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

[dlmorley]

Originally Posted by no ssl yet

It's perfect if you want to totally devalue music. Giving away a few million records is not the forumula for selling records. It may sound like good publicity, but it's a bit silly.

Again, this depends.
I make instrumental electronic (or ambient ) music and a large part of my income is from publishing and use in TV and film. I am printing my own CD and will be giving half away as I want people to hear it as they may then use it. I don't have a major label pushing my product. I am however in control of my own music. If it makes sense for me to offer it free because I will make more money that way, how can that be wrong?
I would LOVE to sell a million CD's but am just being realistic about my potential these days and I NEED to earn a living, so I go about my life my way.

As an artist I will (and do) certainly make more money from the use of my music than the sales of my music.

[Beermaster]

Originally Posted by lordmiguel

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

Not wanting to spam but I was going to be involved with developing the Sonic ID for we7 thats how I knew about - can find out tho...

Beer

[kieran kelly]

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.

Totally Agree... this is why P2Ps have almost no value for New Artists. Go on Limewire ..
The amount of songs for an Artist ( If Any ) will be directly proportional to the Level of Visibility they already have.... Case in Point

Essie Jane ( New Artist pretty unknown ..Bada Bing Records .. Home of Beruit nationally released in Feb.) 0

Bayside ( Victory Records .. Played on Conan recently ) 350

Coldplay 1600

The Numbers dont lie ... people do not use p2p to discover new music they use it to download songs they already like...

[DeathMonkey]

Originally Posted by Jazzpunk

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

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.

I want to make clear that I am citing these not as a justification for illegal downloading, but to illustrate the idea that there is a business model that can use P2P (or neutralize it as a threat) and legal downloads. The success of iTunes shows part of the way, the success of indie bands also shows part of the way. I just think these can't be ignored, as technology progresses.

Indeed, I state that if the RIAA wanted to actually stop downloading, it is strange that they do not go after the P2Ps. I'm not defending the P2Ps as all, nor the downloaders. But the hue and cry about downloading is blown out of proportion, and the labels are misusing the data. This is clear, and is what I wanted to represent with that selection of articles.

My argument is that the RIAA and labels would be better served to find a way to maximize revenue in a way that included P2P or downloading, rather than to go after college kids at $3k a pop. I'm not justifying the downloaders, nor the P2P as everyone seems to think (and I keep repeating). I'm just saying that there are paradigms within the blanket of "illegal downloaders" that can be turned into an advantage, rather than this quixotic crusade.

Originally Posted by no ssl yet

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.

That may be true for you, but it isn't true for everyone. In the 80's, tape sharing was a major factor in the success of bands like Metallica, Mega, Exodus and even the NWOBHM bands like Diamondhead and Motorhead. There are people who download songs by artists and then in turn decide to support said artist. People like to own stuff, and hold stuff, and labels have gotten good about finding ways to entice people to get the real deal - bonus DVDs, website codes, etc. I would agree that with movies it's a little different because music is a more repeateable experience (how many times can you watch "Harold and Kumar"?), but the point of the article is financial in nature. Again, my point is NOT to defend illegal downloading, but to add the caveat that the loss in revenue is NOT the "sky is falling" scenario that these companies present. I think that the view that "all downloaders are stealing and will never purchase anything or contribute to the income cycle" is not true, and I present these articles really just to illustrate that I am not alone in thinking that. It's not that I'm screaming that I'm right, it's that I'm taking a lot of heat for opinions I'm not stating.

Originally Posted by lordmiguel

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.

You called into question my opinion as being worthless, I just wanted to show that there is material out there that at least validates my HAVING this opinion, even if you disagree. I'm not pulling this out of my ass, I've actually got reasons for believing what I do. Really not arguing anything other than that there is a disconnect between the label's claim of "CD sales are down" and Wall Street's claim that "music revenue is up", and that somewhere in between the RIAA and labels can use this knowledge to their advantage rather than clinging to the old paradigm and fighting a fruitless, pointless battle against kids.

So feel free to tell me why you disagree, instead of trying to demean my argument by demeaning me.

Originally Posted by DeathMonkey

I want to make clear that I am citing these not as a justification for illegal downloading, but to illustrate the idea that there is a business model that can use P2P (or neutralize it as a threat) and legal downloads. The success of iTunes shows part of the way, the success of indie bands also shows part of the way. I just think these can't be ignored, as technology progresses.

Indeed, I state that if the RIAA wanted to actually stop downloading, it is strange that they do not go after the P2Ps. I'm not defending the P2Ps as all, nor the downloaders. But the hue and cry about downloading is blown out of proportion, and the labels are misusing the data. This is clear, and is what I wanted to represent with that selection of articles.

My argument is that the RIAA and labels would be better served to find a way to maximize revenue in a way that included P2P or downloading, rather than to go after college kids at $3k a pop. I'm not justifying the downloaders, nor the P2P as everyone seems to think (and I keep repeating). I'm just saying that there are paradigms within the blanket of "illegal downloaders" that can be turned into an advantage, rather than this quixotic crusade.




That may be true for you, but it isn't true for everyone. In the 80's, tape sharing was a major factor in the success of bands like Metallica, Mega, Exodus and even the NWOBHM bands like Diamondhead and Motorhead. There are people who download songs by artists and then in turn decide to support said artist. People like to own stuff, and hold stuff, and labels have gotten good about finding ways to entice people to get the real deal - bonus DVDs, website codes, etc. I would agree that with movies it's a little different because music is a more repeateable experience (how many times can you watch "Harold and Kumar"?), but the point of the article is financial in nature. Again, my point is NOT to defend illegal downloading, but to add the caveat that the loss in revenue is NOT the "sky is falling" scenario that these companies present. I think that the view that "all downloaders are stealing and will never purchase anything or contribute to the income cycle" is not true, and I present these articles really just to illustrate that I am not alone in thinking that. It's not that I'm screaming that I'm right, it's that I'm taking a lot of heat for opinions I'm not stating.





You called into question my opinion as being worthless, I just wanted to show that there is material out there that at least validates my HAVING this opinion, even if you disagree. I'm not pulling this out of my ass, I've actually got reasons for believing what I do. Really not arguing anything other than that there is a disconnect between the label's claim of "CD sales are down" and Wall Street's claim that "music revenue is up", and that somewhere in between the RIAA and labels can use this knowledge to their advantage rather than clinging to the old paradigm and fighting a fruitless, pointless battle against kids.

So feel free to tell me why you disagree, instead of trying to demean my argument by demeaning me.

