The RIAA are either right, or...

[killswitch1968]

... very very stupid. Think about it. They say filesharing hurts CD sales. We say filesharing helps CD sales. No one really knows for sure. But let's just analyze what happens in either case:

1. P2P helps CD sales
if this is the case, WHY IS THE RIAA TRYING TO ELIMINATE SOMETHING THAT INCREASES ITS WEALTH? Are their experts stupider than us? Are they just afraid of change? Or is it ACTAULLY because:

2. P2P hinders CD sales
if this is the case, we can assume that P2P, unecumbered, would eventually cause CD sales to hit rock bottom, and the destruction of the music industry itself. Now we see a motive for the RIAA to prevent file sharing.

A question to you all, assuming File sharing damages CD sales, should it be allowed? And I mean P2P as a whole. Even though you may use it to get informed about artists and to eventually buy their CDs, we'll assume that most people use P2P to avoid buying CDs altogether.

[rainbowdemon]

I've bought exactly 1 cd since the RIAA started all of this heavy-handed activity. I don't plan on buying anymore until they stop, or until they collapse completely. One or the other IS going to happen. They are biting the hand that feeds them. So file-sharing is not hurting cd sales, the RIAA is!

[killswitch1968]

Originally posted by rainbowdemon
I've bought exactly 1 cd since the RIAA started all of this heavy-handed activity. I don't plan on buying anymore until they stop, or until they collapse completely. One or the other IS going to happen. They are biting the hand that feeds them. So file-sharing is not hurting cd sales, the RIAA is!

The RIAA represents roughly 50% of musicians. By your handle I assume you listen to Vintersorg, and thus other metal bands on labels like Century Media, nucearblast, Earache, etc. You're not sticking it to the RIAA, you're sticking it to the bands. And unlike Virgin and Universal, metal labels are not rich at all.

Despite all that, the looming question remains: If Mp3s help CD sales, then the RIAA would be supporting it, not thwarting it. This is either because:
1. The RIAA are morons and so are their experts.
2. Mp3s hurt the music industry.

That said I fully support P2P, especially if they destroy the music industry (for reasons beyond the scope of my original post)

[rainbowdemon]

The RIAA represents roughly 50% of musicians. By your handle I assume you listen to Vintersorg, and thus other metal bands on labels like Century Media, nucearblast, Earache, etc. You're not sticking it to the RIAA, you're sticking it to the bands. And unlike Virgin and Universal, metal labels are not rich at all.
I do like some metal bands. I don't know the labels you mention. My handle is the title of a song by a band from the 70's called Uriah Heep. They were sort of a metal band, for lack of a better catagory. Who is Vintersorg? I would like to hear them.

[killswitch1968]

Originally posted by rainbowdemon
My handle is the title of a song by a band from the 70's called Uriah Heep. They were sort of a metal band, for lack of a better catagory. Who is Vintersorg? I would like to hear them.

oh goodness you're right. i forgot Vintersorg did a cover of uriah Heep's song, heh.
Sure, Vintersorg are a progressive metal band from Scandanavia, focusing on melody and at times folk elements. kind of strange band but I like some of their stuff. You can google them for more info, or DOWNLOAD THEIR MUSIC LIKE I DID :)

[rainbowdemon]

Originally posted by killswitch1968
oh goodness you're right. i forgot Vintersorg did a cover of uriah Heep's song, heh.
Sure, Vintersorg are a progressive metal band from Scandanavia, focusing on melody and at times folk elements. kind of strange band but I like some of their stuff. You can google them for more info, or DOWNLOAD THEIR MUSIC LIKE I DID :) Thanks my friend, I will do that.

[killswitch1968]

Originally posted by Dealie
I'm waiting for them to go bankrupt.

That's all well and good but you're missing the point:

Why is the RIAA attacking something that (according to this website) helps them sell CDs?
a) They're morons, and so are their researchers.
b) They're afraid of change
c) P2P hinders CD sales
d) Other (specify)

[Lamourlady]

Originally posted by killswitch1968
That's all well and good but you're missing the point:

Why is the RIAA attacking something that (according to this website) helps them sell CDs?
a) They're morons, and so are their researchers.
b) They're afraid of change
c) P2P hinders CD sales
d) Other (specify)

because they will embrace it, once they have their claws into every aspect of it that will give them the monopoly on it.
once a greedy, basturd leech.......always a greedy, basturd leech.

i have long thought they were in on p2p a long, long time ago.
they r just waiting to pounce.

[killswitch1968]

Originally posted by Dealie
Just morons very very afraid of loosing their big fat cash cow.

But P2P HELPS their "big fat cash cow", how can they be afraid of losing it?

Lamourlady I'm a bit confused. Monopolize what exactly? Authorized downloads? CDs? Both? Music in its entirety?

[Lamourlady]

Originally posted by killswitch1968
But P2P HELPS their "big fat cash cow", how can they be afraid of losing it?

