The RIAA is at it again-sueing college and 3rd graders

[lordmiguel]

Originally Posted by GearGeek

Originally Posted by GearGeek
Music is a LUXURY people, not a necessity.

Oh yes you are right. Just look at the epidemic in Africa. Millions died because lack of music.....

What are you from the great depression? Our economy does not resemble Africa, and i think the assumed people he was talking about were in the western developed world like the US.

Basicically what I think they're saying is that the price elasticity of demand for music is somewhat low.

If you're a teen, top 40 is a must have whether its at 1.89 or 99c a song. Jazz afficianados got their must have albums even if three bucks more an album.

If they love it, they will pay for it.

Conversely, my nephew wouldn't take a free "great" country album if it werre handed to him. But for what he views as must have (the killers) he would pay $20 bucks for the album no questions asked. Sure there will be a lot in the middle, and their prices are more elastic, but in terms of the majority of high impact artists that are selling a significant amount of units, people will pay what you ask.

Despite this when the price hits zero, the demand is almost infinite. Thats where kids have 3000 stolen songs on their ipod. That's when there are no record labels. No budgets for producers, engineers, mixers, people who are trying to make a living on this board. That is where we are headed if the RIAA does not sue / threaten / blackmail, which i believe is morally justified.

[Josht]

For people who want to know what the business model is that will work, I don't think anybody strictly has the answer yet, I think people have ideas, but until people actually try it out, and make something work, they don't really know. If I did think I knew the answer I would have started my own damn record label and tried it out.

Coming from someone who is a devout market capitalist, I think there is no way for the music industry to continue as is. Ever since the "content" has become separated from the transfer medium, they have lost most of their control over making money off of the sample medium. Instead, make money from the content itself. People will continue to buy CDs and online music, but in the grand scheme of things, its very difficult to compete with free when technology has kept the possessors of the IP unable to control its delivery.

What are the answers? I would say, make quality music, look for alternate outlets, like licensing deals, internet radio (a whole other bag of worms) etc, and playing live. The "industry" (if you will still be able to call it that in the next 15 yrs) will always be a place where people making quality music can make a living. I honestly think that illegal music downloading will not really directly hurt too many artists (even if I use the term loosely) in the long run, since when have many of them really seen a ton of money from album sales.

Music distribution will likely be re-oriented towards smaller labels with more direct artistic control and better returns for the artist, and they will find new ways to get their music to the consumer.

Without sounding too hippy, the music industry should embrace music lovers, and try and get people interested in music. That is the most insidious thing to me about these lawsuits, they are directed at college kids. College, is the place where people are the most adventurous in their tastes, where they try out new music, listen to new things, and see what they like. How many of you guys found some of your favorite music in college? So, in the end, I think having a vigorous P2P market for music creates more music lovers for the future.

[PoorGlory]

Originally Posted by Resonant Alien

Not exactly. It depends on which Copyright you are talking about - that of the song (circle C) or that of the recording (circle P). If I own the copyright to my song, no one is allowed to re-record a cover of it without first getting my permission, else they are in violation of the Copyright. They are not even allowed to write a song that has a extremely close resemblance to my song. If I only own the Copyright on the recording, and let's say the song itself is in the public domain, then anyone can record a cover, but they cannot make a copy of my recording for distribution.

Actually, that is incorrect. I don't need permission from you to record a cover of your song. You will, however, receive songwriting royalties from my recorded version. You can take legal recourse against me if you believe that my cover of your song somehow mocks or demeans your original song, which could arguably cause you to lose revenue from your original record.

Parodies (i.e. Weird Al Yankovich) are, believe it or not, completely legal and allowed under copyright law. They do, however, need to tread lightly as to not step over the line as described above. It would be very difficult to argue that Weird Al's "Fat" ever caused Michael Jackson's "Bad" to lose revenue.

