Comments on: Who needs the RIAA?

By: Dreddsnik

Dreddsnik — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 14:35:46 +0000

” So you would like to shut down p2p? Don’t you think that is unfair to small artists and software engineers who would like to use that to freely distribute their music and code? ”

Small and now large artists ( NIN – Pirate Bay etc .. ).
Easy to see now why the labels really want sites like that shut down.

They fear the success of those they can’t control.

By: Monkey D. Luffy

Monkey D. Luffy — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 18:35:37 +0000

Chris, you seem to imply that the record companies have somehow improved since the 90’s. Have you any evidence of this? Please cite specific examples. Are you a signed artist with these people? Have you, or any artists you know received any money from the RIAA from all the lawsuit money they have been collection off file sharers on behalf of the artists? I have asked this particular question on posts before, and have never received an answer, nor have I even once read anywhere that the RIAA had distributed ANY of the money collected to artists.
So you would like to shut down p2p? Don’t you think that is unfair to small artists and software engineers who would like to use that to freely distribute their music and code? The fact that it is used by some people to violate copyright law does not justify shutting it down; if someone uses a car to rob a store do you put the car company out of business?
I suspect if you are not an RIAA shill you are not very computer literate, perhaps you need to learn more about what p2p is and how it works.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 23:23:37 +0000

@Chris

I find it hard to believe that you are an independent
musician when your postings seem to parrot the **AA
line that file-sharing=stealing, a downloaded file=a lost sale,
or that if p2p networks were to disappear, people would go
back to paying ridiculous prices for lossy downloads and CDs.

As long as the industry continues to see p2p as the enemy rather
than competition, and continues to suppress it by suing their (now
former) customers, hobbling technology for their own benefit, trying
to get legislation passed that does the same, they are going to lose
the digital arms race (as they are clearly doing now).

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 15:46:44 +0000

It is about control and greed.. simple truth.
They are screwing the independant artists with their radio tactics and internet radio.. Do you think the independant artists see any of the money they collect from these entities? Even the artists that are signed with them don’t see all the money they are owed.
They are putting effort into shutting down and controling any avenue in which artists might get money without going through them.. whether the artist is signed with them or not..

It is pathetic..

By: Dreddsnik

Dreddsnik — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:26:25 +0000

” But WHY are the record companies putting so much effort into trying to shut down these P2P tools? ”

The short, accurate answer is that P2P tools enable anyone with a home studio
to distribute and promote themselves .. worldwide .. without having to, heh ,
’share’ , a dime of any money with a major label.

It means anyone can compete.

They HATE that shit..

By: Richuk

Richuk — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 12:47:04 +0000

“Heres an example of what i was talking about with the effort to try and at least slow the illegal trade of music.”

But WHY are the record companies putting so much effort into trying to shut down these P2P tools? Has it not occurred to them by now that they have an amazingly efficient distribution method, if they could just find a way to remunerate the artists in a FAIR way?

It makes me so mad when I hear quotes like that, because it’s blatantly clear that the RIAA is too scared to experiment with new technologies like this and decides its time is better spent making even more money by suing people.

By: X3style

X3style — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 10:40:15 +0000

Dear Chris I’ve read most of your post here and i would like to offer my opinion on them.

First off sharing isn’t stealing by definition.The stealing part comes as a result of the new business model that makes profit out of copies in that sense you could call it stealing as in the company doesn’t make profit anymore.But the trick in it is that its a vague description because u have no way of knowing for sure that the guy receiving a copy without paying would actually pay if he didn’t receive it.Thus the whole stealing description is merely an assumption and thus can’t be taken as a fact.

Second the part about shutting down p2p so the people buy the music is basically the monopoly idea.You are suggesting to create a monopoly so you can earn profit. Monopoly in itself is a bad thing for consumers and because the world rolls around the consumers and not the other way around we are the ones to decide.In the beginning there was the consumer that demanded. Then companies came and produced what they wanted when the demand became a common need businesses tried to monopolize it to switch power from the consumer to the corporates so they can have full control. But in our age that balance is switching back the way it should have always been. Many people like yourself take the current monopoly as granted. Fact is your job besides creating is to CONVINCE people to buy it not FORCE people to buy it.

Third being able to create music is not the only thing you need to be successful anymore.If u are unable to convince people to buy it you will fail.Thus I’ll take your complains as expressing your frustration because you don’t have the ability to convince people to buy your products.Hence your at the mercy of the masses.