Lamourlady I'm a bit confused. Monopolize what exactly? Authorized downloads? CDs? Both? Music in its entirety?

monopolize every avenue of how anyone gets their tunes off the internet, or for that fact, how they listen to them (ie)streaming music & internet radio).
this including every p2p app out there.
until they can gain back the way music is distributed, they live in fear of their livelihoods and instill that fear in a handful of people, in order to get what they want.
for us to stop getting music for free and to give them their piece of the pie.
i can't understand why u have any confusion on this topic.
it is old and pretty straightforward.
or didn't u know that the riaa do hold a monopoly on how music is distributed and now wish to hold the keys to the internet???
and that they r complete dirty basturds???

[yellowdiscman]

i use to buy cds like mad but now that the riaa has do what it has done i naver buy a cd agin and mpaa is next if they follow the same trak :fire

[Muffin_Man]

The attacks by the RIAA are more about control than profit. A technology that can not be controlled is inherently dangerous to them.

If the current trend continues, the need for the recording industry will diminish. Bands will no longer need to sign a record contract in order to gain recognition. the majority of them will not lose much money, since their take of record sales is only a tiny fraction anyway. In the end, the entire industry, and thus the jobs of those who work for the RIAA could be lost.

Even if in the short turn we are, in fact, contributing to record sales, P2P will in the long run have a very negative effect on this industry.

[killswitch1968]

Originally posted by Lamourlady
monopolize every avenue of how anyone gets their tunes off the internet, or for that fact, how they listen to them (ie)streaming music & internet radio).
this including every p2p app out there.
until they can gain back the way music is distributed, they live in fear of their livelihoods and instill that fear in a handful of people, in order to get what they want.

Let me see if I understand your reasoning:

P2P helps CD sales, making the RIAA richer. However, if the RIAA can take over P2P, perhaps by putting in a pay-per-download system and eliminate free downloading, they can make even more money.

I suppose that would make sense, however the road to P2P destruction is years and years of litigation, money, time, and in the end it's self defeating. Why aren't they simply letting people download, thereby increasing CD sales, and they can reap the rewards?



Originally posted by Muffin_Man
The attacks by the RIAA are more about control than profit. A technology that can not be controlled is inherently dangerous to them.
If the current trend continues, the need for the recording industry will diminish. Bands will no longer need to sign a record contract in order to gain recognition. the majority of them will not lose much money, since their take of record sales is only a tiny fraction anyway. In the end, the entire industry, and thus the jobs of those who work for the RIAA could be lost.


Fabulous post. I think the 'control' argument may hold water. Except money and control are inexricable. I don't think they would pursue anything without a dollar sign on the horizon. Do you think by eliminating P2P the RIAA has the potential to make more money?
However I don't understand why the RIAA would simply dissolve if P2P was allowed to continue unabated. The RIAA is a lobby group for the government that serves many functions. Even if the RIAA all of a sudden lost its function as a representative body, they are merely a tool of the labels and are ultimately controlled by these labels. If the RIAA is not needed, the labels will GLADLY disband this rather expensive lobby group.



Even if in the short turn we are, in fact, contributing to record sales, P2P will in the long run have a very negative effect on this industry.

This is a VERY serious claim. In short, you are saying P2P will bring the eventual destruction of the music industry, exactly what the RIAA have been telling us all along. Do you really believe this, and if so, do you support this demise?

[Ne007]

P2P COULD help the musician. P2P COULD HAVE helped the music industry, but the RIAA and the like have alienated themselves from their potential customers.

I will NEVER given them money hungry SOB's a red cent.

I encourage musicians to market themselves thru alternative measures. This is the information age....who needs "the man"?

Memo to musicians....get your money by giving your fans what they want.......the death of the industry......do it without them.

I bet that gives the RIAA chills down their spine....imagining music WITHOUT their stupid copyright on it. Music WITHOUT THEM.......ooohhhhhh.......how would that be possible?!!! Music without the industry.........oh my God....that's Blasphemy to "the man".

[killswitch1968]

Originally posted by Ne007
P2P COULD help the musician. P2P COULD HAVE helped the music industry, but the RIAA and the like have alienated themselves from their potential customers.


Do you mean P2P helps the music industry by encouraging CD sales?

[Ne007]

No....it helps musicians get their music to people. Why would they need a CD and a music deal? They could do all the advertisement themselves, and if their music is good, then they become popular. When you are famous...people give you money.

"Do you mean P2P helps the music industry by encouraging CD sales?"

Where the hell did you get that from.....not my post.

P2P is death to the industry....NOT the musician.

[Elistas]

I think that P2P was on the way to helping the record industry sell more albums. When Napster was popular I would download music first, and then if I really liked the album I would buy it. This exposed me to music that I wouldn't have normally purchased. But because of the insane antics of the RIAA now I download music with NO intention of ever buying another album again. Fuck you, RIAA.

[FrozenShadow23]

I want the RIAA to die. Simple as that. I know that many artists depend on them, but i don't care about many artists. This sounds cold, but what do these big name bands do for me that a smaller noncommercial band could not? If the RIAA dies or not, music will survive, so i say topple the empire and let the debris crush those who oppose progression. It seems that no one except the customers want free, because it's too expensive. Now that the people have had a taste of free, RIAA is in for it. Let me explain: Anyone ever heard of Nickola Tesla? Well this genious came up with an idea on how to distribute wireless and free electricity to everyone in the world. Not many people heard about this, so it was easy for the capitalists to quell, but P2P is now worldwide and growing. Hope that was fun to read, and that i didn't offend too many people.

