p2pnet - rss feed: p2p file sharing is on the rise
p2p news / p2pnet: The desperate Big Four Organized Music Goliaths say their p2p file scaring tactics are either significantly reducing the numbers of people using the p2p networks, or the numbers are static.
Depends on if you’re talking to the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America - Down) or IFPI (International Federation of the Phonographic Industries - Static), both owned by the Big Four, Warner Music, Vivendi Universal, EMI and Sony BMG.
However, the real story is: the numbers of file sharers in the US and around the world continues to rise, says p2p research firm Big Champagne.
Below are it’s latest findings:
February 8th, 2006 at 1:33 am
Terry McBride is the only one in the industry who is living in the real world. My respect for this guy is growing.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060206.MCBRIDE06/TPStory/TPEntertainment/
February 8th, 2006 at 2:19 pm
“…This would be a regular fee such as, say, $5 a month which the user would pay to their Internet service provider, allowing unlimited access to file-sharing services. This would then help to compensate artists and the recording industry, proponents such as McBride say….”
I wonder on what criteria this money will be divided between labels and artists. I assume no matter how hard some labels/artists work they going to get the same share as lame ones. Sounds like socialism to me. I’ve been there and it sucks.
If this ever happens one can start his own label, it cost just $40 here in NY, record some noise in the music store, and if you follow the music trends you know that some people do this kind of stuff, dump it on some site like iTunes. The whole deal can be done in a 3 -4 days literally and after that one can officially collect the money for the rest of his life just keep recording “noise”.
February 8th, 2006 at 4:02 pm
Why should we be forced to subsidise the music and film industries out of date business models?
This is exactly what they want, forced taxation through the goverment. If they are not willing to sell music/movies at a 21st century price in a 21st century format, let them die. Others will replace them, it’s called competition, a concept the cartels have never heard of.
February 8th, 2006 at 11:27 pm
While I agree with you 100%, it’s unfortunately not a perfect world, and I think as long as it’s an option instead of a taxation, I can see no better way to bring an end to the madness. Right now, both sides want it all. In the end there will have to be some compromise and I’ll bet if you asked each of the people sued, they would choose an OPTION of having unlimited sharing with no DRM, for an extra $5 a month ($60 a year), rather than be sued for thousands or pay $1 per song for DRMed bullshit.
I do agree, though, that the death of the cartels would be better for everyone:)