 NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny YoursPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
 ·Site5.com
 ·Comcast
 ·Callcentric
| reply to quintin3265
Re: Justification? said by quintin3265:It seems to me that, if you buy the RIAA's argument, boycotting without downloading is the same as boycotting with downloading, because either way the RIAA receives no money (according to them). I'm confused as to why you say there would be any difference in effect if people stopped downloading. Anyway, this argument over how much damage is actually caused by downloading has been hashed out enough here and everywhere. I don't really care about what happens to the RIAA because their prices are still too high. Maybe other people value music at $15/hr, but I certainly won't pay that much. Its very simple.
If no one is buying or downloading, the RIAA would have seen that there is no activity going on with their products. As it is today, the RIAA can claim copyright infringement due to the fact that a lot of their product is being distributed illegally over P2P networks. Their product does have a demand attached to it and as it stands, if the product is free, its in heavy demand.
I suppose the whole argument that the music industry hasn't put anything out that is worth a damn in the last year really isn't accurate. If that was the case, no one would be downloading at all.
As it stands today, the RIAA sees the demand and is willing to do what it takes to squash that free delivery method. Its obvious that there is a pretty good amount of monetary damage going on here. As you said, it has been hashed out enough here and everywhere.
The point is simply this. Consumers should be boycotting the RIAA. They shouldn't be saying they are boycotting them, but downloading freely. A boycott the right way means to be not purchasing or using any of their products at all. The whole "Robin Hood" mentality really doesn't help matters. |