[Ne007]

Frozenshadow23 pretty much hits the nail on the head.

I really don't care about bands becoming rich and famous. I don't believe ANY of them deserve to make millions of dollars.

It's kinda like baseball players and all of them making tons of money.....if it was up to me, baseball owners wouldn't be making more money than me.....and the players sure as hell wouldn't either. WOuldn't they all SHIT if we controlled their incomes?!!! That's what the RIAA is feeling.

[Winphuk]

Why do you ask these questions? Do you use P2P and having a troubled conscience?Or...

[Ne007]

[i]
1. P2P helps CD sales
if this is the case, WHY IS THE RIAA TRYING TO ELIMINATE SOMETHING THAT INCREASES ITS WEALTH? Are their experts stupider than us? Are they just afraid of change?[/B]

It helps the sale of BLANK CDs...if that's what you mean.:black

[Kyle06]

Its not about the music anymore it is about the money and that is very sad....

[Winphuk]

Killswitch: I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and believe that you are playing the "Devil's Advocate", and are sincerly looking for answers.
If you are, before you ask another question, please check out these links, because having us repeat ourselves over and over again to defend p2p is reinventing the wheel. Read the following links and come back with any questions that you may have.

The Music Lovers Manifesto-

http://www.geocities.com/winphuk/

DMCA
http://anti-dmca.org/

info on the RIAA
http://www.boycott-riaa.com/

[rainbowdemon]

Originally posted by Winphuk
Killswitch: I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and believe that you are playing the "Devil's Advocate", and are sincerly looking for answers.
If you are, before you ask another question, please check out these links, because having us repeat ourselves over and over again to defend p2p is reinventing the wheel. Read the following links and come back with any questions that you may have.

The Music Lovers Manifesto-

http://www.geocities.com/winphuk/

DMCA
http://anti-dmca.org/

info on the RIAA
http://www.boycott-riaa.com/ Outstanding!!! Very good writing, and research! Good job! A+

[killswitch1968]

Great arguments, and the real 'ploy' of this post was to bring out what seems to be the ineffable truth.

This site, boycott-riaa.com, and a slough of others all advocate this:
"P2P helps CD sales"

I've tried to believe it, but at this point I can't. THAT was the point of this post. P2P advocates often use obscure/circular logic to promote P2P.
example:
The RIAA are money grubbers so I won't buy CDs. (This logic is particularly disturbing as the RIAA accounts for roughly 50% of artists)
CDs cost too much.
... and yet still say that file sharing helps CD sales. They are conflicting arguments.

Does this mean we can agree that P2P will eventually cause the destruction of the music INDUSTRY as we know it? I heartily agree that P2P is good for musicians, but the CD as we know it will die if P2P continues unabated, exactly what the RIAA has been spouting all along. And now we're on the downward spiral:
RIAA attacks users, users boycott CDs, CD sales drop, RIAA attacks users even more, more users boycott CDs, CD sales further drop.
An interesting point in that article (http://www.geocities.com/winphuk/) is how Napster was a good system because it made it impossible to download albums. This of course, has completly changed with the current system.

The real question is: Is the death of the CD a good thing or a bad thing? I think I will post my answer in the P2P forums, as this result is extraneous of the RIAA altogether.

[killswitch1968]

Originally posted by Winphuk
Killswitch: I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and believe that you are playing the "Devil's Advocate", and are sincerly looking for answers.


Exactly right. There have been confusing arguments on both sides of the fence. Not in terms of statistics, just in terms of logical reasaoning and basic human ambitions. The point of this post is to iron out misconceptions and faulty reasoning.

[Winphuk]

The real question is: Is the death of the CD a good thing or a bad thing? I think I will post my answer in the P2P forums, as this result is extraneous of the RIAA altogether.

There was death of reel-to-reel, death of vinyl, death of eight track tapes, and while they were selling prerecorded cassestes, people were copying on blanks, and that didn't effect tape sales, but who says that there will be the death of CDs. That's not a certainty. If there will be any death, it will be to the big music cooperations, who are not beneficial to the integrity of music at all.
It will cost less and less money for artists to make their own recordings, because software is replacing those big mixing boards. I know a studio who replaced their 24 track mixing board with pro-tools. As technology gets better, it will be easier and less cost prohibitive to own your little studio, be your own producer, and your PC and Internet will be your promoter and distributor. No more being a puppet for a major label.
Airplay will be replaced with webcasting. Most people who are fans will want official merchandise on a physical medium, so CDs will still be useful. We are entering into a new age where the music industry will be in the hands of the artists.

[killswitch1968]

Originally posted by Winphuk


There was death of reel-to-reel, death of vinyl, death of eight track tapes, and while they were selling prerecorded cassestes, people were copying on blanks, and that didn't effect tape sales, but who says that there will be the death of CDs. That's not a certainty.


