TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- RIAA sues AudioGalaxy
Pages (4): « 1 2 [3] 4 »
| quote: |
| Originally posted by tiesto14 so how long do u think it will take before we lose AG...IF we do? |
Yes, this sucks, but please stop hating on Americans. It's not our fault.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by uwmadtrance Yes, this sucks, but please stop hating on Americans. It's not our fault. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by drizzt81 I am f00king pissed about the RIAA terrorizing politicians into implementing laws that will allow the RIAA to sue ISP's and laws, which will restrict your privacy and effectively end all file-sharing.. police state, here we come  |
Guys just calm down a little. It will take at least six months before anything happens, and AG is a much different situation to Napster.
It might not get shut down at all, especially if AG agrees to vastly improve it's blocking techniques. Don't forget Napster was not actually shut down, they just ran out of money and couldn't pay their legal bills, thus had to fold.
But who remembers when Napster first closed down?
*oh no, what will we do for MP3's?*
Do a little searching, and within a few weeks you've sorted AG as the best of the pack. Fast-forward 2 years, and WE THE USERS have made AG into the best MP3 filesharing network on the planet. So it's clearly the next target. Even if it does get shut down, we will all migrate elsewhere, just like we did before.
Sure, the actions of the RIAA are infuriating. Sometimes I feel like screaming out at their total blindness to the fact that their own price strategies are to blame for declining sales, not just MP3 trading. But I say just chill out, we will all find somewhere else, and the trading will continue 
Besides, Napster used to suck .. no resume?? So many mis-labelled and incomplete tracks .. AG overcomes most of these problems. The next p2p network we use will be better again.
And if not, there's always IRC
And to the guy who was talking about 2.5 million profit instead of 2 million, yes they do care. A lot. Consider that here in Australia, the main banks turnover about $US1 billion dollars every QUARTER. And then they go and charge every single customer a $5 per month fee, just for having a bank account. It's absolutely disgusting, but what can we do about it?
as spad pointed out.. theres only need for the americans here to get riled about this... its the RIAA ffs, what duristiction do they have over the rest of the world? none.
so the rest of the world should be able to carry on downloading mp3's until their hearts are content.
fact: statistics show that those who download a lot of mp3's do generally buy more music... so i dont see what their problem is. 
Let's suit RIAA!
RIAA is a cartel which contains all those those shitty money-bathing companies. So why doesn't someone suit them? There is a thing such as anti-monopoly law...
I really do find this all very amusing.
The RIAA represents the stereotypical, technophobic attitude so prevelent in bodies of authority. By their logic, the internet is inhabitted by porn freaks, child molesters, computer hackers and Linux users (.... never mind ). If they had even the tiniest amount of intelligence, they would be noticing a few things.
Firstly the mp3 format is here to stay. No amount of law suits are going to stop people downloading music. All law suits serve to do are to inconvenience people for a couple of months while a new P2P system is adopted and the entire thing begins again, and/or to create a public relations rift between the major record companies and the music fans. The reputation that the RIAA and the major record labels have earned as the result of this debacle is clear: they are aleinating the people who listen to their music, and what kind of a policy is that? Any marketing type will tell you the importance of public image in determining how well a company fares, and by acting in a such a draconian fashion, the RIAA and the "big 5" record companies are shooting themselves in the foot. Whatever profits they salvage from the suppression of mp3s (if any) will be entirely outweighed by the profits lost when people begin to rebel against them and refuse to buy their merchandise. It's clear that this is the way it's heading.
Secondly, when you buy a CD - while I forget the exact figures now - the record company earns 2-3 times as much as the artist does from each CD. So if a CD sells for $30, if we assume $5 goes to the artist (probably an overestimate) then $10-$15 is going straight back to the record company. It should be noticed, that in the case of bigger name stars especially, the amount of money they make from CD sales is completely shadowed by the amount of money they receive from the contracts the companies give them. What does an artist care about CD sales if the majority of profits are going to the record company and they're going to earn a lot of money from their contract regardless? For the Record Companies to say that mp3 downloads hurt artists is completely misguided: if they are so concerned about the well-being of their stars, perhaps the record companies could find it in their hearts to trim down their own profits a bit.
Next, their logic implies, essentially, that any time someone downloads an mp3 a CD sale is lost. That is, if someone downloads a particular song, it negates the need for a purchase that would otherwise be made. But this is specious logic: with the majority of downloads (I'm thinking 95% +) mp3s are not used as a way to eschew the purchase of a CD at all. Just because someone downloads an mp3, it in no way indicates that they would otherwise be likely to buy the CD. Perhaps they were just curious, or too indifferent towards the song to buy it outright. People don't hear a song on a radio think "oooo, I like the sound of that, I'm going to go home onto my illegal mp3 software and download it so I don't have to pay the $10! Mwahahaha!". Most people, if they like the sound of a song, are compelled to buy it. The majority of people who listen to the music purveyed by the major record companies - i.e. pop music - are unlikely to be mp3 gurus. Fourteen year old girls do not horde mp3s downloaded from Napster, they go out and buy the CD. I may or may not own a Brittney Spears mp3 or two (*ahem* 
) but, at the same time, I wouldn't have bought her CD's whether I had the mp3 or not. Therefore, for the RIAA to suggest that the download of an mp3 automatically translates into a shrinkage of profit margin is entirely specious and, above all, false.
