Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Recording industry goes after file sharers
The Oregonian ^ | 08/04/03 | JEFFREY KOSSEFF

Posted on 08/04/2003 2:26:36 AM PDT by yonif

The Internet isn't the anonymous playground of free goodies that many once thought it was.

In fact, your online behavior could land you across the courtroom from a multibillion-dollar industry.

The Recording Industry Association of America is cracking down on Web surfers who it claims have shared copyrighted music files over the Internet.

The organization, which represents record labels, has sent hundreds of subpoenas in the past month to Internet service providers for the identities of file sharers, and it plans to begin filing lawsuits later this month and next month.

The following questions and answers are intended to shed light on the issues at stake in the battle over Internet music swapping.

What is the RIAA attempting to prevent?

Since the record industry killed Napster, a popular file-sharing company, a few years ago, more decentralized computer programs have emerged, enabling computer users to swap copyrighted songs and videos.

Because it's difficult to sue a company to stop this form of file sharing, the RIAA is pursuing individual computer users. The industry plans to seek hefty fines in civil court, claiming violations of copyright law.

Who is the RIAA considering suing?

For now, the association is targeting only music consumers who make copyrighted files available to other people for uploading via file-sharing programs such as Kazaa.

Those who only download are not at risk of being sued now, although RIAA spokesman Jonathan Lamy said downloading over free file-sharing networks also is illegal.

"There's no distinction in the law or what the courts have said," Lamy said. "I don't think anyone should take comfort in the fact that they're safe."

Fred von Lohmann, senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a technology consumer-advocacy group, said Internet users with fast computers and high-speed Internet connections are most likely to be on the RIAA's hit list.

Because college students often share large quantities of music, they are considered to be among prevalent subpoena targets.

File-trading programs such as Kazaa don't require you to enter your real name. How is the RIAA tracking down file sharers?

The association uses software to scan file-sharing networks such as Kazaa for computers offering "substantial" amounts of copyrighted files.

It records the user's name within the file-sharing network and unique numerical Internet address. With that information, it can locate the uploader's Internet service provider. It then includes that information, along with a list of some songs the computer had offered to other users, in a subpoena that asks the ISP for the identity of the subscriber.

How many files does the RIAA consider to be substantial?

"There's no hard and fast rule or number," Lamy said.

But the more songs that file sharers offer, the more likely the RIAA is to target them, he said.

"It benefits the RIAA in their efforts to be as ominously vague as possible," said Mike McGuire, research director at research firm GartnerG2 in San Jose, Calif.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation's von Lohmann said the RIAA has been subpoenaing information on computers that file-sharing networks have randomly chosen to be "supernodes," which coordinate traffic on the file-sharing network.

It is difficult to tell whether your computer has functioned as a supernode, but you can avert such use of your computer by selecting an option in your file-sharing program.

Will my ISP reveal my identity?

It depends.

Some ISPs have complied in light of a recent federal court ruling in Washington, D.C., that required Verizon to hand over names of file sharers. Pacific Bell Internet Services, a subsidiary of telecom giant SBC, has challenged the subpoenas' legality and won't release the names. But Comcast, the largest cable company in Oregon and the United States, has not publicly challenged RIAA subpoenas for information on some users of its high-speed Internet service.

"At Comcast, our customers' privacy comes first," the company said in a statement. "However, we will comply with a subpoena in situations in which we are legally bound and when the request meets specific legal criteria."

Has the RIAA revealed a list of the subpoenas it has filed?

No, but EFF's Web site, www.eff.org, offers a free search engine that enables you to search a database of publicly available subpoenas to see whether your user name or Internet address are listed on a subpoena.

If you don't find yourself there, it doesn't necessarily mean you aren't a target. Only about 250 case listings appear on the U.S. court's Web site, and the Associated Press late last month reported that RIAA had filed more than 900 subpoenas. Lamy said the RIAA will not reveal how many subpoenas it has issued.

Have any Oregon file sharers been subpoenaed?

Oregon ISPs and universities are not among the publicly available subpoenas.