The only thing I need your permission for is distribution of your sound recording if you own the P (sound recording) copyright. This is what the Harry Fox agency does (issues mechanical licenses and collects mechanical royalties). This is the avenue I would take if I were putting together a compilation and wanted to use your recording. Ever buy one of those really shitty, $4 comps at Best Buy, where half the songs are re-recorded? That's because they couldn't get the mechanicals, but didn't need permission to re-record the track. Remember when Van Halen used "Right Here, Right Now" for those Pepsi commercials? That's because Pepsi told them "We're going to use this song, and if you don't want us to use your version, we'll just re-record it".

So there is the whole problem. Illegal downloading means no one is getting mechanical royalties or publishing royalties. Meanwhile, music is no longer respected by the general public as an art, but a commodity. Want a new business model? Find a way to make people appreciate music again, and be willing to pay for the experience. Buying music used to be an experience, with a memory attatched to it. No one wants to pay for Christina Aguilerra's latest aural abortion, and would probably rather not remember the time they took 10 seconds to download it...

Originally Posted by Josht

For people who want to know what the business model is that will work, I don't think anybody strictly has the answer yet, I think people have ideas, but until people actually try it out, and make something work, they don't really know. If I did think I knew the answer I would have started my own damn record label and tried it out.

Coming from someone who is a devout market capitalist, I think there is no way for the music industry to continue as is. Ever since the "content" has become separated from the transfer medium, they have lost most of their control over making money off of the sample medium. Instead, make money from the content itself. People will continue to buy CDs and online music, but in the grand scheme of things, its very difficult to compete with free when technology has kept the possessors of the IP unable to control its delivery.

What are the answers? I would say, make quality music, look for alternate outlets, like licensing deals, internet radio (a whole other bag of worms) etc, and playing live. The "industry" (if you will still be able to call it that in the next 15 yrs) will always be a place where people making quality music can make a living. I honestly think that illegal music downloading will not really directly hurt too many artists (even if I use the term loosely) in the long run, since when have many of them really seen a ton of money from album sales.

Music distribution will likely be re-oriented towards smaller labels with more direct artistic control and better returns for the artist, and they will find new ways to get their music to the consumer.

Without sounding too hippy, the music industry should embrace music lovers, and try and get people interested in music. That is the most insidious thing to me about these lawsuits, they are directed at college kids. College, is the place where people are the most adventurous in their tastes, where they try out new music, listen to new things, and see what they like. How many of you guys found some of your favorite music in college? So, in the end, I think having a vigorous P2P market for music creates more music lovers for the future.

Though the artist has never seen a ton of money from album sales, album sales have always been the catalyst for making other money. I think guys are avoiding the fact that this will soon effect movie theaters. It's a matter of time. IF I said 10 years ago mom and pop record stores would be non existant, one stop distributors would be closed down and Tower records would shut down, nobody would listen. This WILL effect the box office. If see it in the streets beginning to happen. It actually will be good for the record biz when it does happen because the motion picture industry will have a vested interest in solving the problem. I think the answer will be an end of the physical medium. It will take one of two forms. ONE unlimited downloads for a subscription fee, where you get to see movies and download unlimited amounts of music. Or, you'll pay for each unit, but it will be downloaded into your car/home/phone key and it will work on all of your systems but no other systems. I don't think it will be long before you home/cellphone/Car system are all tied to the same hard drive/key in similiar fashion to Ilok where you take all of your downloads with you on a key, but in order for you to get them, they have to come from a central site.

I think this or some variant of it will happen. The most interesting thing to watch will be internet promotions. I would like to see what form internet promo takes, I think it will replace print media/street promo eventually.