Come on man at least be realistic. Tape sharing in the 80's was nothing compared to a few million people getting your album for free. Obviously with sales down, it's not that many people downloading and then buying an album. Why should we expect someone to buy what they already have? If you don't think the sky is falling when you are part of an industry where people can access the products of that industry for free on a widescale basis, then what would it take to convince you?

Originally Posted by dlmorley

Again, this depends.
I make instrumental electronic (or ambient ) music and a large part of my income is from publishing and use in TV and film. I am printing my own CD and will be giving half away as I want people to hear it as they may then use it. I don't have a major label pushing my product. I am however in control of my own music. If it makes sense for me to offer it free because I will make more money that way, how can that be wrong?
I would LOVE to sell a million CD's but am just being realistic about my potential these days and I NEED to earn a living, so I go about my life my way.

As an artist I will (and do) certainly make more money from the use of my music than the sales of my music.

How much money have you made from it?

[Sounds Great]

Originally Posted by DeathMonkey

There are people who download songs by artists and then in turn decide to support said artist.

Hahahaha!

Thanks, I needed a good laugh.

Originally Posted by Sounds Great

Hahahaha!

Thanks, I needed a good laugh.

Rob, I don't know what the heck you're laughing at, sometimes people steal cars, and it makes them go out and buy that very same car to support the mfgr.

Try making flat screen TVs free or better yet sell them in the projects for $100 each and see if sales decline at circuit city?

LOL the only way the sales will increase is if the guy who stole the credit card to buy them and sell them hot keeps going back to re up. LMAO.

Don't you know having a free TV will make you buy one?

[not_so_new]

Originally Posted by DeathMonkey

Really not arguing anything other than that there is a disconnect between the label's claim of "CD sales are down" and Wall Street's claim that "music revenue is up",

So forgive me if you have covered this already but I have seen this said a few times on this thread. Where exactly is it quoted from Wall Street that music revenue is up?

The way I see it you can spin numbers anyway you want to. Maybe there is a market segment that is up but I seriously doubt that revenue is up across the board for the majors. I could have it wrong but when your main revenue stream is down by a large percentage this year over last and last year was down from the year before (and CD sales are hard numbers to spin) it just seems really hard to have an increase in revenue.

and that somewhere in between the RIAA and labels can use this knowledge to their advantage rather than clinging to the old paradigm and fighting a fruitless, pointless battle against kids.

So feel free to tell me why you disagree, instead of trying to demean my argument by demeaning me.

Well what I disagree with is that the issue is about a "pointless battle against kids."

First, it is not just "kids" downloading music. There is a whole generation of people who are growing up on the idea that music is free for the taking. Many of these people are in their 20's now, NOT kids any more.

Second, your argument is based in the idea that you can't do anything about it so who cares.

There is a moral issue here beyond the "pointless battle against kids" this is an issue of "the lables own it and you don't" and don't tell me these "kids" didn't know better because 1) they have heard about other kids getting sued or 2) they didn't know about it and these lawsuits are a wake up call.

I am not happy about the state of affairs. I just don't download music (or use pirated software for that matter) because I don't want the lawsuit and my moral compass is securely affixed.

[not_so_new]

Originally Posted by no ssl yet

Rob, I don't know what the heck you're laughing at, sometimes people steal cars, and it makes them go out and buy that very same car to support the mfgr.

Try making flat screen TVs free or better yet sell them in the projects for $100 each and see if sales decline at circuit city?

LOL the only way the sales will increase is if the guy who stole the credit card to buy them and sell them hot keeps going back to re up. LMAO.

Don't you know having a free TV will make you buy one?

I think Rob was laughing at the idea that people "listen to the download and then go buy the CD." Which is a laugh to me as well.

[not_so_new]

Ya know… I don't get it.

When I was a kid I worked my whole summer to buy albums, The Beatles, Zeppelin, Sabbath etc. The work was worth it because there was a new album waiting for me every weekend. It was great.

Answer this for me DeathMonkey….

If the CD's are readily available for any kid to purchase and they don't even have to walk down to the store like I did, why are you upset that they are getting sued when they just took the music?

I don't understand, the solution is really easy…. don't want to get sued? Pay for the product! It works the same way for music as it does for the guitar strings I bought last night, the new light fixture that I bought at Home Depo over the weekend and the Wendy's hamburger I had on the trip home.

If you want to say that the product sucks and it is not worth buying... then don't listen to it. Is it worth the potential lawsuit for music that you are not going to listen to or is it that you are just too cheap to pay for something that you can just take?

And if you want to say that the company is rotten, I think Guitar Center is rotten but I still don't get to walk out of the store with a pack of strings because I don't like the company.

Again, for the folks defending the "poor kids" please please please explain why they shouldn't have to pay for the music just like I did as a kid or just like we all do with anything else in our lives?!?!?! I just don't get why everyone gets a free pass today.

[JustinPhelps]

I'm a student at UNL and one of my friends was busted. He downloaded he guesses around 275 songs but they offically busted him for around 175. This is no joke, he did not sell them, he did not burn them, he did not hand them out, they were just some oldies that he liked that he had heard in movies. Might I add that he also actively buys songs off of iTunes, mainly for new artists or ones he really likes, to support them.

The RIAA is going after these kids cause they know they can't fight back. Oh and by the way, UNL violated their OWN privacy policy when they gave the RIAA the names of the students who had been downloading songs. Several students that are being sued by the RIAA are counter sueing UNL. If anything, UNL according to their own privacy policy should turn the students into authorities, NOT some organization that's going to sue them.

Pirating music for a gain is absolutely horrible, but come on. Downloading a few songs as a college student. Give me a break. The RIAA should be spending this time and legal action against the people who are actually profiting and severely abusing the system. Not bullying kids into buying cd's.

Read it yourself if you don't believe me.

UNL | Digital Copyright Policy
http://is.unl.edu/about/UNLprivacy.pdf

They even tell you exactly what is "suppose" to happen if you are caught downloading illegal music with UNL's internet. No where does it mention you might be sued, or turned in to a third party organization. Only on the third strike does it even mention they might turn you into the authorities.

Now, lets not flame me saying that I support illegal downloading. I'm merely looking at this from a legal stand point. UNL led it's students to believe that if they were caught downloading illegal content that they would NOT be punished on the first strike, merely an email notification. second time theres another warning and you have to submit some crap in writing. Finally on the third strike you might get punished. Even on the third however, the punishment does not include being sued by a third party. UNL's privacy policy specifically says that it will not release names of students or content they are looking at without a court order. Did the RIAA receive one? Nope!