A review of 30 publicly available subpoenas for Internet subscribers to Comcast did not reveal any Internet addresses that were traced to Oregon. Most of the Comcast subpoenas sought information about users in Massachusetts and California.

"The Northeast and California may have a lot more colleges," GartnerG2's McGuire said. But because many subpoenas are not publicly available, it is possible that Oregonians are among those the RIAA is targeting.

Can I download music without uploading?

Most file-sharing programs allow you to choose to stop sharing your files with other users.

That prevents you from uploading and, presumably, landing on the RIAA's hit list. But there is no guarantee that the industry won't eventually go after downloaders.

Why does the RIAA care?

When people download songs for free rather than buy them in stores, they take money away from the artists and labels, the RIAA says.

And downloading is pervasive. According to surveys conducted this year by the Pew Internet & American Life Project, 35 million U.S. adults download music files online.

"We'd much rather spend time making music then dealing with legal issues in courtrooms," RIAA President Cary Sherman said in a written statement. "But we cannot stand by while piracy takes a devastating toll on artists, musicians, songwriters, retailers and everyone in the music industry."

Why do people download music if it violates copyright law?

Downloading proponents say most Internet users download as well as buy music, and they blame the record industry for not quickly creating alternatives that enable people to purchase music online.

CenterSpan Communications, which once employed 87 people in Hillsboro, has downsized to two employees after unsuccessfully trying to sell software that would enable record companies to charge for music online.

"The labels and the studios have always viewed themselves as having complete control of their content and distribution channels," said Frank Hausmann, CenterSpan's chief executive. "The Internet represents a new channel they would have no control over."

McGuire said copyright holders tend to fight threatening technology.

"Whenever a new technology comes along for copying something, like the VCR, the initial thrust from the copyright holders has been to fight it and stop it," McGuire said.

But haven't companies recently launched ads for music download sites that charge money?

Apple's iTunes.com and the recently launched BuyMusic.com are among the industry's most notable efforts at selling music online.

A few years ago, Lamy said, RIAA's opponents may have had a point in arguing there was a lack of music-industry online alternatives. But that is no longer the case, he said.

"If fans want music online legitimately, there are a host of great services that have great content from every major record company," the RIAA's Lamy said.

Will these industry-backed sites catch on?

Some technology experts say the pay sites don't yet have the range of songs available on the free sites.

And because the industry has been slow to adopt file-sharing technology, they say, it may be difficult to win over subscribers.

"They're trying now," said Anthony Davis, a partner with Davis Dixon Kirby, a Portland law firm that specializes in intellectual-property cases. "The real problem is that it's too late. Everybody got used to getting it for free."

Jeffrey Kosseff: 503-294-7605; jeffkosseff@news.oregonian.com


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Front Page News; News/Current Events; US: Oregon
KEYWORDS: afraidtogetcaught; filesharers; riaa; stealing; theft

1 posted on 08/04/2003 2:26:37 AM PDT by yonif
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: yonif
Its not about protecting copyrights; its about RIAA's wanting to make sure it can make money for the record labels off the customers. Its all about greed.
2 posted on 08/04/2003 2:35:49 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
Using their own logic, can't movie companies begin to track DVD recordables and blank tapes bought by customers to see if they are using it to copy movies?
3 posted on 08/04/2003 2:37:52 AM PDT by yonif ("If I Forget Thee, O Jerusalem, Let My Right Hand Wither" - Psalms 137:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: yonif
Well movies are protected by Macrovision copyright protection. And TV show recording is protected by "the fair use" exception under the copyright law.
4 posted on 08/04/2003 2:41:19 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
The RIAA is organized and funded by the recording industry. It is not a self interested entity. It, instead, acts as an ombudsman for the vertical market responsible for the, production, manufacture and distribution of recorded entertainment.

Copyright laws were established to protect the originators of creative product so that they could reap the benefits of their work; that would include financial gain. Saying that one is exclusive of the other is an absurdity.

