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

[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.

[seriousfun]

Originally Posted by PoorGlory

Also, I seem to recall something about the RIAA collected a small percentage (a secret surcharge, if you will) of all blank cassette sales back in the 80's as a response to worries about piracy, and it still continues to this day with blank media such as CDRs.

Anybody remember what that is called, specifically? I'm pretty certain this still exists with CDRs....

The Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 (google it).

If a CDR is labelled "music," a royalty is collected which goes back to the RIAA and doesn't get redistributed to copyright holders.

If the CDR is labelled "data," no royalty is collected.

[Jazzpunk]

Originally Posted by KingDaddyO

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.

So King, what are you defending? I don't get it.

I completely disagree with those who think P2P's should not be held responsible and that they are somehow being used for some great benefit of mankind and the entertainment industry. It's total BS!

Shutting down P2P's tommorow would have zero effect on me. Would it effect those of you defending them? If so, how? I suspect the answer will have something to do with the content on your hard drives!

[KingDaddyO]

Originally Posted by Jazzpunk

So King, what are you defending? I don't get it.

I completely disagree with those who think P2P's should not be held responsible and that they are somehow being used for some great benefit of mankind and the entertainment industry. It's total BS!

Shutting down P2P's tommorow would have zero effect on me. Would it effect those of you defending them? If so, how? I suspect the answer will have something to do with the content on your hard drives!

What am I defending? Nothing - I am stating my opinion on this matter. And in my opinion, the RIAA is absolutely clueless on both the nature of this problem (as exhibited by the fact that they have allowed it to progress to such an out-of-control level before taking mitigating action), as well as how it might best be resolved, in a manner that will produce satisfactory long term results.

The first quote in my sig, pretty much says it all for me.

[DeathMonkey]

Originally Posted by Beermaster

Who gives a damm about where that tiny bit of money is going - thats not relevent to the issue here. People need to understand that if they download Unlicensed material then they are breaking the law of every country in the civilised world and could risk being fined - I mean how oftern do you ask the same question of a kid who is fined for graffiti of a local landmark ? - Its the deterent that counts in stopping spineless odous people from doing this sort of thing.


Beer.

Look, I hear ya, breaking the law is breaking the law. I'm just saying that their (the RIAA and the Majors) intentions are not what they appear to be, and while illegal downloading is a crime, and I certainly don't stand with piracy ( a far greater crime, IMHO - it's one thing to steal for personal use, another entirly to steal for personal profit), labels need to realize that the consumer has spoken, and a new model needs to be developed, one that increases the legal downloading to minimize the illegal downloading.

The point is that the RIAA is promoting this masquerade as "we are doing something to prevent the problem". The core of the problem is supposed to be lost income. The fact is that the proliferation of alternate outlets such as file sharing HELPS to maximize profits, not curtail them.

The LAW is "no downloading". The REASON FOR THE LAW is supposedly that it protects against lost profits, right? So THE ACTUAL SPIRIT OF THE PROBLEM is lost profits, right? So that's what I am addressing, not just the letter of the law, which no one is debating.

How about those people that follow copyright law by making a copy for educational and professional reasons, and have 30 days free access? Gee, RIAA, I'm writing a book on hip hop, so I downloaded "The Thong Song". I've been deleting and then redownloading it every 30 days, as per the law.

So while CD sales have gone down, actual profits have gone up, because more people have more access to music! Look at the success of the MySpace/YouTube paradigm - bands have gotten signed because they have built huge internet fan bases... how? By giving their music away. Is downloading illegal? Yup, and NO ONE HAS ARGUED OTHERWISE. But is " the deterrent" of a lawsuit really scaring anyone, to the point where profit is recouped? Uh, no. The RIAA has every right to do what they are doing, and again, no one is arguing that they don't. Is it the best strategy for accomplishing their stated aims? No, and the numbers are clear on that. Not just me, the numbers on the little spreadsheet don't lie.

My point is that your average consumer is STILL going to spend their "music budget" regardless of how much stuff they download. People like music. People support music. They might not spent that $15 on a CD, but they'll then spend it on a hoodie at a show. Or a DVD. By giving up the $2.50 of a CD, you are able to gain more fans, who are then going to spend that money on you anyways. If you insist on controlling every aspect of delivery, you are going to limit the number of fans that have access to your product - which is the core of the problem, isn't it?

It has nothing to do with CD sales, per se. It has everything to do with control and power - and the labels are losing their control of distribution, their dominance in the marketplace, the control of promotional outlets such as MTV and radio. I have as much access to the actual potential fans as many major acts, and that is NO F&KING GOOD for the Majors. THAT is what they are fighting for! They can no longer tell the masses what to like, or control the trends to maximize profits, or sign 400 Nirvana sound-a-like bands to capitalize on an indie phenomenon like they are used to.

