Should the RIAA really be concerned with ppl Using P2P Netowrks

Again in my news I have been hearing about the RIAA Cracking down on ppl Using Peer to Peer (p2p) Networking... It started with Napter and now the are working on Kazaa, and the Gnutella network...

Do you think this is a "Major Threat" (Quoted from a person affiliated with RIAA) to the music Industry???

I use Kazaa...and If I like a musicain enough after downloading some of his/her/their music I go to the store and buy a copy....I also keep the songs I have dloaded as a back-up...I fully believe in supporting artist that I enjoy its a small way for me to show appreciation toward them and their music... I know alot of people dont do this but hey you cant force everyone to conform..

http://news.dmusic.com/article/10227
this guy brought up a very good point...Take tha time to read his post.

Yes

Nah...few studies have shown any real hit to record sales...the problem is that while the rest of the world advanced CD's stayed the same. They are an outdated and now annoying technology.

Had the RIAA listened to the what many futurists and tech forcasters said...all this could have been avoided. The $10 CD...the ability to burn your OWN albums of songs in stores...downloadable music for a small fee...all the stuff they are trying to play catch up now. They spent more time and effort keeping CD's overpriced that they dug their own grave.

If CD's didn't stay so high priced as everything around them dropped CD sales would still be high.

Look at what the movie industry did with DVD's...buying a CD just feels "old" and pointless. Their is little incentive to buy CD's outside of what you are already intrested or curious to try...hell my own collection is gathering dust as it's now all on one hard drive ( I don't share any of it though...I dislike having my bandwidth chewed on...and I rarely download anymore...the fun of it wore off.)

The only "Major Threat" the RIAA has is themselves. If I honestly believed that downloading music would collapse the music industry I'd be downloading gigs at a time out of sheer spite. Look at how low they had to go in targeting their OWN customers...even with evedice and reports that P2P users buy more CD's in the long run...or VARIOUS artists. That's what pissess them off it seems. The BIG albums get "sales hits" as obscure no name albums and artists they've left for dead score a few sales...but not enough to cover various investments it seems.

Though I'll admit during the metallica vs. napster thing I did download their entire library of music just for the hell of it. Never listened to any of it...never liked em...but I did like the fact it pissed them off.

The only thing P2P ever did for me was introduce me to artists I'd never of found traditionally...and made me avoid most of the albums record companies promote like mad (like Hollywood blockbusters).

P2P is music the way it should be...the new radio if you will...the 99 cent a song thing is great...but it's to late. 5 Cents a song is what people feel is fair if you look at that one pay per download Russian site that's scoring massive amounts of customers.

Is it because people are cheap? Nope..."free" music simply gave them what they wanted how they wanted it. Realisticly none of that music was free since a large majority got it whiel paying a monthly net fee...

But the biggest irony is that the parent companies that OWN the record labels are usually tech companies that MAKE the devices and means to get this music easily and free along with means to carry it...portable MP3 players didn't hit big for nothing you know? same with CD burners way back when.

Ultimately though the RIAA is playing stupid....Cable and blank VHS tapes didn't destroy the Movie industry...it actually pushed it forward to epic levels of profit...it ushured in the Pre-Recorded Tape era...and the now Amazingly well thought out and profitable DVD era.

But unlike Music...the Quality across the board (Picture, Sound, Extras) improved dramaticly at an affordable and fair price on easily aquired equipment.

Music CD's...while better are nowhere near the experience and product they should be. Cheesy lil booklets along with a disc that contains simple audio files just don't cut it anymore...Artists AND Record Labels need to start putting more into them...Hell I would LOVE for bands to do audio commentaries on their albums like directors and actors do for films...or even more detaield info on what went into the album...it's things like this that can save the Record Industry...not prosecuting some P2P file sharer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tequila Zaire

Is it because people are cheap? Nope..."free" music simply gave them what they wanted how they wanted it. Realisticly none of that music was free since a large majority got it whiel paying a monthly net fee...