In addition, I submit that it is not greed to expect a monetary payback for the creation of a product. As a risk taker I have every right to legally produce and distribute a product and to expect a financial reward for my efforts. Those who would purloin the product, justifying on the basis of technology, are, to put it bluntly, thieves.
5 posted on 08/04/2003 3:05:41 AM PDT by Banjoguy (To our citizen and volunteer military: Thanks for all you've done...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Banjoguy
As a risk taker I have every right to legally produce and distribute a product and to expect a financial reward for my efforts. Those who would purloin the product, justifying on the basis of technology, are, to put it bluntly, thieves.

What physical product are they stealing? The record companies brought it upon themselves, by continually passing off the junk they do as music, and by reducing what they produce to nothing but computer bytes. If they were to go back to nurturing (and giving creative freedom) to talented musicians, producing albums that were the total package...artwork, photography, historical and informational notes, the words, a cohesive and meaningful theme, people would buy them...just as they still purchase movies and books, even though movies can be copied and books can be borrowed at the library.

Why do you think dinosaurs like Mick Jagger, Bruce Springfield, and Jimmy Buffet keep selling out concerts and having a following? Maybe, just maybe, it's because what they create for their fans doesn't s---.

Why shouldn't the kids download this junk? Even they know it won't be worth listening to two weeks from now.

6 posted on 08/04/2003 3:18:16 AM PDT by grania ("Won't get fooled again")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: yonif
These "people" are so sick, that they deserve a boycott.
7 posted on 08/04/2003 3:38:01 AM PDT by Diogenesis (If you mess with one of us, you mess with all of us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis
"What has the company lost?" They are saying that everyone who has done this is a lost buyer. How do they prove that??
8 posted on 08/04/2003 3:43:04 AM PDT by Sacajaweau (God Bless Our Troops!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Banjoguy
Copyright law is no more than a tyrannous tool for
corporate America. If you have the misfortune of having your copyrights violated by them (as I have) ,you'll learn the hard way why it is my opinion having copyright protection on your individual work's is no more than a fantasy in reality.
9 posted on 08/04/2003 3:47:01 AM PDT by John Doe #1 (DAV Life Member/http:www.freewebs.com/getthepicture/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: yonif
If anything, Kazaa has increased interest in music that is not heard on the radio anymore. The record companies should view that as a plus not try to stop it. MP3s are not good quality - lots of people hear the song and then buy the CD for better sound.
10 posted on 08/04/2003 3:52:05 AM PDT by afz400
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yonif
Perhaps if they priced their product at a fair price people would not try to copy it. This stuff is priced way too high.
11 posted on 08/04/2003 4:07:16 AM PDT by sgtbono2002
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yonif
I'll never forget the flap over the PMRC w/ Tipper Gore. Frank Zappa was complaining that while they were out there talking about labeling music - Algore was in the back room giving a private industry the ability to tax us. What he was talking about was the royalties that were being paid to RIAA ASCAP or whoever for blank media. For every sale of blank media they got a percentage. I remember when CD-Recorders first came out. Only CD-Rs marked "For Consumer" would work and they were more than $7 each while CD-Rs that you use in the computer were only $1 - $1.50 each. Why ? Because the demChiComCrimocrat Algore is a corporate statist.

SACD DVD-A surround sound Cds are more difficult to copy but they are barely being marketted. If they really were concerned about piracy they would push the new formats
12 posted on 08/04/2003 4:22:39 AM PDT by AeWingnut (Soccer: a symptom of a greater ill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: grania
Why shouldn't the kids download this junk

If it has no value to them, they won't waste their time downloading and listening. If it does have value to them, they need to pay for it.

I'm not crazy about some of our copyright laws, particularly as they apply to older works (especially those that are no longer produced.) I personally think the Beattles have made their money off of Love Me Do and it should be in the public domain by now, but I won't begrudge anyone the right to make a buck off the song they wrote last month, even if I consider it junk.

13 posted on 08/04/2003 4:50:56 AM PDT by Gil4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: sgtbono2002
"Perhaps if they priced their product at a fair price people would not try to copy it. This stuff is priced way too high."



