File Swappers to RIAA: Download This!

Quote:

---

The Recording Industry Association of America's announcement on June 25 that it will start tracking down and suing users of file-sharing programs has yet to spook people, say developers of these applications.

---

Full Story : http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?nav=hptoc_tn

Quote:

---

People are just outraged at the actions of the recording industry.....

I've got people saying they want to organize groups to boycott buying CDs now."

---

i dont really think p2p is BAD ....i think everyone of us has used it to download one song or another ....but if you really like the artist you will support him by buying his/her CD ..... what happens if everyone stops buying CD's ....i dont think there will be anymore music coming out ... artists won't make music if they dont get money for it .... i mean making music/singing is a job too ..... gotta have talent for it .....

wouldn't you but the cd if the artist had them published themselves...for what its worth

or download cds directly...for what their worth

bands could arrange their own concerts. it dosn't take a recording ind to do that and they'd be affordable for everyone

musicians play music because its in their souls...and nobody deserves to get THAT rich. especialy the music industry. its a 20 century relic. i say kill it

hmm you make some good points there ...but for now i will support the artist i like .... we will see what changes and how the music industry developes .....

Hi,

P2P has the big advantage of letting you listen to CDs before you spend the money to buy them. More and more stores make it close to impossible to listen to a CD before you buy it and if you do buy it, they won't accept a return, because they figure that you already made a copy of it.

The thing that irks me is that, with production costs coming down, CD prices are still going up. And if you look at the price difference for example between France/Netherlands/Europe and Switzerland, you are not going to tell me that it's $5-10 cheaper to "produce" a CD in Switzerland, especially when it's the same CD.

Ok, there is a 10% (VAT) tax difference, but on $15, that would explain a $1.50 price difference.

I still buy CDs when I like them for a few reasons:

1. I have a store close-by that lets me listen to CDs before I buy them
2. I buy in Switzerland, so prices are reasonable compared to the rest of Europe
3. The store I go to has good prices, even for Switzerland
4. I do think artists need to be able to sell their music if we like it

However, I would appreciate someone finally taking on the damn entertainment industry to tackle monopolistic pricing and anti-competitive behaviour like DVD zones. Why shouldn't I be allowed to buy a DVD while travelling in the US to take back to Europe?

(Fortunately again, in Switzerland, when you buy a DVD player, it's either de-zoned, or you get a 1-page explanation on de-zoning it :D )

Cheers,

BrainStop

Eh, It'll just force musicians to work harder for their money.. IE more touring and more live shows. Hrmm, 40 bucks a ticket, 10,000 tickets, 40 cities a year. You do the math.

Quote:

---

P2P has the big advantage of letting you listen to CDs before you spend the money to buy them

---

Agreed ! - - What type of person goes to a music store and buy a CD just because someone told you that it is good. I believe most people would want to do they're homework before buying a CD. P2P come's in very handy when wanting to do this.

Also, if we did'nt have P2P then the whole MP3 player would be useless to most people. Because most people depend on the resorces of P2P to upload they're MP3 player.

what prevents you from burning a CD when you download all the song froma Album ....

Quote:

---

Also, if we did'nt have P2P then the whole MP3 player would be useless to most people. Because most people depend on the resorces of P2P to upload they're MP3 player.

---

you also could extract the songs to your computer and then upload the songs to the mp3 player... so many possibilities to copy a cd or just download the songs ..... i dont think anybody can stop people from sharing mp3s and other files via p2p ..... i personally have nothing against p2p.....

I've been listening to this P2P debate for almost as long as it has been going on......

[rant]Songwriters DESERVE to get paid for their efforts.....I have to say that up front. I have no problem with that....creativity deserves to be rewarded.

BUT......

I grew up in the age of vinyl records...8 to 12 songs on a big black piece of plastic that cost ten bucks AFTER taxes at the most. If I recall correctly, one MASTER disc of stainless steel was "cut" (engraved) and then the actual "press" disks were made from the master. The pressing disks wore out rather easily so the manufacturing process was quite expensive. When the CD came along (at $12.99 IF you were lucky) it was marketed as "music that will last forever" (tell that to anyone who has small children and CD's in the same house) and that as technology improved, manufacturing costs would drop and CD's would become less expensive than albums (vinyl). To add a little extra perspective, during this period of time I was able to buy floor tickets (5th row) to see the Rolling Stones for $18.50.