I just feel the RIAA is being a bully and that it is wrong. Spend this money, time and resources fighting the REAL bad guys. The people who download thousands of songs and sell them!!

[not_so_new]

Originally Posted by JustinPhelps

I'm a student at UNL and one of my friends was busted. He downloaded he guesses around 275 songs but they offically busted him for around 175. This is no joke, he did not sell them, he did not burn them, he did not hand them out, they were just some oldies that he liked that he had heard in movies.

The RIAA is going after these kids cause they know they can't fight back. Oh and by the way, UNL violated their OWN privacy policy when they gave the RIAA the names of the students who had been downloading songs. Several students that are being sued by the RIAA are counter sueing UNL. If anything, UNL according to their own privacy policy should turn the students into authorities, NOT some organization that's going to sue them.

Pirating music for a gain is absolutely horrible, but come on. Downloading a few songs as a college student. Give me a break. The RIAA should be spending this time and legal action against the people who are actually profiting and severely abusing the system. Not bullying kids into buying cd's.

Read it yourself if you don't believe me.

UNL | Digital Copyright Policy
http://is.unl.edu/about/UNLprivacy.pdf

They even tell you exactly what is "suppose" to happen if you are caught downloading illegal music with UNL's internet. No where does it mention you might be sued, or turned in to a third party organization. Only on the third strike does it even mention they might turn you into the authorities.

Now, lets not flame me saying that I support illegal downloading. I'm merely looking at this from a legal stand point. UNL led it's students to believe that if they were caught downloading illegal content that they would NOT be punished on the first strike, merely an email notification. second time theres nothing warning and you have to submit some crap in writing. Finally on the third strike you might get punished. Even on the third however, the punishment does not include being sued by a third party. UNL's privacy policy specifically says that it will not release names of students or content they are looking at without a court order. Did the RIAA receive one? Nope!

I just feel the RIAA is being a bully and that it is wrong. Spend this money, time and resources fighting the REAL bad guys. The people who download thousands of songs and sell them!!

Justin please explain to me why your friend didn't BUY the music in the first place? I had to as a kid, so did everyone else in the world up until a few years ago, why are you and your friend exempt from having to purchase music?

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The solution is easy, don't want to get sued? Simple, BUY THE MUSIC! Problem solved, why is that so hard?!?!?

Don't come here with sob stories. There are no free lunches. If the music was just "some oldies that he liked that he had heard in movies" then he should either have bought the songs or not depending on how much he liked them. You DO NOT have a choice to say, "well I like this a whole lot so I will pay for it but I don't like this as much so I will just take it." That is crap.

Sorry dude... no sympathy from this corner.

[gsilbers]

Originally Posted by not_so_new

Ya know… I don't get it.

When I was a kid I worked my whole summer to buy albums, The Beatles, Zeppelin, Sabbath etc. The work was worth it because there was a new album waiting for me every weekend. It was great.

Answer this for me DeathMonkey….

If the CD's are readily available for any kid to purchase and they don't even have to walk down to the store like I did, why are you upset that they are getting sued when they just took the music?

I don't understand, the solution is really easy…. don't want to get sued? Pay for the product! It works the same way for music as it does for the guitar strings I bought last night, the new light fixture that I bought at Home Depo over the weekend and the Wendy's hamburger I had on the trip home.

If you want to say that the product sucks and it is not worth buying... then don't listen to it. Is it worth the potential lawsuit for music that you are not going to listen to or is it that you are just too cheap to pay for something that you can just take?

And if you want to say that the company is rotten, I think Guitar Center is rotten but I still don't get to walk out of the store with a pack of strings because I don't like the company.

Again, for the folks defending the "poor kids" please please please explain why they shouldn't have to pay for the music just like I did as a kid or just like we all do with anything else in our lives?!?!?! I just don't get why everyone gets a free pass today.

its not defending the "poor kids". they are wrong but so is the RIAA trying to sue them. The RIAA is sueing no more than 10 universities, that is nothing compared to the amount of kids (and adults) that are stealing music. so the RIAA is just doing nothing in other words. they can sue colege kids cause the universities provide the IP adress which is something very dificult to do in a city or forein country.

much less prove that you where downloading copyrited material.


the RIAA should fight other battles like the movie industry is doing in other countries. the RIAA which is an organization of the major labels should battle the parent companies of major labels (sony, phillips etc) which make recardable and portable media and also fight with internet providers and operating systems companies to not allow P2P programs run and provide better security for song files/ protected material.

the problmes with P2P lies in that thier headquaters change countries everytime they get ordered to close. so now limewire for example is in some remote country/island in the pacific. but there are ways to fighting that in congress, with other countires govnt's etc.


so its not that the "poor kids" shoundnt be sued becuase they are not at fault, its just that the RIAA is barking at the wrong tree.

seems to me that its a group of poele an office in hollywood who had a brilliant idea of calling compuses and seding nasty letters to poelpe using P2P and in doing so the message in the news will scare eveyone who doesit, but in another office in NY and silicon valley there is all these top cats who own or manage the media and tech businesses and they just dont care cause they see an excell sheet stating that they have more profits from selling cd burners, open ended media gadgets, computers etc than from its little music division. and even more convinient becuase with P2P poeple can have more content for the players, and recorders and other services they provide.
so in my opinion is more of the labels figuring out why there are still P2P companies, how to stop them and why compouters and tech companies are allowing this and how to stop it.
they maybe altready know and figure out that having a legal battle against one of those tech companies mght be a very very hard task so they turn to the kids.
which are at fault but its like stoping a tsunami with a bucket.

[JustinPhelps]

I understand, which is why I said, I do not support illegal downloading. I was merely speaking of a legal stand point to the actions of UNL and the RIAA, not about how ethical or not a student downloading music is. Would you agree that a person downloading 10,000 songs and selling them is worse than a student downloading 175? Now be sure to read what I said, is it WORSE? I will agree, both are totally illegal, but which one is worth wasting time and money to go after? Wouldn't you rather, as an artist, see the RIAA take down the person selling the pirated music than to hear they took out some college kids whowere fans of the artist?

Again, since you might have missed it, I was speaking merely from a legal stand point as far as UNL disclosing the names.

If you look back, I also added that he actually actively bought songs off iTunes, but usually only those of new artists or singers he really liked, so he could support them. He was not some pirate. Just a college kid, who has no real money. If he couldn't have downloaded the songs he did free, he wouldn't have downloaded or bought them AT ALL. And what if by him downloading them, he told his friends how good a band was, and they went out and bought the album they otherwise wouldn't have known about.