I haven't bought a CD in years for that very reason.
(I don't download, either) The record industry is
desperatly clinging to an outdated business model.
Rather than change with the times, they whine.
(sounds like a bunch of liberals!) I'll bet these new
'download a song for a fee' websites are the wave of
the future. Why should I pay for ten songs on a disk
when eight of them stink? Buying music by the song
(remember 45 or 78 RPM records?) is a way for
the industry to return to it's roots and will ultimately inspire
artists to write better songs instead of album filler.
People like to download music. I think most would
pay a small fee per song to keep it legal and fair.
14 posted on 08/04/2003 4:54:42 AM PDT by bk1000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: AeWingnut
...royalties that were being paid to RIAA ASCAP or whoever for blank media....

I've heard about this but I don't know exactly what the provisions of that law are - does anyone know where I can get details on this? (I thought it applied to cassettes as well.)

15 posted on 08/04/2003 4:56:47 AM PDT by Gil4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: bk1000
One would think RIAA would get into a cozy deal with the P2P networks instead of trying to get rid of them. You know, if you can't beat em, join em.
16 posted on 08/04/2003 4:58:04 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: yonif

This is the dumbest thing I've ever seen. It's as if the entire industry has put the legal department in charge of marketing. "These people are not buying our stuff — let's send law enforcement out there to crack their heads!"

It appears that the sales of the recording industry are indeed declining. By definition, that is a marketing problem. That means that the solutions probably lie in one of four areas:

  • Price — and in particular, relative price. Music CDs are not the only thing out there competing for the entertainment dollar. DVD sales are going through the roof; they didn't exist a few years ago. Some of that money is coming out of the music industry's hide. It has to be.

    Particularly in the age group that the recording industry targets, console video games are another thing vying for the entertainment dollar.

    The recording industry has not lowered its price in many years, even in the face of these two new competitors for the entertainment dollar. The price spread between a music CD and an entire movie, with sound track, on DVD is becoming smaller all the time. Which is really the better value for the consumer? A CD at $17, or the DVD movie at $21?

  • Product — I'm no music critic, so I will shut up on the subject of whether the stuff out there today 'sucks.' It probably can't be worse than the Archies. What is apparently true is that the industry is now more concentrated, and has become more risk averse, meaning that new acts with sounds that "don't fit the mold" are less likely to get any attention. Taking those risks is where new hit bands and new genres come from, so if they aren't taking those risks, what they do sell will sound tired and boring after a while. That will lead to declining sales. They should expect nothing else.

  • Distribution — This is the industry's achilles heel. They have enormous sums invested in relationships with bankruptcy-bound retail music store chains. They can't abandon those guys because today, that's where the revenue comes from. So they are trapped manufacturing, shipping, and warehousing millions of little physical objects that add a lot of cost to the distribution process. This is cost that doesn't really have to be there for a large fraction of what consumers want to buy.
Is there stealing? Yes, but is that really the problem? To the point that the industry is willing to become identified in its customers' minds as a kind of legal ogre that goes around suing its customers? Treating the customers as The Enemy is a big step to take. It's a very risky proposition. But it's the first thing lawyers would think of.

Where are the people in this business who are responsible for selling music? How is it that they are allowing their legal department to dictate strategy? To alienate their customers like this? You cannot beat people with sticks to make them like you. Once they come to hate you, you don't get to sell them things anymore.

At some point, sanity must prevail. There are 30 million of these "thieves" out there. Even a 13-year-old can figure out that he's more likely to get hit by lightning than to draw one of these lawsuits. There is no real deterrent in that. Plus, breaking the rules appeals to a teenager's need to rebel against adult authority. The lawsuits just make the fruit 'forbidden' as well as tasty.

Turning the lawyers loose on the customers is nuts. The right answer for declining sales lies in one of those other areas. You have to entice people to buy things; you can't sue them into it.

If Wal*Mart was this nuts, they would have security guards roaming the store, waving guns at people and shouting "No Shoplifting!" to everyone with a shopping cart. They would be out of business within a month if they did that. The recording industry can have the same thing happen to it. There are other ways to spend the entertainment dollar.


