|
RIAA sues AudioGalaxy (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| drizzt81 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Stanza
I'm deeply shocked about this news :(
AG is by far the no.1 place to find trance and heaps of other obscure stuff.
I'm just sick of RIAA terrorising the p2p file sharing networks with their ing lawsuits and !!!
|
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 :( |
|
|
| thewarpbrothers |
| thats so ing sucks dick...................damn bastards can all rot in hell, they are literally stopping people from listening to quality tunes |
|
|
| T_2199 |
| quote: | Originally posted by tiesto14
so how long do u think it will take before we lose AG...IF we do? |
I think it will be online at least for 3 month since now!! Lawers are too lame!! |
|
|
| uwmadtrance |
| Yes, this sucks, but please stop hating on Americans. It's not our fault. |
|
|
| Palivar |
| quote: | Originally posted by uwmadtrance
Yes, this sucks, but please stop hating on Americans. It's not our fault. |
YES IT YOU FAULT! YOU MAKE DAMN RIAA! RIAA EAT RONNIE! THAT NO GOOD YOU DO BAD I NO MUSICA! BAH! |
|
|
| Spad |
| 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 :( |
It'll never happen. They'd need to pass these regulations in every single country in the world. It wont happen. Maybe in the states.... |
|
|
| webmeister |
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? |
|
|
| tu_face |
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. :D |
|
|
| vmc |
| RIAA is a cartel which contains all those those ty money-bathing companies. So why doesn't someone suit them? There is a thing such as anti-monopoly law... |
|
|
| 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* :rolleyes: ) 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 ty 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 s, 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, off RIAA, 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. |
|
|
| Bondor |
| 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* :rolleyes: ) 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 ty 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 s, 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, off RIAA, 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. |
Amen:) |
|
|
|
|