Fourth many many fail to view the internet and p2p for what it is.You say you don’t make profit out of p2p. Well think about it this way its a huge way to promote yourself.Its like a global radio you don’t need to pay to get broadcasted but you wont get any royalties out of it either.Also if you music is good enough and you provide a way for people to pay you directly they will buy it from you but they wont pay money to the record labels so avoiding them is key. Because the war between the consumer and the record labels at this current time, working with one puts you in the line of fire.You wouldn’t run trough a field that has two battalions of enemies shooting at each other so why would you do that same thing by working with a big record label.And in the end if your content isn’t good enough for the current standards you don’t deserve money for it anyways because consumers don’t pay for crap.

I hope i explained enough to make some ideas clear that are currently running around.

By: Free Thinker

Free Thinker — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 00:15:30 +0000

My posting on “The RIAA vs Tanya Andersen story” is even more appropriate here. Power to the little guy!

Jon, enjoy the following two articles about some small name musician making it big on the internet and showing how the new business model of “True Fans” can work: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080311/183620503.shtml

Building up your “True Fans”. Now this one is even more interesting: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080304/174129438.shtml

By: Hippie

Hippie — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 23:48:10 +0000

” Maybe loss of sales isn’t the REAL reason the cartels want to destroy P2P ?? ”

It’s slightly possible that NIN making a mil and a half and having to
give none of it to a label, plus using pirate bay as a download point
could be seen as a reason to fear P2P. What if everyone tried to do that ?

By: Dreddsnik

Dreddsnik — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 23:46:14 +0000

” What happened? Their new CD was leaked onto Napster and gave them more attention leading to their ability to grow in popularity to become the band that they are today with the resources to launch the CD on their own and break away from a record label. ”

RadioHead is one of many that benefitted becuse of Napster.
Another Group was Metallica ( ironically ). There was just NO airplay for a metal band
like them. Of course, until Napster made them a household name, and Lars made
them the most hated band on the planet.

There is so much more evidence that sharing benefits sales.
One has to wonder why it’s ignored.

Maybe loss of sales isn’t the REAL reason the cartels want to destroy P2P ??

By: CCCP

CCCP — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 23:37:51 +0000

Chris, you haven’t heard of what happened with Radiohead in the beginning, haven’t you. When they started out, they had very little radio air time and hardly any CD sales and then they came from out of nowhere and their CDs started selling out as did their concert ticket sales and they went to number one on the sales charts. What happened? Their new CD was leaked onto Napster and gave them more attention leading to their ability to grow in popularity to become the band that they are today with the resources to launch the CD on their own and break away from a record label.

By: Skymt

Skymt — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 22:40:25 +0000

Chris! There is no conflict here. People are willing to buy and support the artist in any way they can. People LOVE the artists. It is the record companies that makes it so darned bad to buy music today, with closed formats, drm-crippling, overpriced and often of non-chosable quality. That kind of scheme can not compete, hell the dont even play in the same division as lets say, the pirate bay.

I wish more people could turn their eyes towards the already existing repositories of free, or CC-licensed music such as Jamendo… That way, there would be no need to share copyrighted music. Unfortunately, the record companies still have to much money to spend on advertising, giving their products an artificially high demand.

The current ways of the music business is doomed no matter what, and it is sad that people like you fear the new, instead of embracing the future.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 22:34:25 +0000

I would like to ask. How come every time someone from the record companies throws in their two cents it is always saying that everyone else are thieves looking to get music for free? I truly believe that the artists deserve to get paid for their work. Artists include songwriter, performer, musician and basically anyone that creatively contributes to the art. where I have a problem is the record industry lawyers, execs, etc thinking they are owed a damn thing. The lawsuits, the push to have ISP’s police and lobbying for different laws is not with the artists in thought. It is so these execs and such keep their payrolls and bonuses. If they had their way I am sure they would cut the artists percentage because they are just not making the money they used to. They are already trying to get a take on money that traditionally went to the artists in touring and merchandise.
If you want to get an idea of why today’s youth are thinking they can get music downloads for free, look at all the advertisements for free music downloads. If you dont click on the ad you don’t see it comes with stipulations or a purchase, all you see is free music downloads. Today alone, I saw three on different websites that had nothing to do with music.
when figuring out where all the lost sales are; file sharing is the easy target but is far less of an effect on sales then they are saying..
let’s look back to the 90’s when they were charging so much for a cd.. then let’s look into 2000 when the FTC hit the record companies with price fixing and collusion.. estimating millions upon millions of dollars the consumer was overcharged and money stolen from their pockets..
let’s look at the true value and talent of some of todays artists and the ones that are getting airplay and slammed down the consumers’ throats by the record companies.
let’s look at the economy and the effect on how people spend their money
let’s look at the video game industry and the growing numbers of kids that spend their time with games and computers compared to music
and let’s look at the ticket sales of concerts.. it is stated previously that concert tickets sales are stronger than ever.. well that tells me that the record companies are putting a bad taste in consumers’ mouths and they are supporting their favorite artists and paying and going to see them directly.
and there are quite a lot of other examples
dang.. even one of the record company bigwigs put money into the original napster trying to get a headstart from the other record companies and make the money from the idea..