17 posted on 08/04/2003 5:06:34 AM PDT by Nick Danger (The views expressed may not actually be views)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nick Danger
BTTT
18 posted on 08/04/2003 5:17:01 AM PDT by yonif ("If I Forget Thee, O Jerusalem, Let My Right Hand Wither" - Psalms 137:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Gil4
If it has no value to them, they won't waste their time downloading and listening. If it does have value to them, they need to pay for it.

That makes as much sense as saying that if it has no value to them, they wouldn't bother listening to it on the radio. Look at it this way...I have a lot of CDs I purchased and (legally) downloaded to my computer. Why? Because I could. They sound like what they are on the computer...squeaky disconnected bits. I don't listen to them, not at all.

Sure, maybe these vicious, nasty purloiners of quality sound do listen to it. But, if they do, they're more (not less) likely to become familiar with the performer and buy stuff. They'd be really likely to buy anything that was really good, on high-quality vinyl (producing music in waves, not blips), with all of the things I mentioned. Of course, they'd have to be educated first. This whole thing started because record companies wanted something easier to market and shelf.

The other issue someone brought up is out-of-issue music. The computer is where it is stored and found.

You assume people actually buy or don't buy things as a matter of finances. That's ridiculous in the US today. If people want something badly enough, they'll buy it. I don't here anywhere in your argument that the "music" today is actually worth paying for.

19 posted on 08/04/2003 5:26:45 AM PDT by grania ("Won't get fooled again")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Nick Danger
Turning the lawyers loose on the customers is nuts. The right answer for declining sales lies in one of those other areas. You have to entice people to buy things; you can't sue them into it.

If Wal*Mart was this nuts, they would have security guards roaming the store, waving guns at people and shouting "No Shoplifting!" to everyone with a shopping cart. They would be out of business within a month if they did that. The recording industry can have the same thing happen to it. There are other ways to spend the entertainment dollar.

17 posted on 08/04/2003 8:06 AM EDT by Nick Danger
**********
That was great!

20 posted on 08/04/2003 5:27:25 AM PDT by wildandcrazyrussian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: bk1000
I think most would pay a small fee per song to keep it legal and fair.

I think that is a perfect idea. If the RIAA thinks they will win friends and influence people with this law suit, the backlash will be tremendeous and they are so friggin' selfish and underhanded themselves they can't even see what they are doing.

Why not offer alternatives like Fee-Per-Song instead of threatening to sue some teenager who likes Thrash Metal and would never buy it in the first place because he's got a double tape deck with friends...

The pricks are going to ruin there own lives. People do not give a tinker's wit about the crappola being produced today...

Oh, just one small point. I will be purchasing Rush's RUSH IN RIO live DVD along with the live cd, that's only because I want to support Rush not these prudes.

21 posted on 08/04/2003 5:39:50 AM PDT by sirchtruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: yonif
The RIAA is the avant garde for the opposition to the Internet. They have been ripping people off for generations, and their Industry is the first major enterprise to feel the full brunt of the actual power of the Internet. The newspapers and the television news programs are likely to be next, though they won't see it coming until it is way too late. Other Industries with throwback marketing policies will follow.

Hey, it already is too late for those propaganda artists. I feel their pain, Not!
22 posted on 08/04/2003 5:45:12 AM PDT by Radix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Radix
Look at the prices of computers, they have been going down as technology improves, etc. The price of a music CD has stayed fixed all these years.
23 posted on 08/04/2003 6:01:58 AM PDT by yonif ("If I Forget Thee, O Jerusalem, Let My Right Hand Wither" - Psalms 137:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: yonif
bump
24 posted on 08/04/2003 6:03:18 AM PDT by Sam Cree (Democrats are herd animals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
What's next? Pictures? Text? Why not get rid of the Internet all together? I think that would make the RIA happy! Does RIA own all the music? What about those Musicians that have no connection with the RIA?

