibly. I haven't met a ANYONE who got into indie music, then turned around and said, "This shit sucks, hook me up with some of that Nickelback."

I suppose that somewhere in the musical gulag that is Big Label music is a band worth its spit. But like I said; this is a SACRIFICE, a trade-off, there's no free lunch. There's no easy solution, I'm not a p2p politician and I'm not going to tell you what you want to hear. There are trade offs in defeating the RIAA, but the pay off is big.

Siskabush, I applaud your actions. You are the model music lover. Not like some of these other 'I-want-it-all-for-free' types. Now, help me convince the rest of the unenlightened that indie music is vastly superior to Label music in virtually all counts.

[ducttapeBigSexy]

I fully agree - by dling music, you're just letting the RIAA get sympathy from the courts. It's the old saying: "You can't have your cake and eat it too."

I remember that once Napster started, people file shared because they wanted their music online, not just in CD form. Well, it's here - iTunes, Napster 2.0, etc. But that's not good enough. Now p2p is used to go against the RIAA. Well, what happens when/if the RIAA falls? Will it be "You shouldn't have to pay for music, even though all of it goes to the artists now?"

And as for the DRM in pay services, well, of course they're going to put it there. It's there stuff, and of course they want to protect it. I mean, you wouldn't leave your house unlocked, so why would the labels want to leave their music unlocked?

The fact is that we use p2p because we don't like to pay for anything. If we just admit that, and not keep justifying our actions, we might be able to work towards a compormise with the artists and labels. But first we need to stop lying to ourselves.

[notbob]

The fact is that we use p2p because we don't like to pay for anything. If we just admit that, and not keep justifying our actions, we might be able to work towards a compormise with the artists and labels. But first we need to stop lying to ourselves.

i'm honest about it

the only ones lying about it are the ones answering surveys

guess what? i will never pay again either, and i don't feel bad at all

i get free stuff, then i add it to the share and redistribute it--that is how sharing works. the RIAA doesn't care about compromise--they want their monopoly back, and if people do as killswitch says, they'll get it by golly

by all means you can be a mindless drone and buy DRM as you're told, but i'm going to keep giving away free shit, and taking my fill

[RJ5500]

Well, it's here - iTunes, Napster 2.0, etc. But that's not good enough.

You're quite right. It's not good enough.

The proprietary, DRM, restrictive, audio formats that iTunes, Napster 2.0, etc use are not as good as the mp3, mp4, ogg or any other unrestricted music format that is used in P2P today. Heck, even .wav files in their enormous size beat these 'iTunes"-like services.

iTunes is no revoluition in music. It's a mask that the RIAA wears to try to improve it's PR image. Apple's iTunes is a puppet to the RIAA like Saroman was to Sauron in Lord of the Rings. Apple already admitted it it made little to no profit from iTunes. The artists got screwed even worse. The RIAA gets almost all the 99 cents from each song purchased.

I don't know the story of how much of each download the RIAA gets in the case with Napster 2.0, but I'll bet it's very similar.

[Wolfie]

The bottom line is ppl will download what they like, not what they are supposed to like according to someone else. The RIAA has made a business out of trying convince ppl what they are suppose to like via MTV and radio music charts.

What's point of downloading music that you might not like just to make a point. Don't get me wrong, I am all for checking new kinds music including music from indie labels. However, my music likes and dislikes does not involve looked at the label of the CD.

My point is ppl's tastes in music cannot be dictated by p2p politics. You can't tell ppl not to like specific types music while to like other ones solely due to who owns the label. Not everyone will have the same tastes.

[baghdad_steve15]

Since you seem to want to "BOYCOTT EVERYTHING" by "Universal, Warner, Sony, BMG, and Vivendi [sic]" [Vivendi-Universal, one whole company] why stop at music? All of these companies are media comglomorates, just boycotting their music labels is like pinching the jolly green giant in the ass (it might hurt a little but it wont bring em down).

