Who these mofo think they kidding?

[que-em]

I've never seen a bidness more full of SH!T than the RIAA. Who these muthaphucka think they kidding?? They ashholes think that there's supposed to see profits every year like other business profits don't fluctuate. They are full of SH!T. So I guess if they numbers fall off they automatically equate that will piracy. Have these mofos every thought of the fact that no ones want to buy their sh!t that year. I hate arrogant mofos. STEAL MORE OF THEIR SH!T PEOPLE. We can't let these mofos win.


*Go back down blood pressure. Breathe in, breathe out*

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1078381557489

US music industry sees slower decline
By Tim Burt in New York
Published: March 5 2004 14:57 | Last Updated: March 5 2004 14:57

The music industry claimed a symbolic victory in its fight against internet piracy on Friday as full-year sales figures for the US, the world's largest music market, revealed a slowing rate of decline.

A crackdown on illegal on-line file sharing and the launch of new subscription services had curbed losses to piracy, according to the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). Services including Apple's iTunes music store have also helped reverse a three-year sales spiral, with artists such as Norah Jones setting new records for online sales with her latest single "Sunrise".

The value of US music shipments from record companies to retail outlets declined 4.3 per cent to $11.05bn last year, compared with $11.6bn in 2002.

In volume terms, wholesale shipments of CDs, music videos and other formats fell 2.7 per cent to 658.2m units, a significant improvement on the 7.8 per cent fall in the previous year.

Mitch Bainwol, chairman of the RIAA, said the figures were encouraging.

"Record companies have taken a proactive approach to dealing with piracy, implementing educational efforts and enforcement programs that have dramatically increased awareness of the illegality of unauthorized file sharing," he said.

But industry executives warned that the trend was still moving in the wrong direction, forcing labels to cut costs.

Earlier this week Warner Music, one of the world's five "majors", said it was shedding more than 1,000 jobs in a bid to cut costs by $200m. Sony Music and BMG, the music arm of Germany's Bertelsmann media group, are seeking $300m of savings if their planned 50-50 joint venture is approved.

One executive said the industry did not expect total sales to rebound significantly before 2007.

Based on figures released on Friday for shipments to retail outlets, specialist markets and mail-order, the total value of industry sales was down 6 per cent at $11.8bn, compared with a peak of $14.3bn in 2000.

Nevertheless, shipments of CD singles improved significantly in the US last year, up 85.5 percent from 2002 8.3m units - worth $35.9m at retail.

"While the music industry continues to face serious challenges, we are pleased that trends appear to be going in a more positive direction," said Mr Bainwol.

[Malicious Intent]

Another report said that the figures don't include online sales.
Basically sales are falling, but they no longer count all the sales. hmmm.
Anyway, don't let it get to you que-em. Your music is still free.

[«°¤§téålth§t®îk餰»]

Another report said that the figures don't include online sales.
Basically sales are falling, but they no longer count all the sales. hmmm.

SHHHH....it's a conspiracy

[rebirth]

you talk funny, yo, dag, G, homedog BOY!!

[Malicious Intent]

SHHHH....it's a conspiracy
**sorry**











*

[kuajmc]

come to think of it, before they had online music store, we filesharers thought: "put your stuff online and if it's like a cheap we'll be legit filesharers." blablabla we bullshit as much as them. they have online stores now, most of us are saying "fAck it, i can get songs for free". we are egocentrical bastards so to say, _every_ one of us to some extent.

(ok this a very shallow view and i can't be bothered to go deeper with drm and so on, point is, most of us bullshlt and think we are holycrusaders for filesharing. the case is that we are cheap båstårds, and that mpaa and riaa are greedy båstårds. and both sides can't find middleground)

[shawners]

Released the numbers right after the grammys, so the music business picks up money during the grammyes and afterwards... So their numbers are false again.

[Dr.CrackEnHore]

It is kind of strange that people even try to justify stealing music. Of course it is wrong there is no doubt in my mind. As for hurting music sales that is a definite truth. Who really buys CD's anymore, I can barely even remeber the last one I bought.

Online music stores are a waste, who wants to buy something that doesn't really exist. One click of a button and your precious music collection can be gone. I want to see something real and touchable when I shell out my money. I can't touch an mp3 so I won't buy it.

Stealing is of course going to happen, why would you pay for something you can get for free, no one would ever do that.