This has f*ck-all to do about legality, punishment or deterrence. These are a smoke screen for the real issue - one of market monopoly and access to consumer dollars. How can a major compete against a band willing to give away their songs for free? Certainly not by threatening lawsuits they can't win. This strategy is an attempt to regain control of the outlets of promotion and distribution, plain and simple.

The Majors are going to have to realize that the people that steal music are going to anyways, and have been for decades. They have to trust that there are people who download with intent to buy. Downloading is often the new equivalent of "let me lend you my new Tom Waits CD". How about if I burn a CD for a friend? If they wouldn't otherwise have been exposed to the music, how can they spend money on it? So the elimination of this helps only those who control the mainstream outlets... you can then only find out about the music we tell you to like!

They have to stop blowing smoke up our asses about "lost profits". They have to look at an artist AS a brand, and realize that people DO buy into the brand, and the easiest way to do this is to get people into the store, as it were, with a loss leader. Look at the business model for this year's Ozzfest.

As a metal consumer, the business case for this has already proven to be effective - look at tape swapping in the early '80's. Metal thrives on the paradigm of making music available for free, and then fans making sure they support the bands financially. Indie music is becoming the same way. The fact is that there are more bands making a good living now than at any time in history. Yeah, the era of the blockbuster might be over (which, again, points to the singleminded approach of the RIAA as a pawn for the Majors), but the actual number of dollars spent in the industry is UP.

I have no problem with the Majors making money, I just find it ironic that their strategy is COSTING them money by clinging to an outdated model. I'm truly sorry that they can no longer put together a pre-fab team of pop crap purveyors ripping off the same hit they had last year, and spend 10 million to record it with some talentless set of tits or bunch of GQ models and then force it down the throat of the mainstream and make retarded amounts of money. I really am. Sorry that we are taking gold plated back scrubbers out of the hands of spoiled self entitled coke addicts and putting it in the hands of bands and artists that actually work for a living, and sell only based on actual talent.


My bad.

[Gregg Sartiano]

Originally Posted by Rufuss Sewell

It doesn't matter whether or not it's morally wrong to download/copy music. It's IMPOSSIBLE to stop it.

GET REAL FOLKS!!!!

Deal with reality. Everyone on the planet has the ability to copy information at will. Intellectual property is over.

People don't have the "ability" to copy information -- they have the software & hardware TOOLS. Imagine if an iTunes-style "software collector" was included in every OS -- I'd guarantee that the software industries would take a bit of a tumble. And there would be plenty of people justifying it with things like "I bought it, why can't I use it on 5 computers, even if the company says I only have one license. So what?" Or "Didn't Microsoft pay for Word 20 years ago? Who cares about their stockholders -- I'm just a college kid doing a book report." Sure, software piracy happens, but not to the extent that music piracy does. And it is a VERY minor issue on console video games -- why? Because they kept the "digital genie" in the bottle.

Something as simple as "every update of iTunes will only extract from original (not burned) CD's and won't allow anything but DRM/purchased or original-CD-extracted music in the library" could change music consumption habits, but a) Congress isn't gonna bother, and b) Apple SURE wouldn't bother, given a $1.7 BILLION 1st quarter (2007) figure for iPod sales. iPod sales are about the same as the commensurate drop in music industry $$$. Hmmm....coincidence, or not?

NOTE THAT IT HAS BEEN MY FIRM BELIEF FOR YEARS THAT AN AD-DRIVEN MUSIC MARKET IS THE NEXT WAVE, but this does not take away from a discussion of intellectual property rights.

Fluctuations in music sales are leveraged to the point that a minor uptick means that people get jobs, productions get budgets, and new artists get more of a "shot" -- while a downslide just forces the industry's hand. If you (as an A&R or mgr/lawyer/etc.) are likely to lose your job/livelihood if the department/firm has a couple of "down" quarters, you're not gonna try that new studio, or that new mixing engineer, or anything not resembling a "sure bet."

[Mike Caffrey]

Originally Posted by GearGeek

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?

That's a straw man arguement.

Regardless, the actual answer is neither. They want money. Or a CD to sell to have money. If you want, I'll ask Carl who lives on the stoop around the corner.

[Mike Caffrey]

Originally Posted by Jazzpunk

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.

I agree with everything you wrote, but I was responding to the post where you asked if there was anyone who saw a use other than illegal file sharing and there is. I never said anything about permitted downloads being a majority.