[Sigma]

Originally Posted by no ssl yet

Though the artist has never seen a ton of money from album sales, album sales have always been the catalyst for making other money. I think guys are avoiding the fact that this will soon effect movie theaters. It's a matter of time. IF I said 10 years ago mom and pop record stores would be non existant, one stop distributors would be closed down and Tower records would shut down, nobody would listen. This WILL effect the box office. If see it in the streets beginning to happen. It actually will be good for the record biz when it does happen because the motion picture industry will have a vested interest in solving the problem. I think the answer will be an end of the physical medium. It will take one of two forms. ONE unlimited downloads for a subscription fee, where you get to see movies and download unlimited amounts of music. Or, you'll pay for each unit, but it will be downloaded into your car/home/phone key and it will work on all of your systems but no other systems. I don't think it will be long before you home/cellphone/Car system are all tied to the same hard drive/key in similiar fashion to Ilok where you take all of your downloads with you on a key, but in order for you to get them, they have to come from a central site.

I think this or some variant of it will happen. The most interesting thing to watch will be internet promotions. I would like to see what form internet promo takes, I think it will replace print media/street promo eventually.

hopefully all music and film will be on a subscription basis soon and traditional storage hardware will be a thing of thing past..all music and film alll the time online..i am 50 and can't wait

[kieran kelly]

Originally Posted by dlmorley

?
illegal downloads is one issue (and probably not half as important as the fact that when you actually do buy a CD it has a high chance of being counterfeit) but price is another as is peoples perception of not getting good value for money.

I'll add a small simplistic summing up for them that like to read things into others comments.

STEALING IS BAD AND I DO NOT CONDONE IT

the Fact that music is not perceived as a "good value" is driven in large part by the
users ability to download it for free with the same time commitment as it would be to
buy the same music. If their were two coolers in a store filled with the same beverage you wanted with one being free and another being $1. which one would be more popular ?

P2P File Sharing: 2006: Web and P2P Music Downloads Both Rise

On the web licensed songs double to 4 million and total downloads to 795 million with 582 million sold in the U.S.

Limewire claims a 62% market share. The average Limewire user downloaded 309 music files in 2006.


Macsimum News - Legal music downloads gain on peer-to-peer file sharing

While P2P user growth rates slowed, the average P2P user downloaded many more files in 2006 (five billion files) than the previous year, which represents a 47 percent increase in P2P downloading compared to 2005 (3.4 billion files).

“Paid usage is gaining on P2P; however P2P users tend to download many more files per user, than do those consumers who pay for music downloads,” Crupnick noted.



Another point is a label or Artist who WANTS to give their music away for free to promote their music has to compete with illegal file sharing for "shelf space". the value of promos goes way down as a marketing tool for new artists to be heard unless they have a huge marketing campaign behind them. Secondly if sales from the music are unable to sustain a salary for the artist they are forced to do "tie ins " with products / Companies that may or may not reflect their values just to keep their lights on.
Additionally the product/ companies will then be able to wield greater influence over the actual content of the music...

not good...

[dlmorley]

Originally Posted by kieran kelly

If their were two coolers in a store filled with the same beverage you wanted with one being free and another being $1. which one would be more popular ?
.

I have no idea, but if one said this is $1 and the other is stolen, you would probably see a different result.

If the one that was free was free because the company that made it wanted me to try it and get into it, I'd probably take the free one and appreciate it.

[kieran kelly]

sorry should have clairified that... same product ... one given away by a company who "bootleged" the product....

I wonder what a guy on the street would do if I went up and stole his bootleg cds/dvds off his stand ? Just wondering.... I would be affecting his livelihood but he is already effecting min e.

[KingDaddyO]

Originally Posted by kieran kelly

sorry should have clairified that... same product ... one given away by a company who "bootleged" the product....

I wonder what a guy on the street would do if I went up and stole his bootleg cds/dvds off his stand ? Just wondering.... I would be affecting his livelihood but he is already effecting min e.

ha ha ... nice visuals on that one

By any chance, are you related to Jerry Lee Lewis?

I couldn't find any links on the net, but 'The Killer' was quite fond of doing just what you suggested ... back in the day.