[The Hunter]

Horse dung, as I have been introduced to more music through P2P than i ever would have otherwise. Hence I have actually purchased more music because of this. Do the studies take into account the downturn of the economy, of course not as it would hurt their stastics. Remember that when disposable income drops so do consumer purchases, as plastic only goes so far.

[shawners]

I buy music, this time im more aware of what i will like and what will please me more. I bought a few cd's after they remained on my hard drives more then a year.. From BMG music club and columbia.. and a box set of Duran Duran.. In which case i will share to my fellow file sharers.. Im ripping it at 384 baby =)

[kiwibank]

It is kind of strange that people even try to justify stealing music. Of course it is wrong there is no doubt in my mind. As for hurting music sales that is a definite truth. Who really buys CD's anymore, I can barely even remeber the last one I bought.

Online music stores are a waste, who wants to buy something that doesn't really exist. One click of a button and your precious music collection can be gone. I want to see something real and touchable when I shell out my money. I can't touch an mp3 so I won't buy it.

Stealing is of course going to happen, why would you pay for something you can get for free, no one would ever do that.


awww, stop it please. you`re breaking my heart.... burn yourself some free mp3`s to a cd and then you`ll be able to touch it...


_____________________________________________

on zeropaid, it pays to be "flame resistant". it`s a matter of survival.

[Muffin_Man]

@Dr.CrackEnHore

how do you steal something that, by definition, can not be owned?

[Dr.CrackEnHore]

You did not pay for it or earn it in any way so how can it be yours for the taking.

[Siskabush]

Dr.CrackEnHore

How is copying stealing?
If i had a super-copy machine, and went and copied your car to the exact detail, and then drove off with the copy, is that stealing? No, it isnt.

The original is still there, I just have a copy i created myself.

So dont call copying stealing. The two are not the same definition.

kuajmc:
Come to canada, and tell me what you see in the CD stores, and on the radio. Nothing but top 40 garbage. I hate that stuff. I HAVE to use P2P to find the music I want to hear, because they do not offer it to me here in any way.

[Dman212]

Siskabush is a genuis. That's all I gots to say.

[Rickio]

Technology has simply outpaced the reality we once knew and we are now in a period of re-defining reality.

I think everything should be free, but that's a utopian dream that will not ever happen in many lifetimes if ever, as most people are really not into equality but into how much can I get.

What's going on is nothing new at all. During the sixties there were groups of people into sharing and giving of everything it took to have a life. They were called communes and the information age began with projects like "The Whole Earth Catalog" that was a resource on how to live cheap to free. By the way the motto of that project was "The Information want's to be Free"

There was a group of people who called themselves "The Diggers" and they gave out free meals to anyone and everyone they could as well as had a free store. Everything in the store was free to whoever wanted it. Wild huh?

If all information is free, the ultimate result would be a society we can hardly imagine, there would be no more have not's as all knowledge for living better is free.

Actually the internet isn't going in that direction because people are more into what can I get, rather than what can I share. But hopefully with time, things will redefine and mellow out a bit more.

Getting music for free is nothing but the edge of a new way of thinking and enjoying life. It is difficult for people in the profit making position to see there cash cow float away in the onrush of changes.

But changes are increasing in pace and will not stop or slow down. Things could get very interesting if we get some more creative and open minded people to imagine and develop new economic and business ideals.

peace

[nasrules]

come to think of it, before they had online music store, we filesharers thought: "put your stuff online and if it's like a cheap we'll be legit filesharers." blablabla we bullshit as much as them. they have online stores now, most of us are saying "fAck it, i can get songs for free". we are egocentrical bastards so to say, _every_ one of us to some extent.

(ok this a very shallow view and i can't be bothered to go deeper with drm and so on, point is, most of us bullshlt and think we are holycrusaders for filesharing. the case is that we are cheap båstårds, and that mpaa and riaa are greedy båstårds. and both sides can't find middleground)

To be honest, I think if the RIAA backed down, apologised, made the online music cheaper and removed the DRM, many people here would use iTMS etc.

[kuajmc]

here's my suggestion if you hate riaa, but love the artist. simple; send the band a 5 dollarbill. then download their songs.
that way:
1. they'll be getting more then through official sales pr album, i presume.
2. cash not going through RIAA.
;P

and a reply to nasrules: Even though you'll get high quality mp3s without drm for a price, nothing will beat free, will it?

