Interesting Pirate Article

[Glenn Davis]

WASHINGTON (Sept. 9) - The targets of the first lawsuits against music fans who
share songs on the Internet include an elderly man in Texas who rarely uses his
computer, a Yale University professor and an unemployed woman in New York who
says she didn't know she was breaking the law.

Each faces potentially devastating civil penalties or settlements that could
cost them tens of thousands of dollars.

The Recording Industry Association of America launched the next stage of its
aggressive anti-piracy campaign Monday, filing 261 federal lawsuits across the
country. The action was aimed at what the RIAA described as ''major offenders''
illegally distributing on average more than 1,000 copyrighted music files each,
but lawyers warned they may ultimately file thousands of similar cases.

Durwood Pickle, 71, of Richardson, Texas, said his teenage grandchildren
downloaded music onto his computer during their visits to his home. He said his
grown son had explained the situation in an earlier e-mail to the recording
industry association.

''I didn't do it, and I don't feel like I'm responsible,'' Pickle said in an
interview. ''It's been stopped now, I guarantee you that.''

Pickle, who was unaware he was being sued until contacted by The Associated
Press, said he rarely uses the computer in his home.

''I'm not a computer-type person,'' Pickle said. ''They come in and get on the
computer. How do I get out of this?''

Yale University professor Timothy Davis said he will stop sharing music files
immediately. He downloaded about 500 songs from others on the Internet before
his Internet provider notified him about the music industry's interest in his
activities.

''I've been pretending it was going to go away,'' said Davis, who teaches
photography.

Another defendant, Lisa Schamis of New York, said her Internet provider warned
her two months ago that record industry lawyers had asked for her name and
address, but she said she had no idea she might be sued. She acknowledged
downloading ''lots'' of music over file-sharing networks.

''This is ridiculous,'' said Schamis, 26. ''I didn't understand it was
illegal.''

She said the music industry shouldn't have the right to sue.

''It's wrong on their part,'' she said.

An estimated 60 million Americans participate in file-sharing networks, using
software that makes it simple for computer users to locate and retrieve for
free virtually any song by any artist within moments. Internet users broadly
acknowledge music-trading is illegal, but the practice has flourished in recent
years since copyright statutes are among the most popularly flouted laws
online.

''Nobody likes playing the heavy,'' said RIAA President Cary Sherman, who
compared illegal music downloads to shoplifting. ''There comes a time when you
have to stand up and take appropriate action.''

Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., has already promised congressional hearings into
how the music industry has identified and tracked the Internet users it's
suing.

''They have a legitimate interest that needs to be protected, but are they
protecting it in a way that's too broad and overreaching?'' Coleman said. ''I
don't want to make criminals out of 60 million kids, even though kids and
grandkids are doing things they shouldn't be doing.''

The RIAA did not identify for reporters which Internet users it was suing or
where they live. Lawsuits were filed in federal courthouses in New York City,
Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, Dallas and elsewhere.

''Get a lawyer,'' advised Fred von Lohmann, an attorney for the San
Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation. ''There's no simpler advice
than that, whether you intend to fight this or not. You'll need someone to
advise you.''

With estimates that half of file-sharers are teenagers, all sides braced for
the inevitable legal debate surrounding the financial damage to parents or
grandparents. The RIAA named as the defendant in each lawsuit the person who
paid for the household Internet account.

''That question will come up immediately, whether a minor can have the
requisite knowledge to be the right defendant,'' said Susan Crawford, who
teaches law at Yeshiva University's Cardozo law school in New York City. ''A
very young child who didn't know what they were doing would be a bad defendant
for the industry.''

The RIAA also announced an amnesty program for people who admit they illegally
share music, promising not to sue them in exchange for their admission and
pledge to delete the songs off their computers. The offer does not apply to
people who already are targets of legal action.

Sherman called the amnesty offer ''our version of an olive branch.''

Some defense lawyers have objected to the amnesty provisions, warning that song
publishers and other organizations not represented by the RIAA won't be
constrained by the group's promise not to sue.

U.S. copyright laws allow for damages of $750 to $150,000 for each song offered
illegally on a person's computer.

[Chris Rossi]

"mine12u" <123whatrweefitenfur> wrote in message >...
> RATED-R (for language) see below
>
> > U.S. copyright laws allow for damages of $750 to $150,000 for each song
> offered
> > illegally on a person's computer.
>
> HaHaHaHa!!!
> Welcome to the Muther ****in "New Musical World Order" you
> freakin-muther-****in-music-stealing muther ****ers!! HaHaHaHa!!!
>
> I'd make the underage kids loose thier driving privlages for 3-5 years (and
> a surcharge of 500 to1000 per year during that term) And/or mabye a "small"
> fine for thier parents. The Adults should get charged for whatever the
> courts come up with. ($750 to $150,000)
>
> Whatever the results of this, in the end, at least there will be "much" less
> people taking internet music downloading for granted. It's Stealing......
> WHAT? "You say you Can't do the time or pay the fine???.... then DON'T do
> the crime", Debate...there is no debate. YOU (downloaders) LOOSE!!! (you
> freakin-muther-****in-music-stealing muther ****ers!!) HaHaHaHa!!!
>
You make a cogent and compelling argument. Are you a journalist? I
was wondering if you wanted to address, however, concerns that the
RIAA doesn't effectively represent the best interests of artists. The
fact that the RIAA is basically a lobby by and for the big 5 and a
their host of followers, and seeing as how artists under those
companies are generally the last to get paid, if ever, and subject to
draconian career killing recording contracts, some critics have
charged that the RIAA couldn't possibly have the best interests of
"artists" at heart. What do you make of such charges?

Still others have made the argument that many music fans would be
happy to pay for a well made and reasonably priced product and it is
precisely the dearth of such in mainstream circles that fuels the
filesharing frenzy. Would the public respond to music created and
promoted and nurtured by people who <gasp> cared about music? Would
the people buy it? Many say, "yes!" If the music "industry" had
among its core values, respect for its customers and its artists,
would it be having the problems it is having now? Many say, "probably
not."

RIAA member, Sony, seemed for a hazy moment to have finally understood
that perhaps artificially inflated CD prices were hurting the
industry. Then we find out record stores only get the discounted rate
if they devote window space to their product. They're not reducing
their price, they're just buying advertising. Independent record
stores are unlikely to follow along, and those that do will be pushing
other independent voices out of the way to make room for Sony's same
old crap.

What do you think about actions crafted by the RIAA that give a
greater advantage to larger media outlets, such as Clear Channel, over
smaller independent outlets? One example is the internet broadcasting
royalty and reporting scheme, crafted together with the Library of
Congress, that would have shut out all but the biggest players. Does
anybody like to listen to college radio here? Is reducing the
outlets for people to hear and learn about new music a service to the
consumer? Is it a service to the artists?

What would you say to Ian Mackaye's assertion at the TapeOp conference
that record companies have been saying "**** you" to music fans for
decades and through file sharing music fans are finally saying "no,
**** you?"

I don't know. Maybe my vision is skewed. From where I'm standing,
there's thousands and thousands of bands and other musicians making
fantastic ****ing music all outside the umbrella of the RIAA and
member labels. Whenever I run across really great music being made by
people who love it, I want to buy their record. I want them to
profit. Many of them have mp3s for free on the internet somewhere so
people can check them out.

On the other hand, when I find there is something I like on a major
label, I'm not particularly excited about purchasing that product,
seeing as how the artist has probably been bent over by the label, and
my dollars mostly profit the thieves that run the record industry.
Someone once suggested, maybe here on RAP, I don't remember, that if
you like something on a major label, make a copy of it, download it,
whatever, and send $2 to the artist. It'd be more than they'd get if
you bought it anyway.

I don't know if file sharing is "killing the industry" or not, but I
kind of hope it is. I can't think of anything better for everyone
involved than if the majors just finally decide music isn't profitable
enough and move on. Imagine a music industry run be people who care
about music again.

rossi

[mine12u]

"Chris Rossi" > wrote in message
om...
> "mine12u" <123whatrweefitenfur> wrote in message
>...
> > RATED-R (for language) see below
> >
> > > U.S. copyright laws allow for damages of $750 to $150,000 for each
song
> > offered
> > > illegally on a person's computer.
> >
> > HaHaHaHa!!!
> > Welcome to the Muther ****in "New Musical World Order" you
> > freakin-muther-****in-music-stealing muther ****ers!! HaHaHaHa!!!
> >
> > I'd make the underage kids loose thier driving privlages for 3-5 years
(and
> > a surcharge of 500 to1000 per year during that term) And/or mabye a
"small"
> > fine for thier parents. The Adults should get charged for whatever the
> > courts come up with. ($750 to $150,000)
> >
> > Whatever the results of this, in the end, at least there will be "much"
less
> > people taking internet music downloading for granted. It's
Stealing......
> > WHAT? "You say you Can't do the time or pay the fine???.... then DON'T
do
> > the crime", Debate...there is no debate. YOU (downloaders) LOOSE!!! (you
> > freakin-muther-****in-music-stealing muther ****ers!!) HaHaHaHa!!!
> >

> What would you say to Ian Mackaye's assertion at the TapeOp conference
> that record companies have been saying "**** you" to music fans for
> decades and through file sharing music fans are finally saying "no,
> **** you?"
>

I'd say **** YOU right back. If I'm listening to the radio, and I don't like
what I hear, I'll change the Muther ****in channel. If I still don't like
what I hear, I throw a Muther ****in album on, and listen to that, when I
Muther ****in get sick of that, I'd listen to the Muther ****er again, and
a-****in-gain until,.....I could afford to buy a new Muther ****in
album....with....You know,......that Muther ****in green stuff that your get
at the end of every Muther ****in week when you have a Muther ****in "JOB"?

So, Now I'm gonna have to start new Muther ****in band,,,,, called "The
ChixiDicks"!!

ChixiDicks will be an all male "Dixie Chicks" Tribute band, All songs
re-written in the same vain as Marilyn Mansons' Sweet Dreams (Are Made of
This), and we will dress similarly to Mr. Manson. BUT We Are NOT gay, I
repeat : "We Are NOT gay" but, we will act as though we are sometimes while
performing on a stage filled with tulips, daffodils, and pussy willows. (all
torched at the end of the show)(it's just an act,.... really). "ALL"
proceeds (minus cost of merchandise/product +10%, and 50% of Live
performances) go to the Families of Coalition Soldiers lost in the War
against Terrorism.

I should be able to do this without getting sued right?. Or mabye I'll just
change the "He's to She's and Boys to Girls etc. etc. in the Lyrics then it
will be all MINE!! **** Harry Fox. **** the Dixie Chicks.

[reddred]

"Rob Adelman" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> mine12u wrote:
>
>
> > I'd say **** YOU right back. If I'm listening to the radio, and I don't
like
> > what I hear, I'll change the Muther ****in channel. If I still don't
like
>
> Just curious, why are you so angry?
>

Living under a bridge would **** anybody off.

jb

[Troy]

I agree 100% Jeff

To bad each artist can't set up there own download sites and charge $1 or $2
for a song instead of the record companies doing it for them.This way the
artist would get the money right in their pocket.Then maybe the artist could
give a percentage to the record label.A reversed way from what it is now.The
artist should get a little extra because there is no hardcopy involved ,just
the music download.





Jeff Maher > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> > What would you say to Ian Mackaye's assertion at the TapeOp conference
> > that record companies have been saying "**** you" to music fans for
> > decades and through file sharing music fans are finally saying "no,
> > **** you?"
> >
> > I don't know. Maybe my vision is skewed. From where I'm standing,
> > there's thousands and thousands of bands and other musicians making
> > fantastic ****ing music all outside the umbrella of the RIAA and
> > member labels. Whenever I run across really great music being made by
> > people who love it, I want to buy their record. I want them to
> > profit. Many of them have mp3s for free on the internet somewhere so
> > people can check them out.
> >
> > On the other hand, when I find there is something I like on a major
> > label, I'm not particularly excited about purchasing that product,
> > seeing as how the artist has probably been bent over by the label, and
> > my dollars mostly profit the thieves that run the record industry.
> > Someone once suggested, maybe here on RAP, I don't remember, that if
> > you like something on a major label, make a copy of it, download it,
> > whatever, and send $2 to the artist. It'd be more than they'd get if
> > you bought it anyway.
>
> Just curious... How many artists have received this $2 from you? Better
> yet, an open question to RAP (which has its fair representation of
recording
> artists)... Has anyone out there ever received any money from someone that

> has downloaded your music for free?
>
> Hey, steal music if you want. You'll probably never be caught and/or
> punished. Like you, I have difficulty working up a lot of sympathy for
the
> RIAA. But come on down off your high horse, Robin Hood. You're just
> stealing.
>
> Jeff Maher
> Garage Mahal Recording
> Austin, Texas
>
>

[Roger W. Norman]

Isn't it interesting that, on the one hand we have people pushing family
values, of which music sharing has been one way to keep kids off the streets
and out of trouble, and on the other hand, people who would then take those
kids and make criminals out of them if they could.

Now I'm not one who believes in music sharing unless the artist themselves
have given their ok, but this is an extreme when the record industry could
have, and should have, taken steps to modernize their distribution methods.
So now, because the slowboat majors couldn't keep up with technology they
want to make everyone pay them for their mistakes.

This is abuse of privilege and our court system, and as far as the methods
used to garner the information, borders on criminality itself. I hope some
judge uses some reasonable discretionary judgement and sets RIAA back on
their heels.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.

