P.S. I used to live in Aspen,(for 20 years).... a non-stop flight to Aspen means flying there in a private Lear jet.$$$$

------------------
...more signal, less noise!
 

If everyone that has ever downloaded an MP3 file and burned it to a CD were thrown in jail, you would have a major portion of the economy/tax base suddenly taken away. With far less funds going into the government, just how do they expect to pay for imprisoning all those downloaders? Huh? Huh? Duh.

The prison system is already maxed out as it is. You could hold up a liquor store, and if it turned out you had an expensive medical condition --you would likely not do a day's jail time at all for armed robbery. I had a district judge tell me that one. The talk is all big and bad about throwing the criminals in jail. However, if the system doesn't have the money to pay for all that medical care (much less all the other creature comforts from high end gyms, support for every conceivable religion, a full law library, cable TV piped in and even a steady supply of porn mags) they're going to find ways how to let many people out early.

Again, the RIAA is being waaay presumptuous about prosecuting all this downloading garbage. They come off like I have an unstoppable urge to buy music CDs all the time and that downloadable music is somehow interfering with that constant unstoppable need for music CDs.

The simple fact is I don't to have to buy shit from the music industry at all (much less even download any of the crap). Most current music today is purile, formulaic, derivative SHIT. To make matters worse, companies like ClearChannel have gobbled up hundreds upon hundreds of radio stations, got rid of originality only to trade it in for the same tired formulas. They just play the same 10 songs over and over and over and over and over and over again. I could keep from listening to most of those stations, tune in several months or even a couple years later and hear the same few songs in the playlist.

I hardly listen to the radio anymore much less walk into a music store wanting to buy new CDs. I have a copy of Morpheus installed on my computer, but I cannot think of a new song worth downloading to even download at all. Furthermore, if I actually come across something I like, I may go buy the CD rather than just download an MP3. Most MP3 files have audio quality on par with radio. Hell, I can record the digital feed off the music only channels from my satellite dish and get better results.

If the RIAA is really concerned at all about their bottom line and vanishing profits --why don't they get pissed off about the shitty quality in general of their product and go off on a tirade about all their corrupt music labels and payola-taking radio stations? It makes no sense at all for them to get threatening to CUSTOMERS. A good response from customers is to keep their money and give the one gun salute.

------------------
"Asleep at the switch? I wasn't asleep, I was drunk!" - Homer Simpson
 

As a result, touring is not happening as it used to. Revenues for the band never really came from record sales, but rather from touring. Touring supported record sales, and provided much more income to the band or musician than the album ever did.

Take into account the return of the band KISS. They recorded an album again that really was not all that good, it did not sell well, but in playing over 300 cities, they raked in nearly 86 million dollars in band income. You can't get that from record sales.

Most artists today could never fathom a 300 city tour. Just isn't going to happen. You think U2 got loaded from record sales? Garth Brooks? He has sold about 10 million records so far, but thats only worth about 15 million dollars. The money he has made has come from touring, making ten times that figure.

And to hear EMINEM complain in a recent article that people aren't buying his new cd, instead they are downloading it. Although I like his creativity, he has to take blame for targeting a large group of people that inherently don't buy stuff anyway.

The Internet revolution is allowing people to share music in ways that have never been done before. We must be careful, though, in our vigilance to end this. After all, are we trying to make millionares more rich? Is this the effort here? How bad is the problem?

Sources that track this kind of thing claim more than 100 million downloads occur every month, using various file sharing programs. That is probably very true. Unless they can come up with specific numbers of who is harmed the most, lets say Fiona Apple, her new album is downloaded 29 thousand times. Thats a harm, if she only sold 10 thousand copies. If lets say she sold one million copies, then there is little to no harm.

There must be a litmus test to find out if there is harm done a particular artist. the percentage of download must equal a percentage that exceeds a certain number before harm is equated, or the number of downloads must exceed a number depending on how many copies sold.

For instance..

ALBUM SALES... 20 thousand
DOWNLOADS..... 2 thousand

There is significant harm.

However the same percentage is less harm if the number sold is much much higher, say in the millions of copies range.

I doubt that certain acts are ever truly harmed. I hear nothing of really wanting to protect the small artist that has no financial backing to sue anyone for anything.

There must be a better solution to prosecution. This is not the answer. It will not work, but instead will breed even newer forms of piracy. Prohibition is the prime example of how to create a ban, and in adverse create a crime sydicate.

Instead, there must be a way to block the transfer of identifiable files at the ISP level. MP3 and other similar compression files do have unmistakable signatures that should be easy to identify and block from transmission, ending this whole thing. Why don't we get these brainy programmers to do that?

Instead of making laws to prosecute and follow up on that, and completely wear thin the justice department, lets take away the ability to do this in the first place. It can be done.

Dave
 

In the movie business, everybody knows that theatres are virtually a loss leader for the purpose of advertising the feature when it comes out on video. That's where the real money is made from making movies.

Why can't the music industry do a similar thing? Music CDs are a similar kind of loss leader when you think about it? They should stop trying to concentrate on the money lost when they KNOW it's a losing proposition to start with. The REAL money is made in the after market. Why don't they just forget about trying to make money on the first sale of the CDs?