Fast forward to the present day....the price of CD's has "fallen" to 14 to 16 bucks (even if you count inflation it still ain't a "price drop", especially since I can buy blanks for about 15 cents each) and those 5th row seats to see the Stones (this tour sponsered by Geritol and Depends) cost in excess of $200. Ask why ticket prices are so high and you'll hear that they went up as stage productions got more elaborate and costs increased. Dig a little deeper and you'll find out that the majority of the band's income is from CONCERTS, not sales of their CD's. The CD royalties are diverted to cover the costs associated with making the latest CD. Who collects those costs? The RIAA....thats who. Unless you are a PROLIFIC songwriter in the same league as Bruce Springsteen or Dolly Parton (both with well over 1000 published works under each of their belts) then basically you aren't going to see JACK-S**T for your efforts....there are recording artists who DIE every day STILL indebted to the "almighty" RIAA. The RIAA, on the other hand, has it's grubby little paws in my pockets, your pockets, Bruce and Dolly's pockets and is now trying to get legislation passed to make sure they get to keep them there. If that doesn't work then they will show their true facist faces by hacking out systems, bombarding us with lawyers and confiscating our hard drives.

So listen up Hillary, Adolph, or whomever controls the RIAA now. When you come to my house you better pack your lunch and bring a SWAT team....it's gonna be a loooong day cause this old redneck ain't going down without a fight. [/rant]

R eal
I ntense
A nal
A ttack

M ostly
P robing
A ngry
A mericans

ok so if i understand they are gona just charg people for downloading mp3 what about movies ... like [TMD] production etc ? ? ? and maybe sweeping some programs but ye am downloading like movies an stuff but not sharing :o

p2p is just a larger source of music that mp3.com can offer....and yes i know that most of the artist that have there music "swapped" across the planet have not given permission to as they have on mp3.com....

but why does it seem that the artists who complain seem to be big stars who dont need the money anyway...aka madona, metallica and so on...

unheard of bands or bands who are working hard to be heard wouldnt mind how much exposure they received even if in the short term they received no financial gain

music doesnt belong to those who play it

in ending i would like to say that we should support the bands which we love by buying there music and going to see them live...a live gig is worth 100 gig of mp3s

late

The RIAA is just plain greedy and I can deal with that. They are busting their butts to choke the life out of filesharing, and I can find ways around that. What really makes this whole thing come up as a major blip on my radar, and I'm sure others is the lengths to which they want to go to stop it. I know its been debated and discusses alot here, but I think the measures the RIAA thinks are going to win the war for them will actually be their worst mistake in a long list.

allenb > good one on the vinyl prices, I've dug through my familys' collection and none of them had a price anywhere near the range of cds. And to think that technically speaking CD's are of lower quality than vinyl (its the most accurate way to reproduce sound so far) yet we shell out sometimes twice as much for them

Bands have always made more money from Concerts versus CD sales. I have read 100s of interviews and documentaries of bands. They all say the same thing, concerts are where the money is (unless they get lucky and hit a tune that stays number one for an entire year). It's the RIAA that's not getting their cut now, they claim to be helping bands but they get huge kickbacks from CD sales. I see their point, when you look at sales drops. I mean sales have dropped something like 10 percent - that is significant when all you look at is the bottom line. To be honest in my opinion there is nothing coming out these days, from the mainstream circuit, which I really like. And it’s those mainstream bands that are the bands that RIAA invests in, Redundant CRAP. And I say crap for the most part, there are some good talent coming out but most of what I like is underground, bands pushing their music over P2P and places like MP3.Com or hitting the college circuits here in U.S.