[kuajmc]

Dr.CrackEnHore

How is copying stealing?
If i had a super-copy machine, and went and copied your car to the exact detail, and then drove off with the copy, is that stealing? No, it isnt.

The original is still there, I just have a copy i created myself.

So dont call copying stealing. The two are not the same definition.

kuajmc:
Come to canada, and tell me what you see in the CD stores, and on the radio. Nothing but top 40 garbage. I hate that stuff. I HAVE to use P2P to find the music I want to hear, because they do not offer it to me here in any way.

how is copying stealing?
If you write a great thesis for you master's, and I somehow got access to your thesis in a digital form, and made a physical copy, then handed it in a day before you did and I get credit for your work while, since you handed it later you copy would be rejected. that will, by your definition, not be called stealing?

[Muffin_Man]

no, that would be plagarism

[MonkeyMadness]

Exactly, Muffin_Man. The "wrong" would be turning it in as your own and claiming the actual original research etc. as your own, not in making the copy of the thesis. Besides, there would be no supporting evidence it was your own. If you copied it, read it for your enjoyment, learned something new, there is no wrong in that. Going around claiming you wrote and performed some new song would be wrong, and again, stupid because it would be obvious it isn't you. Copying an mp3 and listening to it for your enjoyment is just sharing in the wealth of humanity's creative endeavors, like viewing the old master's paintings in a museum, or visiting the site of a great monument. Back to siskabush's car example (my personal favorite), once again, if your machine used your metal and plastic nano-particles to build up a copy of the car in your neighbor's driveway, then he is not deprived of the car; no one else is deprived of the car or a copy thereof; and you have another copy of the car to enjoy and others can copy it as well (I'll assume your copy of a copy includes digital specs in a memory chip to facilitate copying since you'd have analog degradation in a copy of a copy of a physical object). Therefore, no crime. If you copied it and then claimed you designed it, well, that would once again be wrong and stupid, since chances are you aren't an automotive designer, and don't have all the preliminary design studies etc. on hand to prove it.

[katerina]

Siskabush is a genuis. That's all I gots to say.
well, we all know that sharing copyright material online is illegal, but the question is whether it should be

[Dman212]

well, we all know that sharing copyright material online is illegal, but the question is whether it should be

I don't think it should be. I don't think innocent people should have to be sued into poverty just because a few artists have to live a life of...*gasp*...semi-luxury.

[kuajmc]

Exactly, Muffin_Man. The "wrong" would be turning it in as your own and claiming the actual original research etc. as your own, not in making the copy of the thesis. Besides, there would be no supporting evidence it was your own. If you copied it, read it for your enjoyment, learned something new, there is no wrong in that. Going around claiming you wrote and performed some new song would be wrong, and again, stupid because it would be obvious it isn't you. Copying an mp3 and listening to it for your enjoyment is just sharing in the wealth of humanity's creative endeavors, like viewing the old master's paintings in a museum, or visiting the site of a great monument. Back to siskabush's car example (my personal favorite), once again, if your machine used your metal and plastic nano-particles to build up a copy of the car in your neighbor's driveway, then he is not deprived of the car; no one else is deprived of the car or a copy thereof; and you have another copy of the car to enjoy and others can copy it as well (I'll assume your copy of a copy includes digital specs in a memory chip to facilitate copying since you'd have analog degradation in a copy of a copy of a physical object). Therefore, no crime. If you copied it and then claimed you designed it, well, that would once again be wrong and stupid, since chances are you aren't an automotive designer, and don't have all the preliminary design studies etc. on hand to prove it.

so you mean counterfeit products aren't some kind of criminal activity? 'cos i'm gladly sure that those who _produces_ fake rolex watches are not claiming that they are producing real watches. and i'm pretty sure there is an admission fee for the Louvre.

[katerina]

Well, yes, it is illegal, but the question i whether it should be.

[Siskabush]

so you mean counterfeit products aren't some kind of criminal activity? 'cos i'm gladly sure that those who _produces_ fake rolex watches are not claiming that they are producing real watches. and i'm pretty sure there is an admission fee for the Louvre.

Yes they are illegal, thats because your selling them. This relates to the plagarism example.

Back to my now very popular example.

If i went and copied your car, then sold the copy saying it was my car, That would be selling counterfiet products.
However if i copy it, use it for personal use, its not stealing, its not plagarism.