[KingDaddyO]

And in related news ... this just in:

Amazon.com to sell copyright-protection-free EMI songs - MarketWatch

Originally Posted by dlmorley

I have no idea, but if one said this is $1 and the other is stolen, you would probably see a different result.

If the one that was free was free because the company that made it wanted me to try it and get into it, I'd probably take the free one and appreciate it.

Even if one said stolen, and there was no consequence of taking from the stolen bin, People would not buy. There would be no reason to. It would totally devalue the one being sold.

Try running a store and selling something at your store in the middle of the block that's being given away in every store in the block. I can guarantee you won't be in business for long.

You shouldn't overlook the HUGE fact that if someone can get something for free, they are not likely to buy it.

[kieran kelly]

that would be pretty funny .... I see it now ... Nora Jones flipping over tables.
Chris Martin punching guys and Jerry Lee nodding approvingly.

The RIAA are not protecting anyones interest.
They are suing people to get money.

In fact, they have it pretty much figured out how to press people into settlements for 3000-10000 bucks without involving any court at all - wether those people are actually guilty or not!
They are making a shitload of money.


What is the consequence?
People start hating the music industry. I mean deep, sincere hate.
I know friends who pledge that they will never buy a (RIAA-member) album again.

The assumption that people who download an album would actually buy it if download was not available is frankly wrong.
Most people who enjoy the music will buy it.

Steve Jobs, once again, reckognized what is going on and I can pretty much guarantee you the DRM-free stuff will take off.

And that, friends, is just a basic principle of economy.
If you fight your customers, then you get nothing.
If you offer something they want, then you make money.


Did anyone remember the satisfiying feeling you got after buying Tool 10.000 days with the great music, recording and the googles and everything?
Why not more of this?
Who would seriously buy an Avril Lavigne album that includes a 2-page booklet and shitty music.


The RIAA does nothing but hurt the artists.

Originally Posted by zwaps

The RIAA are not protecting anyones interest.
They are suing people to get money.

In fact, they have it pretty much figured out how to press people into settlements for 3000-10000 bucks without involving any court at all - wether those people are actually guilty or not!
They are making a shitload of money.


What is the consequence?
People start hating the music industry. I mean deep, sincere hate.
I know friends who pledge that they will never buy a (RIAA-member) album again.

The assumption that people who download an album would actually buy it if download was not available is frankly wrong.
Most people who enjoy the music will buy it.

Steve Jobs, once again, reckognized what is going on and I can pretty much guarantee you the DRM-free stuff will take off.

And that, friends, is just a basic principle of economy.
If you fight your customers, then you get nothing.
If you offer something they want, then you make money.


Did anyone remember the satisfiying feeling you got after buying Tool 10.000 days with the great music, recording and the googles and everything?
Why not more of this?
Who would seriously buy an Avril Lavigne album that includes a 2-page booklet and shitty music.


The RIAA does nothing but hurt the artists.

So your basic premise in this argument is that people are stealing things they wouldnt buy any way so it doesn't matter?

The assumption doesn't matter. People will not buy what they can get for free. It doesn't matter if they also download stuff they woudn't buy. They DO download suff they would buy and don't buy it because they obtain it for FREE.

If I could get my Akai MPC 4000, ProtoolsHD system, outboard gear, keyboards, Undergrad loans, Grad School Tuition FOR FREE, I would.

I'd probably have more stuff than I'd actually bought but I also have the stuff that I did buy, and I wouldnt have bought it.

Why are we not agreeing that people won't buy what they can get for free.

The moral implications are excluded because most people don't see it as stealing since it is so widespread.

Do you guys have no concept of economics? Do you guys have no concept of law?

If there was no theft we'd need no laws against it. But if there were no laws and no consequences, we'd have a heck of alot more of it going on.

You can blame the record company contracts with artists or the quality of music till the cows come home. IF you overlook the Elephant in the room of people being able to get the stuff for free so they don't purchase it, you can look around for ever coming up with reasons for why the room smells like elephant shit.