So here, Boycott all of this:
Bertelsmann (BMG) (http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/bertelsmann.asp)
Time Warner (http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/timewarner.asp)
Vivendi-Universal (http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/vivendi.asp)

And since you mentioned MTV:
Viacom (http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/viacom.asp)

Hell, why not also
Clear Channel (http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/clearchannel.asp)

Now, you go on boycotting while I kick back listening to my Radiohead CD while downloading a bootleg of G2.

[notbob]

Since you seem to want to "BOYCOTT EVERYTHING" by "Universal, Warner, Sony, BMG, and Vivendi [sic]" [Vivendi-Universal, one whole company] why stop at music? All of these companies are media comglomorates, just boycotting their music labels is like pinching the jolly green giant in the ass (it might hurt a little but it wont bring em down).

So here, Boycott all of this:
Bertelsmann (BMG) (http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/bertelsmann.asp)
Time Warner (http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/timewarner.asp)
Vivendi-Universal (http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/vivendi.asp)

And since you mentioned MTV:
Viacom (http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/viacom.asp)

Hell, why not also
Clear Channel (http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/clearchannel.asp)

Now, you go on boycotting while I kick back listening to my Radiohead CD while downloading a bootleg of G2.


best post ever

it shows how futile any "boycott" would really be

unless of course everyone moves back into caves

but hey! at least lots of sites are getting tshirt and mug revenue, and sales of boycott RIAA mousepads are brisk--expect a line of no-RIAA feminine hygeine products for Q2!

[killswitch1968]

So here, Boycott all of this:
Bertelsmann (BMG) (http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/bertelsmann.asp)
Time Warner (http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/timewarner.asp)
Vivendi-Universal (http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/vivendi.asp)
And since you mentioned MTV:
Viacom (http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/viacom.asp)
Hell, why not also
Clear Channel (http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/clearchannel.asp)

WRONG
Companies care about one thing: Profits. Subsidiaries that aren't profitable get DROPPED. This includes MTV. If people stop watching MTV they simply won't air anymore, regadless of how many ppl use Clear Channel. Nice argument but it's full of bullshit and irrelevent.


the only ones lying about it are the ones answering surveys
guess what? i will never pay again either, and i don't feel bad at all

i get free stuff, then i add it to the share and redistribute it--that is how sharing works. the RIAA doesn't care about compromise--they want their monopoly back, and if people do as killswitch says, they'll get it by golly

by all means you can be a mindless drone and buy DRM as you're told, but i'm going to keep giving away free shit, and taking my fill
As I said before, NOW who's greedy? You can point the finger at the RIAA all you want but you're just as guilty. It's fucking deplorable you won't even support artists who aren't making hordes of money and are fighting the tyrannical system as it stands.
LYING on the surveys? Feel free to turn up some evidence on that!
And if people do as I say the RIAA will be out of business, kind of hard to be a monopoly without having a product wouldn't you say? Or have you completly missed the point and would rather make blanket judgements then coutering the specifics I brought up? Admit it, downloading the music isn't a boycott, and if anything will only further the RIAA's claims. But go ahead, 'get free stuff', be as selfish as you want with all your 'sharing', which I would call pollution.



1. The bottom line is ppl will download what they like, not what they are supposed to like according to someone else. The RIAA has made a business out of trying convince ppl what they are suppose to like via MTV and radio music charts.
2. What's point of downloading music that you might not like just to make a point. Don't get me wrong, I am all for checking new kinds music including music from indie labels.
3. My point is ppl's tastes in music cannot be dictated by p2p politics. You can't tell ppl not to like specific types music while to like other ones solely due to who owns the label. Not everyone will have the same tastes.

1. Agreed. People have been force-fed RIAA music for years and it has to stop. Stop letting MTV tell you want to like. They should do some research on their own.
2. It's not about 'making a point', that would be frivolous, it's about total and complete disarmament. The RIAA won't have a leg to stand on if they had no financial support (buying CDs) or legal ground (nobody uploading their shitty music). It'd be AWESOME, but it takes WORK, and half the people on the forums don't seem to give a shit. They'd rather be force-fed.
RIAA music is infintely worse than independent music on all accounts. Anyone who has had a taste of both worlds will tell you that. Rolling Stone is not a good music critic if you're wondering.
3. No they won't. Fortunately the thousands of indie labels will cater to everyone's taste. The Big Label music caters to what's popular. Any artist you think is 'great' has probably outdone by someone somewhere out there. Don't let marketers tell you what's good, look for yourself. SACRIFICE.