Correct. But historically one form of medium has been replaced by another, simply because it is better quality. It was still conventional shopping. P2P is different because you've eliminated this money-for-good exchange. I still feel the CD is doomed.



It will cost less and less money for artists to make their own recordings, because software is replacing those big mixing boards.
Airplay will be replaced with webcasting. Most people who are fans will want official merchandise on a physical medium, so CDs will still be useful.

Great points! Especially about the technology aspect. Studio time right now is extremely expensive, and one of the reasons people need money to make music, thus the 'need' for CD sales. This is an argument against P2P that artists have been using all along. If it can become cheaper to produce music, then there will be no need for supplemental income from CDs; anyone could afford it.
However I don't see why a fan will want an 'official' CD. if the music industry is destroyed, why would this CD be anymore official than a burnt CD? I suppose the artist could hand autograph it, but in the end the CD is a cumbersome piece of plastic that can be shrunk infintesimally inside a computer. I think most people would rather have merchandise (posters, T-shirts, memrobaelia) than a CD.
I fully agree that P2P puts the power in the hands of the artist, but I don't see why this artist would need to make CDs.

Oh and conventional radio will still exist so long as I can't get webstations in my car or on a normal stereo.

[Winphuk]

As long as there are CD players in cars, stereos and PCs, there will always be CDs. People used to buy prerecorded cassetes even though they can "burn" one from their stereo. The bitrate quality of manufactured CD is much higher than a downloaded MP3, and you get photos, lyrics, linernotes, credits, and other things that you wouldn't from downloading soundbytes.
I have to disagree about music no longer being a lucrative careeer, because it never really was. Financial success in music only comes to a lucky few. Most musicians like myself, still work day jobs or play in wedding bands to scrounge up extra money.
Bands make a bulk of their money from concert tickets. Not CD sales.

[killswitch1968]

Originally posted by Winphuk
As long as there are CD players in cars, stereos and PCs, there will always be CDs. People used to buy prerecorded cassetes even though they can "burn" one from their stereo. The bitrate quality of manufactured CD is much higher than a downloaded MP3, and you get photos, lyrics, linernotes, credits, and other things that you wouldn't from downloading soundbytes.
I have to disagree about music no longer being a lucrative careeer.

I agree. So long as CD players exist, so will the CD. People will be burning CDs for a long time so they can listen to it in their cars, on stereos, etc. But the trend going on right now is a move towards minidiscs and mp3 players. The CD will still be useful for software and DVDs, but the conventional CD, 12 tracks 1 artist, may not. CDs do provide better quality as of right now. But with now lossless coding, ogg vorbis, monkey audio, etc., this technology is rapidly increasing. People may start recording directly on to an mp3 file.
Perhaps a better worded statement: CDs will be fine, the traditional music CD will not.

I completly agree in regards to music being a tough business. It is, very much so. Nevertheless there are a minority of bands whose goals are primarily financial. Most of these bands have had tremendous start-up money to get them noticed, and to brain wash their impressionable fans. One need only turn on MTV to see an example of this. As a metalhead, I'm all to familiar with the day-job musician.

[ferrarimodena360]

Whenever i visit zeropaid......MPAA and Cable & Wireless intrusions are blocked by peerguardian......

ne 1 else being tracked like this?

[broadwayrock]

P2p will eliminate the 'single'.

These days singles are promoted months ahead of release, played on radio 100s of times a day and now we have p2p to get the single before the official release date.

By the time the single gets released any 'buzz' about the song has been extinguished because the listener has heard the song too much.

There are still many albums i buy even though i use p2p.

Albums that i love i will buy on cd because of the better sound quality and packaging.

Albums that i quite like will just be downloaded.

Has the RIAA considered that there may be other factors for dropping cd sales and fewer profits??

Such as no decent acts around.

No massive acts like the Spices girls to boost profits.

Investing millions into acts who don’t make the grade: Maria Carey & Robbie Williams to name two.

Consumers buying other things: DVDs, Computer/video games.

Or a recession?

[killswitch1968]

Originally posted by broadwayrock
Albums that i love i will buy on cd because of the better sound quality and packaging.


But if P2P were allowed to continue its course with no legal blockades, we can imagine that mp3 sound quality and CD jackets and lyrics (already being imported on to the mp3 file itself) would increase. What reason would you have left to buy CDs? To support the artist? If you had a choice between buying a CD which you could get an exact duplicate of for less, or buying a T-shirt from said artist, which piece of merchandise will you take? The T-shirt or the CD?



Has the RIAA considered that there may be other factors for dropping cd sales and fewer profits??


if you feel that P2P helps CD sales, why are the RIAA fighting it? I find the same people saying that CDs are too expensive are the same people saying that P2P helps CD sales.