And now, the music i download is never sold. Its used for personal use.

I dont say i made it
I dont sell it as if it was my copy

Now give us another example of how we are all thieves so we can blow it out of the water.

[kuajmc]

"deprivation of income from the artists point" when it comes to filesharing, which of course i know can be used in both ways. first of all i've got nothing against reflacted views of file sharing from both sides, but most filesharers and the riaa have got a really dogmatic view on this subject.

it's has also something to do with the respect of the artists who made their songs, maybe they want to do that as a living. (which i offered a very utopian suggestion that we send a 5 dollar bill to the artist in that case cutting out riaa. but i doubt people will be arsed.)

In which case the design of the car is done by someone which also means he should be credited in some kind of way.
Therefore in your example i relate it against song covers, you can rightfully state that it's X's song but you've made a recording, it's your recording but the intellectual and (most of) creative property of that song isn't yours. you can say it's a tribute og so on blablabla, but if the rightful holder of the song really doesn't want your interpretation to be released, how will that go?

[katerina]

exactly, there is a difference between property and intellectual property. You may own a CD but this does not mean that you can distribute the songs online because it is yours, no, because in this way you prejudice artists' economic rights. This is even if you are making copies for your friends.

So, users of peer2peer networks, either do not really know that sharing is illegal or the ones who do, share because it is fun and easy, or they want to protest against labels, or because they cannot see what is wrong and illegal with sharing. Making compilations of MP3s is not the same as copying a CD from the local library, in any event it does not affect sales in the same way.

the problem here is that people do not really understand the basics of Intellectual property law, and if they do they perceive it as unfair, since it clashes with a well established practice of copying for personal use and not for profit. :tol

[DigitalJunkie]

I can't wait to the days that major record companies cut their waste to the bone, so they would just have few employees, a large storage facility with high speed servers connect to the Internet & local music stores for listening to mp3s and make your own CDs fast! No more $1.00 or $0.99 per song or pre-packaged CDs with craps. I love technology!!!

[katerina]

speaking of the Recording Industry, this is interesting: the title is

Courtney Love does the math
The controversial singer takes on record label profits, Napster and "sucka VCs."


http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/

[Afn]

Released the numbers right after the grammys.
Grammy Award shows are all about promotion and increasing sales for the majors. They would not have a yearly sales and promotion show if it did not increase sales.

The whole concept of recorded media sales is becoming obsolete. The content industries blame p2p networks, reality is society and markets have changed.

[Afn]

"deprivation of income from the artists point" when it comes to filesharing, which of course i know can be used in both ways. first of all i've got nothing against reflacted views of file sharing from both sides, but most filesharers and the riaa have got a really dogmatic view on this subject.

it's has also something to do with the respect of the artists who made their songs, maybe they want to do that as a living. (which i offered a very utopian suggestion that we send a 5 dollar bill to the artist in that case cutting out riaa. but i doubt people will be arsed.)

In which case the design of the car is done by someone which also means he should be credited in some kind of way.
Therefore in your example i relate it against song covers, you can rightfully state that it's X's song but you've made a recording, it's your recording but the intellectual and (most of) creative property of that song isn't yours. you can say it's a tribute og so on blablabla, but if the rightful holder of the song really doesn't want your interpretation to be released, how will that go?

Filesharing is a new way to share information, and corporations benefit from restricting access to it while spending millions of dollars marketing this information to sell access to it.

Soon these corporations will become unprofitable. Most people do not have a problem with information sharing, and the the right to share information. In some cultures this is a legitimate right.

Today we have corporations that make billions of dollars and yet individual citizens are unable to find shelter, food, and useful economic employment. Even if you are educated, your hi-tech job may be outsourced to China or India. Why? Becuase the corporations that control access to jobs, technology (soon the internet) and right to access information you need.

Sharing music is trivial, sharing news stories about current events is not trivial. When the corporations control access to information, citizens may or may not know the truth, because the information is controlled by corporations that have an agenda (make em pay-do not tell them the truth-keep making more money).

Access to information is only for the chosen few that have the income to pay for access.

Information needs to be free if you want to have a democratic republic. P2p technologies allows for people to internetwork and create distruptive social practices that create chaos for corporations that are designed to hoard and control information at the expense of a free society.

Who gets access to information is the next great battle for society.