Once they free themselves from that problem then they could move on to putting out "enhanced" versions of the product... DVD Audio, "CD+G", Several different cuts and mixes of the original song or even "Director's Cut" videos that can't be seen on M-TV.

Crikes! You can't swing a dead cat without hitting some kind of marketed movie merchandise! You walk into McDonald's and get slammed in the face with Happy Meal toys from the latest Disney movie that's out! You can't walk down the aisle of a Wal-Mart without tripping over 9,000,000 different Star Wars toys, CDs, books, DVDs and what-have-you!

The music business should take a cue from the movie business. Stop trying to beat a dead horse and find a way to make money without whining about people doing stupid things. What's next? Will people have to PAY just to LISTEN to others play music?

Oh! WAIT a second! They do that NOW! It's called a "concert!"
 

The new Eminem CD has sold 4 million and is still moving at least 100,000 copies a week. It's not doing as well as his previous steaming pile, but are downloads to blame? Probably partly.

Every generation thinks the next generation's music is crap. The Eminem fans of today will hate whatever comes out 20 years from now (God help us).

There is no doubt in my mind that the kids are downloading music at a frenzied pace. This is because they can have it without paying for it. No label subscription service will EVER work, because people are used to getting it for free now. Why should somebody pay for something "just to be legal" when they can get it free with virtually no risk? Never mind if it's wrong...if you don't get caught, it's okay! I saw a kid with a CD Wallet full of burned CDs once.....I asked him how many store-bought CDs he owned, and he said he does not own any. "I just copy everything from my friends," he said.

No "encryption" will ever work either, not as long as there are analog signals coming out of a line-out jack somewhere.

 

------------------
Adam Fraser
www.pinestheatre.com
 

My point is that the little artist that sells little is the one getting hurt, not the big shots. But all we hear is from the big shots, so the point is lost on people who feel that the millionares of today are getting away with it at thier expense. If we heard from the people getting hosed that are just like you and me, then maybe, maybe it would be different. Maybe.

With the issue of blocking mp3 files, and the such, the reason it has not been done is becuase of the fear of blocking legitimate transfer. All that needs to be done is to apply for a transfer liscence, which would be encoded into the file. All you need is to prove that you own the material. the liscence can even be use coded to allow a single pass or a time limit, or even a destination limit as well, preventing a hijacking of the material and hacking of code. The liscenses could be kept on file with the FTC and updated to all ISP's on an instant basis. It would be technically feasable, and very easy to implement.

I really ought to write this shit down.

Dave
 

Also, as others have mentioned, there are legitimate reasons to transfer MP3 and other files and many of us would be up in arms if there were any attempt to restrict the transfer of file types which have legitimate uses.

Copy protection isn't an answer, either. It does nothing but harm legitimate consumers and take away "fair use" rights, while doing nothing to stop the big-time pirates.

What the record industry (and by that I don't mean just the RIAA) needs to do now is come up with a legitimate mechanism for online distribution of recorded music for a reasonable fee. Give customers an affordable, convenient, easy method for downloading recordings and give them a wide selection (including out-of-print and rare items) and a good search mechanism, and that will remove much of the reason for unauthorized downloads.
 

I do however feel that music CDs are overpriced compared to DVDs and would have to think twice about spending up to $18.00 for a soundtrack CD album such as "DANTE'S PEAK" when I can buy the actual movie on DVD for approximately $2.00 more at discount stores with the entire music score on a isolated track.

-Claude

I really don't think this is true on the level of a major label. The "little artist that sells little" on one of the majors is getting screwed by the label to the point that the number of downloads will not effect the check that eventually (or often never) shows up at their door. Major labels work so much {production costs, manufacturing costs, video production costs, legal fees, and so on) into the "cost" that an artist must recoup that an artist has to sell (almost literally) over a million copies of an album to actually make money on their record.

Small bands on independent labels and even moreso the independent labels themselves are the ones most being hurt by downloads. Their costs are higher, their sales are lower, and every sale counts.

As Dave also mentioned, it is typically the biggest artists heard complaining about music downloads. He is correct there, and I find that almost laughable. If Metallica and the like really feel like they are being robbed by the people downloading their music (but often still buying tickets to their concerts and paying $30 for a t-shirt), they need to take a closer look at how much they are being "robbed" by their record label.

quote:

---

There must be a litmus test to find out if there is harm done a particular artist. the percentage of download must equal a percentage that exceeds a certain number before harm is equated, or the number of downloads must exceed a number depending on how many copies sold.

For instance..

ALBUM SALES... 20 thousand
DOWNLOADS..... 2 thousand

There is significant harm.

---

Not necessarily ...

You don't know if those downloads:

1) Were discarded or never listened to again (Hey, this track sucks! <delete> )
2) Replaced a sale (Whohoo, free stuff! I'm cheap!)
3) Didn't replace a sale (I'm broke, but I'm in college, so I have high speed internet access to my dorm room. I'll spend the evening on Napster)
3) Triggered a sale (Hey, I like this! Now I know what album to look for next time I'm at the mall)
4) Triggered a later purchase (Hey, I've heard this band -- I downloaded some of their tracks and liked them -- oh look, they have another album. I'll buy that one.)
5) Triggered a concert ticket purchase. (That song I downloaded and liked -- the band is playing this weekend. Let's go!)
6) Triggered word-of-mouth promotion. (Hey, check out this song I downloaded - cool, eh?)

