Neowin.net

Don't forget that they are not actually suing to get them to pay the cost of each song. They are suing to cover the "alleged" loss of sales from each and every person who might otherwise have purchased the songs. I think its fair to conclude that each song would have been downloaded more than 150 thousand times at a potential loss $1 per song.

Still I hate the RIAA just as much as the next man and I hope the Russians fight this and win.

I'm not a big fan of the russian government, especial after Putin's "kitten pet" (EWWW!!! PEDOPHILE!!! ), and the recent assination of a former spy. I'll have to agree that the RIAA is obnoxious. But still, how can artist be protected from pirates and malicious recording contracts? I heard that there essentialy is no music industry in china, becuase once someone gets popular, there music gets pirated, and the artists can no longer make a living. I doubt russia is much different, especially considering we haven't exported capitalism as agressively to russia as we have with china (which has done much to improve the quality of life for the chinese.)

All that said, art is international, it is not simply american. If people can't make a living off of it, I can't see how art in any form, be it paintings, music, or movies, how art can continue to thrive. Our constitution specificly gives congress the responsiblity to protect content creators. However, considering recents acts that treat everyone like a potential theives, artist that sell there lives away to production companies, making stuff they created the sole property of the company, not the artists, and a bunch of other things, I'm afraid that the arts will soon be an isolated hobby rather than a livelyhood.

Most of the money any musician makes comes from ticket sales of their concerts and anything sold at their concerts (t-shirts, hats...etc). They don't make huge amounts on record sales. Why do you think most bands that make it big go on tours that last for like a year straight and sometimes even longer? That's where they make the real money. They'll get maybe a million dollars in a contract with most of that money going back into the recording of the album. Most record companies don't pay everything to get the albums recorded.

You'll notice that most of the bands that don't really care about their music being downloaded are bands that have been out a while and know they won't make much off cd sales to begin with because the record company keeps most of it and the bands only get a small fraction of that.

Bwwaaaahahahahaahahhaa!!

...

My thoughts exactly.

Haha, I knew it, Dr Evil IS running the RIAA!

yep thats a $trillion more than what Bush is asking to help extend funding of the Iraq war. My with that money one could bring Africa out of the stone age. Alas it's a frivolous lawsuit and I doubt they ever intended to see any of whatever money they are looking for. Besides.... the ROM's has the royalties, but the RIAA has refused to collect it. They set themselves up.

1.6 trillion divided by 4.2 billion would make 380 (give or take some)

The stupid thing about the RIAA is they like to make things up and force everyone else to believe them. There have been studies of piracy in other countries (the big one I'm referring to was in Canada), that have actually shown piracy isn't hurting the industry as much as the RIAA would like us to believe.

When it comes down to it, they're an organization who just wants more money by any means necessary.

This is called truthiness. By definition, it doesn't have to have any basis in fact; just saying it is so makes it so.

Given how the RIAA operates I wouldn't be surprised if Dr. Evil was in charge.

[size=4][color=#000099]ONE HUNDRED MILLION GAZILLION DOLLARS

LOL

Ahahaha! Oh, man... thanks.

Maybe they plan on getting enough money to purchase Russia...
Because that is more than Russia's yearly GDP.

Who exactly are they going to sue in the USA? Does AllOfMP3 actually have any offices or staff in America?

RIAA: We would like to sue AllOfMP3 for $1.6 Trillion.. can we please?
US Courts: Hahahaha... good luck.

does it matter? US courts cant affect a Russian business :p

I'd be thinking can Russia afford to lose allofmp3 as a business? I'm sure Russia has it's on financial problems, so probably relies on mediaservices and others to make some money. Worst case scenerio.... RIAA creates cold war part 2.

LOL.. you're actually correct. Russia's GDP in 2005 accounted to 766 billion dollars.

http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B0%...%83%D0%BA%D1%82

Well actually according to en.wikipedia.org it is $1.576 trillion - so the RIAA are suing the whole of Russia's gross domestic product.

Just for reference, US nominal GPD is US12.5 trillion.

Probably more if the Krasnayans didn't have such a strong grasp through Eastern Europe.

LOl.. is that "pollonium" you're reffering to...

dont expose my secerts please...

If only we could be that lucky!

What a way for the RIAA to start the new year off, reminding the world how pathetic they are. Now we just need them to ask the artist(s) to take a lesser cut again...

so me and you both could laugh together at the comments calling the RIAA stupid lol.

I dunno... why did you even post if you have nothing to say?

BTW someone has to stop RIAA... it is getting stupid now...

BTW, iTunes is not available in Russia.

No doubt this is nothing more than a scare tactic, but I'm still curious to see how this will backfire on them. This seriously needs to hit mainstream news (and not just geek sites), if only to expose the RIAA to Joe SixPack for what it really is.