[BlueLieu]

The RIAA/MPAA is doing what all large corporations do when something industry changing/shaping comes along which they do not control. They are litigating it into a smaller circle of use until they can tap into it's profit. These groups recognize that E-Distribution would maximize their profit margin, but only IF they can control the unregulated sharing. They are not about to distribute songs electronically if those files can be placed online and P2P'd throughout the world. So once technology is in place that links a file to a machine so it can only played on it and no where else (Microsoft is doing this) then they will delve into E-Distribution, perhaps even buying into Kazaa or something else like that (if they can figure out how to re-encode the machine specific file from one peer to annother they would not have to expend the bandwidth to deliver it, the peer would).

Anyway....large corporations do not act like individuals despite how much we would like to imagine one despot sitting on the RIAA exec board trying to stamp out P2P for the sake of being a spoil sport. All companies exist for one purpose and that's to make money. Once they figure out how to do that securely, they will be on board and free P2P as we know it will once again be an oddity rather than the norm. Those who are really interested ( like those who participate on ZP alot) will be privy to the latest hacks to circumvent the copy protection that inevitably will come out. The rest of the sheep will start paying for their media.

[killswitch1968]

Originally posted by BlueLieu
These groups recognize that E-Distribution would maximize their profit margin, but only IF they can control the unregulated sharing.

Yes, pay systems and free systems are mutually exclusive. Yes, companies function to make money. Yes, they would make more money if free P2P would not exist and they could implement their own system.

I agree with most of what you said, except this quote.
Right now the RIAA are making money just letting P2P users go about their business, download songs, discover artists, and buy CDs. I agree a pay-per-song system is destined to failure if free sharing still exists. However the legal battle to stamp out free sharing is TREMENDOUSLY expensive. It is simply not worth their time and effort to stop file sharing when file sharing increases their profits.
Granted if they can stop file sharing they'd be able to setup their own system, but can they cost effectively afford all these legal battles? I don't think it's possible. It's far better for them to just let P2P exist. Therefore:
The RIAA are either correct; file sharing will kill the industry, of they're just stupid and don't see that unregulated helps file sharing.

I'm beginning to think it's the former. P2P, on a long enough time line, will bring CD sales to 0.

[Ne007]

Now....if we could only figure out how to bring the death of every other industrial stranglehold....we'd be set.

[Krell]

I'm beginning to think it's the former. P2P, on a long enough time line, will bring CD sales to 0.

Well you've had 3 pages to try to make your point. I dont agree. There will always be people stupid enough to pay $18 for a crappy pop CD. There will always be people like me, who, unless I am enthralled with the product, CD or DVD, will never buy one.



You HAVE made your point, right? What was it exactly? You still think the RIAA are right? And was this really a question or a passive aggressive statement meant to try to induce discussion, in an attempt to influence P2P users?

[Soothsayer]

In response to Killswitch's arguments about CDs :

I completely agree. When I go out there looking for music, I could give a crap about what the band looks like, what the cover art looks like, and even whether I have every lyric printed out in some booklet. Not to mention the art imprinted on the top of the disc... I care only about the music.

And going back to other posts on this thread:

People who use P2P heavily love music. Those who love music could care less about what packaging they get for their music. They just want the music and want it in half-way decent quality for listening. P2P or some form of it, will be the new way for bands to become popular and distribute their songs. No more payola for radio stations, no more need for the big five and promotions, no more buying a crappy album because you really liked one song and thought he rest would be good too (yeah right!).

One more thing:
Music in today's era sucks. What happened to good music? Don't get me wrong, I listen to all genre's (except maybe country), and I think I have good taste across the board. But the stuff that is out there is just bad. Even all these alternative bands now which sound exactly the same, but might have one or two good songs. Geez. The best music in my opinion came out from the late 60's to the late 80's. And of course there was good stuff in medieval times.

Sorry this was so long.

[broadwayrock]

Originally posted by killswitch1968


But if P2P were allowed to continue its course with no legal blockades, we can imagine that mp3 sound quality and CD jackets and lyrics (already being imported on to the mp3 file itself) would increase. What reason would you have left to buy CDs? To support the artist? If you had a choice between buying a CD which you could get an exact duplicate of for less, or buying a T-shirt from said artist, which piece of merchandise will you take? The T-shirt or the CD? [/B]

However big P2P becomes people will still buy CDs, maybe not at the quantity RIAA would like ( the executives cant buy their second yacht - boo hoo) but enough to help the artist.

People will still buy CDs because of the package.
Why do you think DVD sales are growing? apart from the quality the makers have cleverly tapped into the 'collectors' market by putting DVDs in special box sets - bonus features etc. They like the idea of collecting something special. Thats one of the reasons why i buy alot of music box sets.

Take counterfit designer jeans. Lots of people buy them but why do designer labels still exist? because people like the real thing, the profeshional product.

There is alot of money to be made from merchendising. But the record companies are too stupid to get it.

Merchendising rights are mostly owned buy the management and the artist. The record label pays fo the promotion of the artist while the management makes the money from merchandising.



Originally posted by killswitch1968

if you feel that P2P helps CD sales, why are the RIAA fighting it? I find the same people saying that CDs are too expensive are the same people saying that P2P helps CD sales. [/B]

The RIAA are fighting because they are greedy. They are losing the power.