[Roger W. Norman]

A little over the top, don't you think? This is an education thing more
than any thing else as far as trying to stop sharing. But the sharing is an
indication of strong arm tactics of the majors and their proxy RIAA, such as
price fixing and invasion of privacy. There are lots of reasons one could
give FOR music sharing, none of which make the fact that it's theft go away.
But there's no real reason for RIAA to use such strong armed tactics on
their own "would be" customers (well, association member's customers) and
the possible ancillary repercussions on virtual innocent bystanders like the
Grandfather who's only fault was providing his grandchildren some
entertainment. It could be somewhat akin to holding someone responsible
because their refrigerator was used to store beer imbibed by teenagers.
Lord knows if you provide a place for something to get cold, someone will
certainly put something in it they want cold. The nature of what's cooling
off is not the fault of the refrigerator owner.

And, ideally, as opposed to Napster's developer, one can also argue that the
developers of Kazaa and other P2P software aren't at fault because the
program can just as easily be used for transfer of perfectly legal digital
data.

However one chooses to look at it, two wrongs don't make a right, and RIAA
is definitely misusing the court system in their illegally invasive methods
to garner CASH for companies who's business practices are questionable.
Still doesn't make theft right, but obviously the cure is far worse than the
disease. AND, the worst part is that, if these suits go forward, it
establishes a precidence in our court system that allows corporate America
to USE that court system, essentially making our courts collection agents
with the power to proscribe computer usage, impose additional legal fines
and establish a second class nature for people who simply don't have the
money to defend themselves. Since it's a civil court situation, public
defenders are not a possibility.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"mine12u" <123whatrweefitenfur> wrote in message
...
> RATED-R (for language) see below
> "Glenn Davis" > wrote in message
> ...
> > WASHINGTON (Sept. 9) - The targets of the first lawsuits against music
> fans who
> > share songs on the Internet include an elderly man in Texas who rarely
> uses his
> > computer, a Yale University professor and an unemployed woman in New
York
> who
> > says she didn't know she was breaking the law.
> >
> > Each faces potentially devastating civil penalties or settlements that
> could
> > cost them tens of thousands of dollars.
> >
> > The Recording Industry Association of America launched the next stage of
> its
> > aggressive anti-piracy campaign Monday, filing 261 federal lawsuits
across
> the
> > country. The action was aimed at what the RIAA described as ''major
> offenders''
> > illegally distributing on average more than 1,000 copyrighted music
files
> each,
> > but lawyers warned they may ultimately file thousands of similar cases.
> >
> > Durwood Pickle, 71, of Richardson, Texas, said his teenage grandchildren
> > downloaded music onto his computer during their visits to his home. He
> said his
> > grown son had explained the situation in an earlier e-mail to the
> recording
> > industry association.
> >
> > ''I didn't do it, and I don't feel like I'm responsible,'' Pickle said
in
> an
> > interview. ''It's been stopped now, I guarantee you that.''
> >
> > Pickle, who was unaware he was being sued until contacted by The
> Associated
> > Press, said he rarely uses the computer in his home.
> >
> > ''I'm not a computer-type person,'' Pickle said. ''They come in and get
on
> the
> > computer. How do I get out of this?''
> >
> > Yale University professor Timothy Davis said he will stop sharing music
> files
> > immediately. He downloaded about 500 songs from others on the Internet
> before
> > his Internet provider notified him about the music industry's interest
in
> his
> > activities.
> >
> > ''I've been pretending it was going to go away,'' said Davis, who
teaches
> > photography.
> >
> > Another defendant, Lisa Schamis of New York, said her Internet provider
> warned
> > her two months ago that record industry lawyers had asked for her name
and
> > address, but she said she had no idea she might be sued. She
acknowledged
> > downloading ''lots'' of music over file-sharing networks.
> >
> > ''This is ridiculous,'' said Schamis, 26. ''I didn't understand it was
> > illegal.''
> >
> > She said the music industry shouldn't have the right to sue.
> >
> > ''It's wrong on their part,'' she said.
> >
> > An estimated 60 million Americans participate in file-sharing networks,
> using
> > software that makes it simple for computer users to locate and retrieve
> for
> > free virtually any song by any artist within moments. Internet users
> broadly
> > acknowledge music-trading is illegal, but the practice has flourished in
> recent
> > years since copyright statutes are among the most popularly flouted laws
> > online.
> >
> > ''Nobody likes playing the heavy,'' said RIAA President Cary Sherman,
who
> > compared illegal music downloads to shoplifting. ''There comes a time
when
> you
> > have to stand up and take appropriate action.''
> >
> > Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., has already promised congressional hearings
> into
> > how the music industry has identified and tracked the Internet users
it's
> > suing.
> >
> > ''They have a legitimate interest that needs to be protected, but are
they
> > protecting it in a way that's too broad and overreaching?'' Coleman
said.
> ''I
> > don't want to make criminals out of 60 million kids, even though kids
and
> > grandkids are doing things they shouldn't be doing.''
> >
> > The RIAA did not identify for reporters which Internet users it was
suing
> or
> > where they live. Lawsuits were filed in federal courthouses in New York
> City,
> > Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, Dallas and elsewhere.
> >
> > ''Get a lawyer,'' advised Fred von Lohmann, an attorney for the San
> > Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation. ''There's no simpler
> advice
> > than that, whether you intend to fight this or not. You'll need someone
to
> > advise you.''
> >
> > With estimates that half of file-sharers are teenagers, all sides braced
> for
> > the inevitable legal debate surrounding the financial damage to parents
or
> > grandparents. The RIAA named as the defendant in each lawsuit the person
> who
> > paid for the household Internet account.
> >
> > ''That question will come up immediately, whether a minor can have the
> > requisite knowledge to be the right defendant,'' said Susan Crawford,
who
> > teaches law at Yeshiva University's Cardozo law school in New York City.
> ''A
> > very young child who didn't know what they were doing would be a bad
> defendant
> > for the industry.''
> >
> > The RIAA also announced an amnesty program for people who admit they
> illegally
> > share music, promising not to sue them in exchange for their admission
and
> > pledge to delete the songs off their computers. The offer does not apply
> to
> > people who already are targets of legal action.
> >
> > Sherman called the amnesty offer ''our version of an olive branch.''
> >
> > Some defense lawyers have objected to the amnesty provisions, warning
that
> song
> > publishers and other organizations not represented by the RIAA won't be
> > constrained by the group's promise not to sue.
> >
> > U.S. copyright laws allow for damages of $750 to $150,000 for each song
> offered
> > illegally on a person's computer.
>
> HaHaHaHa!!!
> Welcome to the Muther ****in "New Musical World Order" you
> freakin-muther-****in-music-stealing muther ****ers!! HaHaHaHa!!!
>
> I'd make the underage kids loose thier driving privlages for 3-5 years
(and
> a surcharge of 500 to1000 per year during that term) And/or mabye a
"small"
> fine for thier parents. The Adults should get charged for whatever the
> courts come up with. ($750 to $150,000)
>
> Whatever the results of this, in the end, at least there will be "much"
less
> people taking internet music downloading for granted. It's Stealing......
> WHAT? "You say you Can't do the time or pay the fine???.... then DON'T do
> the crime", Debate...there is no debate. YOU (downloaders) LOOSE!!! (you
> freakin-muther-****in-music-stealing muther ****ers!!) HaHaHaHa!!!
>
>

[Roger W. Norman]

And just why can't an artist do just that? Would it be, perhaps, that one
can only distribute product to a clientele that knows it's there? How do
you go about advertising to get the availability of your product out to your
public?

But that's just a stumbling block, not a real reason NOT to set your own
distribution network up. It's just that an artist, on their own, will not
have the ability to support their product nationally without the help of a
corporate structure that knows just how to do it. Nor are most artists
really all that much of business people, so they mostly don't even know how
to go about making the effort.

These are all known factors in the artist/major relationship and it has
nothing to do with the music sharing/theft issue, and any possible solution
can only be one of benefit to both parties, not atagonistic. I can imagine
kids all over the country banding together to become anti-RIAA terrorists.
If 1 million kids use the same tactics that RIAA is obviously using (allowed
by law) to spy on them, RIAA could be brought to their knees too, but again,
two wrongs don't make a right. Two left shoes, two right shoes, either way
everyone walks funny. Ah, but if somehow everybody got one left shoe and
one right shoe...

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"Troy" > wrote in message
. ca...
> I agree 100% Jeff
>
> To bad each artist can't set up there own download sites and charge $1 or
$2
> for a song instead of the record companies doing it for them.This way the
> artist would get the money right in their pocket.Then maybe the artist
could
> give a percentage to the record label.A reversed way from what it is
now.The
> artist should get a little extra because there is no hardcopy involved
,just
> the music download.
>
>
>
>
>
> Jeff Maher > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> >
> > > What would you say to Ian Mackaye's assertion at the TapeOp conference
> > > that record companies have been saying "**** you" to music fans for
> > > decades and through file sharing music fans are finally saying "no,
> > > **** you?"
> > >
> > > I don't know. Maybe my vision is skewed. From where I'm standing,
> > > there's thousands and thousands of bands and other musicians making
> > > fantastic ****ing music all outside the umbrella of the RIAA and
> > > member labels. Whenever I run across really great music being made by
> > > people who love it, I want to buy their record. I want them to
> > > profit. Many of them have mp3s for free on the internet somewhere so
> > > people can check them out.
> > >
> > > On the other hand, when I find there is something I like on a major
> > > label, I'm not particularly excited about purchasing that product,
> > > seeing as how the artist has probably been bent over by the label, and
> > > my dollars mostly profit the thieves that run the record industry.
> > > Someone once suggested, maybe here on RAP, I don't remember, that if
> > > you like something on a major label, make a copy of it, download it,
> > > whatever, and send $2 to the artist. It'd be more than they'd get if
> > > you bought it anyway.
> >
> > Just curious... How many artists have received this $2 from you? Better
> > yet, an open question to RAP (which has its fair representation of
> recording
> > artists)... Has anyone out there ever received any money from someone
that
>
> > has downloaded your music for free?
> >
> > Hey, steal music if you want. You'll probably never be caught and/or
> > punished. Like you, I have difficulty working up a lot of sympathy for
> the
> > RIAA. But come on down off your high horse, Robin Hood. You're just
> > stealing.
> >
> > Jeff Maher
> > Garage Mahal Recording
> > Austin, Texas
> >
> >
>
>

[Carey Carlan]

(Glenn Davis) wrote in
:

> WASHINGTON (Sept. 9)

Posting this article violates copyright law.
You should be sued for tens of thousands of dollars.

[Ralph & Diane Barone]

In article >,
"Roger W. Norman" > wrote:

>"Troy" > wrote
>> I agree 100% Jeff
>>
>> To bad each artist can't set up there own download sites and charge $1 or $2
>> for a song instead of the record companies doing it for them.This way the
>> artist would get the money right in their pocket.Then maybe the artist could
>> give a percentage to the record label.A reversed way from what it is now.The
>> artist should get a little extra because there is no hardcopy involved, just
>> the music download.
>
>And just why can't an artist do just that? Would it be, perhaps, that one
>can only distribute product to a clientele that knows it's there? How do
>you go about advertising to get the availability of your product out to your
>public?
>
>But that's just a stumbling block, not a real reason NOT to set your own
>distribution network up. It's just that an artist, on their own, will not
>have the ability to support their product nationally without the help of a
>corporate structure that knows just how to do it. Nor are most artists
>really all that much of business people, so they mostly don't even know how
>to go about making the effort.

Go to http://www.joejackson.com/store.htm and click on the MP3 button. It
is being done.

[Craig Mitchell]

Wow! I have been disappointed in the media for years for poor
reporting and spin. Bear with me for a second. My favorite example has
always been a front page picture in the NY Times showing some
annoyonous west bank protesters holding AK-47s and burning an American
flag silhouetted against the sun.

Ominous and threatening.

Upon closer insepction though, I realized the AK-47s were not real.
They were cardboard cutouts taped together to look like AK-47s for the
picture.... and really, what are the odds of an AP photographer
walking through the slums of the west bank at the right moment to come
across someone burning a flag (which would take about 2 min)

No, the reality is someone called him and the whole event was staged
as a PR event and the NY Times ran the photo because it sold papers.
More and more our news media spins things so much, with no regard to
reality, its almost pointless to base an opinion on anything without
checking at least 3-4 different sources to find out what is _really_
happening.

hang in there, I getting to my point......

The reality of the media is this.... more and more they are going to
freelance writers and producers for content. These guys are competeing
with each other to make a living. Anyone who has operated a camera
knows that in any given situation you can "create" a story by what you
include in the frame and what you leave out. The same with "facts" in
a news article. To make a living, these freelance producers must get
the most "compelling" stories they can in order to sell the story to
the networks and get more assignments. This is not a good system to
get non biased, thought provoking material. Its a great system to get
dramatic, very biased, heart wrenching tales based on slipshod
reporting that may or may not be true.

Now this system is bringing us the RIAA adventure. I don't think I
have EVER seen a more biased spin in a news event. It is clear which
side the media is on. Are they trying to change the law and make
intellectual property free? Which is beyond me as that is what the
news media depends on selling (Intellectual Property)... .okay, they
sell advertising.... they use thier Intellectual Property to sell
advertising to be more precise (just in case anyone wants to debate
that)

Regardless, what is happening _has_ to happen for a little person like
me to ever hope to sell music online with my own website. Sure the
record companies should have gone online faster, listened to their
market, etc. but that does not make the whole downloading free files
justified.

Once they rein in some of the rampant pirating the whole concept of
selling over the internet can develop. This will have a much better
chance at success when a few things happen......