Except for it would be nicely paraphrased into something like this:
RIAA: This evil Russian communist corporation is stealing YOUR, Joe SixPack's money! YOU have the right to stand up for your American values and taxes! God bless America and our fight against the evil communist bastards!
Joe SixPack: Hell yeah! Where do I sugn up? And gimme some more of that 'Milwaukee's best'!

Y'know, you're probably right. I always forget that Joe SixPack takes any media spin at face value.

Well, in a roundabout way, the artists do benefit. If the RIAA successfully stopped a majority of pirating (not likely but I am just saying *if*) then most people would have no choice but to buy their music. And when they buy their music, the artists make money.

It's too bad because the RIAA's mission is one that really needs to be addressed. But they're doing it all wrong.

the artist do make money but it's a small percentage, right? ... cause i heard the artist make most of there money touring etc if thats true then the hell with the RIAA.

when i buy a cd i would want majority of the money to goto the artist and NOT the greedy record lables.

---------------

besides there aint much music worth buying nowadays anyways... theres some but not much and the stuff i do like i just W***z it anyways ... screw the RIAA they aint worth a damn, it's obvious from the many many news reports that there just trying to line there own pockets and they really dont give a damn about the artists.... they just use the "where trying to protect the artists" crap to make it look good for the public etc.... when in reality there bottom line is "let line out pockets and sue everyone for there life savings".

How do they benefit? Say if RIAA sues for an entire album of Boston's first album which contains 8 songs at a lawsuit of $150,000 each. That's a total of $1,200,000.00!

So how much of that ends up in the hands of the Boston group?

So you say that artists do benefit, may I please ask by what source that says that they do and by how much?

In retrospects, artists make very little income on albums alone, but the majority of the money that they make is from tours, i.e. ticket sales and table sales (such as t-shirts, albums, etc.).

Do please pray tell what exactly RIAA should be doing rather than committing themselves to lawsuits?

The point he was making, which you seem to have missed, is not that artists benefit directly from the lawsuits... they dont. What they benefit from is an increased level of fear from the public who think twice about piracy and are much more likely to purchase the music in future.

A cheque like this?

I'll assume you are being sarcastic...

Listening to a radio in a public place is allowed as the radio station own the licence to publicly broadcast the music.

I know you were being sarcastic, but I though I might just point this out to you.

And the sad part? Despite the fact that's really saying something, it's true...

I'm getting sick and tired of this juvenile "OMGZ, it's a 2 week oldz newz!" complaints. To me, it shows very little intellegence and maturity on your part.

A lot of people may have not heard of this news, just because you heard it already doesn't mean it's old for others.

You're just a 2 year old troll, my advice to you is to say off the internet until you reach a reasonable mature and intellegent age, even it means at the age of 65, so be it.

And calling someone a "2 year old troll" is your definition of intelligence and maturity huh?

Agreed, TLCN.

And I am only pointing this out here because it has been all over DIGG (multiple front page articles) and every major technology and gaming site for the past two weeks. If I had only seen it once on say Guru3d.com (awesome site), I wouldn't have said anything. Fair enough?

Regardless, if it is news to you, great!

PS If you want to quote me, go ahead, but in the future you might be better received if you didn't cross translate someone's adult post into juvenile leet speak, and then complain that your own quoted version is, um, juvenile.

There are other sources on Google News. Some deny the specifics.

EDITED to change tone. I had a cup of coffee and got my mind right.

Last edited by markjensen on 02 Jan 2007 - 18:56

Barcleys Bank doesn't even have $1.6 trillion in assets.

Actually, you're only sort of right. For the 2007 fiscal year, Dept. of Defense budget is $449 billion (that's 30% of the total federal budget). However, when you add in Veterans’ Benefits ($76 billion), Interest On National Debt Due To Past Military Spending ($353 billion) and the budgeted Iraq and Afghanistan spending, it's probably over a Trillion.

http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm

*oddly enough the Army Corps of Engineers budget is not counted with the rest of the Dept. Of Defense budget by the GAO, even though the Army Corps of Engineers is just a arm of the US Military.

The military has unknown amounts of money in black-op projects that have been going on for like 50 or more years.

Who knows how much is spent a year by them

No. Piracy is against the law. Piracy itself is not inherently wrong. You see, legality and morality are two different things.



Yes. That point is pretty clear. "We own the content industry; we own culture."



Just listen to yourself. Putting aside the fact that piracy is running amok because of the greedy domineering attitude of the few over the many, you actually believe it's not hurting the artists yet you still say it's wrong.



Yes, because we all know that selling your soul is the only way to be accepted and anyone who disagrees must be made into an example.

It's a pretty blatant statement at that. It says they're assholes, and there's nothing we can do about it.