HINT:

It probably has something to do with the huge elephant.

[Jazzpunk]

Some of you guys act like the technology isn't there for artists to promote and sell their music on the internet without illegal downloading being part of the process. That's just complete and utter BS.

You could shut down all P2P's tomorrow and every single label and artist would still be able to promote and distribute their music online.

[Jazzpunk]

I posted this earlier in the thread to no response;

'Guess I'm a bit naive on this topic but could someone kindly explain to me what P2P services are used for besides illegally sharing copywritten music, cracked software, ripped DVD's and porn?

I know someone mentioned sharing bootleg concerts that are supposedly in the public domain. What else?

Just want to be clear on what's being defended here.'

So P2P defenders here's your chance, let us all know why those of us with a vested interest in actually selling our music should care if P2P's were shut down tomorrow! Please enlighten us all to the benefits of allowing people to continue to steal music and software (and increasingly movies). I really, really want to know how this benefits our industry.

[KingDaddyO]

Originally Posted by no ssl yet

Even if one said stolen, and there was no consequence of taking from the stolen bin, People would not buy. There would be no reason to. It would totally devalue the one being sold.

I agree with most of your comments, but have to disagree with this one. If you had said that 'some people would not buy' I could see that. In my experience, most people (certainly not all, and probably not as many younger people as older folks) don't mind paying a reasonable price for something of value. But consequences to an action, doesn't always require outside enforcement to be effective - many of us learn (eventually) to deal in an honorable manner with others, since that is probably the way that we wish to be treated.

Choosing between STOLEN or FREE is a huge difference. I believe that many people would, of course ... take the FREEbie with no guilt. But given the chose between paying a reasonable fee to won the object, and blatant theft of a known STOLEN item ... I think that more than a few would choose to pay rather than take the STOLEN one. Now I don't have statistics or whatnot to back my belief up, but people can surprise you sometimes.

DISCLAIMER: I realize that, as we're discussing illegal file sharing here, where songs are reasonably priced at .99, that my scenario does not appear to be backed up by the fact that many people do not choose to pay a reasonable price for their songs. But I think that that may be related to a disconnect in people's minds (regarding online behavior), which is similiar to the way in which there is also a disconnect with people's behavior, when they are behind the wheel. Drivers often do things, that they would never dream of doing in a direct interactive manner (i.e., in the real world). That doesn't make it right, but it is something to ponder.

[Jazzpunk]

Have any of you guys ever had your property stolen? Ever had a studio broken into and your gear ripped off? If so, did you sit around and sympathize with the people who broke in and stole your property?

Did you tell the police, 'Please don't punish them officers. I know the thieves couldn't afford their own gear and since it was obviously something they wanted really really badly, I feel good about them taking it. Besides, Digidesign's (fill in the corporate brand) hardware is way overpriced so even thought they stole it from me they are really sticking it to 'the man'. I say, good for them officers!'

Everybody speeds on the freeway until what? Until they see a cop! People respond to consequences...end of story.

Originally Posted by KingDaddyO

I agree with most of your comments, but have to disagree with this one. If you had said that 'some people would not buy' I could see that. In my experience, most people (certainly not all, and probably not as many younger people as older folks) don't mind paying a reasonable price for something of value. But consequences to an action, doesn't always require outside enforcement to be effective - many of us learn (eventually) to deal in an honorable manner with others, since that is probably the way that we wish to be treated.

Choosing between STOLEN or FREE is a huge difference. I believe that many people would, of course ... take the FREEbie with no guilt. But given the chose between paying a reasonable fee to won the object, and blatant theft of a known STOLEN item ... I think that more than a few would choose to pay rather than take the STOLEN one. Now I don't have statistics or whatnot to back my belief up, but people can surprise you sometimes.