1) The convenience of buying a song outweighs the hassle of searching
for a free copy on the internet (price, selcetion, D/L speed, etc) or
a copy from a friend

(and if you don't believe me, everytime you walk into a 7-11 you are
paying extra for convenience as opposed to going another mile down the
road to a grocery store and saving money. People do this _alot_)

2) Enforcement of laws regarding copyrighten material online (that is
just starting to happen - expect the software industry to watch this
carefully as they are taking a harder hit than the record companies)

3) The switch from CD/DVD platform to harddisk players... that have
enough room to store uncompressed files not MP3 formats... wav files,
video files, jpegs, etc

The good news is when these 3 things happen it will be much more
practical for me to set up my own website (credit card processing,
etc) and sell music myself as the playing field will be level with
regards to distribution. Advertising and Promotion will be the big nut
to crack then.... but distribution has always been the real key to the
record company power.

And when the above happens, I would expect record stores, as we know
them, to cease to exist and be repalced by some sort of kisosks that
have a much larger selection (and probably better service in most
cases)

This will not happen overnight but it _is_ what needs to happen....
and just because it happens it does not mean everyone will be
successful at selling thier own music......but it has to happen for
_some_ of us to be successful.
and yes, the record companies have fought this tooth and nail but it
looks like its finally starting to play out.

that's my 2 cents...... flame away!

Craig

[Chris Rossi]

"Jeff Maher" > wrote in message t>...
>
> Just curious... How many artists have received this $2 from you? Better
> yet, an open question to RAP (which has its fair representation of recording
> artists)... Has anyone out there ever received any money from someone that
> has downloaded your music for free?
>
None, but I also don't download music. Much easier for me to just go
to the record store. Maybe it's an age thing. The kids are all
downloading. Anyway, it was more of a thought experiment, look at the
way this system works but what if we did this kind of thing? Meant
more to generate discussion than to actually incite people to copy any
record they want.

> Hey, steal music if you want. You'll probably never be caught and/or
> punished. Like you, I have difficulty working up a lot of sympathy for the
> RIAA.
>
Which is more my point. Why does the RIAA not inspire much sympathy,
and what alternatives can we come up with that are fair to everybody?

As more people can have multiple gigs of web server space, artists
selling their own albums online might become more ubiquitous. $1/song
seems way too high to me, though. Especially if you're getting a mp3.
$2-$3 an album seems like a more reasonable price, with an option to
download uncompressed files. I don't know. Maybe bandwidth is still
to expensive for that.

rossi

PS Remember "Home Taping is killing the record industry"?

[Rick Knepper]

"Chris Rossi" > wrote in message
om...


> I was wondering if you wanted to address, however, concerns that the
> RIAA doesn't effectively represent the best interests of artists.

C'mon. Hundreds of artists have publicly expressed their opposition to
illegal downloading - the real issue is here, isn't it?


--
Rick Knepper
MicroComputer Support Services
Knepper Audio
Ft. Worth, TX
817-239-9632
413-215-1267 Fax
PC Tech Support & Equipment Sales
CDR Duplication & Audio Mastering
Recording
http://www.rknepper.com

[mine12u]

"Rob Adelman" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Roger W. Norman wrote:
>
> > Now I'm not one who believes in music sharing unless the artist
themselves
> > have given their ok, but this is an extreme when the record industry
could
> > have, and should have, taken steps to modernize their distribution
methods.
>
> I don't agree. Just because technology has made it easy to steal music,
> that doesn't make it right. People have been given more than ample
> warning about this. People are still saying "but I didn't know it was
> stealing". Hogwash.

Exactly. I don't understand why people think it's "ok" and why they somehow
"deserve" to be able to download/steal music for free. Both sides have valid
points, (as post here in this thread) But, 90% of the actual people
stealing do not know or care about any ramifications concerning the new
laws, or rights. They just do it anyway. (because they CAN) They just want
to download the music, and they absolutley KNOW it is stealing. Fix that
part first, THEN correct the other problems with the industry. You can't do
it all in one POP.

about 3 years ago, I downloaded some mp'3 to burn on a cd for birthday gift
for a kid, I installed the kazza (or whatever it was at the time) software
to do this, and I KNEW I was stealing, and I didn't like doing it. BUT, the
mp3's sounded like crap so I ended up "buying" the cd. The cd was Mature (R)
and I had to painstakingly edit out all the graphic language, so I just
replaced the original cd with the new "G" version in the case for the
present. It worked out pretty good. (for the kid) And I also got somewhat of
an different editing experience.

If this software wasn't around, and frenzy of stealing music wasn't
around.....I would have easily come up with some other initial idea for the
present. Being that it was, I looked and tried it.

[Rob Adelman]

John Payne wrote:


> But now I feel if you download songs to listen to and not claim as
> your own then that should be fine.

And I should be able to go see a movie for free to watch, or a football
game, etc.


> Quality recordings deserve the price of cd, I still buy cds. Crap
> music deserves MP3s. Let consumers decide which is which.

How does that work? If I think all music is crap then it should all be
free? Great, I hereby declare all music is crap..

[Rob Adelman]

Abyssmal wrote:


> I, being a musician also with released cds out in the public,think it
> should be up to the artist to determine how their product is
> distributed.

If you don't have a record label you are free to do this. If you choose
to sign a contract with a record label, you have most likely agreed to
allow them to make those kinds of decisions. Another reason you should
seek legal advice before signing any such contracts.

[mine12u]

"Abyssmal" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 16:05:08 -0500, Rob Adelman
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Abyssmal wrote:
> >
> >
> >> I, being a musician also with released cds out in the public,think it
> >> should be up to the artist to determine how their product is
> >> distributed.
> >
> >If you don't have a record label you are free to do this. If you choose
> >to sign a contract with a record label, you have most likely agreed to
> >allow them to make those kinds of decisions. Another reason you should
> >seek legal advice before signing any such contracts.
>
> Which is why I think the issue is about control, not money. Record
> companies play their songs 1,000's of times every day on radio, where
> people can easily record them.

Good point..... But there is a flaw, .....for someone to record the radio,
for personal, to tape or what ever (even cd) thats cool, but they don't go
around mass producing the recording and giving it away to 1,000's of other
people. On the internet, where I am sure they are folks who just download
for themselves,..... most connect to some program where a Kazillion
downloads are done. Daily! Most of these folks do not go out a buy the cd,
They just don't. Why should they? They already have the cd on thier computer
and are burning thier own copy!

All because one cd was sold to one person who copied to his computer and
distributed it via Kaza for millions of people to take/download/steal as the
choose. Totally out of record labels' and artists' hands.

If only there was a way to LIMIT the encodings of these Mp3's to like 64kb/s
everywhere. Make it a LAW. Make it of equal (or better yet, less) quality of
radio. That would satisfy me. Download away!!!! But, I don't think it will
ever be possible.

>
> Internet audio is also not cd quality, like radio, but none of them
> are suing radio stations.

Wha? There's Big difference. I can download a full cd....right now.....with
the ORIGINAL WAVES from the cd. I don't know about you, but I think there is
something seriously wrong with that!!! (even if they're at 320kb/s MP3's)
...........Like I said above, if there was a way to limit the encoded mp3's
I'd be much happier.

[Rob Adelman]

ryanm wrote:

> That might be the real issue if they still said the same thing without
> the label's hand up their asses, making their mouths move.

That couldn't describe less the artists I recall hearing talk about such
things. Sounds like you have something against sucessful artists.

[Jeff Maher]

"Chris Rossi" > wrote in message
om...
> "Jeff Maher" > wrote in message
t>...
> >
> > Just curious... How many artists have received this $2 from you? Better
> > yet, an open question to RAP (which has its fair representation of
recording
> > artists)... Has anyone out there ever received any money from someone
that
> > has downloaded your music for free?
> >
> None, but I also don't download music. Much easier for me to just go
> to the record store. Maybe it's an age thing. The kids are all
> downloading. Anyway, it was more of a thought experiment, look at the
> way this system works but what if we did this kind of thing? Meant
> more to generate discussion than to actually incite people to copy any
> record they want.

In that case, my mistake and my apologies, Chris. You do make a compelling
case regarding the unsavoriness of the RIAA and the industry as a whole,
however I don't think it follows that they brought this whole mess down upon
themselves by treating artists poorly. Unauthorized downloading, IMO, is
caused by just 2 factors: 1) The technology to allow it, and 2) the shaky
ethics of those who do it. Sorry for lumping you in with that group.
Assumptions and all that...

> > Hey, steal music if you want. You'll probably never be caught and/or
> > punished. Like you, I have difficulty working up a lot of sympathy for
the
> > RIAA.
> >
> Which is more my point. Why does the RIAA not inspire much sympathy,
> and what alternatives can we come up with that are fair to everybody?

Good question. It seems that the majors will have to concentrate on more
than just enforcement. Value added to a legitimate purchase is one way to
go. That was the nice thing about LP's versus tapes. You could get some
pretty cool art (or photos) with the LP. With CD, it's tougher to include
extras that will make $17 seem like a decent deal.

> As more people can have multiple gigs of web server space, artists
> selling their own albums online might become more ubiquitous. $1/song
> seems way too high to me, though. Especially if you're getting a mp3.
> $2-$3 an album seems like a more reasonable price, with an option to
> download uncompressed files. I don't know. Maybe bandwidth is still
> to expensive for that.
>
> rossi
>
> PS Remember "Home Taping is killing the record industry"?

See above.

[Troy]

I have to laugh at peoples mentallity here in Canada.They think because they
have to pay a 21 cent levy per CD ,that gives them the right to download
music.The way they talk its there born right.I wish the record companies
would start suing kids here and knock them off there high horses.I don't
agree with the levy here,we shoulden't have to pay it but it dosen't give
you the right to just download anything you like for free.




Glenn Davis > wrote in message
...
> WASHINGTON (Sept. 9) - The targets of the first lawsuits against music
fans who
> share songs on the Internet include an elderly man in Texas who rarely
uses his
> computer, a Yale University professor and an unemployed woman in New York
who
> says she didn't know she was breaking the law.
>
> Each faces potentially devastating civil penalties or settlements that
could
> cost them tens of thousands of dollars.
>
> The Recording Industry Association of America launched the next stage of
its
> aggressive anti-piracy campaign Monday, filing 261 federal lawsuits across
the
> country. The action was aimed at what the RIAA described as ''major
offenders''
> illegally distributing on average more than 1,000 copyrighted music files
each,
> but lawyers warned they may ultimately file thousands of similar cases.
>
> Durwood Pickle, 71, of Richardson, Texas, said his teenage grandchildren
> downloaded music onto his computer during their visits to his home. He
said his
> grown son had explained the situation in an earlier e-mail to the
recording
> industry association.
>
> ''I didn't do it, and I don't feel like I'm responsible,'' Pickle said in
an
> interview. ''It's been stopped now, I guarantee you that.''
>
> Pickle, who was unaware he was being sued until contacted by The
Associated
> Press, said he rarely uses the computer in his home.
>
> ''I'm not a computer-type person,'' Pickle said. ''They come in and get on
the
> computer. How do I get out of this?''
>
> Yale University professor Timothy Davis said he will stop sharing music
files
> immediately. He downloaded about 500 songs from others on the Internet
before
> his Internet provider notified him about the music industry's interest in
his
> activities.
>
> ''I've been pretending it was going to go away,'' said Davis, who teaches
> photography.
>
> Another defendant, Lisa Schamis of New York, said her Internet provider
warned
> her two months ago that record industry lawyers had asked for her name and
> address, but she said she had no idea she might be sued. She acknowledged
> downloading ''lots'' of music over file-sharing networks.
>
> ''This is ridiculous,'' said Schamis, 26. ''I didn't understand it was
> illegal.''
>
> She said the music industry shouldn't have the right to sue.
>
> ''It's wrong on their part,'' she said.
>
> An estimated 60 million Americans participate in file-sharing networks,
using
> software that makes it simple for computer users to locate and retrieve
for
> free virtually any song by any artist within moments. Internet users
broadly
> acknowledge music-trading is illegal, but the practice has flourished in
recent
> years since copyright statutes are among the most popularly flouted laws
> online.
>
> ''Nobody likes playing the heavy,'' said RIAA President Cary Sherman, who
> compared illegal music downloads to shoplifting. ''There comes a time when
you
> have to stand up and take appropriate action.''
>
> Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., has already promised congressional hearings
into
> how the music industry has identified and tracked the Internet users it's
> suing.
>
> ''They have a legitimate interest that needs to be protected, but are they
> protecting it in a way that's too broad and overreaching?'' Coleman said.
''I
> don't want to make criminals out of 60 million kids, even though kids and
> grandkids are doing things they shouldn't be doing.''
>
> The RIAA did not identify for reporters which Internet users it was suing
or
> where they live. Lawsuits were filed in federal courthouses in New York
City,
> Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, Dallas and elsewhere.
>
> ''Get a lawyer,'' advised Fred von Lohmann, an attorney for the San
> Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation. ''There's no simpler
advice
> than that, whether you intend to fight this or not. You'll need someone to
> advise you.''
>
> With estimates that half of file-sharers are teenagers, all sides braced
for
> the inevitable legal debate surrounding the financial damage to parents or
> grandparents. The RIAA named as the defendant in each lawsuit the person
who
> paid for the household Internet account.
>
> ''That question will come up immediately, whether a minor can have the
> requisite knowledge to be the right defendant,'' said Susan Crawford, who
> teaches law at Yeshiva University's Cardozo law school in New York City.
''A
> very young child who didn't know what they were doing would be a bad
defendant
> for the industry.''
>
> The RIAA also announced an amnesty program for people who admit they
illegally
> share music, promising not to sue them in exchange for their admission and
> pledge to delete the songs off their computers. The offer does not apply
to
> people who already are targets of legal action.
>
> Sherman called the amnesty offer ''our version of an olive branch.''
>
> Some defense lawyers have objected to the amnesty provisions, warning that
song
> publishers and other organizations not represented by the RIAA won't be
> constrained by the group's promise not to sue.
>
> U.S. copyright laws allow for damages of $750 to $150,000 for each song
offered
> illegally on a person's computer.