I cannot wait till the day when the artist can sell the CDs themselves and cut out the greedy middleman

[killswitch1968]

Originally posted by Krell

Well you've had 3 pages to try to make your point. I dont agree. There will always be people stupid enough to pay $18 for a crappy pop CD. There will always be people like me, who, unless I am enthralled with the product, CD or DVD, will never buy one.


I'm one of those people that pays $18 for a CD if I'm enthralled by it as well, or a T-shirt.

You don't agree that uncontrolled file sharing will, in the long run, bring big labels to their knees? I know, it's insane, it's almost unfathomable. This system has been in place for half a century, it would be a bizarre world where there are no HMVs, no Sam Goody's, and no Virgin.
But isn't that what P2P is? A revolution? Generally speaking people buy CDs for the following reasons:

1. Ignorance of P2P
2. Fear of prosecution by using P2P.
3. Convenience of buying a CD rather then hunting for songs
4. Audiophiles who want the exact musical copies.
5. The extras on a CD, including the jacket, lyrics, and media.
6. Desire to support the artist
7. The warm and fuzzy feeling of owning an authentic copy
8. Status symbol, much as with people who buy expensive brand name clothes.

"The stupid group" you refer to is number 1. They generally make up the very young (under 10) and over 50. As P2P gets more widespread, people will be made more aware of it.
Do you agree, at the very least, that even if all that is left are the 'dumb people', that everyone else will be using File Sharing and CD sales will drop? (assuming the proportion of 'dumb people' remains constant)



You HAVE made your point, right? What was it exactly? You still think the RIAA are right? And was this really a question or a passive aggressive statement meant to try to induce discussion,
in an attempt to influence P2P users?

A little of both actually. It was a sincere question:
Why does the RIAA support something that makes it money?
I figured ZeroPaid would have the answer, this is THE file sharing portal. Discussions like this go on all the time, this MUST have come up eventually. 3 pages later, here are the answers I have received:

1. They are morons
2. They want control
3. The question is a fallacy: P2P harms CD sales

The only one adaquately defended from either me or someone else was the 3rd. I haven't heard another feasible answer to a seemingly obvious question.

So 3 pages, we've determined that the RIAA are right, P2P decreases CD sales purely by logical proof. Maybe this truth isn't obvious now, but as technology increases, it may become more apparant.
Don't get me wrong, I didn't WANT to believe it, I had felt I was simply missing something and this seemed like the place to find it. I'm a heavy P2P user, and regardless of whether or not it harms CD sales or not I FULLY support it. The death of the music industry is a blessing.

But the post was a double edged sword, through logical, pseudo-passive discussion (it's not agressive at all. Forums are a media to provoke thought and discussion, there were no flames here) you can get people thinking. I just don't want people purporting P2P as a CD sale catalyst. It's a music catalyst, and I love it.

[Krell]

Thx for that full page add, you saved me so much typing.


So 3 pages, we've determined that the RIAA are right, P2P decreases CD sales purely by logical proof Rubbish, in your own mind. As we have stated over and over again, nothing from nothing leaves nothing. We dont BUY the crap to begin with.

Were you born deaf or is this a learning impediment?

[Lamourlady]

killswitch,
u r stimulating, but as most have said, we r all repeating ourselves.
but all in all i like your attitude.
your main question and qualm is whether the cd will be crushed.
that along with the riaa.
as has been stated, every medium has been replaced by something obviously, better.
mp3 is the new medium.
that is how we choose to receive our music.
in the comforts of our homes to pick and choose.
for the customer is always right, even if he/she doesn't pay.
the riaa doesn't like this and although mp3 would seem to be the demise of the industry, it doesn't have to be.
i think most of us have said for a couple of years, that the riaa could have handled things much differently, from the get-go.
would it have changed things?
i dunno.
i think that the artists themselves would have seen past the riaa and thought, "hey, i could create my own website and have my fans download my music directly, without the creepy middle-man."
don't u think?
i do.
hey, even Metallica has changed their tune.
most r smart business people.
if not, then they were music fans and know what we want and have probably downloaded music themselves.
it's all about the future and it doesn't really matter what any of us think.......it will go on.
it will be very exciting times.
i am glad to be part of it.

[killswitch1968]

Originally posted by broadwayrock
People will still buy CDs because of the package.


But what if we were able to fully reproduce these packages? It's is now possible to tag the album cover onto an mp3, why not the whole jacket? Lyrics and everything? Where is the motive to buy CDs.



Take counterfit designer jeans. Lots of people buy them but why do designer labels still exist? because people like the real thing, the profeshional product.


The big difference here is the knock-off is cheap crap that will tear the first time you sit down. Right now, Mp3s aren't exact CD quality (even though most people can't tell the difference), but we can expect that as technology increases (lossless encoding is becoming more common) we WILL have CD quality. Then the Knock-off is indistinguishable from the real product.



There is alot of money to be made from merchendising. But the record companies are too stupid to get it.

Absolutely. TONS of money, and the record companies aren't being stupid about it, you can buy loads merchandising from all the top bands and basic merchandising from lesser-known ones. If the CD were gone, people might still want authentic band 'stuff', and thus turn to T-shirts, mugs, and other merchandise. There's no need for a CD.