Yes, it works both ways, I totally agree and can easily see how it can be negative to an artist and record label, but you must also see how it can be positive too.

I do not wish to fight anyone, so please do not flame. It's really pointless as we all have our own opinions.

Incase you care, I actually buy all of my music as physical cd's. (not itunes download or illegal p2p) So please, save your flames.


EDIT:
As a poor example, how would you feel (assuming your an average american) if you got a letter today in the mail that said your car manufacturer had installed some sort of device that detects every time you don't come to a COMPLETE stop at a stop sign. You obvioulsy can't deny that even slightly rolling through a stop sign is just as illegal as just blowing past it without a thought, but then again you're upset because you were under the impression that it wasn't THAT big of a deal that the government would need to crack down on people not coming to a very stiff complete stop.

Yes..a poor example but you get the picture. there are plenty of illegal things EVERYONE does all the time that we don't get in trouble for, even if a cop is RIGHT there watching you. Why? Because while legally, illegal IS illegal, there is sort of a scaling system to where its really pointless to fight a war against people who aren't really doing considerable damage. If my friend had downloaded even 1,000 songs I would have been able to understand more, even if he had not sold any.

[not_so_new]

The more I read this the more it makes me mad.... this is also the root of the problem in society now.....

Originally Posted by JustinPhelps

I'm a student at UNL and one of my friends was busted. He downloaded he guesses around 275 songs but they offically busted him for around 175. This is no joke, he did not sell them, he did not burn them, he did not hand them out, they were just some oldies that he liked that he had heard in movies. Might I add that he also actively buys songs off of iTunes, mainly for new artists or ones he really likes, to support them.

As I said, the easy answer is to BUY the music, no lawsuits, no pesky moral issues (not that this sounds like a problem here) no muss no fuss.

The RIAA is going after these kids cause they know they can't fight back.

No the RIAA is going after these "kids" because they took something that didn't belong to them. PERIOD. It just happens to be that most of the offenders are computer age people meaning 35 ish and below and most of the people stealing music from the internet are collage age.

Oh and by the way, UNL violated their OWN privacy policy when they gave the RIAA the names of the students who had been downloading songs. Several students that are being sued by the RIAA are counter sueing UNL. If anything, UNL according to their own privacy policy should turn the students into authorities, NOT some organization that's going to sue them.

Pirating music for a gain is absolutely horrible, but come on. Downloading a few songs as a college student. Give me a break. The RIAA should be spending this time and legal action against the people who are actually profiting and severely abusing the system. Not bullying kids into buying cd's.

One "kid" takes by his only count 275 songs off the internet and there are how many collage students in the U.S. today? This is not about one kid taking 275 songs, this is about EVERY kid taking 275 songs. THAT adds up.

Read it yourself if you don't believe me.

UNL | Digital Copyright Policy
http://is.unl.edu/about/UNLprivacy.pdf

They even tell you exactly what is "suppose" to happen if you are caught downloading illegal music with UNL's internet. No where does it mention you might be sued, or turned in to a third party organization. Only on the third strike does it even mention they might turn you into the authorities.

WTF dude?!?! So you know that you can get sued and your excuse is, "well you have to catch me 3 times before you can do anything about it. I will just keep doing it until I am caught twice!"

What a load of crap.

You knew it was wrong, he knew it was wrong and everyone knows it is wrong. You are just looking for an excuse.

Now, lets not flame me saying that I support illegal downloading. I'm merely looking at this from a legal stand point. UNL led it's students to believe that if they were caught downloading illegal content that they would NOT be punished on the first strike, merely an email notification. second time theres another warning and you have to submit some crap in writing. Finally on the third strike you might get punished. Even on the third however, the punishment does not include being sued by a third party. UNL's privacy policy specifically says that it will not release names of students or content they are looking at without a court order. Did the RIAA receive one? Nope!

Looking for all the wiggle room you can get huh? Hide behind the letter of law if you want that does not make taking something from someone else "right."

I just feel the RIAA is being a bully and that it is wrong.

And I just think you are trying to get away with something that you don't want to pay for… and the law agrees with me.

Spend this money, time and resources fighting the REAL bad guys. The people who download thousands of songs and sell them!!

There are no ware nearly as many people who resell the songs as there are who just download them like your friend did (as I assume you do as well). Taking something from someone else is WRONG, period. If you sell it to a 3rd party that is worse but it in no way makes the people who just take it for their own use in the right either.

[not_so_new]

Originally Posted by JustinPhelps

I understand, which is why I said, I do not support illegal downloading. I was merely speaking of a legal stand point to the actions of UNL and the RIAA, not about how ethical or not a student downloading music is. Would you agree that a person downloading 10,000 songs and selling them is worse than a student downloading 175? Now be sure to read what I said, is it WORSE? I will agree, both are totally illegal, but which one is worth wasting time and money to go after? Wouldn't you rather, as an artist, see the RIAA take down the person selling the pirated music than to hear they took out some college kids whowere fans of the artist?

Again, since you might have missed it, I was speaking merely from a legal stand point as far as UNL disclosing the names.

If you look back, I also added that he actually actively bought songs off iTunes, but usually only those of new artists or singers he really liked, so he could support them. He was not some pirate. Just a college kid, who has no real money. If he couldn't have downloaded the songs he did free, he wouldn't have downloaded or bought them AT ALL. And what if by him downloading them, he told his friends how good a band was, and they went out and bought the album they otherwise wouldn't have known about.

Yes, it works both ways, I totally agree and can easily see how it can be negative to an artist and record label, but you must also see how it can be positive too.

I do not wish to fight anyone, so please do not flame. It's really pointless as we all have our own opinions.

Incase you care, I actually buy all of my music as physical cd's. (not itunes download or illegal p2p) So please, save your flames.

It just drives me crazy.

Do you think you or he are the only ones to ever be broke?

Man I am not joking here. While I was going to school I didn't have furniture in my apartment, I slept on a mat, not a mattress, a MAT on the floor. There were months when I didn't have heat and I spent a few days without electricity because I didn't have the cash to pay for it. I didn't eat anything but pasta and Roman noodles for 3 years and didn't have gas for my car... which ended up getting stolen anyway because I lived in a shady hood. I racked up $10,000 in credit card bills and wrecked my credit for the next 7 years.

Guess what.... I didn't steal anything from anyone. I didn't buy any music but I didn't download it either (it was a little early for that but I wouldn't have anyway). For my entire life I have always bought what I could afford and did without what I couldn't.