Finally, if they had any marketing people who were any better than completely shitty hacks, they'd realise that given the fact that mp3s are here to stay, and that there is a great public demand for them, that there may, just may, be a money making opportunity here. Think about it: if I could pay a reasonable price for a service that could guarantee me the music I wanted in a downloadable mp3 format, I would baulk at the opportunity, and I suspect that many others here would as well. I think the only attempt at "pay-per-download" mp3s, had each song charged at like $US 2.50 for every one you downloaded. Now that is just plain stupidity. Offer a reasonable service at a reasonable price, and you're laughing. Think about it: how much does the average person spend per year on singles? $100 maximum? If you charge people $100/year ($8.33 / month) for a service that allows them to download any CD single track they wish, then they are immediately guaranteed the money they'd be getting anyway if the music was only available of CD single format, plus there'd be greater exposure for all their artists meaning, if you do the sums, a greater chance of album sales (which, as Webmeister said, is where they make the bulk of their profit anyway). Steady CD single sales + greater album sales = cha-ching.
So why don't they look into something like this? Because they're naive dickheads, trained in a business rationale that doesn't allow for creativity or risk-taking. If they are losing profits (which they aren't by the way) then it's through their own ignorance and lack of ingenuity. The hope of seeing the big five fall down is motivation enough for me to download illegal copyrighted material like a madman.
So, in brief, fuck off RIAA, fuck off the big five. You're fighting a battle that you're going to lose unless you change your mind set very quickly. Be warned.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Renegade I really do find this all very amusing. The RIAA represents the stereotypical, technophobic attitude so prevelent in bodies of authority. By their logic, the internet is inhabitted by porn freaks, child molesters, computer hackers and Linux users (.... never mind ). If they had even the tiniest amount of intelligence, they would be noticing a few things.Firstly the mp3 format is here to stay. No amount of law suits are going to stop people downloading music. All law suits serve to do are to inconvenience people for a couple of months while a new P2P system is adopted and the entire thing begins again, and/or to create a public relations rift between the major record companies and the music fans. The reputation that the RIAA and the major record labels have earned as the result of this debacle is clear: they are aleinating the people who listen to their music, and what kind of a policy is that? Any marketing type will tell you the importance of public image in determining how well a company fares, and by acting in a such a draconian fashion, the RIAA and the "big 5" record companies are shooting themselves in the foot. Whatever profits they salvage from the suppression of mp3s (if any) will be entirely outweighed by the profits lost when people begin to rebel against them and refuse to buy their merchandise. It's clear that this is the way it's heading. Secondly, when you buy a CD - while I forget the exact figures now - the record company earns 2-3 times as much as the artist does from each CD. So if a CD sells for $30, if we assume $5 goes to the artist (probably an overestimate) then $10-$15 is going straight back to the record company. It should be noticed, that in the case of bigger name stars especially, the amount of money they make from CD sales is completely shadowed by the amount of money they receive from the contracts the companies give them. What does an artist care about CD sales if the majority of profits are going to the record company and they're going to earn a lot of money from their contract regardless? For the Record Companies to say that mp3 downloads hurt artists is completely misguided: if they are so concerned about the well-being of their stars, perhaps the record companies could find it in their hearts to trim down their own profits a bit. Next, their logic implies, essentially, that any time someone downloads an mp3 a CD sale is lost. That is, if someone downloads a particular song, it negates the need for a purchase that would otherwise be made. But this is specious logic: with the majority of downloads (I'm thinking 95% +) mp3s are not used as a way to eschew the purchase of a CD at all. Just because someone downloads an mp3, it in no way indicates that they would otherwise be likely to buy the CD. Perhaps they were just curious, or too indifferent towards the song to buy it outright. People don't hear a song on a radio think "oooo, I like the sound of that, I'm going to go home onto my illegal mp3 software and download it so I don't have to pay the $10! Mwahahaha!". Most people, if they like the sound of a song, are compelled to buy it. The majority of people who listen to the music purveyed by the major record companies - i.e. pop music - are unlikely to be mp3 gurus. Fourteen year old girls do not horde mp3s downloaded from Napster, they go out and buy the CD. I may or may not own a Brittney Spears mp3 or two (*ahem* ) but, at the same time, I wouldn't have bought her CD's whether I had the mp3 or not. Therefore, for the RIAA to suggest that the download of an mp3 automatically translates into a shrinkage of profit margin is entirely specious and, above all, false. Finally, if they had any marketing people who