I don't think shutting down P2Ps would have a damaging effect, but that's not an arguement that supports shutting them down.

[Jazzpunk]

Originally Posted by KingDaddyO

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.

There are also laws which are enforced that keep most people from stealing cars. This helps to protect those who set out to manufacture a car with the intention of selling it.

I understand your points above and while relevant several years ago, they are really no longer applicable in this argument. The fact is that nowadays most popular music can be bought online. It is also a fact that the general public (especially those savvy enough to be logging on to P2P's) is now aware that music is available for purchase online.

This issue has been in the public eye long enough for people to now know that when they log onto a P2P, type in 'The White Stripes' and click on 'download', they are engaging in something illegal.

There is no grey area anymore and to defend illegal file 'sharing' when most albums are now availabale for $9.99 on iTunes (or CD Baby for indi acts) is rediculous.

You can keep rationalizing why illegal file 'sharing' is ok but it doesn't change the fact that it is indeed illegal. Everyone knows what P2P's are mostly used for. The only people that are defending them are either those who are illegally file 'sharing' themselves, or those who do not earn their income in the entertainment industry.

[gsilbers]

Originally Posted by DeathMonkey

Look, I hear ya, breaking the law is breaking the law. I'm just saying that their (the RIAA and the Majors) intentions are not what they appear to be, and while illegal downloading is a crime, and I certainly don't stand with piracy ( a far greater crime, IMHO - it's one thing to steal for personal use, another entirly to steal for personal profit), labels need to realize that the consumer has spoken, and a new model needs to be developed, one that increases the legal downloading to minimize the illegal downloading.

The point is that the RIAA is promoting this masquerade as "we are doing something to prevent the problem". The core of the problem is supposed to be lost income. The fact is that the proliferation of alternate outlets such as file sharing HELPS to maximize profits, not curtail them.

The LAW is "no downloading". The REASON FOR THE LAW is supposedly that it protects against lost profits, right? So THE ACTUAL SPIRIT OF THE PROBLEM is lost profits, right? So that's what I am addressing, not just the letter of the law, which no one is debating.

How about those people that follow copyright law by making a copy for educational and professional reasons, and have 30 days free access? Gee, RIAA, I'm writing a book on hip hop, so I downloaded "The Thong Song". I've been deleting and then redownloading it every 30 days, as per the law.

So while CD sales have gone down, actual profits have gone up, because more people have more access to music! Look at the success of the MySpace/YouTube paradigm - bands have gotten signed because they have built huge internet fan bases... how? By giving their music away. Is downloading illegal? Yup, and NO ONE HAS ARGUED OTHERWISE. But is " the deterrent" of a lawsuit really scaring anyone, to the point where profit is recouped? Uh, no. The RIAA has every right to do what they are doing, and again, no one is arguing that they don't. Is it the best strategy for accomplishing their stated aims? No, and the numbers are clear on that. Not just me, the numbers on the little spreadsheet don't lie.

My point is that your average consumer is STILL going to spend their "music budget" regardless of how much stuff they download. People like music. People support music. They might not spent that $15 on a CD, but they'll then spend it on a hoodie at a show. Or a DVD. By giving up the $2.50 of a CD, you are able to gain more fans, who are then going to spend that money on you anyways. If you insist on controlling every aspect of delivery, you are going to limit the number of fans that have access to your product - which is the core of the problem, isn't it?

It has nothing to do with CD sales, per se. It has everything to do with control and power - and the labels are losing their control of distribution, their dominance in the marketplace, the control of promotional outlets such as MTV and radio. I have as much access to the actual potential fans as many major acts, and that is NO F&KING GOOD for the Majors. THAT is what they are fighting for! They can no longer tell the masses what to like, or control the trends to maximize profits, or sign 400 Nirvana sound-a-like bands to capitalize on an indie phenomenon like they are used to.

This has f*ck-all to do about legality, punishment or deterrence. These are a smoke screen for the real issue - one of market monopoly and access to consumer dollars. How can a major compete against a band willing to give away their songs for free? Certainly not by threatening lawsuits they can't win. This strategy is an attempt to regain control of the outlets of promotion and distribution, plain and simple.

The Majors are going to have to realize that the people that steal music are going to anyways, and have been for decades. They have to trust that there are people who download with intent to buy. Downloading is often the new equivalent of "let me lend you my new Tom Waits CD". How about if I burn a CD for a friend? If they wouldn't otherwise have been exposed to the music, how can they spend money on it? So the elimination of this helps only those who control the mainstream outlets... you can then only find out about the music we tell you to like!