No one really knows the effect of file-sharing on record sales. The only real data point out there is that the music industry was seeing record sales while Napster was running, and has been in a tailspin ever since Napster was shut down. So perhaps file-sharing isn't quite as destructive as the RIAA would have people believe.

The RIAA is just making the same kind of stink it did in the past about things like cassette tape. 10 or 20 years from now, it may come to pass the record industry will reap many billions of dollars as it did from pre-recorded cassettes.

But if ClearChannel radio winds up owning every radio station in the country and the only way new music gets played is via payola, then the Internet will be the only way to find any decent, new stuff.

With technology getting better and better, the record companies and even radio stations are fast becoming irrelevant.
 

Did the RIAA ever stop to think that $20 might be a bit pricey for a plain-ass CD???? My copy of "The Matrix" soundtrack CD cost more than the damned DVD! Factor that into the scientific study!
 

There - they are all destroyed now. I ran over them with my car before I threw them out.

After this talk, I have definately changed my opinion of what is wrong and what really could be done.

The major problem is not with downloads, but with the ease of copying and the affordability of blank cd's.

Now you can get MP3 portable players, dvd units with mp3, car cd players with mp3, etc. This is making it easier to listen to these illgotten downloads whereever you go.

Although he admits it amounts to price fixing, his suggestion is this; put a VAT at the manufacturer level, per cd, to be distributed to artists, much like ASCAP would do. Keep the VAT so high that it becomes prohibitive to use the discs to have portable copies of cd's, that you did not pay for.

Also, ban the use of MP3 decoding on portable machines. Yes there is a big market right now, but imagine if there was a market for a special tool kit that let you steal any car. That would piss a lot of people off, and you think that would be illegal. I think that the portable MP3 players should either be so expensive that they become prohibitive, or they should not be out there.

Yes, I am aware that you have a right to make a backup copy of your own liscenced music, and you should be able to take it anywhere you want in any form, as long as you own the liscense. This is the only real quandry, but hey, we have to do something. Mass prosecutions is not the answer.

Emassing illegal music from computer to computer is not the problem, it is the ease of copying cd's, transfering them over the internet, and making a whole new cd somewhere else, for someone else, without the benefit of the artist getting his fair due.

If we ban the further production of MP3 Decoding on portable devices of any kind, other than on a computer, then the only option left is to transfer your files to a blank CD, which would then cost more than the full price CD, encouraging the purchase of the original.

There are millions of MP3 Devices out there now. Not everyone has them yet. The ones out there will not last forever. This is something that would have to be done sooner rather than later.

I have seen that APPLE has one that holds 2000 songs. Now really, this is piracy at its best, and the big boys are getting thier hands as dirty as the downloaders. The big companies making millions of dollars on mp3 portables are HELPING this problem get bigger. They must share in this burden of responsibility. Perhaps limit the amount of music that can be downloaded, and perhaps make it so these portables can only provide an analog or degraded output, no direct digital stream out, just in. Maybe even a time limit. Who knows.

As far as overpricing blank cd's, it is done on the AUDIO cd's, meant for stand alone cd copiers. They have a built in VAT to distribute to ASCAP already, so it can be done. Yes there are many data applications used on blank cd's, but businesses that use them would have to factor that in, and plan on the increase of cost, and perhaps go to rewritables or use zip disks instead.

There are many possibilities, and correct that just stopping the transfer of any type of file is hard enough. Complicated filters can catch a file even if it has its extention renamed, but still, it really is not the answer.

I would love the industry to have a nice big website with all thier stuff for sale, how about 50 cents a download. maybe more or less, perhaps catalog songs for less, between 10 cents and 25 cents, newer songs for two bucks or so. Discount if you buy the whole damn album.

That would be sweet, but the RIAA wants to protect its distribution points with these damn cd's. AAAAUGH. Too costly.

I throw my hands up in the air. There are so many different opinions out there, and it doesn't seem that any two match up. SO I GIVE UP, besides, I really don't care anymore. My brain hurts.

Dave
 

quote:

---

Now you can get MP3 portable players, dvd units with mp3, car cd players with mp3, etc. This is making it easier to listen to these illgotten downloads whereever you go.

---

MP3 players also make it easier to listen to CDs that you have paid for, or music that you have created yourself. Lots of people do that also.

quote:

---

Although he admits it amounts to price fixing, his suggestion is this; put a VAT at the manufacturer level, per cd, to be distributed to artists, much like ASCAP would do.Keep the VAT so high that it becomes prohibitive to use the discs to have portable copies of cd's, that you did not pay for.

---

That destroys the ability of unsigned musicians to record and distribute their own work, including demo recordings, live concert recordings, and small production runs for sale to the public.

quote:

---

Also, ban the use of MP3 decoding on portable machines. Yes there is a big market right now, but imagine if there was a market for a special tool kit that let you steal any car. That would piss a lot of people off, and you think that would be illegal. I think that the portable MP3 players should either be so expensive that they become prohibitive, or they should not be out there.