DISCLAIMER: I realize that, as we're discussing illegal file sharing here, where songs are reasonably priced at .99, that my scenario does not appear to be backed up by the fact that many people do not choose to pay a reasonable price for their songs. But I think that that may be related to a disconnect in people's minds (regarding online behavior), which is similiar to the way in which there is also a disconnect with people's behavior, when they are behind the wheel. Drivers often do things, that they would never dream of doing in a direct interactive manner (i.e., in the real world). That doesn't make it right, but it is something to ponder.

While I admire your honor, I don't think the record buying public shares it. I don't think most people share it. Devaluation would occur. If there was no consequence of not paying my mortgage and I could never default on the loan. I don't think I'd pay every month.

I don't mind paying a reasonable price for something of value. I bought records/CDs for years. I think the prices of them are reasonable.$10-18 is not much to spend for a CD IMO. But it becomes devalued if it is available for free. It becomes devalued when a bootlegger with no overhead sets up shop out side of a record store.. It becomes when economic conditions are so bad to begin with that people would be buying fewer Cds even if there was no way to get them free. It is accented when they are available for free.

[Mike Caffrey]

Originally Posted by GearGeek

Originally Posted by GearGeek
Music is a LUXURY people, not a necessity.



Oh yes you are right. Just look at the epidemic in Africa. Millions died because lack of music.....

Maybe millions are still alive because of music.

You're defining "necessity" so narrowly that you could exclude most medication, certainly anti-depresants. You could exclulde most bypass surgeries, angioplasti, shelter. If you don't get your bypass surgery you don't necessary die, you may be crippled, so it's not a necessity. Mental health and happiness isn't a necessity,right?

Seriously, in the midst of "the epiedemic in Africa" (a continent, not a country and not all in the midst of an "epidemic") do you really think they don't have music?

We'd still have music even without technology or instruments. You might be able to argue that it's not a necessity on an individual level, but on a cultural/anthropologial level for the species, it's absolutely a necessity.



Hell, think how small the population would be wihtout Barry White!

[Mike Caffrey]

Originally Posted by Jazzpunk

I posted this earlier in the thread to no response;

'Guess I'm a bit naive on this topic but could someone kindly explain to me what P2P services are used for besides illegally sharing copywritten music, cracked software, ripped DVD's and porn?

I know someone mentioned sharing bootleg concerts that are supposedly in the public domain. What else?

Just want to be clear on what's being defended here.'

So P2P defenders here's your chance, let us all know why those of us with a vested interest in actually selling our music should care if P2P's were shut down tomorrow! Please enlighten us all to the benefits of allowing people to continue to steal music and software (and increasingly movies). I really, really want to know how this benefits our industry.

There are some people, like unsigned bands, who would like to have their music traded. If they give permission, it's not stealing.

[Mike Caffrey]

Originally Posted by lordmiguel

What are you from the great depression? Our economy does not resemble Africa, and i think the assumed people he was talking about were in the western developed world like the US.

No, I'm talking globablly. Music is a necessary part of human interaction and development.

[Mike Caffrey]

Originally Posted by no ssl yet

Though the artist has never seen a ton of money from album sales, album sales have always been the catalyst for making other money. I think guys are avoiding the fact that this will soon effect movie theaters. It's a matter of time.

You're absloutely correct. Between home theaters and the cost of going to a theater, it's going ot change for sure.

They do have the advantage of seeing what's happened in the music business before facing it themselves.

Did you hear about cable providers hoping to show new movies on opening day for a $49 pay-per-view fee?

It's only a proposal at the moment....

[GearGeek]

Originally Posted by Mike Caffrey

No, I'm talking globablly. Music is a necessary part of human interaction and development.

This may be true. But if you see a homeless person on the street, what do you think they want, a hot meal or a cd?

[Joel_Thomas]

Originally Posted by gsilbers

true!

i uased to copy cassestes, but i think even at basuc level its the same, there is a big shift in technology which attends more consideration when making iligal copies.

music is what i do, but it would fairer if the fats cats ontop would do a better work and the blond bitches would lay low or at equal level as any musicians. oh wel, demands a bitch.