I don't see any difference here.

Sorry.

[not_so_new]

Originally Posted by gsilbers

its not defending the "poor kids". they are wrong but so is the RIAA trying to sue them. The RIAA is sueing no more than 10 universities, that is nothing compared to the amount of kids (and adults) that are stealing music. so the RIAA is just doing nothing in other words. they can sue colege kids cause the universities provide the IP adress which is something very dificult to do in a city or forein country.

much less prove that you where downloading copyrited material.


the RIAA should fight other battles like the movie industry is doing in other countries. the RIAA which is an organization of the major labels should battle the parent companies of major labels (sony, phillips etc) which make recardable and portable media and also fight with internet providers and operating systems companies to not allow P2P programs run and provide better security for song files/ protected material.

the problmes with P2P lies in that thier headquaters change countries everytime they get ordered to close. so now limewire for example is in some remote country/island in the pacific. but there are ways to fighting that in congress, with other countires govnt's etc.


so its not that the "poor kids" shoundnt be sued becuase they are not at fault, its just that the RIAA is barking at the wrong tree.

seems to me that its a group of poele an office in hollywood who had a brilliant idea of calling compuses and seding nasty letters to poelpe using P2P and in doing so the message in the news will scare eveyone who doesit, but in another office in NY and silicon valley there is all these top cats who own or manage the media and tech businesses and they just dont care cause they see an excell sheet stating that they have more profits from selling cd burners, open ended media gadgets, computers etc than from its little music division. and even more convinient becuase with P2P poeple can have more content for the players, and recorders and other services they provide.
so in my opinion is more of the labels figuring out why there are still P2P companies, how to stop them and why compouters and tech companies are allowing this and how to stop it.
they maybe altready know and figure out that having a legal battle against one of those tech companies mght be a very very hard task so they turn to the kids.
which are at fault but its like stoping a tsunami with a bucket.

You didn't answer my question... if they are worried about getting sued why not pay for the music in the first place? Seems pretty easy to me.... pay for something that you use. That is what I had to do as a kid and that is what I still have to do now.

[JustinPhelps]

Originally Posted by not_so_new

The more I read this the more it makes me mad.... this is also the root of the problem in society now.....



As I said, the easy answer is to BUY the music, no lawsuits, no pesky moral issues (not that this sounds like a problem here) no muss no fuss.



No the RIAA is going after these "kids" because they took something that didn't belong to them. PERIOD. It just happens to be that most of the offenders are computer age people meaning 35 ish and below and most of the people stealing music from the internet are collage age.



One "kid" takes by his only count 275 songs off the internet and there are how many collage students in the U.S. today? This is not about one kid taking 275 songs, this is about EVERY kid taking 275 songs. THAT adds up.



WTF dude?!?! So you know that you can get sued and your excuse is, "well you have to catch me 3 times before you can do anything about it. I will just keep doing it until I am caught twice!"

What a load of crap.

You knew it was wrong, he knew it was wrong and everyone knows it is wrong. You are just looking for an excuse.



Looking for all the wiggle room you can get huh? Hide behind the letter of law if you want that does not make taking something from someone else "right."



And I just think you are trying to get away with something that you don't want to pay for… and the law agrees with me.



There are no ware nearly as many people who resell the songs as there are who just download them like your friend did (as I assume you do as well). Taking something from someone else is WRONG, period. If you sell it to a 3rd party that is worse but it in no way makes the people who just take it for their own use in the right either.

You are obviously very upset, so all I will say is. Calm down man. Let's all just get along! We all should be able to say our own opinions without some smartass saying "WTF" and flauting your life story. Buddy, you ain't proving anything to me. I have my opinions, my friend has his, you have yours. I already said "I understand and agree with your opinion" What more do you want? I clearly stated that I don't download music, so what's your problem? I don't remember attacting you but its very clear you are attacking me. Lets all just calm down for a sec here.

Read my example edit above about stop sign running. I'm sure you've atleast once (probably thousands like most) not COMPLETELY stopped at a stop sign. Meaning, you are actually not moving at all, period.

Technically, you're breaking the law just the same as if I ran through it like a bat out of hell, but is it worth the governments time to pull everyone over who doesn't COMPLETELY stop? No. Again, this is not a perfect example so please don't do what I'm sure you'll do. Just take the point in case. That everyone does SOMETHING illegal and doesn't get caught.

AGAIN. I am not supporting illegal downloading, I'm bitching about UNL obviously misleading their students and the RIAA going after people who aren't causing a major dent. If you read the article in full that was originally posted, you'll see the RIAA isn't making any major busts at campuses or a large number of people. Really just any old kid who downloaded ANY songs. I'm saying they should be focusing their efforts on the guys who are actually making a dent.

[not_so_new]

Originally Posted by JustinPhelps

Yes..a poor example but you get the picture. there are plenty of illegal things EVERYONE does all the time that we don't get in trouble for, even if a cop is RIGHT there watching you. Why? Because while legally, illegal IS illegal, there is sort of a scaling system to where its really pointless to fight a war against people who aren't really doing considerable damage. If my friend had downloaded even 1,000 songs I would have been able to understand more, even if he had not sold any.

Hi Justin

Go look up how many people are going to collage in the U.S. today. I will wait here.


Waiting




Still waiting



Okay, I couldn't find the number either...



But there are allot of people in school right now, I am willing to bet there are hundreds of thousands of people in collages around the nation right now and that is probably a low number... as a mater of fact I think that is realy low.

On top of that there most of the people in collage are the direct buying public of the music industry. They make up the bulk of the record buying public.

Add up the amount of collage age people and multiply their importance to the record industry and you will see that it is not your friends 275 songs, it is the 275 songs of EVERYONE in that buying demographic that is the problem.

The lawsuits are not meant to get money back from these people, they are meant as a deterrent to the rest of the group. And it is working… we are talking about it here right? This is advertising directly to people like you and your friend.

And you are right there are some illegal things that are weighted differently than others BUT if everyone starts rolling through stop signs and people are getting hurt or property is getting damaged you bet your ass that someone is going to start weighing this differently.

[JustinPhelps]

Oh and about this:

WTF dude?!?! So you know that you can get sued and your excuse is, "well you have to catch me 3 times before you can do anything about it. I will just keep doing it until I am caught twice!"

I believe what I said was, UNL has a page specifically stating what will happen if UNL catches you downloading illegal music. Meaning, THAT IS WHAT IS SUPPOSE TO HAPPEN. Students should assume that what they say is their policy, they will actually abide by. That is the point of having a policy...isn't it?