DO NOT buy any DRM'ed crap. I hate it and would never support it. It is obviously part of this boycott.


Now, you go on boycotting while I kick back listening to my Radiohead CD while downloading a bootleg of G2.

Download away, you don't have to be part of the Boycott, but don't think for a second your doing anything but helping to get people sued.

[notbob]

I AM SOOOOOOOO WRONG



subsidiaries get dropped so? the mother company remains diverse and profitable

as long as the diverse entity remains, funds can still get to subsidiaries

your entire premise is flawed

[nasrules]

What, so we're supposed to do without just about anything to do with music, games or films? You're crazy...

[RJ5500]

You're crazy...

Yeah, in a nutshell, that's a great way to describe the creator of this thread.
:mellow

[The Man Who]

Personally, I like alot of music that is produced by Sony et al. However, I at least admit that I am not "Boycotting the RIAA". I want to get music for free, for myself, it is greed, as with the majority of file-sharers. Frankly, until the RIAA actually effects me getting free music off the internet (i.e. I can no longer get music from anywhere) I will not be inclined to start downloading independents and stop watch their linked services.

[The Gauge]

Anybody who attracts the RIAA's attention by sharing thousands of tracks by the latest talentless, mouse-eye'd pop c*nts, spooned out of the label's promotional petri-dishes, deserve everything they get.

To the RIAA this is about the devaluation of music. The loss of revenues being generated by screwing the public who pay through the nose for substandard material because they don't know any better. I'm quite happy to see enormous amounts of tacky, over-produced, over-marketed commercial music available on P2P because, frankly, it clearly illustrates how the p2p enabled public perceive the music's value... too expensive for the trash that it is. The fact that it's so popular at all gives me grave cause for concern.

The point at which decent, independent music becomes as common is, in my books, the point at which artistic innovation IS being stifled due to rampant piracy. These are the guys who need to be looked after. They're the ones who make the decent music, and they're the ones who need to be supported.

I'm not adverse to buying CDs at all, but I can't remember the last time I bought one that belonged to one of the top labels pimping the RIAA. Their material has the same artistic merit to me as an advert I watch on television. They should be paying ME to listen to that sh*t, and all the while I'll be happily buying decent music and happily downloading whatever shite isn't worth the CD it's pressed on.

So while I agree with killswitch that p2p networks containing nothing but RIAA material will give them every excuse they need to litigate, I don't agree that sharing decent independent music is the answer. That's the music that needs to be paid for.

P2P should continue as it is... it represents a melting pot of material that is widely regarded as being overpriced and "well, i wouldn't have bought it anyway". The better and rarer the material you're looking for, the less popular it will be on the networks and the more likely you are to buy it. This is as it should be.

Lastly, there are a lot of people on this forum that need to realise that this file sharing revolution cannot and will not continue in it's present form. You can argue all you like and get jiggy with your delusions of anarchy, but at the end of the day someone has to get paid. Just make sure you make YOUR contribution, and make it toward something or someone you believe in.

[kiwibank]

[QUOTE=kiwibank]Quote: Originally Posted by notbob
feel free to provide evidence at any time

people who download music want free shit. if you think otherwise, you are deluded. i used to buy dozens of cds a month--obscure stuff, indie stuff. now that i can get it for free, i spend the money on computer hardware to hold more free stuff. there are dozens more like me in the dc music hubs.

i will never pay again, and lousy arguments like yours or the RIAA's aren't persuading me





" Well it's a good thing people like you are the exception and not the rule. Otherwise the RIAA would have a case, and all their assertions would be correct: P2P is killing CD sales.
I don't believe that for a second. I've always known people who love their art will pay for it. You are an exception. Now who's the greedy one? "


me....cause i agree 100% with notbob...and so do about 3,500,000 people every nite on kazaa lite

[cjules13]

I guess it honorable and admirable that some of you want believe this or boycott that, make a stand, fight for your right etc... Face it, there's no real justification for taking something you didn't pay for. Whether or not you care about it is another thing.