[nicholas yu]

"mine12u" <123whatrweefitenfur> wrote in message > laws, or rights. They just do it anyway. (because they CAN) They just want
> to download the music, and they absolutley KNOW it is stealing. Fix that

hi. i've read several surveys that have stated that the majority of
americans do not feel that it is "morally wrong" to download music.

i'm not sure which way it should be. but, one thing i think that is
very important to keep in mind, is that the rhetoric that is always
used:

illegally downloading music = shoplifting / stealing

is not a very good analogy. shoplifting has a very direct, negative
financial impact on the merchant by way of deplenishing a finite
inventory. the effects of downloading music are much murkier, maybe
often they wouldn't have ever bought the CD anyways, maybe they're
more likely to go see the artist's shows or buy future CDs, etc etc
we've all heard these before.

point being, is that i believe that extreme positions on both sides
are difficult to defend. it's not so simple.

[ryanm]

"Rick Knepper" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> C'mon. Hundreds of artists have publicly expressed their opposition to
> illegal downloading - the real issue is here, isn't it?
>
That might be the real issue if they still said the same thing without
the label's hand up their asses, making their mouths move.

ryanm

[ryanm]

"Rob Adelman" > wrote in message
...
>
> I don't agree. Just because technology has made it easy to steal music,
> that doesn't make it right. People have been given more than ample
> warning about this. People are still saying "but I didn't know it was
> stealing". Hogwash.
>
So the answer, obviously, is to put 60 million kids in prison, or better
yet, let's charge their parents a $200,000 fine so that they have to sell
their house and live in poverty for the rest of their lives. Nice solution.

I own every ZZ Top album until the recent ones on vinyl, tape, and cd.
And I bought the tapes more than once because they wore out. The day before
yesterday I downloaded a ZZ Top song from Kazaa because I didn't feel like
digging through my cds to find it. Do I belong in prison? After all, I
bought the song more than once. Am I a criminal because the labels don't
want to get in the freakin decade with their tech? I don't have the drive
space to keep every song in mp3 format handy.

The bottom line here is that an economic downturn and a general
disinterest in what passes for pop music these days has resulted in some
$500k a year execs possibly having to take a pay cut, so they're suing old
ladies and children to try to generate some revenue so they can pay for
their 3rd summer homes. I might sympathize if their reaction was realistic,
but it's not. CD sales have more than doubled every decade since they became
the standard, and any 1st year economics student could've predicted an
eventual decline in sales. Welcome to life, learn to live with it.

ryanm

[ryanm]

"Rob Adelman" > wrote in message
...
>
> That couldn't describe less the artists I recall hearing talk about such
> things. Sounds like you have something against sucessful artists.
>
There are exactly 3 kinds of opinions to be heard from artists on this
subject:

1) Label puppetry ("Tell them *you're* losing money because of this!")

2) Uninformed self-righteousness ("You're stealing from *me*!")

3) Informed indifference ("File sharing is *not* the cause of the decline in
cd sales, it's just a little free exposure with the added benefit of having
an 'underground' feel to it that attracts kids in droves who otherwise
wouldn't spend 5 minutes looking for a good song.")

I do sympathize with the artists, but it's kind of like a guy with an
elephant sitting on his back saying "hey, I think you just stepped on my
toe". Worry about the elephant first, he's the one causing your real
problems. The artists you are talking about probably fall into the second
category.

ryanm

[ryanm]

"mine12u" <123whatrweefitenfur> wrote in message
...
>
> downloads are done. Daily! Most of these folks do not go out a buy the cd,
> They just don't. Why should they? They already have the cd on thier
computer
> and are burning thier own copy!
>
But downloads != lost cd sales. The vast majorityof those who downloaded
the song wouldn't have bought it anyway, they only downloaded it because it
was free.

ryanm

[mine12u]

"ryanm" > wrote in message
...
> "mine12u" <123whatrweefitenfur> wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > downloads are done. Daily! Most of these folks do not go out a buy the
cd,
> > They just don't. Why should they? They already have the cd on thier
> computer
> > and are burning thier own copy!
> >
> But downloads != lost cd sales. The vast majorityof those who
downloaded
> the song wouldn't have bought it anyway, they only downloaded it because
it
> was free.
>
> ryanm

Also, just to add that there are many, many millions of people who like just
to hear music. It doesn't matter what they listen thru, crappy speakers,
mono/stereo (like am radio on an on an old school bus).... if the song is
good then the bitrates, high quality/low quality, 24bit etc. doesnt really
matter. Now with that said............

How can ANY type of "non-authorized" internet music downloading be OK? I
mean, If my "product" was made to be sold at stores, or bought via
internet,...and somebody bought my product, took it home and made a
home-made copy of it,...and started giving it away to people,....it
may/could/would put me out of business. But,.... hey, mabye out of 100 of
those who got an illegal copy of my product.....10 may go get the real
thing...(why?) because they know the value of the real thing vs a copy. But,
then again if there wasn't anybody making copies of my product.....I still
would have gotten those 10 Real Deal buyers thru the advertising that I pay
for. So, mabye it is all about control.

[Rick Knepper]

"ryanm" > wrote in message
...

> But downloads != lost cd sales. The vast majorityof those who
downloaded
> the song wouldn't have bought it anyway, they only downloaded it because
it
> was free.


The same thing could be said about any theft, and, seem/feel true if not too
rigorously examined for logic, either premise or conclusion.

I would stop short of believing the results of any poll conducted of thieves
to find out what was on their minds when they were downloading music they
say wouldn't buy in the first place.


--
Rick Knepper
MicroComputer Support Services
Knepper Audio
Ft. Worth, TX
817-239-9632
413-215-1267 Fax
PC Tech Support & Equipment Sales
CDR Duplication & Audio Mastering
Recording
http://www.rknepper.com

[John Payne]

> And I should be able to go see a movie for free to watch, or a football
> game, etc.
>
> How does that work? If I think all music is crap then it should all be
> free? Great, I hereby declare all music is crap..

No, the principle here is that music can be written and recorded
without the RIAA or major labels or outside money. If I download a
song and really like it I would want a good, non MP3 version of it. If
you think all music is crap it means that MP3s are fine for you. I am
guessing most people in this group are not satisfied with MP3 as a
quality standard.
I would/will pay to see a movie because often movies that have no
budget really suffer because of that. Same thing with a football game,
it would just be sad to have to see the players in rented equipment or
something.
But think of the origin of paying to see sports and the accessability
there is to see sports that is not present in the music industry.
Radio is not a viable medium by which to hear/audition new music. How
does one hear music these days?

[LeBaron & Alrich]

Rick Knepper > wrote:

> I would stop short of believing the results of any poll conducted of thieves
> to find out what was on their minds when they were downloading music they
> say <they> wouldn't buy in the first place.

We have a winner in Mr. Knepper.

--
ha

[ryanm]

"Rick Knepper" > wrote in message
...
>
> The same thing could be said about any theft, and, seem/feel true if not
too
> rigorously examined for logic, either premise or conclusion.
>
> I would stop short of believing the results of any poll conducted of
thieves
> to find out what was on their minds when they were downloading music they
> say wouldn't buy in the first place.
>
That's easy to say, but the numbers just don't bear it out. People have
been trading cds online for more than a decade now, and cd sales didn't
start to decline until recently. And, actually, they aren't truly declining,
they're just not increasing at the same rate they have for the past 20
years. Take any given decade since 1980 (ex. 1980-1990, 1985-1995,
1992-2002, etc) and the sales more than doubled during that decade. In any
other industry this would be considered suspect and they would be battening
down the hatches and getting ready for the bottom to drop out. The music
industry, OTOH, seems to feel entitled to continuously increasing sales and
wants to sue people when the market declines. These kids who download tens
of gigs of mp3s, do you really think they have the $50,000 to buy all of
those cds? No. The *fact* is that they download an order of magnitude more
than they would've bought, and the end result is actually *free exposure*
for the artists that the labels could never buy with a million dollars.
People still buy the music they like and want to own. They may not buy as
many of the major acts' cds, but a lot more niche artists are being heard
and selling cds that never would have under the labels' system.

ryanm

[mine12u]

"ryanm" > wrote in message
...
> "Rick Knepper" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > The same thing could be said about any theft, and, seem/feel true if not
> too
> > rigorously examined for logic, either premise or conclusion.
> >
> > I would stop short of believing the results of any poll conducted of
> thieves
> > to find out what was on their minds when they were downloading music
they
> > say wouldn't buy in the first place.
> >
> That's easy to say, but the numbers just don't bear it out. People
have
> been trading cds online for more than a decade now, and cd sales didn't
> start to decline until recently. And, actually, they aren't truly
declining,
> they're just not increasing at the same rate they have for the past 20
> years. Take any given decade since 1980 (ex. 1980-1990, 1985-1995,
> 1992-2002, etc) and the sales more than doubled during that decade. In any
> other industry this would be considered suspect and they would be
battening
> down the hatches and getting ready for the bottom to drop out. The music
> industry, OTOH, seems to feel entitled to continuously increasing sales
and
> wants to sue people when the market declines. These kids who download tens
> of gigs of mp3s, do you really think they have the $50,000 to buy all of
> those cds? No. The *fact* is that they download an order of magnitude more
> than they would've bought, and the end result is actually *free exposure*
> for the artists that the labels could never buy with a million dollars.
> People still buy the music they like and want to own. They may not buy as
> many of the major acts' cds, but a lot more niche artists are being heard
> and selling cds that never would have under the labels' system.
>
> ryanm

Then make the "kids who download tens of gigs of mp3s" (and everybody
else's) un-authorized downloads and uploads "Illegal" unless bitrate is
64kb/s or less. And your stats of cd sales will still continue to rise just
as much. (probably even more)

[Noiseboy]

In article >,
(nicholas yu) wrote:

> i'm not sure which way it should be. but, one thing i think that is
> very important to keep in mind, is that the rhetoric that is always
> used:
>
> illegally downloading music = shoplifting / stealing

That's pretty much it. Except that until recently, downloading
was anonymous and risk free, unlike shoplifting,

> is not a very good analogy. shoplifting has a very direct, negative
> financial impact on the merchant by way of deplenishing a finite
> inventory. the effects of downloading music are much murkier, maybe
> often they wouldn't have ever bought the CD anyways, maybe they're
> more likely to go see the artist's shows or buy future CDs, etc etc
> we've all heard these before.

If you download a song or an albumn, instead of buying the CD, then you
have effectively achieved the same result as shoplifting. You have
deprived the artist, management, retailer, and record company of their
income.

An awful lot of people try to justify the act by framing the RIAA
membership as a bunch of greedy, overpaid, CEO types, and the artists
(of disfavor) in the same the light.

I believe that the RIAA's biggest public relations mistake is not
showing the public where their money goes, the food chain of the
industry.

There has been a great outcry, from people who steal the music, that
CD's are overpriced and that they are teaching the record companies a
lesson.

A boycott, in absence of theft, is reasonable, justifiable, and
righteous. In concert with the rampant downloading, I believe that it is
hypocritical, and frankly, childish.

I find it interesing that the "big oil" interests, have been painted in
the same light as the record industry magnates. Curbing our driving
habits by purchasing low consumption vehicles, carpooling, and
occassional use of mass transportation, would probably result in lower
gas prices. Knowing this, our society persists in behaviour that
increases consumption, yet whines consisently about the high cost of
fuel.

Lazy, selfish, and entitled? I think so. Downloading is a symptom of a
society in decay, and the RIAA lawsuits are a harsh reaction to problem
that most likely cannot be fixed: a general decline of morals and
values.

[Rob Adelman]

I like that noise. Very good post. -Rob

Noiseboy wrote:

> In article >,
> (nicholas yu) wrote:
>
>
>>i'm not sure which way it should be. but, one thing i think that is
>>very important to keep in mind, is that the rhetoric that is always
>>used:
>>
>>illegally downloading music = shoplifting / stealing
>
>
> That's pretty much it. Except that until recently, downloading
> was anonymous and risk free, unlike shoplifting,
>
>
>>is not a very good analogy. shoplifting has a very direct, negative
>>financial impact on the merchant by way of deplenishing a finite
>>inventory. the effects of downloading music are much murkier, maybe
>>often they wouldn't have ever bought the CD anyways, maybe they're
>>more likely to go see the artist's shows or buy future CDs, etc etc
>>we've all heard these before.
>
>
> If you download a song or an albumn, instead of buying the CD, then you
> have effectively achieved the same result as shoplifting. You have
> deprived the artist, management, retailer, and record company of their
> income.
>
> An awful lot of people try to justify the act by framing the RIAA
> membership as a bunch of greedy, overpaid, CEO types, and the artists
> (of disfavor) in the same the light.
>
> I believe that the RIAA's biggest public relations mistake is not
> showing the public where their money goes, the food chain of the
> industry.
>
> There has been a great outcry, from people who steal the music, that
> CD's are overpriced and that they are teaching the record companies a
> lesson.
>
> A boycott, in absence of theft, is reasonable, justifiable, and
> righteous. In concert with the rampant downloading, I believe that it is
> hypocritical, and frankly, childish.
>
> I find it interesing that the "big oil" interests, have been painted in
> the same light as the record industry magnates. Curbing our driving
> habits by purchasing low consumption vehicles, carpooling, and
> occassional use of mass transportation, would probably result in lower
> gas prices. Knowing this, our society persists in behaviour that
> increases consumption, yet whines consisently about the high cost of
> fuel.
>
> Lazy, selfish, and entitled? I think so. Downloading is a symptom of a
> society in decay, and the RIAA lawsuits are a harsh reaction to problem
> that most likely cannot be fixed: a general decline of morals and
> values.

[mine12u]

Yea....what he said!!!

Thank you.