So sales have dropped 10 percent. So has the world economy and in addition we have more and more commercial free venues available to us. I can get 40 digital channels of satellite music that has a continuous rotation of NEW music. Does that stop me from buying some CDs, you bet? There is a core group of bands I totally love and I will always buy their CDs just because it's them. One is U2 and I use them as an example to case my views. If you look at their biographies, they were RICH before they hit it big, because they toured the hell out of Europe during the early years. That was before the Joshua Tree came out, they broke into supreme band status after a concert at Red Rocks in the US. As for ticket prices: I hate them too, but in the US ticket master logs a hefty premium on most concerts and the venues are expensive. I have some insight into this area, if a band wants to make some money they have to charge large fees. If they just want to play and lose money then they can charge a nominal fee. It's just expensive unless you get lucky and catch them in a small bar or theatre. Heck some bands just want to make money at all cost. I'll pick on one that is currently popular here. They charge a minimum of 500k to appear (or percent of tix sales, whatever is greater). Our local radio station tried to get them for a local festival and they just couldn’t cover the cost of the venue and raise any money by hiring that band. I mentioned Red Rocks (the best place to see a concert on the planet). To rent Red Rocks it's not very expensive, 10k or percent of ticket sales (last year prices). It's not very expensive and bands try and get that venue, but it's small. I too complained about 200 bucks that I spent on U2 during their last tour, but you know what? I loved every second of that concert and after watching the DVD where they show an empty stadium being retrofitted for the production, I cannot believe the amount of equipment, personal and talent that goes into a large production. That has to be expensive, but the band still made over 100 million on the project, sold out show after sold out show across the planet. Did they deserve the money? I think so. But they have their own production company and most bands don’t. So the concert promoters have to make a profit as well as the bands, and if they can’t make a decent profit, why go through the hassle of arranging a production? So we eat the cost as each group takes a cut of the pie. It’s unfortunate and the RIAA only plays a part in promoting newer bands they think will garner a nice return on their money. I believe by looking at the demographic of people I know in person who use P2P, are people who wouldn’t go out and buy a CD anyway. They didn’t before they found P2P. And what about used CDs? How does that play into the equation? I have a bad taste in my mouth for RIAA and bands that I love, like Metallica buying into their abusive behavior and tactics. A group that actively attacks it’s own consumer base is blind to it’s own bias and greed. In addition, a private group that seeks government approval to lay out tactics that are currently illegal is scary. They are seeking to change a law meant to protect users from unauthorized access to their computer files, and CHANGE it, to exempt certain private organizations! The RIAA is on a path to self destruction, but if they win, a corporation could be given the power of a government, to police a digital environment. That is not acceptable, and those who value their freedom should watch closely what the RIAA does and who’s government support they rally. Whew I could go on, but I rallied my point.

I want the folks to get paid who do the writing and performing. I spent much of my money, as a kid, on those vinyl disks that played once or twice and sounded awful after that. Riaa has done allot to push the cost of quality recording media up so that it is prohibitive to purchase. It is annoying to me that folks like the RIAA, as well as individuals; want to use the Gov for their own profit. Taxpayer’s dollars. I might get a little sympathy when they turning their illicit drugs.

I want the artists to get paid as well, that way they can afford to make more records and improve the quality of their recordings. I have even come to grips with Metallica, I hated them for a while after they joined RIAA and shut down Napster. I gave in and bought tickets for their upcoming tour this summer. I was exceptionally angry with them because they are a heavy metal band that sings about control and tyranny and about opposition to it, and then they go out and sue some company for letting kids connect to file stores easily through a central database. That friggin pissed me off, but I still love em and I paid 75 bucks to see the show. :rolleyes: It still hasn't sold out like they would have a few years ago.

Whatever your opinion on P2P and copyright and motivation for sharing, the issue that I can't deny is the tactics they want to impress on their own customers. They want the ability to destroy your computer or make it illegal for a person in this country to copy anything, through hardware controls and changing laws. I know the founders of the United States had no idea what kind of capabilities we could have when they wrote the Declaration of Independence and then later the Bill of Rights. They couldn't have known that a 10 year old in Texas would be able to instantly share a file through electronic conduits. But the basis for their reasoning was to prevent tyranny and oppression by enabling certain rights to privacy and due process from corrupt individuals and governments. That still applies today and I believe the cost of RIAA success could be our digital freedom. And for what? A 10 percent increase in sales?? I have no evidence but I have a feeling this campaign of theirs is costing much more than any loss they have had so far.

I am with allenb1963 on this one. The issue is much larger than P2P or Napster or Kazaa.

The problem stems from the recording industry trying to make money for nothing. They throw together prefab boy bands and put out CD's with one (two if you're lucky) good songs and then put out another mediocre (at best) album every 6 months to a year. The suckers keep coming back for more at $18 a pop twice a year to essentially get one decent song each time.