They have to stop blowing smoke up our asses about "lost profits". They have to look at an artist AS a brand, and realize that people DO buy into the brand, and the easiest way to do this is to get people into the store, as it were, with a loss leader. Look at the business model for this year's Ozzfest.

As a metal consumer, the business case for this has already proven to be effective - look at tape swapping in the early '80's. Metal thrives on the paradigm of making music available for free, and then fans making sure they support the bands financially. Indie music is becoming the same way. The fact is that there are more bands making a good living now than at any time in history. Yeah, the era of the blockbuster might be over (which, again, points to the singleminded approach of the RIAA as a pawn for the Majors), but the actual number of dollars spent in the industry is UP.

I have no problem with the Majors making money, I just find it ironic that their strategy is COSTING them money by clinging to an outdated model. I'm truly sorry that they can no longer put together a pre-fab team of pop crap purveyors ripping off the same hit they had last year, and spend 10 million to record it with some talentless set of tits or bunch of GQ models and then force it down the throat of the mainstream and make retarded amounts of money. I really am. Sorry that we are taking gold plated back scrubbers out of the hands of spoiled self entitled coke addicts and putting it in the hands of bands and artists that actually work for a living, and sell only based on actual talent.


My bad.

Nice!


I might add that music business is facing also big competetion from other entertainment companies where the same dollar amount for kids for leasure spending is not only going to music as before but into videogames, gadgets, software etc.


and about your post as well as other post where lables also function as promotion and distribution entities. they put thier "act" on top of shelves and make it sell. personally i hate it but it has a purpose and having just your music for free or cheap at myspace wont generate that much moeny. i like to compare it to the water industry where its only water in a bottle but the numbers of sales of pepsi and coke (dasani, aquafina) are far, way far highier than other water companies which serves a purpose of satisfing consumer demand, brand satisfaction and trust. but if they desapear comsumers will just buy local water and learn by themselves which is good.
so to tie in things, A band like tool which i like will always put up a good product (songs/recording) and ill always like it, but without the promotion of the big labels i would not have heard of them.
and to fight my own coment, the other side would be that if lables desapear then a lot of bands will be more equal and will compete only by how they sound and how many fans they can make or by going to "american idol'sk" competitions. yuk.

so the questio would be, who or how will bands in the future be able to prmote themlves? some wont have time to go myspacing al the time !
cause those P2P site appear everywhere every second so thats not going to go away, (hence the reasoning behind this thread. ) same as the kids downloading iligally, and the RIAA doesnt seemed its going to fight its parent and sister companies like sony, phillips which provide burners for computers as well as other media related hardware. to find a way to safeguard artists products. why would them, the RIAA is in a smoke screen cause artist are bitching and wanna make them happy so sueing kids makes sense. but in reality selling hardware and software to make iligal copies far suparsses the loses of iligal downloads.
checkin out the movie industry u can see they are even dealing with other countries goverments in a big way. hmm but maybe threatening kids out off 3k might be more rewarding.

im betting in that music will be mostly attached to other meduims like movies, videogames, internet, flash comercials, comercials etc and less of the rock/rap star thing. so musicians will work with other businesses as more interactive than before where its interactivity was with A&R guy, producer and fans once ina while now it will be a 9-5 job at a studio with strong deadlines. and while this generation doesnt look up to "rock stars" that much as before there will be less musicians due to lack of motivation and promotion.


I also agree that there a lot of bands and famous musicians that have too much time to do a record and gig. i think musicians nowadays have to work harder than they are used to, well at the begginging they all do m but after the second record deal , pss its the easylife for them (if its a good deal of course)

[lordmiguel]

Originally Posted by KingDaddyO

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

gotcha daddy. give the customer what they want otherwise somebody will eventually come along who will. true, and thats exactly what steve jobs did.

i dunno if giving non-drm is wise though, after all its not like getting free refills on your coke, its giving everyone in the whole world a refill on one guys coke. after all, what customers of any business don't want something for free? none i have ever encountered in any industry.

to respond to the person who wants to shut P2Ps down, it will never happen. Morally it seems justifiable, but legally it seems like a scant proposition. You know what was the funniest to me though? Remember Kazaa Lite? Kazaa was basically spyware, and somebody ripped off Kazaa's code and pulled out the spyware and gave it away for free. Ironically, i don't think it lasted because no one donated to supported it. So much irony going around - ripping-off the rip-off enablers and getting no support from the stealers. There is no honor among thieves.

But you always keep fighting it, the retail industry loses $10 billion on shoplifting, and $15 billion on employee theft. Spending "only" several billion per year on theft protection yeilds a good return. You don't give up on it.

What EMI is doing i have no idea. I need to talk to someone at EMI and figure out how an indsutry survives essentially *promoting* free cokes to the world from one chap that buys a coke.