"Noiseboy" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> (nicholas yu) wrote:
>
> > i'm not sure which way it should be. but, one thing i think that is
> > very important to keep in mind, is that the rhetoric that is always
> > used:
> >
> > illegally downloading music = shoplifting / stealing
>
> That's pretty much it. Except that until recently, downloading
> was anonymous and risk free, unlike shoplifting,
>
> > is not a very good analogy. shoplifting has a very direct, negative
> > financial impact on the merchant by way of deplenishing a finite
> > inventory. the effects of downloading music are much murkier, maybe
> > often they wouldn't have ever bought the CD anyways, maybe they're
> > more likely to go see the artist's shows or buy future CDs, etc etc
> > we've all heard these before.
>
> If you download a song or an albumn, instead of buying the CD, then you
> have effectively achieved the same result as shoplifting. You have
> deprived the artist, management, retailer, and record company of their
> income.
>
> An awful lot of people try to justify the act by framing the RIAA
> membership as a bunch of greedy, overpaid, CEO types, and the artists
> (of disfavor) in the same the light.
>
> I believe that the RIAA's biggest public relations mistake is not
> showing the public where their money goes, the food chain of the
> industry.
>
> There has been a great outcry, from people who steal the music, that
> CD's are overpriced and that they are teaching the record companies a
> lesson.
>
> A boycott, in absence of theft, is reasonable, justifiable, and
> righteous. In concert with the rampant downloading, I believe that it is
> hypocritical, and frankly, childish.
>
> I find it interesing that the "big oil" interests, have been painted in
> the same light as the record industry magnates. Curbing our driving
> habits by purchasing low consumption vehicles, carpooling, and
> occassional use of mass transportation, would probably result in lower
> gas prices. Knowing this, our society persists in behaviour that
> increases consumption, yet whines consisently about the high cost of
> fuel.
>
> Lazy, selfish, and entitled? I think so. Downloading is a symptom of a
> society in decay, and the RIAA lawsuits are a harsh reaction to problem
> that most likely cannot be fixed: a general decline of morals and
> values.

[Noiseboy]

In article >,
"Richard Crowley" > wrote:

> "Noiseboy" wrote ...
>
> <excelent posting snipped>
>
> > Lazy, selfish, and entitled? I think so. Downloading is a symptom of a
> > society in decay, and the RIAA lawsuits are a harsh reaction to problem
> > that most likely cannot be fixed: a general decline of morals and
> > values.
>
> Excellent post! Thanks, Noiseboy!


Thanks.

[Noiseboy]

In article >,
Rob Adelman > wrote:

> I like that noise. Very good post. -Rob

Gracias.

[Josh Snider]

in article , Chimi Changa at
wrote on 9/12/03 15.52:

> Hahahaha...Sue away you idiots. When you folk learn how to fill a 74
> minute cd with music rather than an overpriced 50 minute cd priced at
> over $15, then I'll stop downloading music. You **** me, I'll ****
> you.
>

I wonder if this poster realizes that most of the people here are engineers.
And most of us have little to no say over the gigs that we're hired for and
the music that goes on the albums. Nor do we have any control over the
price.

Attack the labels who have the control over this stuff, not the engineers
who don't

You're ****ing the wrong people.

J

--
josh.snider
cave.productions
416.524.6927

[nicholas yu]

Noiseboy > wrote in message >...
> Lazy, selfish, and entitled? I think so. Downloading is a symptom of a
> society in decay, and the RIAA lawsuits are a harsh reaction to problem
> that most likely cannot be fixed: a general decline of morals and
> values.

not only are the lawsuits a "harsh reaction," but they do nothing to
solve the problem. lawsuits will do nothing but **** people off, and
catalyze the development of software which will allow completely
secure and anonymous file sharing. it is trivially easy: block all
requests at your firewall that do not match a specified trusted IP
list. if the RIAA is then given free access to inspect server traffic
to look for piracy (which is unlikely, because this basically equates
to allowing a specified party to monitor ALL traffic, akin to allowing
them to randomly wiretap phones), it's also trivial to encrypt the
data. and unless the laws of the universe change anytime soon, there
are widely available encryption techniques that are completely
unbreakable (within the lifetime on the universe)

so, a better solution, would be to come up with a model to sell music
online. a lot of young people don't want physical CDs anymore. they
could, for instance, build a server which for a monthly fee would
allow customers to stream their entire catalog. then, 1) customers
wouldn't need to provide local storage space, 2) customers would have
the convenience instant access to a vast library of music to explore.
maybe throw in online interviews and album art, whatever. throw in a
link to allmusic and CDDB so people can use it to explore more music.
save people's playlists. allow people to share playlists.
incorporate radio-format "music shows". hey i'd pay for that. sure,
maybe some people would download the music and share it, but maybe
this server would be more convenient, and people would be willing to
pay $20 a month for "music utilities" just like they pay for cable TV.

i dunno. there seems to be so many ways to approach this problem, and
suing everyone in sight seems to be among the worst i can think of.

[Rob Adelman]

Noiseboy wrote:


> subject. While I follow your point regarding the vendor's loss of
> material goods, I don't think that it matters in the larger picture.

If SACD's take off, we could move it back to physical trade. As long as
they stay copy protected anyway.

[Roger W. Norman]

Well, generally you can't go to prison for civil suits, but the Sheriff
could come and evict you from your house, take your possessions, etc.,
somewhat like what was done to OJ.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"Thomas Bishop" > wrote in message
...
> "Roger W. Norman" > wrote in message ...
> > Now I'm not one who believes in music sharing unless the artist
themselves
> > have given their ok, but this is an extreme when the record industry
could
> > have, and should have, taken steps to modernize their distribution
> methods.
> > So now, because the slowboat majors couldn't keep up with technology
they
> > want to make everyone pay them for their mistakes.
>
> I couldn't agree more. There were so many solutions where both the
industry
> and the consumer would have benefited, but they weren't interested in
being
> up-to-date. So what if this does go though and the court says, "Grandpa,
> you're going to pay. And let's see, $5000 per song with 2200 songs
> downloaded. That's $11,000,000; better get out your pocket book." Nobody
> has the money to pay for that so they go to jail. The only thing the RIAA
> gets out of it is making examples of people, which children won't
> understand. So parents will have to closely monitor the programs that are
> downloaded.. And really, should anyone go to prison for downloading
Frankie
> Goes to Hollywood? Okay, maybe be chastised.
>
>

[Bob Cain]

nicholas yu wrote:
>
> i dunno. there seems to be so many ways to approach this problem, and
> suing everyone in sight seems to be among the worst i can think of.

Any argument that tries to causally link theft with less
than optimal marketing is delusion. Noisboy stated the real
problem about as simply and clearly as it can be stated.
Better marketing isn't going to stop theft any more than
stopping theft will convert it all to purchases.

Suing or otherwise prosecuting theft is the only way to dent
it. The act of doing so clearly and publicly labels it for
what it is. It makes denial more difficult and any claim of
ignorance less plausible.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

[Troy]

It still does not give you the right to steal music.It is a terrible way of
collecting money for artists.I burn lots of CDs that has my material on
it....should I pay a levy on my own stuff????.....I don't think so.Also the
price of the levy is 21 cents per CD so that doubles the price of the CD
then they charge you tax.This is BULL****!!!





Greg > wrote in message
om...
> "Troy" > wrote in message
>...
> > I have to laugh at peoples mentallity here in Canada.They think because
they
> > have to pay a 21 cent levy per CD ,that gives them the right to download
> > music.
>
> And they are correct, despite the RIAA being loath to admit it.
>
> > The way they talk its there born right.I wish the record companies
> > would start suing kids here and knock them off there high horses.I don't
> > agree with the levy here,we shoulden't have to pay it but it dosen't
give
> > you the right to just download anything you like for free.
>
> Yes it does, and it is a far more sensible way of capturing some
> revenue for the artists than suing downloaders. So quit griping and
> go burn yourself some CDs.

[reddred]

"Justin Ulysses Morse" > wrote in message
...
> Rick Knepper > wrote:
>
> > "ryanm" > wrote :
> >
> > > But downloads != lost cd sales. The vast majorityof those who
> > > downloaded > the song wouldn't have bought it anyway, they only
> > > downloaded it because it > was free.
> >
> > The same thing could be said about any theft, and, seem/feel true if not
too
> > rigorously examined for logic, either premise or conclusion.
> >
> > I would stop short of believing the results of any poll conducted of
thieves
> > to find out what was on their minds when they were downloading music
they
> > say wouldn't buy in the first place.
>
> Okay, but what about the argument that many people WOULD have bought
> the music instead of illegal downloading it, except they found the
> record company is UNWILLING to offer said music for sale? (Without the
> additional sale of superfluous packaging that quintuples the retail
> price, that is.)
>
> It's hard to fault your customers for not paying for your product when
> you refuse to collect money from them. The problem is that the record
> industry's "product" is plastic discs, which a lot of people don't want
> to buy. They're not going to start making money again until they shift
> their emphasis from the packaging to the music, which is what people
> want to buy.
>

The ironic thing is that the security hole is the CD format. Files are a lot
easier to protect. An internet-only distribution of music has the potential
to be more secure than the digital information on a CD. The big 5 have to be
aware of this. IMO What we are seeing is not so much an attempt to stop
internet music (shouldn't they be encouraging people to get used to the
internet as a means of distribution?) but an attempt to wreck all means of
distribution that they themselves do not entirely own or control, that may
serve as a conduit for non-major-label independent music, through any means
at their disposal.

jb

[reddred]

"nicholas yu" > wrote in message
om...
> hi noise, thanks for the reply. the main contention on my point, is
> with the phrase "effectively achieved the same result." i would argue
> that:
>
> 1) stealing a CD from tower records
> 2) illegally downloading the same CD off of kazaa


<etc.>

Thats a good post.

jb


>
> cannot be treated as the same. in (1), the vendor has a finite
> inventory of goods which he can sell, which becomes depleted without
> reimbursement. this is not the case with (2), where the offender
> receives a copy of the goods, which does not deplete any inventory,
> and which the offender may not have bought in the first place, and
> which may actually lead to an increased future interest in the
> vendor's products, and so on.
>
> of course, it is most definitely, absolutely true that in both cases,
> the customer receives goods without paying for them! in this aspect,
> they are "effectively achieving the same result," but as illustrated
> briefly above, there are also some important ways in which they are
> different, that are important to keep in mind if one is to think about
> the problem in a reasonable manner.
>
> for instance, the argument that:
>
> 1,000,000 illegally downloaded CDs x $15 per CD = $15,000,000 in "lost
> revenue" is a specious argument, as it relies on the assumption that,
> if illegal downloading did not exist, those same physcial CDs would
> have been bought over the same timeframe.
>
> > An awful lot of people try to justify the act by framing the RIAA
> > membership as a bunch of greedy, overpaid, CEO types, and the artists
> > (of disfavor) in the same the light.
>
> forgive me if my previous post made it seem like i was trying to
> "justify" illegal downloading. i honestly do not know what effect
> illegal downloads have on the music industry, but i don't think anyone
> can really say for sure. my point is, it is more complex problem than
> what the extreme advocates on BOTH sides would like you to think.
>
> however, i still believe however that the RIAA action is "jumping the
> gun." music/software/movie piracy has always existed. anyone who has
> spent any time in any number of foreign countries (most notably some
> located in asia), or even in NYC, or even any other large city in
> america, should be well aware of that fact. there are street vendors
> who absolutely make a living off of media piracy.
>
> never before have lawsuits been filed directly upon consumers. these
> lawsuits are going to _ruin_ some families.

[reddred]

"nicholas yu" > wrote in message

> so, a better solution, would be to come up with a model to sell music
> online. a lot of young people don't want physical CDs anymore. they
> could, for instance, build a server which for a monthly fee would
> allow customers to stream their entire catalog. then,

A problem with this is that it undermines the way artists actually get
payed, in the form of royalties (based on sales) and mechanicals (based on
the number of plays). What you are proposing, and this is one of the central
problems of finding a new model, is neither like a music store or a radio,
but like both. Let's assume this becomes the dominant form of distribution,
say, fifteen years from now, how do you compensate artists for the sales of
their recordings?

jb

[Richard Crowley]

> "nicholas yu" wrote ...
> > hi noise, thanks for the reply. the main contention on my point, is
> > with the phrase "effectively achieved the same result." i would argue
> > that:
> >
> > 1) stealing a CD from tower records
> > 2) illegally downloading the same CD off of kazaa
> ...


"reddred" wrote ...
> Thats a good post.

Then you must not have cared for "Noiseboy"s comprehensive
skewering?

[nicholas yu]

Noiseboy > wrote in message >...
> I could be wrong, but I don't believe that prices have risen to
> compensate the industry for losses. Perhaps they are built in to the
> current pricing and business model, but I doubt it.

i'm not sure either. who knows what the actual losses are. some
arguments even say that music sharing benefits the artists in the long
run. the only thing i think is clear, is that is very unclear. heh.

> File trading certainly plays a part in the sales slowdown, but I can't
> imagine anyone buying into it as the major, much let sole cause.
>
> Returning to the initial converastion, my feeling is that the genie has
> left the bottle. It is going to be nearly impossible to get the people
> who now feel ENTITLED to free music, to fairly compensate the people who
> provide it. There will be an endless spiral of software hacks fighting
> the copy protection clan, and in the end, people who want to steal and
> disperse the music will always find a way to do so.
>
> > however, i still believe however that the RIAA action is "jumping the
> > gun." music/software/movie piracy has always existed. anyone who has
> > spent any time in any number of foreign countries (most notably some
> > located in asia), or even in NYC, or even any other large city in
> > america, should be well aware of that fact. there are street vendors
> > who absolutely make a living off of media piracy.
>
> And there are a number people who make their living from stealing cars,
> selling drugs, prosititution, flim-flam, etc. The fact that "it as
> always going to happen, therefore it should be tolerated", is flawed
> argument. It doesn't work with shoplifting, car theft, or kidnapping,
> why should we tolerate this form of criminal activity?

no, this isn't my point. my point is that media piracy is already
very widespread, and there are lots of people who are profiting from
it. aren't those kinds of people slightly more morally repugnant?
shouldn't they be the prime targets of the record labels, rather than
"consumers" ? (see my contention below) from an economic standpoint,
i'm sure hard copy pirated CDs are much more of a direct competition
for tower records, than downloaded music is.