How do you find artists not connected with the RIA. Is there a list?
25 posted on 08/04/2003 6:24:21 AM PDT by Dallas59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: bk1000
You mean a place like this?

www.buymusic.com
26 posted on 08/04/2003 6:30:26 AM PDT by NinjaDetective
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: grania
Fine, I'll restate it. They must have thought it had some value to them at the time they made the decision to download the music, or they wouldn't have downloaded it. The value may have been minimal, but it had value. They need to decide if it is worth buying - if it is, they need to buy it; if it isn't, they need to do without it. If it's not worth buying, it's not worth breaking the law to get it.

We have copyright laws for a reason - people who produce the music deserve to be paid. I don't buy the arguement that the MP3 downloads are great advertising - if the artists want to give away free samples, that's their business. Anybody who take it upon himself to do that for them is stealing from them (stealing their right to copy - copyright) and anyone who downloads illegally copied music is knowingly receiving stolen property.

If you think it's junk, don't buy it. If you want it, buy it.

People do buy things (or decide not to) as a matter of finances. They don't ask "can I afford to buy this CD and still eat," but they ask "is it worth $x to buy that, or would my money be better spent elsewhere. People do buy music today, so it must be worth paying for. Apparently it's not worth it to you, and I buy very little, so most of it is not worth it to me, but it is worth it to some people. And there are a lot of people who are content with the quality of the MP3 files, and many of them do record them to CD and avoid buying the music as a result.

I'm not a fan of the music industry or the way the RIAA does business in general, but they are right on this issue. I'm not crazy about the way McD's does business, either, and their food is junk, but I don't think that entitles me to free hamburgers.

27 posted on 08/04/2003 6:34:28 AM PDT by Gil4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: bk1000
Buying music by the song (remember 45 or 78 RPM records?) is a way for the industry to return to it's roots and will ultimately inspire artists to write better songs instead of album filler.

This Internet-based business model is already working so well for Apple that it has opened up its site (Apple Music Store) to artists for direct sales, bypassing all those record-industry middlemen.

28 posted on 08/04/2003 6:35:22 AM PDT by BlazingArizona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: NinjaDetective
www.buymusic.com

There have been reports that the music you download from that site can only played on the site's software on your computer and you can't transfer it to mp3 players.

29 posted on 08/04/2003 6:57:20 AM PDT by yonif ("If I Forget Thee, O Jerusalem, Let My Right Hand Wither" - Psalms 137:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: yonif; All
I think the answer is for the RIAA or some other group to come up with a new model of business (i.e. Apple's I-tunes) that provides music at a greatly reduced cost to the consumer and still produces a profit for the artists.

Such a model could charge a small fee for unlimited downloads (the more you download, the more you save) plus each download could be sponsored by a company (or companies, depending on the duration of the download) wishing to advertise a product(s). Companies could pay to advertise over a set number of downloads or on a per download basis, the more a song is downloaded, the more a product is advertised.

Downloading may take longer since the download would also include an advertisement, but the end result is the consumer gets music for cheap, the artists are rewarded for their efforts, and companies wishing to expand their advertising tap into a popular market.
30 posted on 08/04/2003 7:22:47 AM PDT by new cruelty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nick Danger
All very good points. I doubt that anybody hit with an RIAA lawsuit will ever buy a CD again - just out of spite. I know that I wouldn't.

Up until about a month and a half ago (when I learned about the lawsuits), I was using the Kazaa file-sharing service. I had a ball downloading music and checking it out. It was far better than listing to the pap on the radio. And if I downloaded stuff I really liked, I would buy the CD.

In fact, on the way to work this morning, I was listening to Bob Dylan's 1997 album "Time Out Of Mind." I discovered this music on Kazaa and liked it so much that I not only bought that album but two other recent Dylan albums. I had no idea that Bob Dylan was still putting out such good songs. Certainly the radio never played them.

Which leads me to the next question. How is the consumer going to learn about all the music that is out there if they aren't allowed to be exposed to it? I'm talking about the consumers who aren't into Britney Spears, Eminem and other flavors of the moment. What about consumers who are real music fans and are hungry for some good music only they are never exposed to it?

I can think of other albums I have bought this past year due to discovering and downloading the songs off Kazaa. Two albums by Rhonda Vincent - an excellent bluegrass singer by the way, a Boston album I never even heard about, some old Rush albums, Neil Young, Supertramp, the list goes on. (Yes, I rediscover a lot of older music as well.)