So that would mean students who read that policy (which all are suppose to) would clearly NOTTTTTT think that anyone would sue them. Atleast, through UNL.

If they were caught outside of UNL's network, of course, that has nothing to do with UNL. But UNL is the one who freely disclosed the names of users who they can tell (because of proxy logs) have been using p2p software to download illegal music.

[JustinPhelps]

Originally Posted by not_so_new

Hi Justin

Go look up how many people are going to collage in the U.S. today. I will wait here.


Waiting




Still waiting



Okay, I couldn't find the number either...



But there are allot of people in school right now, I am willing to bet there are hundreds of thousands of people in collages around the nation right now and that is probably a low number... as a mater of fact I think that is realy low.

On top of that there most of the people in collage are the direct buying public of the music industry. They make up the bulk of the record buying public.

Add up the amount of collage age people and multiply their importance to the record industry and you will see that it is not your friends 275 songs, it is the 275 songs of EVERYONE in that buying demographic that is the problem.

The lawsuits are not meant to get money back from these people, they are meant as a deterrent to the rest of the group. And it is working… we are talking about it here right? This is advertising directly to people like you and your friend.

And you are right there are some illegal things that are weighted differently than others BUT if everyone starts rolling through stop signs and people are getting hurt or property is getting damaged you bet your ass that someone is going to start weighing this differently.

In my opinion, and those of whom I've talked to, its actually have a very negative effect. Instead of legally downloading or buying music, a good number are just plain not buying music at all, significantly buying less, or buying music from non-RIAA bands/labels.

And this will never stop those who really cared in the first place. All they have to do is connect to an outside anonymous proxy and the problem with college logs is solved. No logs, either way. Unlimited downloading.

I think they are going about it the wrong way to get people to switch from free to pay.

Oh and I know atleast 5 people at UNL that download thousands of songs a week and have never been caught. What does UNL and the RIAA have to say to that? (yes.......you can say "well they will be" if you want but the fact remains, they haven't.)

[not_so_new]

Originally Posted by JustinPhelps

You are obviously very upset, so all I will say is. Calm down man. Let's all just get along! We all should be able to say our own opinions without some smartass saying "WTF" and flauting your life story. Buddy, you ain't proving anything to me. I have my opinions, my friend has his, you have yours. I already said "I understand and agree with your opinion" What more do you want? I clearly stated that I don't download music, so what's your problem? I don't remember attacting you but its very clear you are attacking me. Lets all just calm down for a sec here.

Read my example edit above about stop sign running. I'm sure you've atleast once (probably thousands like most) not COMPLETELY stopped at a stop sign. Meaning, you are actually not moving at all, period.

Technically, you're breaking the law just the same as if I ran through it like a bat out of hell, but is it worth the governments time to pull everyone over who doesn't COMPLETELY stop? No. Again, this is not a perfect example so please don't do what I'm sure you'll do. Just take the point in case. That everyone does SOMETHING illegal and doesn't get caught.

Hey Justin

I am not pissed off. It's all good.

I am upset that our society is coming to this and you are the future of our nation. If you can't see something as simple as "you have to pay for something that does not belong to you or there will be consequences" then we are well and truly screwed.

It is that easy.... you pay for something that you use if it does not already belong to you. No legal wrangling, no wiggle room, no 3 strike policies or "I didn't know" excuses. No degrees of guilt or innocence, no "I would have paid for it if I had the money" and no "there are other people doing worse" get out of jail free cards.

The hart of the matter is the law has so far sided pretty heavily with the RIAA and the law is THE LAW.

The really easy answer that I just for the life of me can't understand why no one sees is this. Pay for the music or go without. It is that simple.

[JustinPhelps]

"If you can't see something as simple as "you have to pay for something that does not belong to you or there will be consequences" then we are well and truly screwed."

I agree, again. I'd appreciate it if you'd please read and note what I say about my practices. I do NOT, meaning, that I never do, download music. Period. End of story. Not illegal, not legal, I dont. (with the obviously exceptions of music here on gearslutz of people displaying talent, etc)

I buy cds. For plenty of reasons. Please stop posting as if I said I support illegal downloading or that I practice such things.

[DeathMonkey]

I AM NOT DEFENDING DOWNLOADING. Not sure how many times I can say this. All I am doing is trying to present an alternative solution to the RIAA's current strategy. I'm asking "what can we learn from the way people consume music?" without touching the moral implications. What are people's motivations for downloading, either illegally or legally? And is there a better way to ensure the health of the music industry other than the traditional paradigm?

I've posted links to studies that show people purchase the music they download. I'm really not making this up. The Olberholzer-Gee/Strumpf study (Harvard Business School : Music Downloads: Pirates—or Customers? — HBS Working Knowledge ) is the most recent cited source for this. You can see another article here: Net music piracy 'does not harm record sales' - 30 March 2004 - New Scientist

Look, "downloading is bad, m'kay!" The far more salient point to this discussion is that since there are other lucrative revenue streams thanks to the same technology - licensing for video games, ringtones, legal downloads, use in movies, etc - decriminalizing music downloads might make business sense. If you lose the $5 profit per CD but make it up in $7 of additional revenue through a diverse network of revenue streams, doesn't that at least present as a valid argument?

I believe majors are trying to control the traditional outlets and promotional venues in an outdated bid to maintain their monopoly, which will hurt them in the long run. Adapting to a more modern paradigm makes sense to me. Again, without the moral baggage, if we look at indie bands, does it not make sense to give up the music on which there is a $5 profit margin for perhaps a hoodie, with a $15 dollar margin? My point is that I think there is a way for majors to capitalize on the idea of an artist as a brand, and the music as a gateway to get people "into the brand". This business principle has been around as long as capitalism - give away 15 cents of soda to sell the $3 burger. Look at the free promotional materials labels give away to promote CDs - shirts, posters, stickers, etc - and imagine if they merely reversed that, gave away the music to sell shirts, stickers, and posters! Add to that revenue from licensing, radio, DJs, performances, ringtones, video games, movie soundtracks, commercials, and hard copy items (people are still going to want CDs and the attendant bonus materials).

I just think there is a better way for the RIAA to be spending it's time and energy. I understand the "stick" but can't they also develop "the carrot"?

More and more albums are being streamed by labels, which also seems to help eliminate some of the downloading. The more law-abiding can get the benefits they want from downloading - hearing the whole album before they buy, hearing it when they want (which they get from internet radio as well) - and is the type of solution I am talking about. The idea is to make downloading a less tempting alternative so that the people who are on the fence, or download for specific reasons have legal pathways to deciding how they want to spend their music money.