> > never before have lawsuits been filed directly upon consumers.
>
> Please don't take this personally, but it really ****es me off to read
> or hear that the RIAA is attacking the "consumers" of their product.
>
> People who trade music on the internet are not "consumers", they are
> thieves.

i don't know, a lot of the defendents of the RIAA lawsuits are
becomming public now. can you really say that they are most
accurately described as "thieves?" maybe in some sense of the word,
yes. but "thief" is a horribly loaded word which connotes a guy with
a ski mask and a 45 holding up a bank, for personal monetary gain. it
seems most of the defendents of the RIAA lawsuits are grandparents and
12-year old girls, who just want to listen to some music and decide to
kill a few hours of the afternoon by playing with kazaa.

if anyone in this whole file sharing mess should be labeled "thieves,"
it is the people who wrote the software to allow file sharing.
they're the ones making the bucks, while their users get royally
screwed in the rear. P2P software is also notoriously non-ethical
when it comes to spyware, proper treatment of the user's system, etc.
for example, many, once installed, will automatically execute in the
background upon startup, sharing music files, while the user is
blissfully unaware.

i think it is easy to try to marginalize file-sharers as "thieves" and
"evil-doers." but remember that kazaa alone is downloaded several
million times per _week_. so go to the mall and look around, that
pretty girl in the red dress, that balding guy with the notre dame
t-shirt, grandma and grandpa, it's a good chance that their computer
right now is uploading music files across the country.

> That is regrettable. If only the families had listened to the warnings,
> they might have taken action to prevent the suits.

ok, well, as my main beef is with the fact that pretty much innocent
people are getting screwed by rampant RIAA lawsuits, if you think
merely "that is regrettable," maybe we don't have much to talk about.
maybe it's just basic liberal vs. conservative, social responsibility
vs. laissez-faire, etc... again, i'm not sure how exactly to tackle
the media piracy problem. but i don't believe litigation is at all
productive. it will not curb online file sharing, it will increase
animosity towards big label music, and perhaps most importantly,
innocent people are going to be completely ruined.

one last thing i'd like to point out, is that, many people feel that
copyright and patents are, somehow god-given rights that men are born
with. they might argue, "well, the RIAA holds the copyrights, so it's
within their right to litigate".

rather, in a truly capitalist, free-market economy, the RIAA would not
exist. unfortunately, a lot of other things would not exist,
including many scientific innovations that makes our lives more
comfortable and enjoyable. thus, the government makes laws allowing
people to hold intellectual property rights, to encourage innovation
in science, the arts, wherever. of course, there is always a chance
that this system of IP protection could become twisted around, and
instead of encouraging innovation for the good of the people, a select
few can leverage these laws in order to profit unfairly.

in a recent controversy, taken from the patent world (which is similar
enough to copyright to be pertinent, yet distanced enough to perhaps
provide a different perspective), eBay was ordered to pay $30 million
to an obscure Virginia business man, who claimed he first came up with
the idea of a "buy it now" auction (where an auction can be ended
original time specified if anyone bids a specified price). now, is
this productive? is this claim really worth $30 million? isn't it
possible this rather simple idea was thought up by someone else? is
this in line with the spirit of law, to foster and encourage
innovation?

[Richard Crowley]

"reddred" wrote ...
> A problem with this is that it undermines the way artists
> actually get payed, in the form of royalties (based on sales)
> and mechanicals (based on the number of plays). What you
> are proposing, and this is one of the central problems of
> finding a new model, is neither like a music store or a radio,
> but like both. Let's assume this becomes the dominant form of
> distribution, say, fifteen years from now, how do you compensate
> artists for the sales of their recordings?

Are PRS stuck with business models and mechanisms
from 100 years ago? Why? Greed? Sloth?

If they can automatically detect/decode/log analog terrestial
broadcasting of specific recordings, it would be a LOT easier
to monitor transmission over the internet.

All that is missing is a simple and reasonable license fee
mechanism designed for the new century. Because of the
enhanced capabilities of the medium, it would be much easier
to implement a system with very flexible pricing, collection, and
payment mechanisms than were ever possible before.

(PS: Mechanicals are based on the number of units distributed,
not on plays).

[nicholas yu]

Bob Cain > wrote in message >...
> nicholas yu wrote:
> >
> > i dunno. there seems to be so many ways to approach this problem, and
> > suing everyone in sight seems to be among the worst i can think of.
>
> Any argument that tries to causally link theft with less
> than optimal marketing is delusion. Noisboy stated the real
> problem about as simply and clearly as it can be stated.
> Better marketing isn't going to stop theft any more than
> stopping theft will convert it all to purchases.

hello. i also do not think that, marketing CDs, or providing "higher
quality" music will stop music theft.

> Suing or otherwise prosecuting theft is the only way to dent
> it. The act of doing so clearly and publicly labels it for
> what it is. It makes denial more difficult and any claim of
> ignorance less plausible.

this is where i must respectfully disagree with you. due to the
technical specifications of digital media sharing, it's about as
impossible (or will be, as soon as certain softwares become made
public) to catch people sharing music online as it is to catch people
sharing music by making mix tapes. judging from what i have seen in
my own personal contacts and my own readings in various online groups,
i estimate that suing and prosecuting theft is tending to increase the
ratio of shared music vs. purchased music.

thing is, everyone who has ever posted on RAP is a "thief." who here
hasn't made a mix tape? but, mix tapes are much more of a hassle
compared to buying. that's why nobody ever got sued. i don't think
it really is an issue of sound quality. it's the fact that you need
to a) get a blank cassette, borrow a legit casette , hit record, wait,
hit stop vs. b) go to the store. the local tower records was really
offering convenience, since anyone motivated enough could build a
giant music collection with very little money. the big 5 owned a
certain IP - a proven relationship with printers, pressers, and
retailers, that put them in a position to provide this kind of
convenience. distribution, is the key i think.

then along comes digital "mix tapes." suddenly, it's easier to
download music on a computer, than it is to go to the store and buy
CDs. suddenly, the illegal thing to do, is actually easy AND cheaper.
the record label now can either a) litigate or b) attempt to build a
new infrastructure which will once again make them the "king of
convenience".

in my opinion, one of these choices is much better for the consumer
and ultimately for the record labels as well. of course, that option
probably means firing a lot of people and hiring a lot of different
people. in my opinion, the other option, just will not work. i guess
we'll find out soon enough though.

again, i don't see why they aren't more interested in online
distribution. build a server with the entire RIAA catalog,
streamable. charge $20 a month. i know a person that worked for a
company that was trying to do this (legally), and apparently the big 5
were not interested.

[nicholas yu]

Bob Cain > wrote in message >...
> nicholas yu wrote:
> >
> > for instance, the argument that:
> >
> > 1,000,000 illegally downloaded CDs x $15 per CD = $15,000,000 in "lost
> > revenue" is a specious argument, as it relies on the assumption that,
> > if illegal downloading did not exist, those same physcial CDs would
> > have been bought over the same timeframe.
>
> is an argument that is only presented by those trying to
> refute it. That's the truly specious part.
>
>
> Bob

hi. i agree this is a far-fetched example. i do not want to say that
this is the main RIAA argument, or the main anti-kazaa argument.
apologies.

my main point i wanted to make though, is that media piracy is kind of
a grey zone. it's different in some ways to traditional stealing. i
am not trying to justify the action. the point i want to make though,
is that the RIAA lawsuits are not befitting with the "crime at hand."
i mean, really who here hasn't made a mix tape ?? isn't that more or
less the same thing as kazaa ? more grey zone ? nobody thinks it is a
little strange that they are suing 12 year old girls ? just wanting to
bring up some issues.

[nicholas yu]

"reddred" > wrote in message >...
> "nicholas yu" > wrote in message
>
> > so, a better solution, would be to come up with a model to sell music
> > online. a lot of young people don't want physical CDs anymore. they
> > could, for instance, build a server which for a monthly fee would
> > allow customers to stream their entire catalog. then,
>
> A problem with this is that it undermines the way artists actually get
> payed, in the form of royalties (based on sales) and mechanicals (based on
> the number of plays). What you are proposing, and this is one of the central
> problems of finding a new model, is neither like a music store or a radio,
> but like both. Let's assume this becomes the dominant form of distribution,
> say, fifteen years from now, how do you compensate artists for the sales of
> their recordings?

hi. thanks for your reply. couldn't you just count the number of
times each artist is streamed? of course, yeah, this could be hard
because it seems like it would be trivial to set up a spider network
that just hammers for your own song and then you're a millionaire by
age 25. but maybe someone will think up of something. maybe break it
down by unique IP address.

[Justin Ulysses Morse]

reddred > wrote:

> IMO What we are seeing is not so much an attempt to stop internet
> music (shouldn't they be encouraging people to get used to the
> internet as a means of distribution?) but an attempt to wreck all
> means of distribution that they themselves do not entirely own or
> control, that may serve as a conduit for non-major-label independent
> music, through any means at their disposal.


Exactly. I don't know if the Majors realize just how much of a threat
downloading can make the independent labels into, but it's pretty clear
that they're very much afraid to lose the physical distribution
industry because they know (or think) that's what separates the men
from the boys. Of course promotion and marketing are the real key, and
once again it's that internet thing that levels the playing field there
as well. What are they gonna do? Roll over?

ulysses

[Noiseboy]

In article >,
(nicholas yu) wrote:

> Noiseboy > wrote in message
> >...
> > I could be wrong, but I don't believe that prices have risen to
> > compensate the industry for losses. Perhaps they are built in to the
> > current pricing and business model, but I doubt it.
>
> i'm not sure either. who knows what the actual losses are. some
> arguments even say that music sharing benefits the artists in the long
> run. the only thing i think is clear, is that is very unclear. heh.

I am sure that pirating music and sharing it over the internet does
provide some exposure to people, who would never have heard an artist
otherwise. However, if the exposure only results in more file sharing,
so what? If the exposure results in some CD sales, and perhaps concert
tickets, would the gain offset the sales loss? I don't buy it. More
importantly, the RIAA doesn't buy it either.

This again, is a means used by thieves to justify their illegal and
immoral actions. It simply doesn't wash.

> no, this isn't my point. my point is that media piracy is already
> very widespread, and there are lots of people who are profiting from
> it. aren't those kinds of people slightly more morally repugnant?
> shouldn't they be the prime targets of the record labels, rather than
> "consumers" ? (see my contention below) from an economic standpoint,
> i'm sure hard copy pirated CDs are much more of a direct competition
> for tower records, than downloaded music is.

The large scale pirate operations have always been targets, and always
will be. But they are far less dangerous to the income of the record
companies than the file traders, for a few reasons:

A) The internet is more accessible than street vendors. Especially in
rural and suburban areas.

B) There is no exchange of cash, therefore the casual trader will always
obtain more software because it takes little effort and no expenditure.

> > > never before have lawsuits been filed directly upon consumers.
> >
> > Please don't take this personally, but it really ****es me off to read
> > or hear that the RIAA is attacking the "consumers" of their product.
> >
> > People who trade music on the internet are not "consumers", they are
> > thieves.
>
> i don't know, a lot of the defendents of the RIAA lawsuits are
> becomming public now. can you really say that they are most
> accurately described as "thieves?" maybe in some sense of the word,
> yes. but "thief" is a horribly loaded word which connotes a guy with
> a ski mask and a 45 holding up a bank, for personal monetary gain. it
> seems most of the defendents of the RIAA lawsuits are grandparents and
> 12-year old girls, who just want to listen to some music and decide to
> kill a few hours of the afternoon by playing with kazaa.


I will grant you that the RIAA looks like the big bad wolf, by going
after a 12 year old. However, every parent and grandparent of a 12 year
old, who had given their kid free access to a computer and internet
connection is now paying attention to what they are doing with it.

As a parent, I think that is great! My kids are all under the age of10,
and very comfortable with computers and the internet. They have a faster
computer than I do. Theirs isn't connected to the net, because it is
located in the basement. They only connect with mine, which is in the
living room. They do not get online without either my wife, or I
looking over their shoulders.

It's concept, called PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY. These people should try it
now and again,

I also don't buy that they were just killling a few hours playing with
KAZAA, and casually downloaded a thousand titles. but you can buy that
if you want.

> if anyone in this whole file sharing mess should be labeled "thieves,"
> it is the people who wrote the software to allow file sharing.
> they're the ones making the bucks, while their users get royally
> screwed in the rear. P2P software is also notoriously non-ethical
> when it comes to spyware, proper treatment of the user's system, etc.
> for example, many, once installed, will automatically execute in the
> background upon startup, sharing music files, while the user is
> blissfully unaware.

So should Comcast be held responsible if I use my computer to trade
illegal materials? How about Netscape? Again, I ain't buying the
"everyone is more responsible than the poor file downloader".

> i think it is easy to try to marginalize file-sharers as "thieves" and
> "evil-doers." but remember that kazaa alone is downloaded several
> million times per _week_. so go to the mall and look around, that
> pretty girl in the red dress, that balding guy with the notre dame
> t-shirt, grandma and grandpa, it's a good chance that their computer
> right now is uploading music files across the country.

And see the nice guy over there with his family? He's a child molester.
The business man taking his family out to dinner? He was an Enron
executive, responsible for fleecing thousands of retirees. Appearances
can be deceiving, and by the way.....are wholly irrelevent.