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 22:32:01 +0000

Dude, you can’t magically make something disappear, like you can’t unpour water, without having a better alternative. And I seriously doubt that this, or any other paying service, is it.

According to Dunbar’s Number, you only get to know about ~150ish people well enough to care. Everyone else might as well be made of dark matter, as your brain can’t handle them. Most people don’t care about other people, people who they don’t know, and they don’t care if downloading means lost sales, they really just don’t care. This is why humanitarian efforts ultimately fail to get enough donators; people just don’t care about some sick person in who-knows-where, they don’t concern you. Same with music. Who cares about somebody in somewhere, I can get stuff for free! No paying service can compete with free, unless the paying service is of higher quality/better than free. Until paying gets more than DLing, people won’t give up P2P.

By: Dreddsnik

Dreddsnik — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 22:03:02 +0000

NIN and Radiohead would have to disagree with you Chris.

True, they disagree with each other as well, but that’s kind of the point.

Choice.

They are free, without the label chains on them to choose a method of distribution
that THEY are comfortable with. One is even using ‘ the evil Pirate Bay’ as a
distribution point.

If the label had their way, that door would be closed to anyone, even those that WANT
people to get their music in this way.

The point is choice.

You wish to choose the labels way of doing things .. good luck, and bring lube.
I think NIN and Radiohead would say they did very .. very well , even when giving it
away was involved.

By: Paulus

Paulus — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 20:18:40 +0000

@ Chris. It is very interesting that you are ignoring Jon’s questions.

I will repeat them for you —–

— you’re not seriously trying to suggest these “millions” would’ve bought a CD had they not shared, are you?

— you’re not seriously trying to suggest sharing is the same as stealing, are you?

By: Klimax

Klimax — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 19:53:01 +0000

Chris,may be it was too sharp,quick,not organized,but you sounded like p2p is EVIL,which ruins every single artist.Screw downloaders,screw everybody who thinks p2p is for good.
May be I wrote too quickly,but I am open to discussion-but my initial stance is p2p is good,serve me good arguements why not!

And remeber my uncle is musician and likes p2p as well!(for music,movies)

By: Gareth Turnstyle

Gareth Turnstyle — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 19:44:45 +0000

“I do not agree with p2p networks” – Chris

Dumb gets dumber.
You can’t disagree with a legal protocol.

The very idea of not ‘agreeing with P2P networks’ is a bit like not agreeing with people being able to talk to one another without a middleman taking notes and interrupting whenever you mention the boobies or our great leader…

By: someone there

someone there — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 19:42:55 +0000

@ Chris: I dont think things like the one at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7240234.stm will help. The only effect efforts like that one has made is to make p2p networks stealthier and better encrypted. Some people dont know it, but we are living in a digital arms race. After comcast started disconnecting people using bittorrent, protocol encryption was born. If the corps keep pressing on the legal side, the people will press on the technical side, making the clients stronger than before.

@ Jon: I fully agree on the “reasonably priced” matter, and also that sharing isnt stealing. Real world thieves and gangsters are dangerous folk, while your average p2p user is utterly innofensive.

By: Jon

Jon — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 19:26:58 +0000

@ Chris: “I’m not promoting that the record companies screw us like they did in the 1990’s, no that sucked.”

Don’t kid yourself. They’re trying to do the exactly same in the 21st century.

And as I said earlier, you’re not seriously trying to suggest these “millions” would’ve bought a CD had they not shared, are you?

And you’re not seriously trying to suggest sharing is the same as stealing, are you?

“In the meanwhile, p2p and sharing are here to stay and it’d be best for everyone if bands and individual musicians would work with that idea, and the innovators who, by various means, are trying to set music free (in the sense of free as a bird, not free beer), not cage it.”

In other words, no one, least of all me, is suggesting music should be free as in free beer. Reasonably priced would be nice, though.

Cheers!