(*thanks swamper for the HUB*)


WTF ? What does Swamper have to do with the Hub ? you got it wrong buddy

___________________
"A style that's impossible to define. Prog? Hardly. Tech house? Not boring enough. It's like trippy twisted acid house but deep and funky. See, I told you - impossible."

quote:

Originally posted by fastmp3 (*thanks swamper for the HUB*) WTF ? What does Swamper have to do with the Hub ? you got it wrong buddy

thanks man... glad you could point that out so quickly

just needed some information, not a critique.

___________________
[U.S.A.T.A]

Shoot say in order to dl music someone has to buy the cd to put it on the computer to share it so the artists still making monay i think they should quit they bitchin as for suing people like that little kid OK thats real smart god i hate everything RIAA govenment and how things work FUNK IM ALL MAD NOW THAT THESE STUPID FUCKS PEOPLE ARE SO STUPID IT MAKES ME WANT TO KILL EM AND THEN MYSELF AFTERWARDS AHHH!!!

___________________
Figure out what to do, then take a nap.

The RIAA is in spite that it didn't take advantage of p2p distribution software when it was the hottest thing out there. To make up for it, they went to the extremes of suing individuals. Sometimes they even sued the wrong person, which in turn destroys the "victim"s professional and personal reputation. The RIAA will simply go "oops, my bad" without any sympathy for who they just ended up screwing. then they move on to the next victim...and so on.
So they finally decided to make deals with iTunes and Napster to make their money through p2p services. but it's already too late with the rise of private servers and hidden doors to make the fortune they should have made in the beginning.

___________________
Thank You and Goodnight

quote:

The RIAA will simply go "oops, my bad" without any sympathy for who they just ended up screwing. then they move on to the next victim...

Exactly my point. so far they decided to sue a 17 year old kid (actually his mom since he doesn't have any assets) for 2-3,000 bucks. the R.I.A.A is also searching the laptops of our US Navy, and if they found any mp3s there is possible expulsion and loss of bennifits. I mean that the shit is that? they put their life on the line for our country (mine at least lol:P) and they threaten them with expulsion for having some bloody songs? c'mon give me a break.

___________________
[U.S.A.T.A]

one more idea i had for an argument. the R.I.A.A said it wanted some compensation for "their loss from internet pirating"
dont you think it would be smart for the R.I.A.A to sue companies such as thoes who make blank cd's...cd burners...mp3 devices and so on?

___________________
[U.S.A.T.A]

quote:

Originally posted by TranceFusion the R.I.A.A is also searching the laptops of our US Navy, and if they found any mp3s there is possible expulsion and loss of bennifits. I mean that the shit is that? they put their life on the line for our country (mine at least lol:P) and they threaten them with expulsion for having some bloody songs?

while i find that absolutely outrageous, i don't think there is any argument against the RIAA that what they are doing is illegal. we may have our opinions about the 3 peice suits and diamond rings, but it's all about regaining their property that was stolen. i try to think of something to counter their arguments, but it always ends at: People are stealing music.

___________________
Thank You and Goodnight

quote:

Originally posted by TranceFusion one more idea i had for an argument. the R.I.A.A said it wanted some compensation for "their loss from internet pirating" dont you think it would be smart for the R.I.A.A to sue companies such as thoes who make blank cd's...cd burners...mp3 devices and so on?

You can't sue them only because there are legal ways to use them. It is the users choice to burn illegal copies, blank cds and burners are only for backups.

Its tough to truely argue against the RIAA about free sharing since there are copyright laws and it is just wrong to steal copyrighted material.

What would be good to argue is the steps they took to stop illegal sharing. First they attacked the networks that share mp3's, then once they found a way to not get sued they attacked the people by sueing them. You could argue that the steps taken were in the wrong direction and that they should have embraced the new technology.

the thing is that everytime they embrace new technology which makes it easier and cheaper to make music, they jack up the price (could be inflation, I dunno). So there is not a lot of profitability in p2p networks or pay music download sites.

So your arguements could be consumers are sick of high priced full length cds. New technology allows people to within minutes have the exact songs they like so they want to use that. Of course free is better than paying.

RIAA on the other hand has the artists interest in their hands by trying to stop free music sharing so that their artists get compensation (I konw they are money sucking pigs, but this is ideally speaking). What better way to scare people into not sharing by threatening the thing that means most to people, money.

hey, why the hell am I doing your work.....I should be doing my own damn homework.

hello there.

first and for most you will want to ackowledge the other side to show that you are not so narrow minded but prove that your ideas are relatively better. refrain from calling anybody names in papers. it just makes you look childish. you may wan't to do some research. once all of that is done, have fun and i am sure you will able to put forth solid ideas.

-dreamer

riaa side, music is being duplicated without permission.

(mostly) our side, without free p2p ppl wouldn't be able to try out different kinds of music, making it hard for n00bs to get their names out. example, without napster i wouldn't even know who pvd is, but today i spend all my money on vinyl.