> > That is regrettable. If only the families had listened to the warnings,
> > they might have taken action to prevent the suits.
>
> ok, well, as my main beef is with the fact that pretty much innocent
> people are getting screwed by rampant RIAA lawsuits, if you think
> merely "that is regrettable," maybe we don't have much to talk about.
> maybe it's just basic liberal vs. conservative, social responsibility
> vs. laissez-faire, etc... again, i'm not sure how exactly to tackle
> the media piracy problem. but i don't believe litigation is at all
> productive. it will not curb online file sharing, it will increase
> animosity towards big label music, and perhaps most importantly,
> innocent people are going to be completely ruined.

Yeah, they're pretty much innocent, until they ignored the part where
the copyright owners said "stop downloading".

Now that they have been warned, and seen examples of the determination
of the copyright holders, what would you call them?

How about.....****ed!!

> one last thing i'd like to point out, is that, many people feel that
> copyright and patents are, somehow god-given rights that men are born
> with. they might argue, "well, the RIAA holds the copyrights, so it's
> within their right to litigate".

I would argue that there are no "God given rights". Rights are granted
and administered by men and women, to men and women, via man made
constructs such as congress.

> rather, in a truly capitalist, free-market economy, the RIAA would not
> exist. unfortunately, a lot of other things would not exist,
> including many scientific innovations that makes our lives more
> comfortable and enjoyable.

This is a truly capitalist, free-market econonomy. The RIAA is an
industry association born of a need for serving its membership with a
unified voice.

> thus, the government makes laws allowing
> people to hold intellectual property rights, to encourage innovation
> in science, the arts, wherever. of course, there is always a chance
> that this system of IP protection could become twisted around, and
> instead of encouraging innovation for the good of the people, a select
> few can leverage these laws in order to profit unfairly.

Yes, that is possible and probable.

> eBay was ordered to pay $30 million
> to an obscure Virginia business man, who claimed he first came up with
> the idea of a "buy it now" auction (where an auction can be ended
> original time specified if anyone bids a specified price). now, is
> this productive?

Did they steal his idea? If they did, it was certainly productive for
the guy who won the judgement.

> is this claim really worth $30 million?

What in the hell is EBay worth? Do you think 30 million bankrupted them?
I sure don't.

> isn't it
> possible this rather simple idea was thought up by someone else? is
> this in line with the spirit of law, to foster and encourage
> innovation?

You can't have it both ways. If an idea, work of art, song, or invention
is worth protecting, then the person who created the work must be able
to market it and reap the rewards. If the big corporations are allowed
to steal their work, then they should be punished.

If the public feels that someones effort in creating and recording a
song deserves no compensation, because the public feels entitled to have
what they want, when they want it, for whatever they think its worth,
then we're all ****ed.

[reddred]

"Justin Ulysses Morse" > wrote in message
...
> reddred > wrote:
>
> > IMO What we are seeing is not so much an attempt to stop internet
> > music (shouldn't they be encouraging people to get used to the
> > internet as a means of distribution?) but an attempt to wreck all
> > means of distribution that they themselves do not entirely own or
> > control, that may serve as a conduit for non-major-label independent
> > music, through any means at their disposal.
>
>
> Exactly. I don't know if the Majors realize just how much of a threat
> downloading can make the independent labels into, but it's pretty clear
> that they're very much afraid to lose the physical distribution
> industry because they know (or think) that's what separates the men
> from the boys. Of course promotion and marketing are the real key, and
> once again it's that internet thing that levels the playing field there
> as well. What are they gonna do? Roll over?
>

Since they spent the last umpteen years buying up 'the pie' and
consolidating themselves into a no-growth corner, it probably ****es them
off no end that suddenly they are faced with losing control. With the
exception of AOL, none of the big 5 have the expertise in-house to build the
kind of business that is required, and AOLTW has been crippled by internal
bickering and scandal for a few years now. BMG could have done it if they
had been able to acquire the technical expertise, but they lost the race
with the economic clock.

The majors may have missed their window here, they may not have, but all of
the creative ideas about how to proceed have come and are coming from
outside sources, and the majors are loathe to share their hard-won
uber-cream pie. So now they have some on their face.

I think it's impossible for them to use their prior tactics of just buying
all potential rivals or otherwise compromising them (think of the explosion
of indie labels in the late eighties and what happened to them) because of
the cheap nature of the internet medium. So, as you said, what are they
supposed to do? Well, the internet could be overwhwelmed by legitimate music
businesses with great major label content by now, if the majors were willing
to be what they are, content producers, and be really good at it, and let
other people handle aspects of the business that they simply aren't equiped
for on the required scale.

jb

[reddred]

"nicholas yu" > wrote in message
m...


> hi. thanks for your reply. couldn't you just count the number of
> times each artist is streamed?

Yes, but with unlimited user access, I doubt the subscription fee and/or ad
revenue would cover the costs of licensing, much less the costs of running a
centralized network capable of cataloging and streaming that much content.
It has to be some kind of pay-per-download, IMO.

>of course, yeah, this could be hard
> because it seems like it would be trivial to set up a spider network
> that just hammers for your own song and then you're a millionaire by
> age 25. but maybe someone will think up of something. maybe break it
> down by unique IP address.

That's how it could be done, up to a point (it's possible to spoof an IP
address, or use proxies, or, if you are really evil, use other people's
computers) but a pay for download situation kind of precludes that anyway -
if you make a nickel a song, you're not going to pay fifty cents to make a
nickel.

Seems like you could do that to mp3.com or some of the other free networks
to increase your ranking, kind of like the way people scam feedback on ebay
(really wish they'd do something about that..)Not to give anyone any
ideas...oops.

jb

[Greg]

"Troy" > wrote in message >...
> It still does not give you the right to steal music.

My point is that in Canada it's not stealing because the artists are
getting paid. The levy on media gives Canadians the legal right to
copy music files.

http://techcentralstation.com/081803C.html

> It is a terrible way of collecting money for artists.

I don't hear the artists complaining. You can go complain to your
politicians if you don't like the law, but your hating the levy
doesn't make thieves of those who take advantage of the rights it
buys.

> I burn lots of CDs that has my material on
> it....should I pay a levy on my own stuff????.....I don't think so.Also the
> price of the levy is 21 cents per CD so that doubles the price of the CD
> then they charge you tax.This is BULL****!!!

The levy on CDs is 5.2 cents.

http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/news/c19992000fs-e.html

[mine12u]

"mourningman" > wrote in message
...
> >
>
> As an occasional P2P user (actually I use it most for sending big audio
files to
> my band so that they can work on material at their convenience at home --
I
> rarely download MP3s because they sound awful to my ears) I have casually
> noticed that most of the file sharing is not music, but porn. I have not
heard
> the porn industry threatening to sue the consumers of their products. I
> recently read a wire article (sorry I do not have the link) in the Denver
Post
> that said the porn industry, despite the economy, is thriving on the
Internet.

Thats because they're all collecting unemployment benifits, and staying at
home surfing porn sites. 2 different "pleasure" luxuries, one is listening
to "music...sweet music".....the other is SEX!!!......Now, if your an avid
porn surfer, you'd most likely "easily" not shower or shave...saving the
water/soap/razors to last 3x as long and eat hotdogs and beans all week or
better yet, apples and tunafish....thus saving the money to buy
porn...whatever type!! There's 100x more dedication to getting the "result"
of porn than Music...which is no where near as serious. It doesn't go
hand-in-hand.....or...mabye it does!! ;P

Ms.Pinky

LOL

[mine12u]

"Greg" > wrote in message
om...
> "Troy" > wrote in message
>...
> > It still does not give you the right to steal music.
>
> My point is that in Canada it's not stealing because the artists are
> getting paid. The levy on media gives Canadians the legal right to
> copy music files.
>
> http://techcentralstation.com/081803C.html
>
> > It is a terrible way of collecting money for artists.
>
> I don't hear the artists complaining. You can go complain to your
> politicians if you don't like the law, but your hating the levy
> doesn't make thieves of those who take advantage of the rights it
> buys.
>
> > I burn lots of CDs that has my material on
> > it....should I pay a levy on my own stuff????.....I don't think so.Also
the
> > price of the levy is 21 cents per CD so that doubles the price of the CD
> > then they charge you tax.This is BULL****!!!
>
> The levy on CDs is 5.2 cents.
>
> http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/news/c19992000fs-e.html


Wait, you mean in Cananada you can burn/copy a full cd (16/44) upload to a
server for anyone else to download themselves....for free and this is legal?
Who pays the Levy?.....The original purchaser? What about all the
downloaders?

[Troy]

The levy on a CD in Canada is 21 cents per CD not 5.2 cents.I looked at the
link you gave and its old outdated info before they were even collecting the
levy.
They made the law and didn't start collecting right away,because they were
not sure of how they were going to do it.

It does not give you the right to steal music at all.From what I understand
they can still go after you for stealing.In Canada they are more interrested
in going after the uploaders not the downloaders.

No one I have spoken to even knows if the 70 million raised so far has been
given to the artists.Also who should get what?.....If Metalica is downloaded
one million times a month and Madonna is downloaded two hundred thousand
times a month then they get equal royalties?
There is no way of them telling how many times things are getting
downloaded.

I'm sure you will hear artists complaining because I don't think they have
seen a dime yet.Also is the levy payable to US artists? or just Canadian
artists?.I think the government is not sure what to do about all this.All I
know is that they should drop the levy as its unfair to alot of people.I am
lucky that I am exempt from it.


Greg > wrote in message
om...
> "Troy" > wrote in message
>...
> > It still does not give you the right to steal music.
>
> My point is that in Canada it's not stealing because the artists are
> getting paid. The levy on media gives Canadians the legal right to
> copy music files.
>
> http://techcentralstation.com/081803C.html
>
> > It is a terrible way of collecting money for artists.
>
> I don't hear the artists complaining. You can go complain to your
> politicians if you don't like the law, but your hating the levy
> doesn't make thieves of those who take advantage of the rights it
> buys.
>
> > I burn lots of CDs that has my material on
> > it....should I pay a levy on my own stuff????.....I don't think so.Also
the
> > price of the levy is 21 cents per CD so that doubles the price of the CD
> > then they charge you tax.This is BULL****!!!
>
> The levy on CDs is 5.2 cents.
>
> http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/news/c19992000fs-e.html

[Rob Adelman]

Rob Adelman wrote:

> <http://www.frampton.com/flash.html>

Check out the video. He is talking about making the record at home. And
then check out "Peter's comments". Very detailed about how he recorded.
Recorders, converters, etc.

[Rob Adelman]

LeBaron & Alrich wrote:

>>><http://www.frampton.com/flash.html>
>
>
>>Check out the video. He is talking about making the record at home. And
>>then check out "Peter's comments". Very detailed about how he recorded.
>>Recorders, converters, etc.
>
>
> Fascinating, I'm sure.

Well, it is (very) on topic.

[Justin Ulysses Morse]

reddred > wrote:

> But Pornography is a quite different industry... for instance, porn actors
> and writers rarely recieve royalties. Quality is not a concern, and it is
> incredibly cheap to produce. The user dynamics are rather different...

Sounds an awful lot like the music industry if you ask me. I think the
point the other gentleman was making is that there is way more porn
available for free on the internet than one person could possibly
download, let alone consume. Yet the producers of that very same
product are making big piles of money to sleep on. The implication is
that free illicit downloads don't inherently stomp out paid downloads
or in-store sales. In fact they help.

> As for ethical issues, while I find the endless moralisms (as well as
> attempts to appeal to people's higher nature) totally pointless, downloading
> is, IN FACT, theft. Sorry to break it to you, it is not a matter of opinion.

It's not terribly relevant either, since it will continue to occur as
long as computers are networked. And it will continue to help
industries INCREASE their sales if they come to terms with it and use
it to their advantage. So complaining about it is rather pointless.
Why cook the goose that lays the golden egg?

To take a page from the porn playbook, Columbia Records could spam
every computer in the world seven times a day (or just flood the P2P
sites) with a fair-quality sample, say the hit radio single, of their
fine product by a particular artist. Included with this sample would
be a "You want some more? Go here!" link to their website where you
could download the artist's entire catalog at some arbitrary price.
The idea is not only that the exposure generates sales, but also that
their flood of the "free" market would drown out all the other,
illegitimate versions. Naysayers will argue, "But the first person to
pay for the download will just upload the whole catalog to the Usenet
or some sharing site, and everybody else will get it for free." I've
no doubt that sort of thing happens in the porn industry too, but it
appears to be doing them more help than harm.


ulysses

[mine12u]

"Justin Ulysses Morse" > wrote in message
...
> Greg > wrote:
>
> > http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/news/c19992000fs-e.html
>
>
> This is a very good example of legislators who don't understand the
> issue passing REALLY bad legislation that penalizes legitimate users of
> the technology without solving the real problem.
>
> The link mentions a levy imposed on the sale of blank CDRs to pay the
> artists who get cheated by illegal copying. The cheaters avoid this
> levy by storing their copies on their hard drives instead of on CDR.
> Meanwhile, people (like me) who use CDRs for their OWN music, even as a
> retail distribution method, are paying royalties that will, in theory,
> go to their largest competitors. It's hard to think of a more unjust
> solution.
>
> This levy is exactly analogous to Royal Crown Cola being charged a fee
> on every aluminum can they use, to pay Coca-Cola and Pepsi for the
> possibility RC might decide to put counterfeit Coke or Pepsi in their
> cans.
>
> In addition, charging a "royalty" on blank media DOES implicitly
> condone copying. If you already paid your royalty, why shouldn't you
> get what you paid for?
>
> ulysses

Thanks for your explaination. That sounds crazy!! Makes me curious
though,....How come I don't hear whiners whining about how this could lead
to a "LEVY FRENZY"......having Levy's on just about
everything..........putting a levy on automobliles/driver licence, so nobody
can sue anyone EVER for accidents. Or like those Big brother (not the show)
privacy debates that I hear/read about.