The recording industry keeps yapping about a decline in record sales. The decline is not as steep as they would have us believe. They still sell tens of millions of CDs every week. Imagine how many more they would sell if they stopped gouging us at $15.98 and started charging a reasonable price. Pre-recorded VCR tapes used to cost $90 a film. Now you can get VCR/DVDs of most movies for about $20. Why hasn't the price of a CD gone down? The recording industry is still charging us pretty much what they charged when they first came out in the 1980s. And we all know that it isn't that expensive to manufacture a CD. Hell, you can buy a stack of 100 blank CDs at Wal-Mart for about $20 - or 20 cents per CD. So where they hell do they come off charging us $15.98?

There are still many CDs I'd like to own but I can't justify the price. For example, I'd love to own the Beatles catalog on CD. But they are still charging full price for them. We are talking albums that are now coming up on being 40 years old! I already bought them on vinyl and some of them on tape. Now they want me to pay $16 per CD all over again? Thanks but no thanks. So I am digitalizing my vinyl and tape collections. Sound isn't as good but I'm saving hundreds of dollars. Probably thousands. Still, if the Beatles catalog was selling for $5-7 dollars a CD, I'd snap it up. Maybe not all at once but certainly over a short period of time. Along with a lot of other stuff too.

31 posted on 08/04/2003 7:27:14 AM PDT by SamAdams76 (Back in boot camp! 239.6 (-60.4))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: yonif
Tech Tv says that you can only play the music on Windows Media Player. Tech Tv also says that the www.buymusic.com wma format is more compatible with software and portable players.

http://www.techtv.com/freshgear/products/jump/0,23009,3491751,00.html
32 posted on 08/04/2003 7:27:35 AM PDT by NinjaDetective
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: yonif
Patent rights for sharing purposes should expire after something like 10 years. Drug companies have patent protection for only 15 years before the patent is public domin and open to generic companies.
33 posted on 08/04/2003 7:28:06 AM PDT by 1Old Pro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SamAdams76
Which leads me to the next question. How is the consumer going to learn about all the music that is out there if they aren't allowed to be exposed to it? I'm talking about the consumers who aren't into Britney Spears, Eminem and other flavors of the moment. What about consumers who are real music fans and are hungry for some good music only they are never exposed to it?

This is the nasty secret that RIAA doesn't want you to know--the other big reason they want to stop P2P song swaps is because the industry loses the advertising dollars. If you listen to country for about 10 years you'll have a light bulb go off when I explain what the music industry is doing. First, there are only a couple big companies that own radia stations and they want to make money (nothing wrong with that). They found that they can make the most money by selling ads to women ~21 to ~35 because companies like Proctor and Gamble want to sell to women who make the buying decisions for the household. If they get them hooked on Tide at an early age they'll be with Tide for life. Proof of this is just compare country radio today with country radia of 10, 15, 20 years ago. Heck, just look at Travis Tritt. He used to sing about bars and drinking now it's 100% sap meant to bring in women. Or look at the new rising star--Pat Green. I loved his music in Texas (his 1st 2 CDs), but now that he's gone Nashville (which in a song he swore he'd never do) his music has weant from drinking, Texas, and running from the law to sap meant to bring in the women audience...and now he's nationwide since producing the sap. I read an article on the freerepublic a couple years ago that weant into detail about this and it was a real eye opener for me...now I know why I don't like country Radio that much. So to put it together, for everyone. It's the entire industry that hates P2P and the Internet. It's tougher for them to sell the trash they've been pushing on us for years. Plus their price fixing scheme has been revealed and still they hold on trying to protect their illegal business model. Yes that's right illegal. Price fixing is illegal and all the major labels are a part of it. Now this doesn't make it right to steal their music, but it does make it tough for them to get any sympathy when people do steal it.