Yikes, Trent Reznor is making Garageband versions of (eventually) EVERY SONG available for free on his website. I'm really not asking you to take my word on the validity of these ideas.

My argument is NOT " you can't do anything about it", it's that if the RIAA was serious about piracy, they'd go after the P2P/torrent people, not the end users - look at WB's $13 million settlement from Kazaa. That's equivalent to 4300 lawsuit settlements. Honestly, the financial impact of downloaders is a complex issue that too many of you seem to be putting into black and white. I think there is a huge difference between piracy for personal use, and piracy for profit - I would personally care less about personal use than CD replicators selling bootlegs on the street of NYC or Shanghai.

I agree 100% that people should pay for the music they consume. But we have to think "outside the box" to promote against theft. The hard line DOESN'T WORK. They've tried, and by their own admission, failed. This RIAA tactic just as worthless both as a deterrent and as away to recoup profits. So what's so wrong with looking at innovative ways to maintain a healthy music business?

[JustinPhelps]

Originally Posted by DeathMonkey

I AM NOT DEFENDING DOWNLOADING. Not sure how many times I can say this. All I am doing is trying to present an alternative solution to the RIAA's current strategy. I'm asking "what can we learn from the way people consume music?" without touching the moral implications. What are people's motivations for downloading, either illegally or legally? And is there a better way to ensure the health of the music industry other than the traditional paradigm?

I've posted links to studies that show people purchase the music they download. I'm really not making this up. The Olberholzer-Gee/Strumpf study (Harvard Business School : Music Downloads: Pirates—or Customers? — HBS Working Knowledge ) is the most recent cited source for this. You can see another article here: Net music piracy 'does not harm record sales' - 30 March 2004 - New Scientist

Look, "downloading is bad, m'kay!" The far more salient point to this discussion is that since there are other lucrative revenue streams thanks to the same technology - licensing for video games, ringtones, legal downloads, use in movies, etc - decriminalizing music downloads might make business sense. If you lose the $5 profit per CD but make it up in $7 of additional revenue through a diverse network of revenue streams, doesn't that at least present as a valid argument?

I believe majors are trying to control the traditional outlets and promotional venues in an outdated bid to maintain their monopoly, which will hurt them in the long run. Adapting to a more modern paradigm makes sense to me. Again, without the moral baggage, if we look at indie bands, does it not make sense to give up the music on which there is a $5 profit margin for perhaps a hoodie, with a $15 dollar margin? My point is that I think there is a way for majors to capitalize on the idea of an artist as a brand, and the music as a gateway to get people "into the brand". This business principle has been around as long as capitalism - give away 15 cents of soda to sell the $3 burger. Look at the free promotional materials labels give away to promote CDs - shirts, posters, stickers, etc - and imagine if they merely reversed that, gave away the music to sell shirts, stickers, and posters! Add to that revenue from licensing, radio, DJs, performances, ringtones, video games, movie soundtracks, commercials, and hard copy items (people are still going to want CDs and the attendant bonus materials).

I just think there is a better way for the RIAA to be spending it's time and energy. I understand the "stick" but can't they also develop "the carrot"?

More and more albums are being streamed by labels, which also seems to help eliminate some of the downloading. The more law-abiding can get the benefits they want from downloading - hearing the whole album before they buy, hearing it when they want (which they get from internet radio as well) - and is the type of solution I am talking about. The idea is to make downloading a less tempting alternative so that the people who are on the fence, or download for specific reasons have legal pathways to deciding how they want to spend their music money.

Yikes, Trent Reznor is making Garageband versions of (eventually) EVERY SONG available for free on his website. I'm really not asking you to take my word on the validity of these ideas.

My argument is NOT " you can't do anything about it", it's that if the RIAA was serious about piracy, they'd go after the P2P/torrent people, not the end users - look at WB's $13 million settlement from Kazaa. That's equivalent to 4300 lawsuit settlements. Honestly, the financial impact of downloaders is a complex issue that too many of you seem to be putting into black and white. I think there is a huge difference between piracy for personal use, and piracy for profit - I would personally care less about personal use than CD replicators selling bootlegs on the street of NYC or Shanghai.

I agree 100% that people should pay for the music they consume. But we have to think "outside the box" to promote against theft. The hard line DOESN'T WORK. They've tried, and by their own admission, failed. This RIAA tactic just as worthless both as a deterrent and as away to recoup profits. So what's so wrong with looking at innovative ways to maintain a healthy music business?

thumbsup

'nuff said. My thoughts exactly.

[not_so_new]

Originally Posted by JustinPhelps

In my opinion, and those of whom I've talked to, its actually have a very negative effect. Instead of legally downloading or buying music, a good number are just plain not buying music at all, significantly buying less, or buying music from non-RIAA bands/labels.

That is fine and I never said I agreed with their policy of suing people. I just don't think at this point anyone should be surprised when they do get sued. Do you?

Also, as far as not buying the music. THAT is what I am talking about. You have EVERY RIGHT on this planet, or at least this country, to NOT buy something you are not interested in for any reason. The trick is you are not entitled to take it without paying for it if you do decide you want it.

I think you see the difference, you seem like a pretty smart guy.

And this will never stop those who really cared in the first place. All they have to do is connect to an outside anonymous proxy and the problem with college logs is solved. No logs, either way. Unlimited downloading.

And I am not saying it will, I am saying that the unlimited downloading is wrong no matter how anyone tries to justify it. There is right and there is wrong, you have the choice, we all do. It bothers me that so many folks chose to do wrong when they can get away with it.

Character is not about what you do when others are watching, it is about what you do when they are not.

I think they are going about it the wrong way to get people to switch from free to pay.

You might be right. What do you propose? Oh and either way, they have the legal right to do it what ever way they want, they own the product.

Oh and I know at least 5 people at UNL that download thousands of songs a week and have never been caught. What does UNL and the RIAA have to say to that? (yes.......you can say "well they will be" if you want but the fact remains, they haven't.)

I don't care what they have to say to that.... what I say to that is this is wrong and it is prevalent in our society.

How many of your friends who are downloading all these songs will walk into a record store and take a CD? That is a serious question. Can you explain the answer for me?

Like it or not we are a capitalist based system. As that is the case in this system we have rules. I play by the rules, yes call me an old 38 year old geezer but it bothers me when others don't, especially when it is something that I care about like music and artists.

[not_so_new]

Originally Posted by JustinPhelps

"If you can't see something as simple as "you have to pay for something that does not belong to you or there will be consequences" then we are well and truly screwed."