Couldn't this become very dangerous?

[reddred]

"Justin Ulysses Morse" > wrote in message
...
> reddred > wrote:
>
> > But Pornography is a quite different industry... for instance, porn
actors
> > and writers rarely recieve royalties. Quality is not a concern, and it
is
> > incredibly cheap to produce. The user dynamics are rather different...
>
> Sounds an awful lot like the music industry if you ask me.

Somewhat sleazy?

> I think the
> point the other gentleman was making is that there is way more porn
> available for free on the internet than one person could possibly
> download, let alone consume. Yet the producers of that very same
> product are making big piles of money to sleep on. The implication is
> that free illicit downloads don't inherently stomp out paid downloads
> or in-store sales. In fact they help.
>

I don't disagree at all, I've been a proponent of this sort of 'give it away
and get more in return' way of thinking all along, but apart from the porn
industry, results have been mixed. A problem with this model shows up when
you try to apply it to an industry where content authors recieve royalties
that are tied to unit sales.

If the net were truly like radio, this wouldn't be a concern, but because
you can essentially get a copy as good as any other that can last as long as
any other, it is also like a record. Because of this, the internet's
ubiquity, and it's cost advantages at every end of the equation, I believe
that the internet as we know it or a future world-network based on a
derivitave technology will completely replace most if not all other means of
content promotion/distribution.

But what this means is that the entire structure of compensation could
change. IMO it would be a very bad thing for music and musicians to see most
music on the networks created by direct employees of a multinational, or
artists compensated even less than they are now.

> > As for ethical issues, while I find the endless moralisms (as well as
> > attempts to appeal to people's higher nature) totally pointless,
downloading
> > is, IN FACT, theft. Sorry to break it to you, it is not a matter of
opinion.
>
> It's not terribly relevant either, since it will continue to occur as
> long as computers are networked.
> And it will continue to help
> industries INCREASE their sales if they come to terms with it and use
> it to their advantage. So complaining about it is rather pointless.
> Why cook the goose that lays the golden egg?
>

I agree, I just got tired at some point of the endless rationalizations.

> To take a page from the porn playbook, Columbia Records could spam
> every computer in the world seven times a day (or just flood the P2P
> sites) with a fair-quality sample, say the hit radio single, of their
> fine product by a particular artist. Included with this sample would
> be a "You want some more? Go here!" link to their website where you
> could download the artist's entire catalog at some arbitrary price.
> The idea is not only that the exposure generates sales, but also that
> their flood of the "free" market would drown out all the other,
> illegitimate versions.

Sounds like a plan, except for the drowning part. I'm unsure how one can
flood a network with files without causing most, if not all, of the users to
simply get on another network, treating the legitimate files like spam.

>Naysayers will argue, "But the first person to
> pay for the download will just upload the whole catalog to the Usenet
> or some sharing site, and everybody else will get it for free." I've
> no doubt that sort of thing happens in the porn industry too, but it
> appears to be doing them more help than harm.
>

Yes, but my initial point was that the porn industry doesn't even promise to
compensate it's participants beyond a one-time-cash-for-hire basis. And the
nature of a lot of the IP is different - a song can be played by different
acts, remixed, or whatever, whereas a picture of a tit is a picture of a
tit. It's also pathetically easy to make more of the exact same thing in
porn, nobody sues you if you take a picture of a tit from the same angle as
the last guy, and nobody expects royalties (well, to the best of my
knowledge... maybe some of the stars get points on the movies?)

The porn sites certianly point in a direction that can be explored, I'm just
not sure that one can adopt their methods without some serious problems
developing.

jb

[mr c deckard]

i mean, er, scenario.





> some people i knew that were heavy downloaders would set their
> computer to download tons of songs, come home, and have the computer
> play 'em back randomly -- kinda like radio (they set it up to download
> non mainstream music, btw, ie., stuff not getting regular airplay).
> (this is a scenerio that possibly helps labels as an avenue for
> promotion).
>

[LeBaron & Alrich]

mr c deckard wrote:

> i mean, er, scenario.

As I marched down to Scenario
As I marched down to Scenario
Our lady fell in love
With a weirdo with a glove
And she called him by the name of Crazy Jacko, O...

--
ha

[reddred]

"LeBaron & Alrich" > wrote in message
. ..
> reddred wrote:
>
> > Yes, but my initial point was that the porn industry doesn't even
promise to
> > compensate it's participants beyond a one-time-cash-for-hire basis.
>
> Is there a difference between another flick of people ****ing, and a
> great song? Who can't ****? Who can write a great song?
>

well, that about sums it up!

jb

[LeBaron & Alrich]

reddred wrote:

> "LeBaron & Alrich" wrote:

> > reddred wrote:

> > > Yes, but my initial point was that the porn industry doesn't even
> > > promise to compensate it's participants beyond a
> > > one-time-cash-for-hire basis.

> > Is there a difference between another flick of people ****ing, and a
> > great song? Who can't ****? Who can write a great song?

> well, that about sums it up!

Obviously, you do not understand what we are talking about. It's not
about summing on the bus at all; it's about going direct to dick for a
song. Pay attention will you?

--
ha

[reddred]

"LeBaron & Alrich" > wrote in message
. ..
> reddred wrote:
>
> > "LeBaron & Alrich" wrote:
>
> > > reddred wrote:
>
> > > > Yes, but my initial point was that the porn industry doesn't even
> > > > promise to compensate it's participants beyond a
> > > > one-time-cash-for-hire basis.
>
> > > Is there a difference between another flick of people ****ing, and a
> > > great song? Who can't ****? Who can write a great song?
>
> > well, that about sums it up!
>
> Obviously, you do not understand what we are talking about. It's not
> about summing on the bus at all; it's about going direct to dick for a
> song. Pay attention will you?
>

Hey man, I don't know about where you're at, but around here, getting
together and summing on the bus is a good way to get yourself in trouble.
What kind of skank ho wants to sum on a noisy bus anyway?

jb

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> Seems to me it would only be a very small technological step to add content
> rights management to the Internet Protocol such that owned content can be
> flagged at the data transfer stage (eg in the file header of MPG-related
> data) and appropriate fees collected and remitted by ISPs.

Yeah, that's what they all say: "It's just a little software change."
Although it may be a small technological step to conceive of the idea,
apparently it isn't such a small step to actually implement it. And
how are you going to enforce its use? Will the record industry pay a
commission to all ISPs that will make it worth their while to do the
accounting?

In Virginia where I live, the state does something like that with
sales tax. The merchant charges the customer 4% and sends the state
3.5%, keeping that big half a percent for his trouble. If you're Home
Depot selling batteries when there's a hurricane, it's worth while. If
you're a studio offering duplication services, it's just about worth
while with an order of 100 CDs. If you're a studio selling a couple of
reels of tape for a project, it doesn't pay the postage for filing
your return.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

[LeBaron & Alrich]

reddred wrote:

> Hey man, I don't know about where you're at, but around here, getting
> together and summing on the bus is a good way to get yourself in trouble.
> What kind of skank ho wants to sum on a noisy bus anyway?

Geeez, dude, I guess you haven't tried the new versions of the busses
which are _much_ quieter.

--
ha

[reddred]

"LeBaron & Alrich" > wrote in message
.. .
> reddred wrote:
>
> > Hey man, I don't know about where you're at, but around here, getting
> > together and summing on the bus is a good way to get yourself in
trouble.
> > What kind of skank ho wants to sum on a noisy bus anyway?
>
> Geeez, dude, I guess you haven't tried the new versions of the busses
> which are _much_ quieter.
>

Come to think of it, it really doesn't matter to me as long as the job gets
done.

jb

[reddred]

"LeBaron & Alrich" > wrote in message
. ..
> reddred wrote:
>
> > "LeBaron & Alrich" wrote:
>
> > > reddred wrote:
>
> > > > Hey man, I don't know about where you're at, but around here,
getting
> > > > together and summing on the bus is a good way to get yourself in
> > > > trouble. > > What kind of skank ho wants to sum on a noisy bus
anyway?
>
> > > Geeez, dude, I guess you haven't tried the new versions of the busses
> > > which are _much_ quieter.
>
> > Come to think of it, it really doesn't matter to me as long as the job
gets
> > done.
>
> Whaaat?!?!? You care nothing about _religion_?
>
> Da woild is lost!
>

Not the _world_, just some transients.

jb

[LeBaron & Alrich]

> > Da woild is lost!

> Not the _world_, just some transients.

More likely a slew of 'em.

--
ha

[reddred]

"LeBaron & Alrich" > wrote in message
.. .
> > > Da woild is lost!
>
> > Not the _world_, just some transients.
>
> More likely a slew of 'em.
>

In my case, for the longest time. With all the debate about mixing in
software, my DAW's mix bus sounds a hell of a lot better than my Tascam ever
did.

jb

[reddred]

"ryanm" > wrote in message
...
> "LeBaron & Alrich" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >
> > Obviously, you do not understand what we are talking about. It's not
> > about summing on the bus at all; it's about going direct to dick for a
> > song. Pay attention will you?
> >
> Actually, you just ht the nail on the head. It's not about royalties
on
> cds sold, it's about selling the music yourself, over your own website,
and
> realizing all (or at least the majority) of the profits yourself. Then the
> only royalties you have to worry about are for derivative works. Why go to
a
> P2P service to download an artists songs when you can go directly to the
> artist and get them for $0.25 per song, which is probably double what the
> artist is getting in royalties per song now. The artists double their
> income, the customers get the music at a ridiculously low price, everyone
is
> happy. The naysayers say "But people would pay once and then upload all
the
> songs for everyone to get for free!", but again, why would they go through
> the trouble of sorting through millions of songs to find the current
> Backstreet Boys hit when they can go directly to it and buy it for a
> quarter?
>
> ryanm
>

Especially if there's some value added somewhere, something that creates a
sense of 'community'. Maligned as a dot-com buzzword, that concept is one of
the only things that seems to have panned out.

jb

[Paul Tumolo]

25 cents a song? I don't think so- the model doesn't work.

I run what I like to think of as a classic high-end project studio. It
costs, on average, about $5000 to record and mix a CD with me (people
seem to think I am worth it). That's exclusive of additional musician's
fees, producer's fees, mastering, art work, and a variety of other costs
that go into releasing a professional product. Granted, not all fee
categories apply to each record, but it still amounts to a considerable
amount.
Most artists I work with aren't on labels and reply on "off the stage"
sales, many as their primary source of income. Most folk and acoustic
acts get to keep all (or nearly all) of such sales. And (very important)
they count on that $15 per CD to make it work.
Still, for the sake of argument, let's just look at just recording and
mixing. $5000 divided by 25 cents is 20,000 downloads. I doubt that most
people will download the entire album, so those 20,000 downloads are
going to be hard to come by.
Now look at the $15 per CD example: $5000 divided by 15 is 334. They
will sell 334 CDs at the gigs in less than a year (I've had clients do
it within the first month following release).

Sure, if you are talking about "self made" ****, well 25 cents is better
than nothing. But most of the self made stuff isn't worth 25 cents. And
most people don't have the time, talent or desire to do it all
themselves. Success of the 25 cents model, if it meant the full time
touring musician couldn't get $15 per CD at his/her shows, would kill
most full time independentacoustic/folky based musicians.

[ryanm]

"Paul Tumolo" > wrote in message
...
>
> Most artists I work with aren't on labels and reply on "off the stage"
> sales, many as their primary source of income. Most folk and acoustic
> acts get to keep all (or nearly all) of such sales. And (very important)
> they count on that $15 per CD to make it work.
> Still, for the sake of argument, let's just look at just recording and
> mixing. $5000 divided by 25 cents is 20,000 downloads. I doubt that most
> people will download the entire album, so those 20,000 downloads are
> going to be hard to come by.
> Now look at the $15 per CD example: $5000 divided by 15 is 334. They
> will sell 334 CDs at the gigs in less than a year (I've had clients do
> it within the first month following release).
>
Two things.

1. I was talking about already mainstream artists (Brittany Spears,
Backstreet, Shania, etc) in that example, who could turn 20,000 songs in a
day or two. Smaller guys would have to charge a bit more, but then there's
the second thing...

2. Why would you stop selling cds at the shows? You can still sell your
334 cds at the show, or maybe you only sell half that many. You recoup some
of the production costs, but then the online sales (which could be $1 or
something per song, or maybe make them buy the whole album as a package for
$10) could continue 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for the rest of time. No
further printing, duplication, shipping, etc costs, but you keep selling the
music. Worldwide, at very little overhead.

In your position, you should be setting up a service like this right
now. It doesn't cost a penny more to do this for 1000 bands than it does for
1, so you could offer it as a service to every band you record and take
20%-30% of what they make using the service, and make money on an ongoing
basis from project bands that you'd forgotten years ago. All of that is
assuming that the bands can sell the 334 discs to begin with, of course.
Most of the bands around here can't sell 50 cds. But if you were recording
10 bands a year that could actually turn around 500 discs, at $1 a song x 10
songs per disc x 500 discs x 10 bands, that's $50,000 a year in sales, and
if you took 25%, that's an extra $12.5k a year in your pocket for almost no
effort. Just sticking the songs up on the website. Of course you'll get a
lot of people only downloading a song or two, but then you'll also get a lot
of bands with 18 songs on a disc. You would obviously have to look at it
based on the bands you record, it would be a matter of gambling on whether
they could make the sales or not. Some bands try to sell their music, others
don't. And some simply have a product that no one wants but their families
and friends, and still have 300 discs in a box at home.

ryanm