---

MP3 isn't a "pirate" format -- it's an internet-friendly format. Lots of people distribute their own recordings, or artist-authorized recordings, over the internet. Sites like MP3.com are loaded with millions of MP3 recordings, made available with the full consent and blessings of thousands of unknown and independant musicians. Your proposal would destroy their ability to publish their work, and destroy the ability of people to listen to their work.

quote:

---

I would love the industry to have a nice big website with all their stuff for sale, how about 50 cents a download. maybe more or less, perhaps catalog songs for less, between 10 cents and 25 cents, newer songs for two bucks or so. Discount if you buy the whole damn album.

---

Personally, I could care less about downloading Eric Clapton songs from some "industry" website. If I want an Eric Clapton album, I'm perfectly happy to buy it at the record store. However, I will point out that this proposal is mutually exclusive with your proposal to destroy the market for MP3 players. If MP3 players were illegal or prohibitively expensive, why on earth would I pay money to download songs in MP3 format?

What about people like myself -- people whose musical world consists largely of non-RIAA-marketed recordings? Although I have a large library of several hundred commercial CDs, the vast majority of my recorded CDRs are live concert recordings, of bands like the Grateful Dead, Phish, Yonder Mountain String Band, and easily over a hundred lesser known bands, all of who permit and often actively encourage audience taping and non-commercial distribution of recordings of their performance, either for commercial purposes -- to gain exposure and make their money on concert tickets and future album sales -- or purely as a gesture of respect and generosity to their fans.

What about people like my DJ friends, who take bits and pieces of existing songs and remix them into brand new creations. That would all have to stop completely if having the ability to create and distribute music outside of the RIAA manufacturing structure were to be sacrificed to prevent copying of commercial music.

Under your proposals, how would you feel about paying a $20.00 tax to the RIAA for a blank CDR so you could record your daughter's piano recital?

There's a LOT more to the world of music than the RIAA and their mass-market, lowest-common-denominator, commercial releases.

One more thing ...

quote:

---

I sat down today for about two hours and had a talk with a good friend of mine who runs a used CD outlet.

---

I find it ironic that your friend is so concerned about artists receiving royalties that he is willing to destroy the entire world of non-RIAA music to prevent even the smallest amount of non-royalty-paying copying, when he is in the BUSINESS of selling music without paying royalties to artists! Artists don't get royalties on used CDs.

Now if only the record industry would pay attention to the movie industry. If you price things affordably, people WILL buy the originals. The point has already been made here that the soundtrack to a movie often costs less than the movie itself to own. That is ridiculous. CDs need to have their prices lowered to under $10. Bring them back to the price range of LPs at around $7-8 and a lot of this bootlegging will go away on it's own and in the end, the record companies and artists will make MORE money. Sure each individual sale is less of a profit, but it's the quantity sold that makes the difference.

The other thing I've always felt was ridiculous is that I can go buy a DVD for $20 of a 100 million dollar production. However that same $20 spent on ANY cd release ever made comes nowhere close to the money spent to produce the recording. Why do record labels feel they are entitled to more of a profit?

Taxing CD-R blanks creates other problems: first, there are plenty of legitimate uses for blank CD-Rs (data storage, anyone?). Second, how should the taxes be distributed to mucisians? Should they just go to RIAA member companies (like the failed DAT tax)? That's blatantly unfair to those who don't choose to join. Should some random garage band get the same amount as Eminem? Again, that wouldn't be fair.

As Brad said, the real fix to this supposed "problem" is for the record companies to realize that people don't like paying high prices for an inferior product and then do something to correct that.
 

I never said I had all the answers. If you got better ones, lets hear em.

Brad has the only good one,

LOWER THE DAMN CD PRICES... nine bucks would make me want to buy.

Everyone else can bite my bum

Dave
 

quote:

---

Brad has the only good one,

LOWER THE DAMN CD PRICES... nine bucks would make me want to buy.

---

This isn't really all that good.

How can you expect to buy CDs for LESS than an LP record album used to cost back in the 80s? The list price for records, at their peak, was $9.98. That was close to TWENTY YEARS AGO. Has no one heard of inflation?

Everything costs more now. Studio time, advertising, shipping, building construction, instruments, gas, hotel rentals, royalties, hookers, booze, payola, etc. all cost more. And, even though the LIST price of a current popular CD is $18.98, I'm sorry, but if you are spending more than $15 on it, you are not shopping very well. Most new stuff can be had for $11 to $13, if you look around.

Besides, pricing the CDs lower WILL NOT stop piracy any more than a nice, low-priced, 50-cents-a-song website would. People can now download music FOR FREE. Why should they all of a sudden say "Oh, I can buy Britney Spears' new disk for $9, I guess I won't download it FOR FREE, I'll buy it instead." It will NEVER HAPPEN.

Do you think that if every theatre had a back door where people could walk in for free, without risk of getting caught, that they would suddenly start lining up to pay if the movies suddenly cost $2.00 instead of eight? Maybe some rich people who didn't care about money, and a few people with morals, and some lazy people who didn't want to bother to walk to the back door would, but the rest would still walk in free and save the two bucks. And they would carry in their own cheaper sodas, too.