What other participants do that in industry that expects to survive on a purchased music business model? One has to assume the numbers they crunched about how many people buy vs steal/download will completely change in a non-drm world. How can it not change, if it is essentially condoned by the labels? And don't get me wrong, i don't buy steve jobs logic - i think purchased cd's should be copy protected just like dvd's. Why doesn't every software owner demand that they get free installs on every computer they own, let alone every one in the world? At some point you have to draw the line and let the lawyers take over on property rights or you just wipe out an entire industry because of petty theft.

Oh, and for my last point of IRONY: even steve jobs isn't stupid enough to remove hardware dongle protection from Logic Pro.

[Jazzpunk]

Originally Posted by Mike Caffrey

I agree with everything you wrote, but I was responding to the post where you asked if there was anyone who saw a use other than illegal file sharing and there is. I never said anything about permitted downloads being a majority.

I don't think shutting down P2Ps would have a damaging effect, but that's not an arguement that supports shutting them down.

I was responding to earlier posts from those trying to defend the use of P2P's for legitimate reasons (which no one has really been able to do yet).

My argument is that P2P's are mostly used to 'share' (and by 'share' I mean 'obtain without having to purchase') either music that was intended for sale, movies that were intended for sale, software that was intended for sale or porn.

The reality is that there are plenty of tools on the internet for artists to promote and distribute their music. These tools allow the artist to decide if their music should be distributed for free or if they would like to receive money for their work.

[lordmiguel]

Originally Posted by Mike Caffrey

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

OK, i hear you Mike, but nobody pays for tribal music, its free to whatever poor village of said continent. Recorded music, on the other hand, is not free and not necessary to human development.

[Josht]

Originally Posted by Jazzpunk

So King, what are you defending? I don't get it.

I completely disagree with those who think P2P's should not be held responsible and that they are somehow being used for some great benefit of mankind and the entertainment industry. It's total BS!

Shutting down P2P's tommorow would have zero effect on me. Would it effect those of you defending them? If so, how? I suspect the answer will have something to do with the content on your hard drives!

Well, in the cases cited by the original complaint, it would be the university that is complicit in the file sharing. Actually, my university attempted to fight a subpoena to match names to ip addresses, but recently lost in court. But I highly doubt a lawsuit against major US universities would win, they don't seem to fit into the model of the Grokster case.

Originally Posted by DeathMonkey

!

They have to stop blowing smoke up our asses about "lost profits". They have to look at an artist AS a brand, and realize that people DO buy into the brand, and the easiest way to do this is to get people into the store, as it were, with a loss leader. Look at the business model for this year's Ozzfest.

I totally agree, again, which is why I think its so dumb to go after college students, as college is the time when people are the most active music fans.

[KingDaddyO]

Originally Posted by Jazzpunk

I understand your points above and while relevant several years ago, they are really no longer applicable in this argument.

You can keep rationalizing why illegal file 'sharing' is ok but it doesn't change the fact that it is indeed illegal. Everyone knows what P2P's are mostly used for. The only people that are defending them are either those who are illegally file 'sharing' themselves, or those who do not earn their income in the entertainment industry.

Maybe it's just syntax, but it appears that you are misinterpreting my comments. I am not attempting to rationalize in any form (nada, zip, zero, squat, naught) that illegal file sharing is ok, nor am I making any argument that illegal file sharing isn't illegal !! I am also not defending P2Ps (which you keep bringing up, and I could care nothing about). What I am stating, is that the tactics used in the attempt to STOP those practices by the RIAA, are IMO ... clueless, ineffective, and ultimately self-defeating. And by continuing with this strategy, they will only serve to further alienate those whom they might have converted into their most effective ally's. Ally's who might then have been pressed into service, to convert other illegal downloaders into becoming long-term, paying customers.

And for the record, I don't download any illegal music, don't have a P2P client installed, and don't care to waste my time with that juvenile stuff. My comments are all coming from a perspective of 'this is a problem to be solved, and here are my thoughts on what might work and what doesn't'. So please stop insinuating that I must be downloading files illegally, since you appear to believe that I am trying to defend that practice. I am not, and I don't.

FYI: Both we7 and EMI are now making FREE and non-DRM encoded songs available for download (see the earlier links in this thread). So it would appear that a few industry brains are hard at work on the problems as I also see them, and by understanding the issues, they are attempting to compete with innovation. I wish them much success, especially as it will also benefit the artists. But someone should really talk to their buddy (the RIAA) lest they continue to act in a self-defeating manner.

Given this context, I believe these comments are relevant in the current scenario.