But the biggest irony is that the parent companies that OWN the record labels are usually tech companies that MAKE the devices and means to get this music easily and free along with means to carry it...portable MP3 players didn't hit big for nothing you know? same with CD burners way back when.

...

But unlike Music...the Quality across the board (Picture, Sound, Extras) improved dramaticly at an affordable and fair price on easily aquired equipment.

Music CD's...while better are nowhere near the experience and product they should be. Cheesy lil booklets along with a disc that contains simple audio files just don't cut it anymore...Artists AND Record Labels need to start putting more into them...Hell I would LOVE for bands to do audio commentaries on their albums like directors and actors do for films...or even more detaield info on what went into the album...it's things like this that can save the Record Industry...not prosecuting some P2P file sharer.

---

I love your idea of the record companies putting more cool goodies in the CDs. I think one problem CDs have had is that people used to buy the vinyl, even when they were going to tape it and listen on cassette, because such amazing artwork was on so many albums, plus frequently good photography of the musicians printed at a viewable size.

That said, it is harder for people in the middle to be fairly compensated for what they create now. Some guy making music in his mom's basement with forks in a dryer is more likely to be heard now. A heavily promoted artist may have more theft to deal with, but they also have a much larger promotional machine selling them than prior generations. But the mid-level artists get pushed out. They are not popular enough to be at every checkout stand, but they are well known enough to be searched online and downloaded.

Perhaps the record companies should provide easier ways for consumers to pay for the creative blood of the mid-level artists, but, if what you say about the parent companies getting paid either way, the corporations may simply not care.

And I don't want to live in a world with only prefab pop and forks in a dryer to listen to. I want a world with the full spectrum of musical creativity.

Few studies have shown that stealing Nike shoes decreases sales either, and if I stole a lot of shoes, I might be able to make a more informed choice if I ever got around to buying a pair I liked. But, it wouldn't be wrong for the authorities to have a problem with my free shoes for the promotion of good shoes plan.

Last I checked, you can't get in trouble for downloading, only sharing the files with others is bad. So when I use LimeWire, the person on the other end of my downloading bliss is the one with the chance of getting arrested. But I do keep most of my CD collection on my Hard Drive as well, I just download a couple songs from a band to see if I want to buy the CD, usually I do.

I download songs when there is like a "never b4 relaesed track" or a "sampler" or there are only 3 songs I like by a particualr artist and I don't feel like paying $20 for those three songs and 12 others that I would rather do without, heaven forbid all three songs are on diff cds. there was once a time when the music industry corperate types had their panties in a wad over "bootleg" cassettes, and people "recording" the top pop hits from the radio. They're just trying to think of new ways to complain about the same thing in a new century. It'll grow old, just you wait and see. One of these days the "papers" on the subject will be supporting the filing cabinet, gathering dust or lining a bird cage somewhere. In the mean time try Sharebear for all your down loading needs...
K

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ForrestBlack

Few studies have shown that stealing Nike shoes decreases sales either, and if I stole a lot of shoes, I might be able to make a more informed choice if I ever got around to buying a pair I liked. But, it wouldn't be wrong for the authorities to have a problem with my free shoes for the promotion of good shoes plan.

---

That's where many split down the middle though...some see downloading music as stealing...others do not. I sure don't. Mainly because the quality of an MP3 while good...is nowhere near that of a well mastered CD...same as Downloading the latest Hollywood movies...the quality just isn't there.

But...with so few artists really pushing the envelope in terms making their Albums worthwhile products (it seems only Hip Hop artists get it as they constantly put in bonus material) the MP3 simply feels like the age when people would record songs off the radio...or movies off cable really...more so with the age of digital cable.

That's really where we are at...the quality of an Mp3 sounds the same to many as a store bought CD...and that's the REAL problem. It's time for a new and better way to master and sell music...the options have been their for audiophiles for years but Record Companies did not want to cut into their profits to push a higher quality product.