The music piracy thing is here, it's going to stay, and as more people get high speed internet access it's going to get worse, and there's not a damn thing that anyone can do about it, without shutting down a lot of legitimate use of the Net, so the best thing to do is just learn to live with it. Unfortunately, that probably won't happen.
 

quote:

---

No "encryption" will ever work either, not as long as there are analog signals coming out of a line-out jack somewhere.

---

And don't forget that if analog line-outs become illegal, that speakers are analog devices, so you could always tap into the wires at the speakers. I wonder if someday it will be illegal to make or sell an analog recording device.

------------------
Evans A Criswell
Huntsville-Decatur Movie Theatre Information Site
 

Then kindly explain how 'NSYNC's (I know a bad group to illustrate with but the facts use them as the example) second-to-last album even though it was available on Napster almost a month previous to its street date was one of, if not *the* biggest selling album of that year???

>>I wonder if someday it will be illegal to make or sell an analog recording device.<<

Already been tried, unsuccessfully, (the Betamax case, and the hysteria the recording industry tried to pull with audio cassettes).

I am also getting weary of the record-industry bellyachers bitching about how MP3 delivers perfect digital copies of the source material- thats the biggest load of horseshit of all! MP3, by virtue of its compression algorithm, makes a 'perfect' copy impossible! I have NEVER heard a MP3 file that sounded as good as the original, even at high bitrates.

-Aaron

It is my firm opinion that if a "musician" or band is bitching about how much money they are 'losing' because of something, then they are in the music biz for the wrong reason!

I myself prefer to listen to musicians, not recording artists / performing artists.

One local act here that I'm fond of is Vacationland ! And you know what? ...on their website, they have a few links that allow you to download mp3s for two of their songs!
They enjoy playing. One night after a show, I was chilling out with them (my roommate works with their bass player), and when the cash they earned that night got split up amongst the four of them, one of them joked "Hey, I didn't know that we got paid to do this!" ...he got the room chuckling anyway...
 

Claude: I've said it before, and I'll say it again. MiniDisc rocks! Whoo-hoo!! I, too, record my CD's that I have purchased onto MD's for listening to in the car and on the go. I have a MiniDisc deck at home, a car stero MD player, and a portable player.

Now, getting back to the issue of piracy, would it be wrong to borrow my friend's CD and make an MD of it? I guess that would be pretty much equivalent to downloading unauthorized songs for free, huh? Hmmm, guess I better stop doing that.

As others have mentioned, the site MP3.com is a very legitimate way for independent and unknown artists to get their music distribuited. Also, popular artists will many times offer a free download of their latest single, which will spark many album sales. And although the selection is limited, you can download singles for less and two bucks apeice from CDnow and BMG.

I'm sure that the original intent of the personal MP3 players was to allow people to enjoy their own music in the same quality that they get from their CD's, while on the go. It's not the manufacturers' fault that people are copying illegal downloads to their players. But there is nothing wrong with transfering your CD's to your MP3 player to listening to while jogging. If they made it so that you could only get low-quality analog formats, how many people would just go back to using audio cassettes. I think that's a ridiculous idea.

So there's gotta be a way to stop (or at least severely limit) illegally sharing free songs, without stoping all the other legitimate uses for MP3 files. And even if the downloading of free songs was somehow put to an end, what would stop people from borrowing CD's to friends and copying them to MiniDiscs, like I do?

Oh, and another thing I just thought of: You can borrow Audio CD's from most public libraries. Do they libraries think that people are just going to listen to them and then return them?? I think almost anyone that borrows a CD is going to record it. Are these CD's considered public domain or something? (You usually don't find the latest hits among the collection at your local library, at least I haven't.)

------------------
The man with the magic hands.

The RIAA and the labels are currently in litigation with both of those services as well as others in an attempt to try to shut them down.

BUT:
Even P2P services have legitimate uses...

>>So there's gotta be a way to stop (or at least severely limit) illegally sharing free songs, without stoping(sic) all the other legitimate uses for MP3 files.<<

Thats what Napster tried with their filtering system. While it did work to some degree, there are of course several ways to circumvent the technology.

-Aaron

It does however that we have a right to the pursuit of happiness.

So if making one happy is stealing music, then so be it. RIGHT?

Music is intellectual property. The holder of that property has rights. If thier rights are infliced upon by legitimate software, then the manufacturer must be held responsible. That is the basis of tort law.

The downloaders may be committing piracy, however the actions of 70 million americans could not have ever taken place if not for the legitimate software that allowed the illegitimate use of it. The fact that the designers of it have not done thing one to even attempt to do anything about it shows that they, not the users, are the ones directly to blame.

This is why RIAA went after naptser, not the users. It is pointless to go after random users, all you do is create an underground even more vast and damaging.

When we go to war, we don't go to war with particular soldiers, we go to war with a country. We attack thier bomb making facilities, not thier personal homes. We attack thier military bases, not thier hospitals (well not intentionally).

This is what should be done. We need a declaration of war on intellectual property piracy. Go after and shut down any company that provides a set of software tools or a safe haven for hackers or downloaders to rip off content.