[KingDaddyO]

Originally Posted by lordmiguel

gotcha daddy. give the customer what they want otherwise somebody will eventually come along who will. true, and thats exactly what steve jobs did.

i dunno if giving non-drm is wise though, after all its not like getting free refills on your coke, its giving everyone in the whole world a refill on one guys coke. after all, what customers of any business don't want something for free? none i have ever encountered in any industry.

About the DRM: that will be very interesting to see how it all plays out. we7 is doing an advert type of thing I think, while EMI is going for broke with no DRM! Either way, it's great to see the majors responding with innovation. If they can manage to level the playing field at the distribution level, then there's no way a bunch of knock-offs (who all come with potential legal liability) can compete with what they could offer, value wise.

[Jazzpunk]

Originally Posted by KingDaddyO

Maybe it's just syntax, but it appears that you are misinterpreting my comments. I am not attempting to rationalize in any form (nada, zip, zero, squat, naught) that illegal file sharing is ok, nor am I making any argument that illegal file sharing isn't illegal !! I am also not defending P2Ps (which you keep bringing up, and I could care nothing about). What I am stating, is that the tactics used in the attempt to STOP those practices by the RIAA, are IMO ... clueless, ineffective, and ultimately self-defeating. And by continuing with this strategy, they will only serve to further alienate those whom they might have converted into their most effective ally's. Ally's who might then have been pressed into service, to convert other illegal downloaders into becoming long-term, paying customers.

Got ya'. I understand your point of view but just happen to disagree with you.

Peace.

[KingDaddyO]

Originally Posted by Jazzpunk

Got ya'. I understand your point of view but just happen to disagree with you.

Peace.

Cool, no problem there.

[lordmiguel]

Originally Posted by DeathMonkey

Look, I hear ya, breaking the law is breaking the law.........<CUT>........... Sorry that we are taking gold plated back scrubbers out of the hands of spoiled self entitled coke addicts and putting it in the hands of bands and artists that actually work for a living, and sell only based on actual talent.

deathmonkey, all i can really say is wow. if you're going to spew nonsense about business you should try to realize there are a lot of people much smarter and more informed out there than how you come off with that ridiculous fodder.

yes, controlling distribution is valuable, and the majors would be much better off controlling it than to be controlled by one company (apple). that's not coming back, the labels have had many cracks at it with their own online services. yes its tough to control prices when you don't control distribution. what does that have to do with riaa lawsuits? labels paid to make of said stolen music and have a right to get paid. it has nothing to do with bumps or independent artists. or apple. in fact it helps apple by encouraging legal downloads. no riaa suit is going to help them get back distribution to where it was.

filesharing has increased overall music purchases by exposure of new music? peoples music budgets have remained the same? overall profits are up because of filesharing? are you a market research analyst, major business consultant or equity analyst? because i've got some land in the woods you might be interested in.....

i wouldn't even know where to start. please support your arguments with real information from the real world or from real business people in the industry because i disagree with each of them.

[lordmiguel]

Originally Posted by KingDaddyO

Either way, it's great to see the majors responding with innovation.

Its true, someone is doing something. but it seems more like desperation. all it really wants to make me do is go pitch some business ideas to advertising companies. After all, they are investing in film and tv content. tv is launching music labels. everyone seems to see opportunities except those who rely on the business model of consumers acually buying music.

we7 looks cool, i wonder how the technology encryption works and how they get it onto ipods. i might try it

[lordmiguel]

http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/..._free_musi.php

[GearBit]

then of course there is this idea.

Pros: Tap into the already useful P2P network.

Cons: Will devalue music once again although if he can pull of a worldwide payment system and get china and everyone else to start paying then the gross numbers would rise to offset the lower cost.

[Protools Guy]

Originally Posted by GearBit

if he can get china to start paying

That's a laugh!!

[Fman]

I do love the South Park episode devoted to this topic. Anyone seen it? "Christian Rock Hard." Man, that one tore me up!

[lordmiguel]

Originally Posted by GearBit

then of course there is this idea.

Pros: Tap into the already useful P2P network.

Cons: Will devalue music once again although if he can pull of a worldwide payment system and get china and everyone else to start paying then the gross numbers would rise to offset the lower cost.

good april fools joke, no?

i dunno. napster isn't exactly giving itunes a run for its money. the subscription thing is petering out.

hah! china will pay for nothing until it the government recognizes and enforces intillectual property rights. they make it impossible for multinationals to even repatriate their own cash flows from china. don't count on china except for knocked off watches and handbags.

