August 20, 200322 yr see if you made the RIAA hit list so far over 900 ppl have been supoened http://www.techtv.com/news/culture/story/0,24195,3484600,00.html
August 20, 200322 yr the people on there are only people who give out the music. If you download it from someone I think you're ok. It's the people that distribute this music that are breaking the law. And these are only like the big distruibuters, if you got like 3 or 4 downloaded songs that people are downloading, the RIAA won't notice you.Plus, like 99% of these people know they're breaking the law, so I'm just gonna laugh at em
August 20, 200322 yr I found this on broad bandreports.com BTW there have been reports of action on 1 song! For the record I dont not agree with the RIAA tactics! http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/31488 RIAA Responds to Senator Small time traders need not worry? The RIAA says they aren't targeting small time file traders, despite evidence to the contrary. Minnesota Sen. Norm Coleman, concerned that the RIAA's tactics were "excessive", wrote a letter to the RIAA arguing that he didn't believe that legal penalties for downloading songs fit the crime. "RIAA is in no way targeting 'de minimis' users," wrote RIAA president Cary Sherman in response. "RIAA is gathering evidence and preparing lawsuits only against individual computer users who are illegally distributing a substantial amount of copyrighted music." Yet analysis of the RIAA's recent flood of hundreds of subpoenas indicates that some users were singled out for sharing as few as five songs via file-trading networks. In her letter Sherman refuses to quantify what the criteria for being singled out is, and Coleman apparently remains concerned that the industry is "over-reaching".
August 20, 200322 yr Author -UnwantedHero]the people on there are only people who give out the music. If you download it from someone I think you're ok. It's the people that distribute this music that are breaking the law. And these are only like the big distruibuters, if you got like 3 or 4 downloaded songs that people are downloading, the RIAA won't notice you. Plus, like 99% of these people know they're breaking the law, so I'm just gonna laugh at em actually a lot of ppl on kazza are kids who dont know the consiquencies are this big. how would u like to be the parent of a kid you gets sued do you know who would get the bill? the parents
August 20, 200322 yr "the majority of the people are teens who, like Shawn Berald, know it is illegal."quote from Tech Live,a news show on TechTV (I watch TechTV).Now, yes, there are the few in there who do not know that it is illegal, and if they're parents know nothing about this lawsuit, I do feel sorry for them.I agree with StateCop in saying that the RIAA's methods are crazy. It would have made sense if they did it around the time Napster came up, but now it's too wide spread and there are too many programs. It was reported that the week Napster went down, over 500 new file sharing programs went up.There is just too many people, there is no way the RIAA can sue them all...and sueing one or two to scare the rest (this is what they say they are doing) isn't gonna work either.I really think the RIAA should realize they've lost this one.
August 20, 200322 yr Its funny because my dad actually wants me to downlaod his music and put it to a CD :roll:
August 20, 200322 yr whats with them i still dont see whats wrong wit having mp3's and stuf on ure compter i mean cmon
August 20, 200322 yr It is the part of sharing them without paying, like they don't make money doing concerts, I can bet they make at least a normal man's annual pay in one night of concerts...
August 20, 200322 yr Author -WSAENOTSOCK]It is the part of sharing them without paying, like they don't make money doing concerts, I can bet they make at least a normal man's annual pay in one night of concerts... actually thats the oposite they make lots of money doing concerts but nobody goes to you concerts if they dont hear you music on the radio and the only way your music gets on the radio is if you have a cd. the ppl that make the money is the record companys not the bands
August 20, 200322 yr whats with them i still dont see whats wrong wit having mp3's and stuf on ure compter i mean cmonp here's what it's about Simoneach song is copyrighted by the band. Thus meaning that you are unable to buy it then sell it again or get it for certain amount of bucks then distribute it for free. This is what the RIAA are pissing about. They don't want people giving out for free because then they and the band lose money...that's the way the bands make money, by people buying their songs. Now if everyone gets songs for free, then the bands go poor
August 20, 200322 yr Author they say only the major sharers but ppl with as little as 5 downloads have been supoenad
August 20, 200322 yr how many more people are they going to target? :? Like couple of million users...
August 20, 200322 yr k++ mask your ip and info if you tell it, so your better off than the lite people, but there are ways to get to you also.so you should stop while your still good =P
August 20, 200322 yr -UnwantedHero]the people on there are only people who give out the music. If you download it from someone I think you're ok. It's the people that distribute this music that are breaking the law. And these are only like the big distruibuters, if you got like 3 or 4 downloaded songs that people are downloading, the RIAA won't notice you. Plus, like 99% of these people know they're breaking the law, so I'm just gonna laugh at em what he says is right, you giving the music out is what they are going for. if they went after the people downloading they would have to make sure you don't own the CD, so they aren't.
August 20, 200322 yr I heard that records sales have actually increased since the invent of Napster. They are trying to send out a strong message to the people who share MP3 files, which by the way are not as good a quality as the store bought files (you lose quality when compressing the file to MP3). I say the public should stop buying their records period, and see how they like that. This way the public could send a strong message to them. These are just my thoughts
August 20, 200322 yr Unless you have a really bad compressor or youve chosen the bottom-of-the-line quality of compression, you can get a file that is 5% of original and the losses will be impossible to tell by 99% of human populace.
August 20, 200322 yr Here are the standard bit rates that you can encode to and the resulting quality...or so I heard 128 = MP3 quality (standard)160= Near CD quality192+= Full CD qualitiesWith that in mind...in theory you could download 192 bit rate files, convert them to .wav(if you software doesn't do it automatically) then burn at a very slow speed and you would not see any quality loss...Or so I have heard.I remember back in the day when you actually had to convert mp3s with special programs to .wav files before you burned. That is the problem...all the software has made it TO EASY so the masses are doing it.
August 21, 200322 yr -StateCop]128 = MP3 quality (standard) 160= Near CD quality 192+= Full CD qualities With that in mind...in theory you could download 192 bit rate files, convert them to .wav(if you software doesn't do it automatically) then burn at a very slow speed and you would not see any quality loss...Or so I have heard. oh, dear me, no! 192 is, indeed, "better-than-CD" quality, however because it compresses, there are minute differences. 99.99999999% of the population cannot tell the difference, but they are still there. Being an audio-phile myself, I'm a purist. .wav or nothing, babycakes!
August 21, 200322 yr Author i got an mps thats 320 so whats that better than cd quality :lol:i think it will be cool when microsft sets up that mp3 for like 75cents thing like apple did thatd be goodbut i like kazza casue i can dl a song see if i like the band and if i do get the cd i dont dl the entire cd that would take like a week
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.