The fact that you can get most of this stuff for free is disturbing. I mean the software to rip all this stuff off is totally free, if you know where to look. So go after anyone providing tools to rip off artists.

There are many legitimate uses of MP3, etc. Players should be free and legal. Sites that offer free downloads, authorized by artists, fine there too. But anyone offering the ability to rip a cd to mp3, that should cost a pretty penny. Anyone who wants to do this, should be willing to pay a fee to do it.

I use Nero burn 5. I got it free with my burner. I used to use EZ CD creator, but the newer versions kept costing too much. the programs are free, but they should not be.

We need to target the problem, and the problem is the provider of free rippers, and file sharing/stealing services. That would cut the majority of piracy.

MP3 is a great site. One of my relatives, my uncle, has a few songs there himself. If you are really into hair bands, look up M7, and ST. Laurent. He used to fancy himself a singer. He also had short stints with Viscous Rumors and UFO, and a few other bands of the like.

Dave

quote:

---

Music is intellectual property. The holder of that property has rights. If thier rights are infliced upon by legitimate software, then the manufacturer must be held responsible. That is the basis of tort law ...

This is what should be done. We need a declaration of war on intellectual property piracy. Go after and shut down any company that provides a set of software tools or a safe haven for hackers or downloaders to rip off content.

---

Interesting. I'll point out that cameras can just as easily be used for copying graphic art, and photocopiers can just as easily be used for copying magazines and books.

Do you also recommend a declaration of war on Nikon and Xerox?

If I were a musician (instead of a "recording or performing artist") I would be doing backflips if my song or album was downloaded 10,000 times!! At least I know how many people want/like it. If people just swapped CDs and copied them, I would never know how popular I really was.

My mother has some old records from the 60's from Europe, and on the outer edge of the label there's the message: "Any duplication, copying, public performance, radio broadcast, renting, lending, borrowing, leasing through a rental or library agency, or modification of this recording is strictly prohibited." So technically, if she let her neighbor borrow the record, and the neighbor scratched it, they would have BOTH commited at least 3 of those "crimes." (Lending, Borrowing, and the scratch which Modified The Recording.)

The idea has been beaten to death here, but it's the only solution: Create something people WANT to buy instead of putting out the same inferior product and DEMAND they buy it, or implement methods that will FORCE them to buy it. As for people suggesting to "ban" the MP3 format alltogether, we should use some of those guns the constitution grants us and thin out the gene pool. It's like saying, "Okay. There has been a problem with people copying books with pencils, so from now on, only PENS will be available to the public."

Heck, with today's ultra-mega-high-speed-"digital" internet connections, people could just start swapping the larger WAV or AUD files which would give them better quality anyway.

I wonder what brouhaha will erupt once DVD burners and blank DVD-Rs come down in price. Right now, they're at what CD-Rs were 5 or 7 years ago.

AFAIK, the average home user has no way of duplicating records or flim(onto the same media). So there's another battle won by Analog!!

Enough ranting for now, coffee time!
=TMP=
 

Morals aside, I do think it is humorous that no matter what kind of copy protection/encryption the industries come up with, the consumers will ALWAYS outsmart them.

quote:

---

>> Why should they all of a sudden say "Oh, I can buy Britney Spears' new disk for $9, I guess I won't download it FOR FREE, I'll buy it instead." It will NEVER HAPPEN.<<

Then kindly explain how 'NSYNC's (I know a bad group to illustrate with but the facts use them as the example) second-to-last album even though it was available on Napster almost a month previous to its street date was one of, if not *the* biggest selling album of that year???

---

One has nothing to do with the other. I said that the label's subscription services will never work because people won't want to pay for something (downloads) that they've been able to get for free.

Also on the subject of "pristine digital quality" MP3s: I would venture that about 90% of people in this country would think that an MP3 sounds just as good as a CD on a typical system...since the typical system is a portable boom box with plastic speakers, or a car stereo with the bass cranked up higher than the national debt.

"I'll point out that cameras can just as easily be used for copying graphic art, and photocopiers can just as easily be used for copying magazines and books. Do you also recommend a declaration of war on Nikon and Xerox?"

John, don't be silly. Taking a photograph of the Mona Lisa is not the same thing as taking a digitial copy of a digital source. Making a cheap photocopy of a book or article is not the same thing, and can actually cost you more than the original. That assertion of yours is just silly and rediculous. Come back to me when you have something a bit more constructive.

Thomas Procyk said;

"As for people suggesting to "ban" the MP3 format alltogether, we should use some of those guns the constitution grants us and thin out the gene pool."

So suggestions get you killed? Is that your answer? I think your straightjacket is too tight around the neck.

As for if you need permission to use the word PEPSI, if it is for public use, other than in passing, and for profitable means, then yes. The word did not exist until they created it.

Intellectual property is a right. If any one of us created something and it was just ripped off from you by everyone, would you be upset. YES YOU WOULD. Just to say that you would be happy and thrilled is just you saying that. Suppose your employer decided to stop paying you. The fact that you are still there should show you how much you are loved and appreciated, right?