The only difference with the old cassette argument is that you usually had to know the guy personally who had the cassette. He might have been a friend or a friend of a friend or something. One person may have fed that copy to a handful of people. Now, one person can buy one cd, upload it on a file sharing system and let a million of their "friends" download it. See, there is a bit of a difference between the two. Say, you wanted to copy the album on a blank tape - from what I remember in the late 80's/early 90's that any blank tape made for "music" had money in the price to account for royalties (...they're basically assuming your pirating or copying your buddy's tape). The same reason why "music" CDR blanks are more expensive than data blank CDR's. Whether you know it or not, your paying royalties. That's where the system starts falling apart in today's market. With digital, you really don't need media with MP-3 players. Eventually, I'm pretty sure the internet download thing will become the new radio. Make the peer to peer providers keep track of what's being downloaded. Make them sell advertising and make them use some of money towards the royalties. That way the downloader isn't out the money with the peer to peer provider covers the bill (...like how radio works). Whoever get's downloaded the most get's compensated accordingly. Problem solved. All it takes is the peer to peer network to monitor the downloading....

[KingDaddyO]

Originally Posted by Jazzpunk

Have any of you guys ever had your property stolen? Ever had a studio broken into and your gear ripped off? If so, did you sit around and sympathize with the people who broke in and stole your property?

Did you tell the police, 'Please don't punish them officers. I know the thieves couldn't afford their own gear and since it was obviously something they wanted really really badly, I feel good about them taking it. Besides, Digidesign's (fill in the corporate brand) hardware is way overpriced so even thought they stole it from me they are really sticking it to 'the man'. I say, good for them officers!'

Everybody speeds on the freeway until what? Until they see a cop! People respond to consequences...end of story.

End of story? ... hardly -

People also respond to the very real possibility of impending consequences. The difference being that some people will grab that opportunity, and learn from their mistakes. They will also come out of that experience with a more enlightened perspective of the RIAA, and maybe, just maybe, influence their peers. There are many successful examples of what I am talking about, for instance - some of those 'come clean' programs for drug abusers. Addicts have benefited (as has society) from offering a safe haven to seek help, instead of being thrown in the slammer for being a drug user. Going after these small fish like they were baby seals, is IMO not worth the chump change that the industry receives. Not to mention the incredibly bad PR. I mean, regardless of what enforcement progress might have been made at the end of the day, I think their advisors are out to lunch if they truly believe that this is going to turn out well for them in the long run. Put a different way: You don't kill an anthill by stepping on each ant. You poison a few and they carry the toxins back to the nest. So flip it the bits and infiltrate this peer group with advocates for the RIAA.

Your speeding analogy disregards the widespread disbelief among many drivers (or at least most speeders) that speed limits are set primarily for safety concerns. Many drivers see them as the no. 1 revenue generator on the planet (along with D.C. parking violations) and no one who wants to hold their government job is going to attempt to kill that golden goose. Hell, even most cops speed. What a great example and show of respect for the law that displays, eh? Many people speed either because they like to, and because they don't respect the law ... and this is primarily a direct result of not respecting those who represent the law to them.

Likewise, the music industry has treated many of it's once loyal customers, as poorly as the U.S. automotive industry. So while I don't condone theft as a form of protest or anything, I do think it is a huge mistake to ignore the sociological motivators which can turn a large block of potentially satisfied customers', into a social network of disgruntled former customers, most of whom don't have one good thing to say about the music industry.

An attempt to earn respect might be the first step towards turning this thing around. As in everything, win their Hearts & Minds first and their bodies will follow (presumably along with their purchasing dollars). As many have already said, you ain't going to stop this behavior, no matter what you do. So the industry can continue to swat flies (good luck with that ), but they should also be prepared to spend their remaining profits on litigation instead of innovation... since they'll never stop the flood by using intimidation and brute force tactics alone.