I agree, again. I'd appreciate it if you'd please read and note what I say about my practices. I do NOT, meaning, that I never do, download music. Period. End of story. Not illegal, not legal, I dont. (with the obviously exceptions of music here on gearslutz of people displaying talent, etc)

I buy cds. For plenty of reasons. Please stop posting as if I said I support illegal downloading or that I practice such things.

"You" in this case is the proverbial "all of us" but sorry to offend man. I am not pointing the finger at YOU, I am pointing the finger at your generation and in some part mine as well.

[Volodia]

I think things might be moving . In a lawsuit here ( there is now a specialized company (logistep) that can spot download of specific item in this case a video game) the internet providers ALL gave the names corresponding to the IPs.

Providers give the names because the massive amount of downloads ( billions) is cutting their bandpass and because they all now offer films on demand .

They once used illegal downloads to sell their internet connection but they are now willing to see P2P disappear . Even if it's for the wrong reasons it's good news .

Anyway if it was only for things like unknown bands and not for things you should buy but can get for free, then we wouldn't talk about P2P, it would be very marginal .

[not_so_new]

Originally Posted by DeathMonkey

I AM NOT DEFENDING DOWNLOADING. Not sure how many times I can say this. All I am doing is trying to present an alternative solution to the RIAA's current strategy. I'm asking "what can we learn from the way people consume music?" without touching the moral implications. What are people's motivations for downloading, either illegally or legally? And is there a better way to ensure the health of the music industry other than the traditional paradigm?

I've posted links to studies that show people purchase the music they download. I'm really not making this up. The Olberholzer-Gee/Strumpf study (Harvard Business School : Music Downloads: Pirates—or Customers? — HBS Working Knowledge ) is the most recent cited source for this. You can see another article here: Net music piracy 'does not harm record sales' - 30 March 2004 - New Scientist

Look, "downloading is bad, m'kay!" The far more salient point to this discussion is that since there are other lucrative revenue streams thanks to the same technology - licensing for video games, ringtones, legal downloads, use in movies, etc - decriminalizing music downloads might make business sense. If you lose the $5 profit per CD but make it up in $7 of additional revenue through a diverse network of revenue streams, doesn't that at least present as a valid argument?

I believe majors are trying to control the traditional outlets and promotional venues in an outdated bid to maintain their monopoly, which will hurt them in the long run. Adapting to a more modern paradigm makes sense to me. Again, without the moral baggage, if we look at indie bands, does it not make sense to give up the music on which there is a $5 profit margin for perhaps a hoodie, with a $15 dollar margin? My point is that I think there is a way for majors to capitalize on the idea of an artist as a brand, and the music as a gateway to get people "into the brand". This business principle has been around as long as capitalism - give away 15 cents of soda to sell the $3 burger. Look at the free promotional materials labels give away to promote CDs - shirts, posters, stickers, etc - and imagine if they merely reversed that, gave away the music to sell shirts, stickers, and posters! Add to that revenue from licensing, radio, DJs, performances, ringtones, video games, movie soundtracks, commercials, and hard copy items (people are still going to want CDs and the attendant bonus materials).

I just think there is a better way for the RIAA to be spending it's time and energy. I understand the "stick" but can't they also develop "the carrot"?

More and more albums are being streamed by labels, which also seems to help eliminate some of the downloading. The more law-abiding can get the benefits they want from downloading - hearing the whole album before they buy, hearing it when they want (which they get from internet radio as well) - and is the type of solution I am talking about. The idea is to make downloading a less tempting alternative so that the people who are on the fence, or download for specific reasons have legal pathways to deciding how they want to spend their music money.

Yikes, Trent Reznor is making Garageband versions of (eventually) EVERY SONG available for free on his website. I'm really not asking you to take my word on the validity of these ideas.

My argument is NOT " you can't do anything about it", it's that if the RIAA was serious about piracy, they'd go after the P2P/torrent people, not the end users - look at WB's $13 million settlement from Kazaa. That's equivalent to 4300 lawsuit settlements. Honestly, the financial impact of downloaders is a complex issue that too many of you seem to be putting into black and white. I think there is a huge difference between piracy for personal use, and piracy for profit - I would personally care less about personal use than CD replicators selling bootlegs on the street of NYC or Shanghai.

I agree 100% that people should pay for the music they consume. But we have to think "outside the box" to promote against theft. The hard line DOESN'T WORK. They've tried, and by their own admission, failed. This RIAA tactic just as worthless both as a deterrent and as away to recoup profits. So what's so wrong with looking at innovative ways to maintain a healthy music business?

I don't have any problem with any of this. You may think this is strange after all of this back and forth.....



Your post is almost exactly how I feel about the situation as well, with a few small exceptions.

First being, the cat may already be out of the bag right? Now that people of (I assume) Justin's generation already have it in their mind that "free is easy and better because... well... it is free" I don't know if that genie can be put back in the bottle without the stick (and I agree even then the stick is probably not going to work).

The only thing that can change this is a shift in culture. There was a shift in culture that got us here and I think a shift will have to happen to get us out.

As a kid if my dad would have caught me taking something… ANYTHING you would not imagine the ass beating I would have received. Just the fear of that beating kept me from ever getting one.

Now days it seems as if parents are defending their children's actions. I know a guy around here that I do some computer work for. He has MONEY, in all CAPS. His house is worth well over 2 million + and that is WAY big money around here. Anyway I work on his 17 year old's machine and it has 1000's of songs on it all illegal. When I tell him about it he just says "who cares my boy likes music".

THAT is a problem and I agree a lawsuit from the RIAA is not going to fix it (but man would it make me happy to see him have to pay… I would even stand in court and testify that I told him it was coming).

Second point that I am not 100% with you on.. but maybe we are on the same page? I don’t think that the average artist can go around giving their music away. Maybe Trent can but that is not a good business model and if you want to make money you need to be a business man.

Screw the labels, they got themselves into this mess. I am worried about the artist and the art that I love. If they can’t make money on the recordings they produce they will stop making them.

I don’t like live shows, I listen to all my music on CD etc. If people are only making CD's to promote live music I think the quality of the CD will suffer…. all that energy will be spent in the live area that I am not in the least bit interested in. Also that means bands with more flash on stage are going to do better, less concern for music and more for show perhaps? Not sure but I could see it leaning that way.

In some ways this is a personal issue with me, I love music and want to see more of the good kind and less of the bad.

Anyway, for the most part we agree, your post in almost 100% in line with my views as well.

thumbsup