What the artists are doing is thier job. If they stopped getting paid, then they might just get upset. Some artists more than others. Some don't get paid that much, some get paid ungodly amounts. But it is thier job. Is MP3 the money equalizer? NO. It is majority piracy. Can we kill it. No. Impossible at this point. Too much access. Can anything be done. Yes. Destroy any content providers that allow free and easy access to illgotten materials. Simple. Go after free rippers and shut them down. Make users pay a fee to use them, much like users have to pay fees to use virus software. Make it not too expensive, but also enough to make it not so eniticing to be a rip off artist.

It will not stop piracy. I am not delusional. But it will curb the majority problem. Most people do it because it is cheap or free and definately easy. Make it harder, and add a cost too it, and most people will not do it.

When napster was around, I like many others, am guilty of downloading plenty. But when it was shut down. So was I. I gave up. Yes there are other shareservers now, but so what. Eventually they will be gone too. Most people will give up. If they insist on ripping off music, they will have to either borrow an already purchased cd or buy one themselves. At least this way, it becomes harder for one copy of a cd to reach 10 thousand users. It brings it closer the the old 1 copy to 10 users problem. That they can handle.

Dave

Dave

quote:

---

So suggestions get you killed? Is that your answer? I think your straightjacket is too tight around the neck.

---

Not all suggestions, but dumb ones should certainly carry some sort of penalty. The dumber the suggestion, the stiffer the penalty. Suggesting that an entire file format should be banned simply because it is used to do something illegal warrants just that. If a hammer were used in a murder, does that imply that all hammers should be banned because they MAY be used to commit another murder?

quote:

---

As for if you need permission to use the word PEPSI, if it is for public use, other than in passing, and for profitable means, then yes. The word did not exist until they created it.

---

Okay. Pepsi was a bad example. And even if I didn't make a profit from my work, they could still get me on grounds of copyright, because, it's "their" word. (I thought words belonged to eveyone?) But what about company Service Marks? Technically, VISA could sue me if I used "It's everywhere you want to be." They didn't "create" that phrase. It was there. They just claimed it as theirs to identify their company. When we're at a point where someone can OWN a word, we're truly in trouble.

AFAIK, downloading music hurts the recording companies many times more than it hurts the artist themselves. Many artists actually SUPPORT the downloading of MP3s. It seems the ones that aren't cutting it anymore (Metallica?) are the ones that have problems with it. And if an artist is creating work for the sole purpose of profiting from it, then they are not an artist. They are a business person, and their work suffers. (Example: What George Lucas turned in to)

I haven't bought a CD in over 4 years. They're too expensive, they don't offer anything that their outrageous price will justify, and there hasn't been anything out there that makes me want to dash to the record store. Have I downloaded music? Yes. Many things that I already own on vinyl, or songs that are not available anywhere anymore. I wonder what the numbers would look like if they didn't count the rare, out-of-print, or independent MP3s that were downloaded.

Subscription services wouldn't work at all. All that would happen is a small majority would subscribe, download what they need, and pass it along to other non-subscribers. Back when HBO was the new thing, a neighbor of ours would tape all of the movies and pass them around the neighborhood.

Downloading and burning CDs isn't easy. At least, I don't think it is. Finding the songs, downloading them, and burning them onto a CD for play in a regular CD player can take well over an hour. And they only work in one of my CD players as the other 2 I have don't read burned CDs. It almost seems easier to take 10 minutes to run over to the store and pick up a nice original copy. Well, if they weren't $18 each.....

And no, my straightjacket is not on too tight. My friend purposely did not tighten it all the way so that I could have some mobility as he took the pictures. So there!

=TMP=
Vinyl contains music. CDs contain 1's and 0's.

Many people use CD-RW drives for other purposes than copying music CDs. I'm a computer graphic artist and I am always backing up gigabytes worth of art files. I'm going to be pissed beyond belief if someone jacks blank CD-R and RW discs up to $10 and $20 levels per disc (especially when you have at least a few glitch out). And some of my freelance customers are not going to like it when I pass that higher cost on to them to recoup my data archiving costs.

So, increasing blank CD-R costs is not feasible. The RIAA and record labels are not as big an industry as that of the computer industry. They'll lose on that contest.

Also, let's consider the record industry. There's all this bull- talk about how "artists" are getting robbed of their money by copying. Perhaps a major act like Metallica or N-STANK might take a slight hit from it. But most other music acts GET NOTHING AT ALL from CD sales. Most are signed to what amounts to slavery contracts and they even have to pay back "production costs" to the music company from any profits they make from touring. Well known bands like the Goo Goo Dolls have nearly gone bankrupt, broke-up and taken day jobs once again --after producing several albums. Only after hitting it big with a few pop hit breakthrough songs did this band get into a position where they could get into a new and more favorably profitable contract with a record company.

This is no dirty little secret either. Well known performers like Don Henley and Alanis Morrisette testified before house subcomittees to keep Napster alive since the major record labels were not paying artists anything. Instead of getting a royalty statement and check to cash, many recording artists get a BILL from the label! Downloading services like Napster (or these days, KaZaa and Morpheus) actually serve as a form of advertising. The CD is only one revenue stream. You have all those overpriced concert tickets, videos, t-shirts, posters and lots of other merchandise --all of which the major labels get a handsome cut. These guys are not exactly losing out at all. They're just bitching because they can't figure out how to install a toll meter on everyone's computers and greedily make even more money.