If that approach worked we would have already pulled out of Iraq, victorious.

[KingDaddyO]

Originally Posted by no ssl yet

If there was no consequence of not paying my mortgage and I could never default on the loan. I don't think I'd pay every month.

I'd need something in writing first, then I would stop paying.

[lordmiguel]

Originally Posted by KingDaddyO

Likewise, the music industry has treated many of it's once loyal customers, as poorly as the U.S. automotive industry. So while I don't condone theft as a form of protest or anything, I do think it is a huge mistake to ignore the sociological motivators which can turn a large block of potentially satisfied customers', into a social network of disgruntled former customers, most of whom don't have one good thing to say about the music industry.

i don't see the connection between autos and music. Detriot is suffering on-whole becasue it pays high union wages and the japanese competitors don't. You either have to lower your costs (reduce wages) or sell higher quality, higher priced cars, like germany. Every time i rent a GM car i wonder what sane person would buy that junk, let alone at the price they offer it. I mean are any pontiacs a "must-have" for any person anywhere? sorry OT

Originally Posted by KingDaddyO

since they'll never stop the flood using intimidation and brute force tactics.

i dunno about this. money is the religion of americans and nothing speaks like money. there is an element of war on drugs, but this one would seem easier to have an effect, becasue people forget internet is like a public street where everyone can watch you, right to inside your home.

but i do agree that the riaa actins should have more press and better politically spun for maximum effect. hire the most expensive pr firm in nyc (maybe they have). i might ask around as to who they hired for pr on this one.

But hey, who am I to say, obviously EMI agrees with you. The great experiment is about to begin.

[Jazzpunk]

Originally Posted by Mike Caffrey

There are some people, like unsigned bands, who would like to have their music traded. If they give permission, it's not stealing.

I'm sorry Mike but I'd argue the maority of unsigned bands share their music through sites like MySpace etc. I don't know anybody that goes on a P2P to discover new music. They go on P2P's to get something they already know they want. To suggest that the majority of P2P users are seeking out new, unsigned bands as opposed to downloading popular artists is completely unrealistic,

Again, I fail to see how shutting down P2P's would have a damaging effect on the music industry. P2P's have zilch to do with the tools available for artists and bands to promote and distribute their music on the web.

[KingDaddyO]

Originally Posted by lordmiguel

i don't see the connection between autos and music. Detriot is suffering on-whole becasue it pays high union wages and the japanese competitors don't. You either have to lower your costs (reduce wages) or sell higher quality, higher priced cars, like germany. Every time i rent a GM car i wonder what sane person would buy that junk, let alone at the price they offer it. I mean are any pontiacs a "must-have" for any person anywhere? sorry OT



i dunno about this. money is the religion of americans and nothing speaks like money. there is an element of war on drugs, but this one would seem easier to have an effect, becasue people forget internet is like a public street where everyone can watch you, right to inside your home.

but i do agree that the riaa actins should have more press and better politically spun for maximum effect. hire the most expensive pr firm in nyc (maybe they have). i might ask around as to who they hired for pr on this one.

But hey, who am I to say, obviously EMI agrees with you. The great experiment is about to begin.

Thanks for your comments.

A little clarification regarding my auto industry analogy: I guess what I am trying to say, is that the music industry, by ignoring their customers 'wants' for a very long time (ex., music that can be played on any player ... no DRM to contend with ... reasonable prices, etc.), they are acting very much like the auto industry did, in the pre-Japanese invasion era, where the big three also ignored their customers 'wants' for a long time (ex., they didn't build smaller, fuel efficient cars ... what they did offer was of fairly poor build quality ... and there often long term maintenance issues, etc.).

The moral of this analogy: It takes a little effort to keep your current customers satisfied, but to try and win back the ones that you already had but lost to arrogance ... well, that will cost you dearly, and is to be avoided at almost any price.