Me, I'm just along for the free ride, milkin' this fucker until the well runs dry. And in order to keep the well full, I share as much as possible. Yes, even Britney Spears... so what? These boycotts are unfeasable, and fruitless. Get and give what you can while the going is good.

[cjules13]

Since you seem to want to "BOYCOTT EVERYTHING" by "Universal, Warner, Sony, BMG, and Vivendi [sic]" [Vivendi-Universal, one whole company] why stop at music? All of these companies are media comglomorates, just boycotting their music labels is like pinching the jolly green giant in the ass (it might hurt a little but it wont bring em down).

So here, Boycott all of this:
Bertelsmann (BMG) (http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/bertelsmann.asp)
Time Warner (http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/timewarner.asp)
Vivendi-Universal (http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/vivendi.asp)

And since you mentioned MTV:
Viacom (http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/viacom.asp)

Hell, why not also
Clear Channel (http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/clearchannel.asp)

Now, you go on boycotting while I kick back listening to my Radiohead CD while downloading a bootleg of G2.

Damn! Look at that list. Just click on the Time Warner link for example... Are you also going to boycott the Atlanta Braves and Hawks? "No, I don't want those Laker tickets because they're playing the Hawks..."

Or Amazon.com? Or ICQ? Damn near every cable channel? 50 different magazines? New Line Cinema? (no Lord of the Rings for you...)

[aqlo]

To "boycott" is to refrain from providing support, financial and otherwise. Saying we should stop stealing x is contrary to the principle of boycotting x. It is like people on strike from a grocery store working to prevent shoplifting, in other words equivalent to strike-breaking. Under normal circumstances as a moral citizen you might wish to prevent these illegal downloads. But if you are really "boycotting" the companies concerned, then you should refrain from assisting them.

I don't see anything wrong with promoting indies, I am all for it. BUt your argument makes you a scab in my view.

[killswitch1968]

It seems we have 2 trains of thought on this thread:

1. Greed mongers. People who download music because they don't want to pay, don't care about consequences, and frankly have no integrity whatsoever. They upload crap and spread their filth around the networks. These include notbob and RJ550. They also listen to shitty music. How dare you listen to the wares of those who seek to sue you, directly or indirectly. There's nothing that can be done with this group, but they should be corrected if they ever claim to be boycotting anything.
- The goods news is they are in the minority. People use file sharing to look for new artists and buy their products, as research has shown several times, as is often purported by Zeropaid.com, Slyck.com, Boycott-riaa.com, and a host of others. I posted 2 links in this thread alone, go seek them out if you want proof.

2. People who will sacrifice their guilty pleasures of shitty pop music knowing that independent artists are out there waiting to be found, or people who are already there.

Now to address all the replies that aren't redundant and already rebuked earlier in this thread:

notbob: WRONG AGAIN. Jeese you need some fucking common sense. I guess I'll explain it to you nice and simple. AOL-Time-Warner has a record label, and a bunch of other subsidiaries. Each subsidiary has their own divison of people with their own goals and purposes. While it is a conglomerate, each piece is relatively on its own. If nobody buys anything from Warner (stripping them financially) or downloads anything (stripping them legally) they become unprofitable.
Now notbob, pretend you're Mr. CEO of AOL-Time-Warner. According to you logic you would say,
"Golly Warner is doing poorly because people hate their music. Oh well I guess I'll just pump tons of money into a company that continually loses money."
Stupid idea eh? Well it was yours and not mine. In reality these companies get SOME financial support but are eventually divested and destroyed. End game RIAA. There does it make sense now? When you download the music it is not a full Boycott. They can use that information to win their case in court, as they have so many times in the past.
In any case you are irrelevent to this argument because you make no claims to be Boycotting anything. You are in Group 1.

nsrules: "What, so we're supposed to do without just about anything to do with music, games or films? You're crazy..."
The pronoun "you" I will assume was referring to notbob, and yes he is a nutjob. Never did I say should we 'do without' games or films. We should ONLY do without shitty music (read: Big Label music, the 2 go hand in hand). As I said this is a SACRIFICE, boycotting isnt' easy, that's why it's a boycott and not some moral shield you use to validate your own access to free music. You may not realize it yet, but you'll benefit in the long run.

