http://www.savenetradio.org

 

 

 

Mhmm, If you are too lazy to click the link... On July 15, the [developmentally delayed]s down at RIAA will put into effect a law which will *KILL* net radio. This means no more Limewire, Bearshare, or w/e you listen to.

 

 

 

Discuss?

So, I can't listen to the radio on the internet?

 

No problem, I'll just listen to my radio right beside me...

Well, actually I'm quite fine with them ruining your illigal, filesharing network in a blitzkrieg. I'd much rather buy my music for a dollar a song in iTunes, than download a spyware infested, bandwith consuming program like limewire.

So, I can't listen to the radio on the internet?

 

No problem, I'll just listen to my radio right beside me...

 

What's that have to do with the issue? This going into effect will destroy a freedom we'll no longer have. It's nice this doesn't effect you but a ton of people use internet radio, not only as an alternative to regular radio, but for a variety of uses and reasons. Pandora, being one example. It's great for showing us music we've never known we'd like, and I'd hate not having it anymore.

hmm... Last I checked, I dont use limewire. Secondly, everything i download, I scan before installing, the program I use is clean anyhow, so...

This means no more Limewire

 

...

 

 

 

WH\hat do you mean by net radio? I thought that was napster/limewire stuff?

I am talking about ALL of em being killed off, besides, i use napster, i scanned it a few times, its been clean

I don't really care about the illegal stuff being killed off. Now I'll just listen to what I have and if I really like a band I'll go out and buy their album.

Guys this is totaly different. Limewire, Bearshare ect. are all P2P (peer to peer) file sharing sites, not internet radio. Those file sharing sites are already illegal, and that why nobody uses them, right? :wink:

 

 

 

Internet radio is something totally different, it's like the radio you listen to in your car or whatever but online, and much better quality and choices.

 

 

 

The RIAA are going to raise the royalties fees and basically force them to shutdown because they can't afford it. The radio itself will not be illegal, but the RIAA doesn't like it and there is no legal way to shut them down so they do this instead.

That just doesn't seem like it's true and/or going to work.

Though I think it's kind of stupid to take away internet radio, I don't care too much. I never use it. I do use some other program which I do hope stays online but if it doesn't, my life won't end or anything.

Guys this is totaly different. Limewire, Bearshare ect. are all P2P (peer to peer) file sharing sites, not internet radio. Those file sharing sites are already illegal, and that why nobody uses them, right? :wink:

 

 

 

P2P filesharing itself is very legal. You're just not allowed to share copyrighted whatever stuff. At least for now you can still download Bearshare/Limewire and use it without a problem until you start downloading the wrong stuff.

Guys this is totaly different. Limewire, Bearshare ect. are all P2P (peer to peer) file sharing sites, not internet radio. Those file sharing sites are already illegal, and that why nobody uses them, right? :wink:

 

 

 

Internet radio is something totally different, it's like the radio you listen to in your car or whatever but online, and much better quality and choices.

 

 

 

The RIAA are going to raise the royalties fees and basically force them to shutdown because they can't afford it. The radio itself will not be illegal, but the RIAA doesn't like it and there is no legal way to shut them down so they do this instead.

That's essentially it.

 

 

 

 

 

Good for me I listen to 'net radio where everything which is played has been created by the owners or listeners :D

Not only are they going to increase the fees but they will make them retroactive.

This seems like it should belong in M&M.

 

 

 

The RIAA are getting ridiculous, they're killing the appeal of their own industry. Technology like the internet is supposed to push music away from just buying CD's to a format that people can share and enjoy together, with less of an emphasis on money and more on the music.

That just doesn't seem like it's true and/or going to work.

 

 

 

How dare you doubt the power of the RIAA. Just look at how they've already decimated filesharing.

The RIAA are getting ridiculous, they're killing the appeal of their own industry. Technology like the internet is supposed to push music away from just buying CD's to a format that people can share and enjoy together, with less of an emphasis on money and more on the music.

Well it is the RIAA, anything which isn't on a CD with their spyware on it isn't going to float well with them :uhh:

That just doesn't seem like it's true and/or going to work.

 

 

 

How dare you doubt the power of the RIAA. Just look at how they've already decimated filesharing.

 

 

 

What I've seen, filesharing has gone more and more into underground stuff. Invite only places with active highspeed seeders and bans for those with bad share ratio are pretty bad for copyright laws.

 

 

 

The current RIAA policy is pretty paradoxial. Currently they seem to try to drive people from the internet back to cd stores, even tho internet with faster connections, more and more cc buyers and so on is the future for music markets. Currently they run people into closed p2p communities, sue normal users and go for protected mp3's (dunno exact english term) net stores.

 

 

 

This doesn't help the artists; by having better working netstores with not protected mp3's, people would also use these. It would mean less expensive cd&cover printings, logistic problems and so on. Currently with protected songs (heard Amazon now sells unprocteted stuff :) ) it's not really worth it to buy them. If I pay x amount of euros for a song, I want to be able to burn it to a cd so I can listen to it at car, transfer it to my iPod and play it on my computer. All restrictions are just a bad thing for the paying customer. They also seem to forget the fact that mtv can't play songs from all good bands and mp3s are a good way to advertise some less known artists.

 

 

 

By sueing normal users they aren't going to stop the real problem. The problem isn't a 15-year-old teenager downloading Britney Spears' newest album. The real problem is that he is able to download it. They should strike against the professional groups who run the business. By attacking towards the p2p network owner they'd stop everyone, not just one or two teenagers who have dled around 1gb of stuff.

 

 

 

If this copyright problem was in my hands, I'd strike against piratism with its own weapons: open a legal store selling movies, music and tv-series for reasonable prices, with no restrictions and in many different formations with an easy credit card payment options. If I could for example get the newest Spiderman from Amazon with Finnish subs in iso format for a reasonable price, I wouldn't hesitate buying it.

they are shutting most dl programs down, so use utorrent :P

i only listen to BBC Radio 1 anyway, and that is UK based so the US cant touch it. 8-)

no matter how much the RIAA trys to stop it, they'll never be able to put a lid on music pirating. Theres way too many ways to do it.

I don't really care about the illegal stuff being killed off. Now I'll just listen to what I have and if I really like a band I'll go out and buy their album.

 

 

 

Same here mate. I hear a song on the radio, then if i like it i'll have a friend DL it for me and then i'll probably go pick up the cd from the music store :wink:

One of those big iPod's can hold like 100,000 songs or something right? (just an estimate, don't flame me over it.)

 

 

 

 

 

$1 per song on iTunes.

 

 

 

$100,000 to fill up your iPod? #-o

One of those big iPod's can hold like 100,000 songs or something right? (just an estimate, don't flame me over it.)

 

 

 

100k songs, average size 5mb per = 500,000 mb. That's 500 gigabytes. Yea, might be 100k songs if they are some low qualify pieces of junk.

 

 

 

Second, 1$ per song is a rip off. An album that contains 12 songs would be 12$, only around 8$cheaper than buying a real album. Didn't know printings, logistic problems and others were cheaper than producing the album. That's a perfect example why I said there should be songs which are actually are priced correctly.

I wish songs on iTunes only cost $1 (50p) over here. Costs us 79p a track ($1.56)