were any better than completely shitty hacks, they'd realise that given the fact that mp3s are here to stay, and that there is a great public demand for them, that there may, just may, be a money making opportunity here. Think about it: if I could pay a reasonable price for a service that could guarantee me the music I wanted in a downloadable mp3 format, I would baulk at the opportunity, and I suspect that many others here would as well. I think the only attempt at "pay-per-download" mp3s, had each song charged at like $US 2.50 for every one you downloaded. Now that is just plain stupidity. Offer a reasonable service at a reasonable price, and you're laughing. Think about it: how much does the average person spend per year on singles? $100 maximum? If you charge people $100/year ($8.33 / month) for a service that allows them to download any CD single track they wish, then they are immediately guaranteed the money they'd be getting anyway if the music was only available of CD single format, plus there'd be greater exposure for all their artists meaning, if you do the sums, a greater chance of album sales (which, as Webmeister said, is where they make the bulk of their profit anyway). Steady CD single sales + greater album sales = cha-ching. So why don't they look into something like this? Because they're naive dickheads, trained in a business rationale that doesn't allow for creativity or risk-taking. If they are losing profits (which they aren't by the way) then it's through their own ignorance and lack of ingenuity. The hope of seeing the big five fall down is motivation enough for me to download illegal copyrighted material like a madman. So, in brief, fuck off RIAA, fuck off the big five. You're fighting a battle that you're going to lose unless you change your mind set very quickly. Be warned. |
Audiogalaxy going down....
All greatness must come to an end. I think AG was one of the main reasons a lot of Dj's and acts have reached GREATNESS. Where shall we move the anchor to...eventually.
he he, brilliant news man, Dont worry dudes, Snapster or shnapster will be created, There will always be a sweet old illegal download site running,
no way this can't be true! yeah i know other file-sharing programs will be out there, but its gonna be so hard to match the absolute depth and diversity AG had within it. I even liked it more then Napster!
Geezs i'm talking like its already gone...... maybe nothing will happen and we TA will be able to enjoy many more years of getting DJ sets that we otherwise would never hear.
My fingers are crossed
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
| quote: |
| Originally posted by discitelli yeah i know other file-sharing programs will be out there, but its gonna be so hard to match the absolute depth and diversity AG had within it. |
right now i can't download anything from audiogalaxy, because i don't have the bandwith -- i have a huge leech list in gozilla from ftp's, etc.
and if you want to blame americans for the RIAA, then you should also blame them for the fact that you are able to use audiogalaxy and download free music. you can't appreciate the sweet until you taste the sour.
if ag goes, something will replace it, simple as that.
why everyone moans about it it beyond me, if you really want the music that go and buy it from a store
what will i do??
where will i go??
ahhhh nooo
Alternatives exist and alternatives will come. Of course, but will they be any good?
I am not so complacent that they will be, although I bloody hope so. We all agree that RIAA are a bit-short sighted in their thinking, but nonetheless it is the way they are going to go. They will inevitably do whatever possible within their power to prevent alternatives of such calibre starting again.
We learnt a lesson after Napster, that alternatives will come, but so did they. This time round, they may well push for more draconian rulings, and try and tighten the knot on the loopholes in the law that people will try to exploit.
If RIAA really do want to reduce mp3 sharing altogether, I am sure they are not so stupid as to assume everyone will just give up when AG is gone. I suspect they are trying to push for something more.
They know they can never entirely stop mp3 sharing, people will always do it over IRC or whatever, but they can sure as hell make it more and more difficult for us IF the law takes their side through to the end on this one.
By the way, about people saying that those of us outside America will be able to continue using AG anyway; is this true? Surely the servers and the whole site etc is based in the US?
I'm not sure but I think AG is a US-based company. So it's well within the jurisdiction of the US courts.
But the legal system the way it is, it could be a long long time before AG is actually shut down (if it is shut down at all...).
I remember when Napster was going to be shut down within days .. suddenly there were 10 million users online, all sharing, grabbing what they could when they could
Me included hehehe
the RIAA needs to stfu...honestly they have copyrighted songs already and for those people who rename their mp3s for people to download AG is still on it...the RIAA is so fukn narrow minded...they just think that any file sharing program is illegal but AG is trying to respect them by X'ing out certain songs...stupid fukerz
Damn!
I don't know any good alternative for AG yet!
i give the RIAA another middle finger
everytime we get a good file sharing prog.... wtf... gay
| quote: |
| Originally posted by dj dimwit I don't know any good alternative for AG yet! |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.