[kuajmc]

Filesharing is a new way to share information, and corporations benefit from restricting access to it while spending millions of dollars marketing this information to sell access to it.

Soon these corporations will become unprofitable. Most people do not have a problem with information sharing, and the the right to share information. In some cultures this is a legitimate right.

Today we have corporations that make billions of dollars and yet individual citizens are unable to find shelter, food, and useful economic employment. Even if you are educated, your hi-tech job may be outsourced to China or India. Why? Becuase the corporations that control access to jobs, technology (soon the internet) and right to access information you need.

Sharing music is trivial, sharing news stories about current events is not trivial. When the corporations control access to information, citizens may or may not know the truth, because the information is controlled by corporations that have an agenda (make em pay-do not tell them the truth-keep making more money).

Access to information is only for the chosen few that have the income to pay for access.

Information needs to be free if you want to have a democratic republic. P2p technologies allows for people to internetwork and create distruptive social practices that create chaos for corporations that are designed to hoard and control information at the expense of a free society.

Who gets access to information is the next great battle for society.

I do agree that informations should be free, problem is in this disccusion or filesharing in general is not about people sharing journals or information of scientific progress but more trivial, commercial, recreational things. Social, liberal left-winged orientated organisations lay out the info they get their hands of without the use of P2P.

totally free information flow can be dangerous too, disruptive social behavior goes from the range of boycotting nike to sending planes into buildings.

[Afn]

I do agree that informations should be free, problem is in this disccusion or filesharing in general is not about people sharing journals or information of scientific progress but more trivial, commercial, recreational things.

totally free information flow can be dangerous too, disruptive social behavior goes from the range of boycotting nike to sending planes into buildings.

Boycotting nike because of it's unregulated corporate malfesence is what every citizen should do. We have all heard of how they lock employees in third world shoe factories, make cheap shoes and then ship the shoes to America for no reduction in the price, using the cheap labor to spend on commerical advertising that position it's products with social causes.

As for using planes in new creative ways, it could be said that technology could have prevented this, if the technology existed. Information on how to fly planes is simply information, and information must be free if we are to stay a free society.

Again, information must be free, when you make any product unavailable for open public inspection, you create a world based on Orwell's 1984.

[Afn]

Therefore in your example i relate it against song covers, you can rightfully state that it's X's song but you've made a recording, it's your recording but the intellectual and (most of) creative property of that song isn't yours. you can say it's a tribute og so on blablabla, but if the rightful holder of the song really doesn't want your interpretation to be released, how will that go?


Most covers do not pay royalies. Make enough money, and you are sued, or if you are a hot act, you may be able to get the rights from who ever holds or own the rights to an act.

We can question how profitable artists will be in the future, and perhaps the commerical market for artistic recordings will drop as society changes and technology creates more interesting "royality free" products.

Imoho, the only way to stop intelectual property from bleeding is to make every asset in the library of congress online for $.03 a download, with .01 going to the creator, .01 going to the label $.01 going to the government to maintain technology and servers.

Corporations make the most money, individuals make some money, everyone has fair access. Whne the wealth of cultural humanity is digitized and available via search, we will revolutionalize the world.

So if Ethel Dyson is correct and that the value of information will drop to 0 in the future, a $.03 download tax per work (album,book, ect.) Is the only way to prevent total collapse of intelectual property.

Add machines that can think, if you believe in the singularity, and robots that can do any physical human task, and you will need a universal income for every human.

Robots are getting smarter, and soon they may be able to do many tasks we think of as "human".

[kuajmc]

Boycotting nike because of it's unregulated corporate malfesence is what every citizen should do. We have all heard of how they lock employees in third world shoe factories, make cheap shoes and then ship the shoes to America for no reduction in the price, using the cheap labor to spend on commerical advertising that position it's products with social causes.

As for using planes in new creative ways, it could be said that technology could have prevented this, if the technology existed. Information on how to fly planes is simply information, and information must be free if we are to stay a free society.

Again, information must be free, when you make any product unavailable for open public inspection, you create a world based on Orwell's 1984.

have in mind that totally free information flow means opening up documents about security holes in banks, bio and chemical weapons information and so on, things need to be moderated to some degree. But yes it should be an international agency controlling workers rights within multi international corperations.

in case you misunderstood me, when i stated to range for social disruption i stretched it from good (boycotting nike) to bad (planes in buildings)