Go to any Audiophile show...you'll not find ONE normal CD...all are higher quality discs that make you wonder why mainsteam CD's are not treated with the same love.

I'm a tech junkie so I love new formats and what not...I was at CES when they announced "DVD" as the format of the future...years later I bought my DVD player the weekend they came out. If I was to show you the quality of those discs compared to VHS tapes of that era...you can no tell the diffrence....fast forward 2 years later and you will see the diffrence and product features BIG time. Before special features were a trailer and if you were lucky a audio commentary...now..you get everything and the kitchen sink. CD's howerver are no diffrent than ones from over a decade ago...sound quality is better but it's no Stereo to 5.1 like films...

CD's are stuck in the past and the fact a compressed file format is "Destroying the industry" is a pathetic attempt for that industry to stay the old dinosaur it is...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AmeliaG

That said, it is harder for people in the middle to be fairly compensated for what they create now. Some guy making music in his mom's basement with forks in a dryer is more likely to be heard now. A heavily promoted artist may have more theft to deal with, but they also have a much larger promotional machine selling them than prior generations. But the mid-level artists get pushed out. They are not popular enough to be at every checkout stand, but they are well known enough to be searched online and downloaded.

---

That's really where those artists need to lead the ONLINE music scene...the age has come for the middle man in music to die. Bands need to become the driving force that not only creates their music but sell it....DIRECTLY to the consumer. You go to shows and a band sells their Album...same with going to their website...BUT...to often they still go the route of having outside forces and companies horn in on their product. Record Companies have traditionally wanted the soul of their artists and now it's no longer a joke.

If a band creates their music...then sells it directly to their fans and customers via downloads or more creative means then traditional outlets are no longer needed in the long run. Mainstream Record stores have steadily fallen into a lil pit of oblivion few care to visit...and it's clear why. Marked up prices, limited selection of albums BY artists (A store SAYS they carry a certain artist...and they do...they put their name on a lil plastic divider and at times have 10 copies of the same album.) Some artists are straying into the online world as their primary means to reach new listeners and potential customers...same with some LIKING that their music is heard via "illegal downloads" since they don't get radio play or on mainstream music channels.

The reality is that the artistic side of music is alive and well...but competition is now at a level so high it WILL choke many out of the way...or make it less profitable for old time pro's. Liek you said a guy tossing a fork in a dryer can be heard as much in the online world as the latest Kid Rock disaster.

The industry and how it is marketed and sold is changing at a wild and fast pace...but that's the industries own fault. They ignored the advent of Powerful Home PC's and the fact net connections, file compression, and a Music compression format founded in the 80's was now a viable way to deliver music...now everyone is paying for it.

The music industry right now for EVERYONE involved is a prime example of Art and Commerce as one...if artists don't want to get their hands dirty with the buisness end of things...they simply may not survive. Being a one trick pony won't cut it either...music production went digital to a large degree...so why distribution did not is simply stupidity on the buisness side of things. IF a college kid's program could "destroy the industry" then how solid was it to begin with? If it can't deal with a file compression format and the reality fo home technology now...maybe things REALLY need to change for the sake of music itself.

Take a band like KMFDM...traditionally people hear about them from fans. You won't really see their vidoes on mainstream American music channels or radio. Now more new fans are popping up from having downloaded their work. They in turn do buy their work..I myself have downloaded entire albums then bought the albums.

Obviously this had something to it...cause more and more you hear entire album previews online. So slowly the REASONS people downloaded music are being capitalized on...and that's the key. If the record industry can deal with the reasons people downloaded music and not the actual act itself...they'll be "reborn" as it where.

But given their latest push on washington to make downloading music a federal offense...they can burn in their own self created Hell for all I care.