34 posted on 08/04/2003 8:58:29 AM PDT by for-q-clinton (If at first you don't succeed keep on sucking until you do succeed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: BlazingArizona
"This Internet-based business model is already working so well for Apple that it has opened up its site (Apple Music Store) to artists for direct sales, bypassing all those record-industry middlemen"

I was not aware of this. I think this is fantastic.
The industry will find a way to survive through adaptation.
This will be better for the unsigned artist, a way for
established artists to remain that way, and the only
losers will be the whiners, i.e. record execs bent on
beating a dying horse.
35 posted on 08/04/2003 9:44:49 AM PDT by bk1000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: SamAdams76
If you haven't checked out Dylan's Love and Theft, I give it my highest recommendation.
36 posted on 08/04/2003 9:48:46 AM PDT by Huck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: for-q-clinton
I used to be a country fan, actually I still am a country fan but not a big fan of what passes for country music currently. (I'll always have my Waylon, George Jones and Merle records to listen to.)

Still, I try to get into some of the new country artists. Some of the stuff is still halfway decent. But you are absolutely right about Nashville catering to young women. A couple weeks ago, I took my wife to a Kenny Chesney/Keith Urban concert. The place was full of teeny-bopper girls screaming their lungs out like it was a David Cassidy concert. I immediately became embarrased to be there. Actually Keith Urban put on a decent show (great guitar work) but Kenny Chesney is a lightweight in my opinion. Why he was the headliner, I can't figure out.

I also hate the way they do country album covers these days. These covers invariably feature the singer in some sort of "hunky" pose. No self-respecting man would buy the album even if he did like the actual music. It does seem that Nashville has decided to capture what used to be the Neil Diamond/Barry Manilow market.

On the subject of the quality of country music, let me address the biggest star of "modern" country music. That would be Garth Brooks. Now maybe somebody out there can explain to me how this guy ended up selling more records than even the Beatles. By and large, his records suck pondwater. He hasn't had a decent song for a hit since about 1991. Since then, his hit songs have been so lame that even Air Supply would turn them down. Anyway, I thought Garth Brooks was retired. How can we miss him when he won't go away?

37 posted on 08/04/2003 10:16:05 AM PDT by SamAdams76 (Back in boot camp! 239.6 (-60.4))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Huck
"Love And Theft" is on my Wish List at Amazon. Thanks for the recommendation, others have raved about it too. I'll be sure to get it soon.
38 posted on 08/04/2003 10:19:51 AM PDT by SamAdams76 (Back in boot camp! 239.6 (-60.4))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: yonif
In fact, your online behavior could land you across the courtroom from a multibillion-dollar industry.

Good. Thieves should be prosecuted and punished.

39 posted on 08/04/2003 10:23:16 AM PDT by strela ("Each of us can find a maggot in our past which will happily devour our futures." Horatio Hornblower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SamAdams76
did you hear about the movie that's coming out starring Dylan?

http://www.sonyclassics.com/masked/

It looks weeeeeird. Hoping it's not totally commie.
40 posted on 08/04/2003 10:25:30 AM PDT by Huck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Nick Danger
DVD sales are going through the roof; they didn't exist a few years ago. Some of that money is coming out of the music industry's hide

CD prices are so silly that if one wanted to get the soundtrack to a movie it would only cost a few dollars more to just get the DVD and have the music, the movie, and extra stuff !

41 posted on 08/04/2003 11:38:39 AM PDT by grania ("Won't get fooled again")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: strela
What ever happened to "Thou shalt not steal"? I don't recall reading "thou shalt not steal unless... the product is crappy or overpriced, or in digital format, or easy to do, or undetectable...

If it becomes ok to steal because of these factors when does it become ok to steal because I've got more stuff than the next guy (wait, that's democrat tax policy), or it's too expensive to afford, or I'm too lazy to earn it.
42 posted on 08/04/2003 11:45:45 AM PDT by PaForBush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: John Doe #1
It's my understanding that, whenever possible, one must defend the property. I don't mean to oversimplify. I too have had a bad experience with a large office management system I wrote in the 80's. In addition, if possible, precautions need to be taken.
43 posted on 08/04/2003 3:29:17 PM PDT by Banjoguy (To our citizen and volunteer military: Thanks for all you've done...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson