New Record Label Campaign > *Sigh*

*Sigh*

Because, for one, I would imagine that many of these "supernodes" contain music that is not otherwise copyrighted, as well as other types of media works.
Again, the RIAA is trying to exert control over things which they have no legal domain, as well as that they believe they have domain over.
As a sidenote, it is groups like the RIAA and the various record companies that are responsible for the crap called "popular music" these days, which makes it difficult to find good new music, because it is surrounded by mountain of garbage.
Record companies are the only reason "artists" like Britney Spears are still singing and not shining shoes at the airport for a living.
There's no accounting for taste in corporate marketing.
You take a teenage girl, shove her into some britches are 5 sizes too small, put a push up bra on her, and get her a choreographer, and you can bet that 5,000,000 teenagers are going to buy her garbage at $20 each.
Jessica Simpson, Christina Augilera, Lil' Kim, etc.etc.etc.
In the meantime, artists with more talent and less T&A get kicked to the curb.
These artists rely on P2P to get their music heard.
I know. I have been one of them.
Not trying to humble myself, but Justin Timberlake ain't talented enough to even tie my shoes.
Now then, many of others recognize these points I'm making. They too are disgusted by the state of the industry.
As such, they don't buy the music.
When an act puts out a CD, they probably have one good tune on it and the rest is crap, and the public recognizes this fact. Why would one then go out and buy that CD for $20 when nothing else good exists on it? They don't. They find good stuff on the web, then download them, and make their own collections.
Until the record company realizes that quality and originality is what's going to make people buy records, and find ways to embrace P2P technology instead of alienating it, then I see this trend continuing.
To many people, perky tits and round asses are not all that's required to legitimize a CD investment.
Sure, it makes a great CD cover, but that's all.
--
We've got our eye on the firmaments, our hand on the armaments, our heads full of arguments, and words for our monuments.....

T&A in music isn't such a bad thing I just watch the videos on "mute" hehe.

Hey, I like tits and ass as much as the next guy.
I think Shakira is one of the most beautiful women I've ever seen, but it won't make me go buy her CD. As a matter of fact, she's much more attractive to me when her vocal cords AREN'T vibrating.
--
We've got our eye on the firmaments, our hand on the armaments, our heads full of arguments, and words for our monuments.....

reply to Nightfall

said by Nightfall:

---

Why does the RIAA suck "moose balls" in this instance? Why does this action warrant not buying cds?

---

reply to pnh102
I also am a mute video watcher. I find that those country stations are great for mute viewing.

Same tactics, different genre of music.
Sex sells.

reply to BrianDamage

quote:

---

Jessica Simpson

---

quote:

---

Lil' Kim

---

OKay, Lil' Kim has plastic boobs that don't need a push, but the point I made is still just as valid.
Mandy Moore was a "Christian" artist at first, too.
So was Amy Grant.
Granted, Miss Grant (Gill) didn't take the same T&A route of the others, but renounced Christian music all the same for "pop" glory.
Just more examples to demonstrate my point.
--
We've got our eye on the firmaments, our hand on the armaments, our heads full of arguments, and words for our monuments.....

reply to amoiseyev

said by amoiseyev:

---

said by Nightfall:

---

Why does the RIAA suck "moose balls" in this instance? Why does this action warrant not buying cds?

---

Because RIAA is a monopoly. Worst case of monopoly, because it has exclusive rights granted by law. And it's obvious that RIAA uses this monopoly to be overprofitable.
Since anti-trust law doesn't seem to be ever used against RIAA, boycott is the only way to make these people realize that the money they want for the music - is the only one side of the medal. The other side - what people are ready to pay for this music.

---

said by Nightfall:

---

So bring overprofitable is against the law? I agree, boycotting is the way to make the RIAA realize its mistakes. I just don't agree with "making them pay" by stealing.

---

said by KrK:

---

said by Nightfall:

---

So bring overprofitable is against the law? I agree, boycotting is the way to make the RIAA realize its mistakes. I just don't agree with "making them pay" by stealing.