RJ550: You belong in group 1. You're irrelevent to this argumnt. You don't care about boycotting, this thread is not for you.

TheManWho: You understand. You at least freely admit to being in group 1.

TheGuage: You understand except on one point: Downloading music has been proven again and again to help the artist. The only naysayers are RIAA pundits or other industry leaders with axes to grind. By downloading independents people feel more willing to support them by going to concerts and buying their shirts and CDs. It feels much better plunking down $10 when 80% is going to the artist.
To put it another way: Independents never get heard as it is because of the RIAA's market dominance. With my method they will AT LEAST be heard, whether or not people buy their stuff. I personally think that most people have a shred of moral integrity and will gladly support an artist not under the wing of a corporate giant. I am living proof, as are my comrades. In short: People that download independent music have a higher propensity to buy their music then those who don't. Therefore, downloading indie music helps them succeed.

Kiwibank: Neither you or notbob have presented any evidence to the contrary. Except for those that listen to pop-filth, people that download music are eager to support the artist so long as they know they are fully supporting them, not in the RIAA's extortion scheme. Read my response to TheGuage for more information.

cjrules13: You sort of understand my point, and willfully accept being in group 1. However file sharing is NOT stealing. It's copyright infrginement. This is not just an issue of semantics, the difference is huge. If you want me to hold your hand and explain it to you just ask, perferably by PM as I don't want to clog this thread. Also please see my response to nsrules.

aglo: By downloading music you provide them LEGAL support, which is currently their strongest weapon. Your analogy is irrelevant because file sharers are not stealing, they are commiting copyright infringement. In such a case nothing is being stolen, just copied. Whether this is moral or not widely varies between group to group and religion to religion. Most people say it's perfectly moral.
The RIAA wants us to do 2 things:
a) Stop downloading music
b) Start buying CDs.
By downloading music you are in no way stealing anything from the company. You aren't reaching over and plucking money from their bank accounts (don't bring up the 'well I woulda bought the CD otherwise so i technically did' because it's nonsense). However what you ARE doing is giving them legal ammunition. This is what must stop.

I had hoped Zeropaid members would be more in agreement. Freedom from being sued, freedom from shitty music, and all the while bringing the RIAA to its knees. Sounds perfect to me. The only initial sacrifice is purging yourself of pop music. I'm not here to tell you what you want to hear, this is the road for people with integrity and vigilance. It's not easy nor was it ever meant to be. But the benefit is huge

Of course, my argument falls apart as soon as a file sharing program exists such that the RIAA can not track the number of people downloading or identify the infringers, in which case downloading music is irrelevent, except that I disagree with spreading that trash. However that's a subjective view.

[cjules13]

cjules13: You sort of understand my point, and willfully accept being in group 1. However file sharing is NOT stealing. It's copyright infrginement. This is not just an issue of semantics, the difference is huge. If you want me to hold your hand and explain it to you just ask, perferably by PM as I don't want to clog this thread. Also please see my response to nsrules.

1. I never said filesharing was stealing. It's ending up with a product you didn't pay for. It's wrong no matter how you look at it and I challenge you to hold my hand and explain how it's right. Again semantics, but if you read my post, you see I didn't claim either...

2. Who the fuck are you to claim what is shitty music and what's not? Music is an intrinsic taste that everyone has and even though I share Britney Spears doesn't mean I like her music - but the kid next door has every right to like Spears no matter what! Screw you with your opinion on what's shitty music and what's not. Listen to what you want and leave it at that.

3. I don't spread filth around the networks. All my mp3s are 192 or better, complete, and properly titled. Same goes for the movies and software too. I am a 100% positive contributer to the p2p networks. Again, with your definition of filth, see #2.

4. I can't wait for notbob to rip you a new one... :tol

[The Hunter]

Personally i disagree with all this trolling killswitch1968, so just put a sock in it. Consider this a warning.
Thread closed.