I agree that artists deserve to make money, but from most of the information I can find and that has been cited here the artists aren't making much from CD sales. It costs maybe $3 or $4 to produce the CD, $1 to the artist and $13 per CD into the RIAA coffers.

Prince had a war with Warner Brothers. Allegedly part of his changing his name to the Symbol was a legal ploy- the contract was with Prince so if he wasn't Prince anymore the contract doesn't apply to him. Could just be a bullshit urban myth though.

In any event, once his contract was up he didn't renew or go find another label. He started a web site called NPG Music Club. You must subscribe to the site as a member to access it, but he puts out 3 to 5 songs a month. He markets new CD's, hats and shirts and members of the service get first shot at concert tickets before they go on sale to the general public.

In my opinion the Internet and P2P level the playing field so that artists don't NEED a label. Anyone can record their own songs and set up a web site. Anyone can sell a whole CD of songs or release certain songs to the P2P community to generate interest. I think that the only thing in the way of an independent band making it huge is the RIAA's death grip on the radio industry. You can get a decent underground following through the Internet and word of mouth, but its hard to become U2 or the Rolling Stones or Aerosmith without some radio play.

The radio is almost a form of brainwashing. How many times have you heard a song you didn't like but after the 1000th time you heard it that week it "grew" on you. Payola (the industry paying radio stations to play certain songs) is illegal and supposedly doesn't occur. However it was just replaced with an equally corrupt middle man- the independent analyst. IA's are paid to consult with the stations and help them select which songs get radio play. If the IA doesn't push it, it probably won't get played. The IA's are making money from the industry and the radio stations as I understand it and it is still payola - just hidden a little.

Going back to the Prince example- he still creates music and releases CD's but you never hear them on the radio. Why is that? They still play his songs from 20 years ago- 1999, Purple Rain, Erotic City and even from 5 or 10 years ago, so it isn't that they feel Prince is not popular or that people don't want to hear him. He just sin't paying any IA's to ensure his music gets pushed onto the airwaves.

OK- enough conspiracy theory for one day (or at least one post). The bottom line is that artists can promote themselves if they could just get past the IA's to get some radio play.

Quote:

---

So sales have dropped 10 percent. So has the world economy and in addition we have more and more commercial free venues available to us. I can get 40 digital channels of satellite music that has a continuous rotation of NEW music.

---

P.S. - oddly CD sales have declined ever since the RIAA forced Napster out of business. It doesn't make for a very good case for how P2P is negatively affecting CD sales.

Quote:

---

but why does it seem that the artists who complain seem to be big stars who dont need the money anyway...aka madona, metallica and so on...

---

Everybody is gready, if you already own a couple of million dollars, earning a thousand more will seem like nothing. Look at Elvis Presly's daughter (I can't remember her name) she recived all her fathers money when he died and she is now a millioner without having had to lift a finger for it. Yet she has decided to start making her own music making even more money not that she needs it in anyway.

What I really want to know is, if the music industry is losing SO much money and they are all getting SO poor, then why the hell are they still shelling up literally BILLIONS of dollars to the RIAA to attempt to stop piracy. I say attempt because they have done an asinine job so far. I still have the ability fire up any p2p program and download any song I want or need. So, to me they have done literally jack in helping the music industry so far, who are still happy and willing to shell up more and more money, even though they are so god damned poor. So maybe I am missing it or something, do artists expect us to feel bad for them because they lost one of their 20 lexus's to internet piracy and the other 18 to the RIAA. Give me a break, come on, open your eyes, the real pirates are the RIAA. I got your internet piracy right here, :fu:, I wish that the RIAA would read this thread/post but I know that they are too damn lazy to actually work so :flip:.

Hey The3ntropy, tell us how you REALLY feel, eh. :D

... Maybe we should ONLY start downloading pop and rap music, and together we can collapse such crappy generes!!

Hrm... Whatever.

RIAA have a decent point to stand behind, but they're also rat bastard selfish greedy pigs. I remain impartial.

Yet the only reason I do buy albums, is because of the cover art. Nothing more really.

Speaking of all this music and whatnot. A few friends of mine are starting a band - we'll make Cds to sell to people at our shows, but ontop of that, every song we record will be up on our website for anybody to download (and this is every song, and the full song, not just the first 5 seconds or anything). I think that brings a new approach to musicians. If little teeny-boppers want to listen to our music, our website's up 24/7. If they want to see us live, they pay - if they want a crappy CD, they pay (not the ridiculus amount you'd pay at BestBuy either).