You first. You're naive.

Let's see yes they are the content industry, every major label is represented by them. Morally and legally piracy is wrong. IMO it is, don't know what world you live in but can't figure out why you think it is morally ok for someone to pirate music. Russia didn't sell their soul to become part of the WTO, they accepted the fact that a major part of the piracy ring was happening in their country and promised to do something about it in order to be accepted into the governing body.

This thread is a bunch of teenagers who think they can get away with whatever they want. Stealing music/software/movies is wrong.

So you say, but you have absolutely nothing solid to back it up (that's a challenge to you). I'm left to assume that you're doing something called "parroting", as opposed to thinking for yourself.



Just because you can't comprehend a thing doesn't invalidate it. It sounds to me like you think the only possible motivations and/or results for something like piracy are negative. It's an absolute and uncompromisingly narrow view. Such things are dangerous because they don't allow any room for new understanding, and can therefore serve to trample anything not befitting the popular mold.



Even though you say it, you don't acknowledge it: They were hedge-pinned and leveraged.

This is a basic fact in your statement, yet you paint it as if it were a good thing. Where's your justification? It will likely take on the form of another opinion. Where's the substance? You're not backing up anything you say. Do you not see how irrational this appears?



Please... negatively labeling people you disagree with does not help your case with me.



At least we agree on one thing. Except you don't seem to think it's a problem to have a virtual monopoly, nor do you think it's right to defy it's domineering strategies. You would have us simply roll over and accept it.

OK, let's suppose, just for the sake of argument, that the RIAA is in fact a domineering, monopolistic organization that oppresses the artists it represents. The situation, thus, would be that the RIAA is itself committing an immoral act. Acts of piracy against the RIAA, however illegal, would therefore be morally justified if they are made in direct retaliation to the immorality that the RIAA has already exhibited. This logic would make piracy moral in those cicrumstances.

The thing is, a great majority of the people on the internet—and indeed, on Neowin—wholeheartedly believe that the RIAA really is a domineering, monopolistic, oppressive organization. What Arcticflare is saying, I believe, is that piracy is moral not in its pure sense of simple theft, but in its practical usage as a method of "fighting fire with fire."

Eclipse™, If only it would be so easy. I wish it could. I seriously do.

Cheers.

Firstly two wrongs don't make a right. Secondly it's not just the RIAA you are stealing from. It's the artist, producers, publishers, hands at the record studio ect and all the little people that require cd sales in some form to make a living. Theres also those people working at record stores or running the legit online sites that won't see sales due to the track being pirated. I agree as much as the next person that the RIAA are on level with a virus but that doesn't then make Piracy morally right in any way shape or form. Piracy is stealing and I don't see how that is justified, especially when in the end of the day what your stealing isnt something you need anyway just a luxury item that you could do without.

The RIAA are scum but I think anyone that uses them as their excuse for piracy is seriously kidding themselves and just trying to justify what obviously is wrong.

I can't say I disagree with that, Smigit. As far as agressive rants go, that was a pretty decent one. The RIAA is merely a symptom of a larger problem anyways.

Fair Use vs Unregulated Use, which is free culture... there's a good lecture about it here: http://randomfoo.net/oscon/2002/lessig/free.html (Edit: LONG-assed load time with no progress bar)

I'd like to hear your thoughts on it.

Last edited by Arcticflare on 03 Jan 2007 - 00:56

I suppose that it would be more morally "right" to retaliate in such a way that only the RIAA would be affected, which is, of course, not practically possible, at least as far as piracy is concerned. I have to agree that harming the artists does make piracy immoral in that regard, and it does make my last post a little more evil-sounding than I intended.

How'd this post get all the way up here? I made it AFTER Eclipse™ made his 2nd one in this section right after Smigit and myself.

Weird

Sure you can, Eclipse™. It's not very easy, but you can do it. Here's an example:

Joe Schmoe pirates Metalica CD. Joe Schmoe likes it, and so he sends a check DIRECTLY TO METALLICA. I realize it is a poor and impractical example, but at least it makes the point that such things are possible.

That aside, you should listen to that lecture I linked. I think you'll find it illuminating. I did.

Morals are NOT universal or absolute.

IMO, creating any artificial barrier to access and affordability is morally wrong, wether it's copyright/patent-based monopolies or price-fixing. It tends to lead to class divisions and associated social strife, and limits the ability for society to advance quickly by slowing the development of 'critical mass' of new arts and technologies.

So copyright and "ensuring the artists get paid" is actually more morally wrong than unauthorised distribution.

The RIAA could start their own little country...

I agree.

It's simple but good. The way you can specify the format you download in, album art, searching features etc. I wish they would port the their AllTunes application to Mac OS X.