[DeathMonkey]

Originally Posted by lordmiguel

deathmonkey, all i can really say is wow. if you're going to spew nonsense about business you should try to realize there are a lot of people much smarter and more informed out there than how you come off with that ridiculous fodder.

i wouldn't even know where to start. please support your arguments with real information from the real world or from real business people in the industry because i disagree with each of them.

That one paragraph was meant tongue in cheek... but you're right, people smarter than me have discussed this.



Wired 14.09: No Suit Required

The music industry is suffering. The major record labels – which rely on CDs for most of their revenue – are in decline. CD sales in the US have dropped more than 20 percent from a peak of $13.4 billion in 2000. But don't be fooled: The market for music is thriving. With the rise of peer-to-peer networks, the iPod, and other digital technologies – plus a 100 percent jump in concert ticket sales since 1999 – the world is awash in music. The industry now has more sources of revenue – ringtones, concert tickets, license agreements with TV shows and videogames – than ever before.






Less popular artists profit from filesharing | TorrentFreak


<script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script>The rich get poorer and the poor get richer. That’s what filesharing does for the music industry. No wonder the RIAA is desperately trying to shutdown all filesharing activities.
A recent overview of the current literature on the effect of filesharing on record sales shows that the most popular artist (top 25%) sell less records. However, […]

The rich get poorer and the poor get richer. That’s what filesharing does for the music industry. No wonder the RIAA is desperately trying to shutdown all filesharing activities.
A recent overview of the current literature on the effect of filesharing on record sales shows that the most popular artist (top 25%) sell less records. However, the remaining 75% of all artists actually profits from filesharing. How this is possible?
Easy, sharing increases the amount of artists you get familiar with. Especially BitTorrent sites are an excellent platform for promoting new, or less popular artists.
First of all, on BitTorrent sites the users decide what’s popular, not the radiostations, record labels and pluggers. Besides this, it’s far more easy to first download an album, listen to it, and then decide if you want to buy it or not. Sure, most of the people will not buy the album, but since you will probably tell tell your friends about this “great new album”, popularity will grow, and eventually the artist will profit from it.
An excellent example is the band Harvey Danger who offers the opportunity to download their album on their website. As soon as they decided to do this, their popularity grew. By offering their album as a download, they gained a lot of fans, collected donations, and probably sold more albums.
Something to think about…


A critique of some of the studies:
P2P, Online File-Sharing, and the Music Industry

And an interesting interview about new strategies:
OpenBusiness » Blog Archive » Interview with Beatpick - FairPlay Music Label

Movies have the same problem.... er...

LawGeek: File-Sharing Has No Effect on Record Xmas Movie Profits
File-Sharing Has No Effect on Record Xmas Movie Profits

Jack Valenti and the MPAA love to scream about how file-sharing and other forms of priracy are decimating the movie industry. In fact, they now show sympathetic trailers before almost every movie pleading their case against downloading because "Movies.. They're worth it."
Well, it appears that they are worth it, at least in terms of $$$ at the box office. Reuters reports that Return of the King is approaching close to $500 million in box office revenues after only two weeks in the theaters worldwide and that it could reach $1 billion soon. And this is before any kind of DVD sales or rentals (not to mention TV presentations or marketing tie-ins), which have also broken numerous revenue records for Hollywood and the MPAA.
In fact, according to the Reuters article, this has been THE ... BEST ... XMAS ... EVER ... for the movie industry:









So while I respect your right to disagree, I do want you to know that I have actually researched my opinion.

[Jazzpunk]

Originally Posted by DeathMonkey

An excellent example is the band Harvey Danger who offers the opportunity to download their album on their website. As soon as they decided to do this, their popularity grew. By offering their album as a download, they gained a lot of fans, collected donations, and probably sold more albums.

Interesting post DM but that is the exact type of 'example' that pisses me off to no end!

The author is citing the above example as a benefit of P2P services when in actuality what it illustrates is how an unknown band can take advantage of the internet by willfully offering their music for free.

In this example did the P2P services help to spread the bands music? The author doesn't actually clarify this point but if they did it was only after the band made the decision to offer their music as a free download on their own website.

While this is a great example of an internet savvy band, offering your music as a free download on your own website has nothing to do with file 'sharing'! For the sake of argument though, let's say fans of the band then when on to share those files through a P2P service. The band would've received the exact same benefits from the files being shared over a P2P service that was regulated and held responsible for the content being 'shared'.

Spin it anyway you want but there is no good argument as to why P2P's should be allowed as conduits for obtaining copywritten material that is intended for purchase. P2P services that feature bands who willfully allow their material to be distibuted? I'm all for it.

Originally Posted by DeathMonkey

That one paragraph was meant tongue in cheek... but you're right, people smarter than me have discussed this.