The record industry is seeing falling sales because the general state of quality in popular music these days is at an even worse level than the dying days of the disco era back in the late 1970's. With all the monopolization of radio, music video, concert bookings and consolidation of record companies, there is very little room at all for any innovation. There will not be any type of new movement like what we saw in the early 1980's with punk and new wave unless the major labels grow a pair of balls and allow it to happen. My feeling is the only way it will happen is via independent performers who produce and distribute their own CDs and a very few independent radio stations.

Independent radio is very hard to find. I don't have it in Lawton. ClearChannel has much of that town. I'm writing this post from Colorado Springs (where I am currently enjoying some time off). On my drive up here, I listened to this independent Amarillo Colleges radio station (89.9 FM) which played a bunch of stuff I had never heard before --and a pretty good amount of it was really interesting stuff, and all of it stuff I would not hear on any ClearChannel station. I'm going to go into the 'Springs this afternoon and see if I can't find CDs from any of the band names I had written down on my trip.

And here's a followup: http://www.janisian.com/article-fallout.html

And here's a somewhat different view from songwriter/producer/performer Al Kooper: http://www.alkooper.com/napster.html
 

"Okay. Pepsi was a bad example. And even if I didn't make a profit from my work, they could still get me on grounds of copyright, because, it's "their" word. (I thought words belonged to eveyone?) But what about company Service Marks? Technically, VISA could sue me if I used "It's everywhere you want to be." They didn't "create" that phrase. It was there. They just claimed it as theirs to identify their company. When we're at a point where someone can OWN a word, we're truly in trouble."

You could use that phrase anytime, as long as you don't use it with VISA, or another credit card company or credit providing company. It would be the same as a movie using the tagline "in a galaxy far far away", it would be obvious that copyright infringement is evident. However, if you had a fast food joint, called galaxy burgers, using a 50's diner style, you could use the star wars tag line, without fear of recrimination. It is only similarities that worries courts.

the movie, "coming to america" had a ficticious joint called "mcdowells" with the "golden arcs". He kept getting sued by mcdonalds, but was just different enough to avoid prosecution. In reality, he would not have survived, the tort lawyers would have ripped his ass off.

As for Cdr's and rw's costing too much, remember they used to. But I agree, it is not feasable to raise the price.

As for dumb questions should get you shot, I agree. I should have been shot a long time ago.

Dave

Bob
The Old Showman
 

quote:

---

Then kindly explain how 'NSYNC's (I know a bad group to illustrate with but the facts use them as the example) second-to-last album even though it was available on Napster almost a month previous to its street date was one of, if not *the* biggest selling album of that year???

---

Aaron, NSYNC's an off the curve example because it's basically marketing driven - to own ALL the NSYNC merchandise. Even after downloading the music, the NSYNC base must also be able to have the physical item, & every other NSYNC item made: the lunchbox, the videos, millions of pictures & cards, pencils, concert tickets, it goes on & on. "I've got that!" NKOTB & the Monkees were the same way, the music was actually to move the merchandise.

The point is, most people don't feel like going through all the time and trouble to do a lot of copying. What is your time worth to you? In the amount of time it takes me to download an album's worth of mere-radio-quality MP3 files (I'm sorry, but MP3 is NOT CD quality), I could have made more than three times the cost of that CD by doing some artwork. It is actually cheaper and much more convenient for most people to just go and buy the disc. The trouble is, these days, there is very little content out there worth buying at all --much less wasting your time downloading.

Another thing the recording industry should consider is the amount of "value" perceived in a plain CD. Is it really worth $20 anymore? Or even $10? C'mon, I get a hell of a lot more for my dollars buying DVDs. Case in point: The Eurhythmics Greatist Hits. Regardless of whether you like them or hate them, consider the differences in their Greatest Hits music CD versus the Greatist Hits music video DVD. I bought a copy of the DVD for $15. That's less than what I paid for the CD. Yet the DVD has nearly twice as many songs with 2.0 channel audio in full Linear PCM 16-bit 48kHz. I've got the songs, with video and true CD quality audio for less than that bare bones CD.

The music industry has to put more work and value into their product to compete against DVD, video games and lots of other home entertainment products. They can't just blame it all on home CD dubbing and downloads of MP3s. That's a cop out for them providing what has, in general, degraded into a shit product.

Look how DVD-A is languishing. My father has a $1500 Denon 5-disc DVD changer with DVD-A capability, yet he owns no DVD-A discs. Why? They're plain vanilla products with no extras, no videos, no lyrics, no interviews, no other ancillary content --not to mention most of the popular music titles are from 20 to 30 year old classic rock albums, that if anyone liked them at all they would already have bought the CD version by now.

DVD-V is selling very well because it is an excellent product that is continually being improved. I see nothing in terms of improvement for standard music CD, DVD-A or SACD.

quote:

---

As for dumb questions should get you shot, I agree. I should have been shot a long time ago.

---

No no no. I never said that. Dumb suggestions should warrant an equally severe penalty. IMHO, nobody should be shot, but I'm not getting into that here.

=TMP=