The RIAA are fighting because they are greedy. They are losing the power.


In short, yes. Why are they losing this power though? The RIAA would not fight something that is making them money. Either they are stupid, or P2P harms CD sales.

[killswitch1968]

Originally posted by Krell
Thx for that full page add, you saved me so much typing.


Add? Sorry I'm confused.



Were you born deaf or is this a learning impediment?

It's unfortunate. We've had 4 pages of discussion and this was the only flame I've received. What arguments have been repeated that I am some how missing thus attributing my ignorance?
This thread needn't be so long, just a simple answer to a simple question would be great:

If P2P helps sell CDs, why would the RIAA fight it?

Check the thread, I haven't found a clear, concise response. Instead of flaming me, I would like your opinion. I can understand you've been on the forums for a long time now, and have heard this argument time and time again. Use this knowledge and educate, what is your answer?




From KillSwitch1968
So 3 pages, we've determined that the RIAA are right, P2P decreases CD sales purely by logical proof


I'll withdraw this, I admit it was pretentious. I'd need more input before and conclusion can be made. However a thought came to me. Just because no one can come up with an answer to the question, does not mean the question itself is based on false precepts. Quite simply: No one knows.

Also I thought of something else: The RIAA has sent scores of researchers to investigate the nature of P2P, all confirming it is damaging. Assuming P2P helps CD sales, why did they report falsely? Why doctor results that are beneficial to the RIAA?

Thanks for listening Krell, at least you are reading it. Please contribute, you are the most experienced.

[killswitch1968]

Originally posted by Lamourlady
killswitch, u r stimulating, but as most have said, we r all repeating ourselves.
your main question and qualm is whether the cd will be crushed.
that along with the riaa.
as has been stated, every medium has been replaced by something obviously, better. mp3 is the new medium.

the riaa doesn't like this and although mp3 would seem to be the demise of the industry, it doesn't have to be.
i think most of us have said for a couple of years, that the riaa could have handled things much differently, from the get-go.
would it have changed things?
it will be very exciting times.
i am glad to be part of it.

Thanks Lamourlady. I noticed these forums are more a place to bash the RIAA then for interesting discussions/debates. I sort of condensed your quote though, this thread is long enough :)

Yes, I have noticed a great deal of repetition in this thread, but this wasn't really my doing. Many people are using the same arguments over and over again without reading my responses. As I told Krell, I'd just like a concise answer to my first question:

If P2P helps CD sales, why does the RIAA fight it?
here's what you told me:

"because they will embrace it, once they have their claws into every aspect of it that will give them the monopoly on it. "

and my response:

"P2P helps CD sales, making the RIAA richer. However, if the RIAA can take over P2P, perhaps by putting in a pay-per-download system and eliminate free downloading, they can make even more money.
I suppose that would make sense, however the road to P2P destruction is years and years of litigation, money, time, and in the end it's self defeating. Why aren't they simply letting people download, thereby increasing CD sales, and they can reap the rewards? "

This is where our discussion ended. But I implore you to continue. This is an interesting point you made.

[Muffin_Man]

Nothing lasts forever.

what i was saying before is, short term record sales increases (assuming there are any, i really dont know) mean nothing if in five ten years the recording industry no longer exists. ultimately, that is what they are fighting against.

as to whether its a good thing, yes, i think it is. my reason for this is that i dont believe the record industry is beneficial to either the the consumers or the majority of artists. they raise the prices of cds to ridiculous prices while undercompensating the artists and taking control of copyrights. what good is this industry to anyone except a few high profile artists and unnecessary middle men?

up until recently, getting signed to a label was the only way for the majority of artists to become recognized. now, with the introduction of high speed, high quality digital transfers of music and networks designed for them, i believe that it wont be long until there is a way for any artist to become recognised solely on merit rather than the whims of some executive.

the current recording industry simply does not do what it is intended to do, which is supporting the artists and helping them grow. for that reason, i believe that it is time for something different.

[Soothsayer]

The other beauty of P2P is people surfing for songs on word of mouth, something they read in a magazine, etc. about how this band or musician made great music.
You can go out there, grab some tracks and your opinion of the artist/band is formulated solely on the quality of the music. No more I like how that chick looks in those tight shorts (which are closer to underwear), or how the pyrotechnics are so high they could burn down a nightclub...

Again, Killswitch is right on the money here. CDs will go away eventually, yes it might take a while, but there are going to digital equivalents which will take over in a few years. We already have satellite radio for Pete's sake. We will have devices or connections in our cars which will allow us to play MP3s or OGGs or whatever. We can haul our entire collection around now on 40 gig hard drives built into the current players. Music will be judged solely on what is on the drive or stored in memory, not what it is packaged in!

We just have to keep boycotting and speaking up where we can on petitions, sending our Congressmen Emails, etc. They are bought right now, but if enough people make them feel the pressure, the voting numbers will make them change their minds. I know I am going all over the place, thanks for reading anyway...

