Replies

I disagree.

Whether or not the record companies embraced online music distribution is irrelevant. It does not matter who distributes the material. Once a single track is converted to mp3 format, it can be copied ad inifinium, with no payment to the record company.

Already we have witnessed a 30% decline in "legitimate" sales.

If I have a book and I give you (or sell you) the book, that is okay. But if I make a copy of the book and give you the original (or vice-versa), that is wrong because the author was not compensated for the copy which changed hands.

Same thing with mp3s. To a limited extent, I can make copies of my own original (because the author was paid by me, directly or indirectly). However, as soon as someone else gets a copy or the original (and I still have my copies), copyright infringement. The author was not compensated. It is fundamentally unfair to the author and removes any incentive to create new works.

Anyone who is in favor of file sharing of music mp3s that are not dedicated to the public by the author 1) hasn't thought about it very much, 2) hasn't seen their revenues from licenses and sales go from 1 million dollars a year in royalties to $29.99.

I am of mixed emotions regarding the filesharing of mp3s - I do see your point about infringing on copyrights by essentially copying material and then passing the original off to someone else. If the money were really going to the artists I would be more sympathetic. Recall that not too long ago, the major music producers were found in collusion for price-fixing at some of the stores that represent their largest distribution networks (like Target, for example). The industry not only failed to respond to changes in consumer purchasing habits and desires (in the form of embracing on-line distribution), the industry has gone out of its way to rip-off consumers and force them to pay more for the music than they should. If you plant ice, you're gonna harvest wind.

On another point - the 30% decline in retail sales may or may not be related to filesharing services. Sure, some losses are attributable to the filesharing, but we have also been in economic downturn for the past three years as well - and then there is the whole issue of quality and is the music industry creating a product that people feel is worth 17 to 24 bucks a shot.

So no, I have little (basically none) sympathy for the music industry, and I am hoping a big shakeout occurs whereby people will rediscover local and regional artists, and that the artists themselves can find a business model that will allow them to continue performing without the BS of the industry. The music industry is comprised of just too many types who use the current distribution system and payolla type schemes to maintain their extravagant lifestyles and act as gatekeepers for artists and fans alike.

Whether or not the record companies embraced online music distribution is irrelevant. It does not matter who distributes the material.

From a purely legal standpoint, I would agree. However, in the real world their choice of business model does matter. I'm talking about the real world where a bad decision can cost you bundle, and that includes copies or their wares flooding the black market. I'm not defending people who swap music files. That is simply a weakness in their business model that they refused to adapt to. If a store owner had never put a lock on his store's front door and people started walking in after he went home and started helping themselves to his merchandise, the police would take a report and tell him to put a lock on his door. Yes, it's still theft, but there is a certain amount of blame for the business owner who refuses to put a lock on his stores front door.

Once a single track is converted to mp3 format, it can be copied ad inifinium, with no payment to the record company. Already we have witnessed a 30% decline in "legitimate" sales.

If you really take a look at the "legitimate" sales from the pre-napster to the post-napster time scale, record sales were actually increasing all the way through to the year that napster was finally shut down. The record companies were meeting or surpassing their own sales objectives. Then, about the time the plug was pulled, record sales started to tank. Maybe the cost of hardware went down. Maybe it was just that the economy went down... or maybe the record companies closed off the most widely used tool for people to be exposed to their product. As for myself (and the people I know) there were quite a few songs that I downloaded from napster, listened to and usually I would go out and buy the CD. There were also a lot of people who just replaced their legitimate cd purchases with downloads. But not all of them would have bought the CD in any event. IMO, I think a lot of what the industry is claiming to reduced revenues do to theft is really an excuse to their shareholders for what is likely reduced sales do to poor business decisions and a bad economy...But reasonable people can disagree.

If the recording industry does not adapt, it will die. Yes, the law says you can't do it ,but a whole generation is doing it and will continue to use technology to do it. The facts of life are this generation can do it and will do it and so will future generations. Fining a kid with no money a $150,000 per song is totally meaningless because they have nothing to really lose. What are you going to do build more jails to put the kids in? I don't think taxpayers will be willing to be taxed more to build new jails to house "music pirates", do you?