Wired 14.09: No Suit Required

The music industry is suffering. The major record labels – which rely on CDs for most of their revenue – are in decline. CD sales in the US have dropped more than 20 percent from a peak of $13.4 billion in 2000. But don't be fooled: The market for music is thriving. With the rise of peer-to-peer networks, the iPod, and other digital technologies – plus a 100 percent jump in concert ticket sales since 1999 – the world is awash in music. The industry now has more sources of revenue – ringtones, concert tickets, license agreements with TV shows and videogames – than ever before.






Less popular artists profit from filesharing | TorrentFreak


<script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script>The rich get poorer and the poor get richer. That’s what filesharing does for the music industry. No wonder the RIAA is desperately trying to shutdown all filesharing activities.
A recent overview of the current literature on the effect of filesharing on record sales shows that the most popular artist (top 25%) sell less records. However, […]

The rich get poorer and the poor get richer. That’s what filesharing does for the music industry. No wonder the RIAA is desperately trying to shutdown all filesharing activities.
A recent overview of the current literature on the effect of filesharing on record sales shows that the most popular artist (top 25%) sell less records. However, the remaining 75% of all artists actually profits from filesharing. How this is possible?
Easy, sharing increases the amount of artists you get familiar with. Especially BitTorrent sites are an excellent platform for promoting new, or less popular artists.
First of all, on BitTorrent sites the users decide what’s popular, not the radiostations, record labels and pluggers. Besides this, it’s far more easy to first download an album, listen to it, and then decide if you want to buy it or not. Sure, most of the people will not buy the album, but since you will probably tell tell your friends about this “great new album”, popularity will grow, and eventually the artist will profit from it.
An excellent example is the band Harvey Danger who offers the opportunity to download their album on their website. As soon as they decided to do this, their popularity grew. By offering their album as a download, they gained a lot of fans, collected donations, and probably sold more albums.
Something to think about…


A critique of some of the studies:
P2P, Online File-Sharing, and the Music Industry

And an interesting interview about new strategies:
OpenBusiness » Blog Archive » Interview with Beatpick - FairPlay Music Label

Movies have the same problem.... er...

LawGeek: File-Sharing Has No Effect on Record Xmas Movie Profits
File-Sharing Has No Effect on Record Xmas Movie Profits

Jack Valenti and the MPAA love to scream about how file-sharing and other forms of priracy are decimating the movie industry. In fact, they now show sympathetic trailers before almost every movie pleading their case against downloading because "Movies.. They're worth it."
Well, it appears that they are worth it, at least in terms of $$$ at the box office. Reuters reports that Return of the King is approaching close to $500 million in box office revenues after only two weeks in the theaters worldwide and that it could reach $1 billion soon. And this is before any kind of DVD sales or rentals (not to mention TV presentations or marketing tie-ins), which have also broken numerous revenue records for Hollywood and the MPAA.
In fact, according to the Reuters article, this has been THE ... BEST ... XMAS ... EVER ... for the movie industry:









So while I respect your right to disagree, I do want you to know that I have actually researched my opinion.

This is bullshit. If I download an album and decide I like it, I have no reason to buy it. I have it already! It hasnt effected the movie industry yet because their content takes up more space and more download time. As technology becomes faster, it will effect them more.

[lordmiguel]

Originally Posted by DeathMonkey

So while I respect your right to disagree, I do want you to know that I have actually researched my opinion.

er, um, "research"? These are second rate reporters with little if any inside knowledge of the industry. Even if they did, they need a spin that sells and they need to do it everyday. You should be careful who you listen to and who is writing what you read and why you should believe them or not. Have you ever read an article in a major newspaper where you were a core insider and see how utterly wrong they got it? I have more than a couple times.

These people are at *best* fishing and suscepitble to people telling them what is in their best interest to have printed. Many, if not most, get it wrong and most of the time they need a better angle anyways because the truth isn't interesting and won't sell. At *worst* the are lazy and just want to spin convenient facts out of context into some kind of story.

But these are things your father should have taught you, i'm not gonna preach anymore.

I dunno what the last one is about movies, they are more physically insualted on fileshare networks due to their size, amongst a million other different dynamics going on.

Anyway, i'm cloging this thread so i'll step aside.

[Mike Caffrey]

Originally Posted by lordmiguel

OK, i hear you Mike, but nobody pays for tribal music, its free to whatever poor village of said continent. Recorded music, on the other hand, is not free and not necessary to human development.

If you're not part of a tribe it is.

Either music is a necessity or it's not. The delivery medium, a live perfomance or a recording is irrelevant.