What Tequila Zaire has said kind of reminds me a lot Fugazi's attitudes in music, in that they took it upon themselves better to have, what they felt, is total artistic freedom. I think most artists need to know that just making a piece of work is not enough, you've got to watch out for yourself and where your stuff is going. The bigger the indifference and less the action, the less you are likely to get.

One of the core issues I have with the free download P2P argument is that it doesn't actually take the artists wishes into consideration. Sure, there are some artists that are cool with it, and many that are not. Neither should be allowed to dictate the rights afforded to the other. Maybe it's good promo, maybe it's outright theft, maybe it's both. But, if an artist doesn't want their work 'shared' or 'stolen', very few people pay any attention to that. There are artists that have put work out there for the masses for free, but often times those are not the most popular or widely distrubuted albums or tracks from those very artists. People have no sense of boundries. Like the woman said, freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose, so perhaps we are indeed talking about the ultimate artistic freedom.

I, myself share music on p2p networks, but i share music by unknown bands that wish to have their music known across the p2p community.
I feel it is an excellent idea to have your music shared (for free) across a lot of people.

I think it would be nice if fans gave a flying fuck what the artist wants. If an artist wants their work traded, that is fine. If an artist does not want his work traded, then anyone who actually cares about the artist and his work should not trade it. Even if the artist would sell more albums if his work was being traded, it is his right as creator not to want that. Pretty simple actually.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by incog

I think it would be nice if fans gave a flying fuck what the artist wants. If an artist wants their work traded, that is fine. If an artist does not want his work traded, then anyone who actually cares about the artist and his work should not trade it. Even if the artist would sell more albums if his work was being traded, it is his right as creator not to want that. Pretty simple actually.

---

Actually no it's not. If you put something into the publics hands in ANY form they will do as they wish with it. Be it make it a huge hit...or a heavily traded file. Copyright law is there to protect all that but it only goes so far. Any creator has to be realistic about dealign with the public and that they cannot control EVERY aspect of how their work is used...that over sense of control is what is killing art and creation today. If we keep up this mentality that what we create we should own forever we'll lose out on much more in the end. Interpreation, homage, retooling, sampling, etc. has always been and should be a part of creation...in this case it's sharing...on a wide and epic level. I've listened to MORE since the P2P thing hit and woul d hate to go back to the old days or radio, TV, and "mix tapes". Finding new artists is easier than ever now...but finding good ones is still hard. P2P allows for as much postive things to a creator as it does negative.

Plus you can't hold the public accountable in this situation...how smart is it to make villians of the consumer base for an industry? The RIAA is beginning to see how dangerous their legal games with them can be...it's no secret why the DVD section always has more people shopping in it than the CD section in many places now.

I'm all for making sure artists get their proper cut of the financial pie...but if you look at the history of the RIAA all they have done is created a system to make sure their aritst get as LITTLE as possible.

The RIAA...and the MPAA are relics than need to fall away and die. If P2P networks can lead to their demise I'm all for it. Look at this history of these organizations and how they really treat their artists...they are not worth having around.

P2P and what it has spawned won't go away...it will only get more elaborate and either the RIAA gets on board to change THEIR product into something worthhile again or they vanish into oblivion. Either way music will still be around...jsut distributed and heard in very diffrent ways.

Look at what they did to Net radio stations...a GREAT way for obscure and little known artists to be heard KILLED byt he RIAA to keep the more established and well controlled ones profitable and with all the listeners. That was a huge FUCK YOU to the public it was basicly saying "You WILL listen to the same shit you've heard on radio stations for years now and LIKE IT!..and here's the new (insert big label band here) new single!"

It's not about artists and creators getting $$$ here...it's about absolute control overhow music is heard in every way...and that should disturb any "fan".

Hear Hear!

o just think people should be able to download what they want... its not like you can buy a PC or a internet connection for free... so why not take some of that money for them... i mean half of these people spend hundreds on blank Cds... so no matter what their in a way paying to get this music in there Cd playes.... or their just doing it to sample a CD to see if its worth buying.....

my view anyways...