That, of course, is the appropriate action to take … nobody is forcing you to do anything you don’t want to do … On the other hand if you download someone’s music who would rather you not do so … and illegally distribute it via p2p … you are forcing the creator of that music to accept your terms of barter – nothing for him or her – everything for you. That’s a pretty tough bargain to handle for the non performing creator (songwriters for instance) who depend on sales for their income.

With all the music now legally available for free on the net there is no reason anyone can’t be complete happy boycotting corporate product; and, I commend you for your willingness to play by the rules.

We’ve had some difference in the past, but we’re ultimately on the same side when it comes to Big Corruption.

I’m curious what you mean by “monetise the site”. Are you talking about putting up a paywall, perhaps?

Can you at least keep this site going in a part-time hobby capacity, perhaps? That way, your news doesn’t have to completely dry up.

What’s gonna happen to your new a2f2a site – will that close too?

“if 1/4 of those people gave you 10$”

This month so far p2pnet has had 111,837 uniques, averaged out.

So …

Cheers

Well, at least with streaming services, you can listen to music anywhere… that you have a computer… and a connection to the internet… well actually, it’s pretty limiting… yeah, nevermind. I never said a thing.

But yeah, downloading MP3 files that have no DRM and that you can do anything with, is pretty lame. No really, it is. I’m not sure why, but it just is!

You should sell crystal balls like tech dirt. Or sell yourself as a public speaker I dunno?

CWF +RTB : http://bit.ly/xSbqX

“Techdirt Reviews Your Business Plan $5,000
——————————————————-
Techdirt Reviews Your Business Plan with an Insight Community case
Limited Edition Techdirt T-Shirt
Techdirt Crystal Ball
“Techdirt Insider” Badge on your Profile”

I can say for a fact that certain organisations within what Jon calls the ‘cartels’ will be delighted if it does indeed cease publication. No other site or sites will be able to fill the vacuum.

- Morg

Once someone raise an army from this million of people in jail without hope and take over your country with it, that will seem fair to me to.

I’m sure the young person in question will be deeply gratified by your witty response.

Cheers!

I completely understand.

I’ve been close to going down twice before, but I’m still here.

Cheers!

I really hope you find a new sponsor – in the fight against the loss of our freedoms due to the copyright MAFIAA there are few sites shine out as proudly or make a statement so bold as P2Pnet.

Alas, I cannot donate financially just yet – Like most other people, I will be struggling to support myself over this Christmas, this year has been particularly difficult – yet I will do my utmost as soon as I can.

Regards

Rabbit

Thanks. I’ll wait until the end of the month and if nothing happens by then, I’ll probably have to put the site up for sale.

Cheers!

Yeah, there are a lot of sick people on the game esp. the events in the ‘dating’ section and are quite crowded which is kinda worrying. Plus there are many shady people and trolls out there which isn’t great such as reporting you for no reason or giving you ’smack’ talk or vulgar language. Oh yeah and asking for your MSN/Yahoo ect.

Personally, I don’t think young kids will actually like the game as much a they think. ALOT of the things cost ‘yocash’ which to get you have to buy with real money or do surveys which pretty much are a scam. In addition, if the kid uses your fb acct and arn’t computer savvy. You could lose your acct because a lot of yovillians will say that you can get rich by filling out some form which asks for your email and password then they steal your stuff and might steal your fb acct. But if they’re not bothered about buying lots of stuff and stick to their own group of RL friends than yeah I think they’ll enjoy it for a bit.

But if your kid really wants to play YoVille then I suggest that you always watch over their shoulder – you never know what could happen!

Have a nice day!

@Nick:
Once the friendship ladder gets to best friends that’s it. No intimate crap or sex. lol

If the labels are denied copyrights on remasters, the works go back to artists.

Nice gambit…. unless you factor in corruption.

Ah, # Reader’s Write, the sheer eloquence of your argument, your way with words… you’re power to persuade … I’d like to wish you a happy 10th birthday … let me know when get there.

Specifically, this is what you said:

“SX reporting on track level data vs. a sampling of data – the vast majority of SX data *is* reported on track level data. In fact, 95% of the money distributed is based on census data. So the statement in absolute is not correct, but in practice, it is primarily correct. And it’s possible that that the sampled 5% disproportionately affects both the artists you represent, and the artists (and labels) I represent. So naturally, I’m interested in getting to 0% sampled data, which is one of the reasons I’ve established the metadata committee to review the feasibility of providing software to get past the inherent difficulties small webcasters (especially schools) face in reporting. I expect this committee to get into the trenches of this issue, and I welcome all opinions and suggestions in order come up with the best possible recommendation to the full board.”

This is the line that jumped out at me: “In fact, 95% of the money distributed is based on census data.” 95% is a great number, and it certainly looks like SoundExchange is doing a great job in getting that all that money out, but this statement is patently misleading, because that great percentage is based on “money distributed.” The problem with SoundExchange isn’t the “money distributed,” it’s with the money NOT distributed. That’s the money that’s building up in that investment account to the tune of nearly $200 million as of the end of 2008.

And there’s a whole other layer to the rotten onion of that bogus statistic that SoundExchange’s own data exposes. In filings with the CRB in May of this year, SoundExchange acknowledge that, as of March, 2009, it still hadn’t distributed 32% of the collected artist royalties, and still hadn’t even “allocated” over 16% of that money for money received for the calendar year 2006. Over twenty-seven months AFTER the end of the reporting period, one dollar in every three that artists were entitled to was still sitting at SoundExchange, and SoundExchange still didn’t know who was entitled to half of that. You can’t foist that off on sampling problems, and that 95% figure becomes a whole lot less impressive when you realize it’s 95% of a number that is far less than what SoundExchange should have paid out.

And before you explain this away as one bad year, the same filing says that, for 2007, you still don’t know who was entitled to 25% of the artist money, and you still hadn’t paid out over 40% of the artist money, 15 months after the end of the reporting period. For the first quarter of 2008, after one whole year, you still hadn’t identified the proper recipient of nearly one-third of the artist royalties, and you had paid out LESS THAN HALF. So, to put your claim of 95% payment in the proper context, for the first quarter of 2008, after one year, SoundExchange had paid out 95% of 48% based on census data. In this light, the number is not as impressive as you wanted it to sound, is it?

This is the problem with SoundExchange’s attempt to hide what it does from public scrutiny, Mr. Huey. Sometimes the real data comes out, and the attempts to hide are futile.

So, I really don’t need the “official communication outlets” of SoundExchange to put a spin on these numbers. I can read them myself, and they leave me with only one question for you;

Do you think not paying out 32% of artist royalties after 27 months is doing a good job?

P.S. I heard from a friend of mine who read your last response and got a real kick out of your claim that SoundExchange is not “beholden” to the RIAA in any way. He reminded me that during the last Webcaster rate setting hearings before the CRB, SoundExchange’s counsel held repeated strategy sessions with RIAA counsel, in the open, right in SoundExchange’s office. Now, of course, the RIAA had absolutely no standing to participate in those hearings directly, so do you really think SoundExchange was acting independently or taking marching orders? Did the independent Directors have a representative at the meetings? How about the artists? Were they represented? If you knew about this, why did you leave the SoundExchange strategy up to the RIAA? And if you didn’t know about it, does it make you wonder what else you don’t know?

You see, Mr. Huey, the same thing keeps happening over and over. SoundExchange people like you say one thing, and the things we can see with our own eyes say differently. Who are we supposed to believe?