---

The problem is, that is the RIAA's attitude. They won't acknowledge the effects of any alienated customers and or/boycotting--- they'll just insist that all lost sales are really just people stealing, and cry foul, and demand even more intrusions into people's lives/internet/habits/etc

---

This is why I have suggested a compromise before, in that copyright laws already exist, but, let's put a timestamp on them.
For example, new releases being protected for x number of months/years and after which time, the protection expires and people are free to disseminate it as they choose.
It protects the record company's ability to extort money out of the consumers (but within a timeframe, instead of indefinitely), and helps to legitimize consumer rights to duplicate media.
Also, "grandfather" music that is over a certain number of years old (for example, my downloading Mott the Hoople songs immediately would be legitimate because the record companies have had thirty years to make money off of them).
It is a compromise along the same lines as trademark protection.
It could work for the music industry as well, and preserve P2P infrastructure, as well as eliminate tons of litigation.
--
We've got our eye on the firmaments, our hand on the armaments, our heads full of arguments, and words for our monuments.....

reply to Nightfall
what an idiot!!! If the people could find Britney Spears on a cd with 4x the content at half the price, they'd go there and buy it. Did you know that there is no such source? There happens to be an alternative, and its called "Kazaa" and other p2p's. So what your saying is, "I dont like milk, i prefer water, but because the grocery store i go to forces me to buy milk, i will buy it always and forever instead of getting water from the tap"?

-fuzy

reply to BrianDamage

Could you believe....

said by BrianDamage:

---

This is why I have suggested a compromise before, in that copyright laws already exist, but, let's put a timestamp on them.

---

reply to fuzydice

Re: *Sigh*

said by fuzydice:

---

what an idiot!!! If the people could find Britney Spears on a cd with 4x the content at half the price, they'd go there and buy it. Did you know that there is no such source? There happens to be an alternative, and its called "Kazaa" and other p2p's. So what your saying is, "I dont like milk, i prefer water, but because the grocery store i go to forces me to buy milk, i will buy it always and forever instead of getting water from the tap"?

-fuzy

---

quote:

---

However, anyone saying that stealing music over P2P file sharing apps is ok needs to have their head examined. It is unlawful, plain and simple.

---

reply to BrianDamage

said by BrianDamage:

---

This is why I have suggested a compromise before, in that copyright laws already exist, but, let's put a timestamp on them.
For example, new releases being protected for x number of months/years and after which time, the protection expires and people are free to disseminate it as they choose.
It protects the record company's ability to extort money out of the consumers (but within a timeframe, instead of indefinitely), and helps to legitimize consumer rights to duplicate media.
Also, "grandfather" music that is over a certain number of years old (for example, my downloading Mott the Hoople songs immediately would be legitimate because the record companies have had thirty years to make money off of them).
It is a compromise along the same lines as trademark protection.
It could work for the music industry as well, and preserve P2P infrastructure, as well as eliminate tons of litigation.

---

reply to Nightfall
The RIAA should try to shut down the Internet. They could probably do it, they have enough money and power. I think it would be pretty funny. They could claim it's only used for stealing, and getting around copyright laws, and therefore could be considered unlawful under the DMCA. Then once they've killed it off, they could release timed CD's, that only play music for a certain amount of time, or will only let you listen to a CD 10 times through before it expires. Then they could make you buy a new one. OR! They could make you pay a licence fee to own a CD. You pay $5 per month for ownership of rights to play the CD.

What else could they do? They could put a music tax on everyone to collect extra lost profits from the people who refuse to buy CD's. Man, there are just so many good ideas for the RIAA to implement! Soon they'll rule us like Gods, and we will pray to them and beg for their distribution of our life giving pop music through human sacrifice.

Hooray!
--
"Nothing fits better than a dead man's shirt" -Jimmy James. Visit the Canadian Forum!

reply to Nightfall
Hello fool! Im outraged by a company, so what do I do? Continue to pay them to outrage me more, take away more of my rights, etc etc? WRONG! Thats the last thing any american should do, and by advocating in favor or the riaa it makes u some kind of communist! COMMIE!