But i'm just rambling now. Meh... My 2 cents need revision.

Quote:

---

The radio is almost a form of brainwashing. How many times have you heard a song you didn't like but after the 1000th time you heard it that week it "grew" on you.

---

So true. That's probably why i rarely listen to the radio anymore.

Personally i don't really buy CDs anymore is because
There are only 9-12 songs on a CD, and switching them all the time is annoying and since I own a MiniDisc player and having CDs are pretty useless.

Sure, the artist needs to get paid, but not that much. There are LOTS of artists on the internet that let you download their music in mp3 format... Didn't Weezer have mp3s on their site a while ago?... And also my favourite dance artist The Cynic Project sells CDs and let's you download almost all of the songs from their site.

IF I had gone to bytemonsoon.com last night and set a download (phoneline) for frank zappa's overnight sensation I would have done so for a "once through"-the same goes for software that inadvertantly ends up on my hardrive- if i am going to use it after seeing how it performs i buy it--file sharing has allowed me to become a smart-shopper as opposed to one who buys from the media hype- I bought Jasc's paintshop pro after running it against photoshop 7 based on it's ease of use and it meeting my needs. If my only alternative was to buy blindly from advertising i would have bought photoshop and probably ended up passing on digital photography---how about shareware albums with time limits-the thiefs will still steal but the average consumer (who is going to buy anyways) gets a chance to sample the product :o

Quote:

---

I bought Jasc's paintshop pro after running it against photoshop 7 based on it's ease of use and it meeting my needs. If my only alternative was to buy blindly from advertising i would have bought photoshop and probably ended up passing on digital photography

---

Good point. I hadn't even gotten to thinking about software piracy on P2P. I agree with you though.

The industry wants to have their cake and eat it too with this catch 22 philosophy: "the only way for you to know if you like the CD / movie / software is to buy it, but oops! did we forget to mention that once you open it you can no longer return it?"

I think that I am inclined to support something like Apple's iTunes. If there is a song I like I can just buy it for $1 instead of spending $18 to get the song I like and 12 more I don't like. It meets my needs to get me what I want and meets the RIAA's needs of getting paid for the song. It simply means that the RIAA won't be making any money off of the rest of the crap they fill the CD with.

All good points. The RIAA has failed to realize that they are fighting an uphill battle. They will definitely collect evidence on a few of the top P2P sharers and prosecute, but ultimately P2P will evolve like it always has. i.e. new anonymous trading programs like; blubster, filetopia, etc... With this in mind I think eventually RIAA will begin to realize that they are obsolete then artists will seek other sources of revenue. i.e. XM Radio, online streaming radio, concerts(already mentioned above).

my2cents

I like most people i know download to see if they like the song/artist. All fair in my eyes, how is P2P any different from "borrowing" a tape copy from a friend. You can't even use the excuse that P"P is much easier and simpler - noone kicked up a fuss when MD came out and one of the selling points was the easy of copying from CD to MD. It all looks like the fat cats can't justify their bonus for the year and need to blame someone insted of looking at the fundermental problem - they are massproducing boy and girl bads that really aren't very good and have a short shelf life. Start finding some good bands that can write their own music, play an instrument insted of just some eye candy. (although it is normally quite nice).

going to stop ranting now

I honestly don't believe that the RIAA can *defeat* P2P because..well there are several reasons but the two best ones that I can think of are:
1. Another one will pop up to replace kazaa or whatever they take out first.
2. P2P could move to be based out of the country where laws in the US don't apply...and then everyone could flock to the new P2P service with all their MP3's and files that they still have from Kazaa and BOOM, P2P is reborn and the RIAA can't touch them! (I posted something similar to this earlier so forgive me if you've already read this).

I think they should quit before it gets ugly...and they probably won't win anyway so all they're really doing is destroying themselves by making everyone hate them and by wasting tons of money on this. Remember what happened to Metallica when they tried to kill Napster? Their CD sales and concert Sales dropped fast....and the band is just now beginning to regain popularity. (They *are* talented, at least in my opinion, but their plan to get richer by stopping piracy backfired). I think that what the RIAA is doing will have a similar outcome.