More on RIAA admitting bootleg CDs more a threat than P2P

vbimport

#1

I just posted the article More on RIAA admitting bootleg CDs more a threat than P2P.

 Up until  now, the RIAA often complained about unauthorised file sharing to be the main  reason for declining sales.  However, now they admit that only 16% of music  obtained by consumers...
Read the full article here:  [http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/10732-More-on-RIAA-admitting-bootleg-CDs-more-a-threat-than-P2P.html](http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/10732-More-on-RIAA-admitting-bootleg-CDs-more-a-threat-than-P2P.html)

Feel free to add your comments below. 

Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.

#2

I pay a levy on all the cd’s I purchase cause I am from Canada. I know a lot of other European countries do as well. The RIAA is prolly more fed up because the levy goes directly to the artists instead of into their pockets. If the artists make more money because of the levy, then there is really no need for the RIAA selling scheme. eg, last year the levy in Canada pulled in over 5 million dollars. More then what the artists percentage of payout was during the same period. So really they are more pissed that the arists are getting their money, and they the RIAA are gettign shafted.


#3

So when are they going to start going after the people selling the cds. I now there trying to put cd protection on cd but if someones selling the cds there going to find a way around to protection to make the copy. They should put as much effort as they do in sueing 12 kids and other file shares and go after the people that are truly stealing there money.


#4

Don’t forget, as local police view these copyright violators as a form of victimless crime and where adequate recourse exists in Civil Law Proceedings! and not on the high priority list of things to do, the local beat cops, have a lot of other ordinary daily criminal and victim crimes to chase down, and have little or no time in the day, to chase down victimless crime!


#5

Actually the article I read (The Register) Mitch Braindead blames recordable media rather than bootleg copies “According to Bainwol, in turn citing figures from market watcher NPD, 29 per cent of the recorded music obtained by listeners last year came from content copied onto recordable media. Only 16 per cent came from illegal downloads.” One can assume that the levy on blank media will increase, one can also assume, according to braindead, sony, virgin and others do not use recordable media, it’s all done with smoke and mirrors…:X


#6

Just a few brief thoughts: 1. The biggest danger to the music industry is the scarcity of worthwhile material for anyone to be motivated to buy, download or copy. 2. Just because someone will accept or make a copy of something does not mean they would run out and purchase it otherwise. 3. When someone copies a cd - I expect they copy all the tracks on the cd. Whereas when downloading music tracks, I expect frequently folks grab only the songs they want. It would seem that there is an automatically large ratio difference there (12 to 1 on average maybe?). 4. It’s nice that copy protected music cd’s are “selling well”. But, if this copy protection abuse of customers is really worthwhile, shouldn’t these copy protected cd’s be selling in numbers off the charts? If that is not happening, why bother throwing money away at Suncomm or Macrovision or whomever? 5. I am one of those folks who does not download - purchased or p2p. I like my music in the full 44.1khz format. I am also one of those folks who refuses to buy any cd’s that try to install copy protection pollution software on a computer. So far, I still have plenty of very enjoyable music to listen to, but am purchasing far fewer new cd’s.


#7

Let us analyze the language a bit here: Sentence 1: " threat to music sales " Meaning: threat is a sneaky word that entices attention and negative influence, like people that do not buy are a threat. Sentence 2: " illegally duplicated CDs as from unauthorised downloads " Meaning: illegally means without the laws omnipotent consent. unauthorized downloads tries to implicate downloading is in need of authorization, meaning that they want regulation of every link online by authorized retailers. Sentence 6: " copy-protected " We all know the meaning behind word slander to influence mass populous into submissive thought processes. Protect is now a word along the lines of an insane asylum, where people are put to protect themselves and the poeple around them. I believe it stems from collegiate influence of language designed to be effective and persuasive in discourse. They pull students in with cash and make them write dribble arguments against the world’s newest technologies that effect pocketbooks of the rich and greedy.:B
[edited by jasaiyajin on 16.08.2005 20:52]


#8

Geez. You would think all we do is copy everything. When will the music industry realize that we aren’t really interested in their garbage, that we use blanks CDs to store all the oldies that we have already bought? If they are concerned about the drop in sales, they should take a step back and listen to the crap they are trying to sell. One more thing – even when I hear a GOOD song on the radio, which is rare, they NEVER IDENTIFY THE SONG OR THE ARTIST!! Tell us, you brilliant marketers, how do you expect us to buy something, if we never hear who or what it is??? :frowning:


#9

tommydale48 You have a point, radio doesnt always identify music. We do have lives and we readily abuse systems that constrict our innate laws. F U C K all that restrict our personal freedoms of assumption.:B
[edited by jasaiyajin on 17.08.2005 05:37]