Got a bunch of MP3's?

[zscoundrel]

It is not about the battle, or even the MP3's.  It certainly in not 
about the principles, the RIAA wouldn't know a principle if you shot 'em 
with one!!!

It is all about the P/R and the money.  Not yours, but theirs.

Most recording contracts are written so the ARTIST gets their share out 
of a precentage of the NET.  This means they get a piece of the PROFITS. 
    The more established artists usually have a manager that negotiates 
a bigger share, but that is pretty much how it works.

Now, legal fees are an expense and come out of the gross, so even if the 
RIAA sues you and loses, they get paid.  The record company just has 
less net profit to share with the artist, so it's no pain to them.  Even 
if a bunch of artists leave, hey, it's hollywood.  Drag some other poor 
urchin off the street that has a smidgen of talent and run 'em through 
the star making machine.  (They don' even have to have any real talent. 
  Remember Millie Vanillie??)

The recording industry is about PR, Hype, and packaging.  Content is 
secondary. (Hmmmm, this is starting to sound VERY familiar!)  If they 
sue you and win, (which they will eventually, their lawyers are heavily 
funded, and yours will not be!!!) they still may get your house, car, 
computer gear and anything else you own.  They will send it all to a 
auction house for pennies on a dollar, but YOU will feel the pain.

Also, the press will fall all over themselves reporting another win for 
the great recording industry and another loss for the evil pirates, 
using standard phraseology from hte RIAA press releases.

It is just a game of chess to them, the score is kept by the accounts, 
and the Black king don't care if they have to slaughter a few white 
pawns to win.

Michael wrote:

> Am I the only one who thinks this is a lossing battle? I've seen this
> played out in software pirating and as soon as they'd attempt to
> shutdown/sue one person the files all get transfered to the next and since
> the proof of who the files belonged to in the first place is typically
> rather iffy they just end up hitting at air. Without any solid evidence
> that the person was actually the one serving the files and that they
> intended those files to be downloaded the courts seem to just drop the
> cases. Even if the RIAA has enough money to bribe the courts they'll still
> come out looking like bad guys without having had any major effect.
> 
> I hope the bastards sue me. Certainly isn't going to bother me if they do
> so. Even if they won what damages do they think they could collect from an
> under-employed fairly poor individual? Not enough to pay back their court
> costs.
> 
> If they really wanted to make a dent they'd hunt down the big traders and
> hire them. Give them a job and have them work on stopping the problem or
> finding how the RIAA can benefit from the problem. Get inside the mind of
> the enemy.
> 
> For example I've been trying to get movie companies to release copies of
> movies on DVD (no frills.. just the movie) at cost to anyone who has a
> valid ticket stub from that movie. For me that'd keep me from pirating
> movies and it'd still encourage me to see the movie at the theature and to
> buy the fancier collectors edition of movies I liked. I can download or
> buy movies as soon as they are released anyway so they may as well benefit
> from it. For example we have Harry Potter and Spiderman on VHS tapes we
> bought as soon as the movie was out and I have access to hundreds of other
> movies online just by poking around IRC.
> 
> 
> The girl who stoops to conquer usually wears a low-cut dress.
> 
> ;):):-):):-):):-)8')
> Michael McGlothlin <mogmios at mlug.missouri.edu>
> http://kavlon.org/projects/
> 
> On Wed, 3 Jul 2002, Mark Hutchings wrote:
> 
> 
>>July 3 -- Major music companies are preparing to mount a broad new attack
>>on unauthorized online song-swapping. The campaign would include suits
>>against individuals who are offering the largest troves of songs on
>>peer-to-peer services.
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
>