[Lamourlady]

Originally posted by killswitch1968
If P2P helps CD sales, why does the RIAA fight it?
here's what you told me:

"because they will embrace it, once they have their claws into every aspect of it that will give them the monopoly on it. "

and my response:

"P2P helps CD sales, making the RIAA richer. However, if the RIAA can take over P2P, perhaps by putting in a pay-per-download system and eliminate free downloading, they can make even more money.
I suppose that would make sense, however the road to P2P destruction is years and years of litigation, money, time, and in the end it's self defeating. Why aren't they simply letting people download, thereby increasing CD sales, and they can reap the rewards? "

This is where our discussion ended. But I implore you to continue. This is an interesting point you made.

desperate people seek desperate measures.
firstly, let's just say they just aren't thinking straight, for the time being.
but to address the question u raise, we have to almost become psychoanalyst.
r they just stupid?
well of course not. and if they r, they have enough money to buy the brains they lack.
so, is there an alterior motive?
bingo.
but what could it be?
why not just allow downloading?
create their own p2p?
firstly, the "free-ride" has just gone on too long and they know people won't just start paying to do what they've been doing for free.
secondly, they've realized that p2p and it's enslave of information has actually awakened the public to the whole process of making music, from the cost of producing cds, to marketing and to the final commodity, the artist.
they have been found out. and that was the thing they really didn't want. no company wants a "knowing" consumer.
and for the most part, we the consumer, don't really want to know everything that goes into a "product", *hotdogs* for instance.....hahah.
but we now do. and with that comes a whole parade of by-product.....the entreprenuer, hacker, dreamer.
and not only that, but "the artist".
i think it boils down to them, in the end, them and the contract.
the riaa knows that by doing what we do in p2p, we've not only awakened ourselves, but the artist.
the wheels r churning in their heads.
and the riaa knows this.
in the end, they know that eventually their part in the music business draws to an end.
we have all said that the artist themselves, and this being more the up & coming independents, can delete the industry completely and use the internet, just as we do.
but the artist will have it's job cut out for them.
they have to start siding with us and gain our pity, so to speak.
they will have to make us want to support them.
and if we hate the riaa enough & love our fav artist enough, maybe we will.
so for the most part, i think the industry can only do what they r doing, making us look like we r harming them, the artist.
for if the artist hates us, then they will stay and side with the industry.
but i think that the artist is smarter than the industry knows.
or let's just hope so.

[TC75580]

Originally posted by Soothsayer
One more thing:
Music in today's era sucks. What happened to good music? Don't get me wrong, I listen to all genre's (except maybe country), and I think I have good taste across the board. But the stuff that is out there is just bad. Even all these alternative bands now which sound exactly the same, but might have one or two good songs. Geez. The best music in my opinion came out from the late 60's to the late 80's. And of course there was good stuff in medieval times.

I completely disagree; if this is the case, you're just not looking in the right place. If you're talking about mainstream music, I would agree-- the best is over with.

the best of 2003 so far:

http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/best/
http://www.metacritic.com/music/

2002:

http://hem.bredband.net/b132682/2002a.htm
(compiled from many best of 2002 critic's lists)

There's bound to be something you'd like from those lists; if not, I have to question your musical tastes.

[NDGAARONDI]

Yeah a lot of mainstream stuff is rubbish IMO. A lot of metal bands I listen to that aren't mainstream are from Europe. And to be honest why don't the RIAA accepts its fate eh? Without the musicians there would be no record labels, simple as that.

Also a lot of musicians that are making money in the mainstream wouldn't compare to a lot of others who are hardly heard of talent-wise. The only mainstream artists that has real talent had their time in the 80s and early 90s (with a few exceptions, like Bryan Adams) - and hardly anyone listens to those bands anymore.

Hey, ever heard of Britain complain to the Japanese (invasion of the British Empire) and the Germans for the war, because after WWII Britain wasn't the superpower anymore..........strange comparison I know lol

Oh BTW, killswitch1968, for some reason you sound English to me, know idea why, may be it's because you said about HMV, unless they have stores in USA too.........but if you are why bother about RIAA? I don't think they have anything to do with other countries' stuff. I stand corrected otherwise.

Oh and in response to you earlier posts........you seem to forget that a few P2P proggies are well out of influence from anything in the USA....anyway if P2P falls in USA....it could rise elsewhere, espiecially in Europe, so eventually we could have more well known artists from Europe.....

[Soothsayer]

Thanks for the listings, TC75580.

I am sure there is something I could find on those EXTENSIVE lists which would meet my standards. I would say that some of the soloists/bands on those lists I really do not care for, like Sugar Ray and Staind.

With regards to NDGAARONDI's post, I have been listening to a lot of symphonic metal/operatic metal bands from Europe lately too, since a lot of metal here is just too much the same for me. Bands like Nightwish, Within Temptation, Theatre of Tragedy, Sonata Arctica... also, I heard some stuff from Angel Dust - they are pretty good too (not sure where they are from).

[NDGAARONDI]

Hey Soothsayer,

Those bands are cool. BTW Angel dust are from Germany (Dortmund). I used allmusic.com to see what other bands I liked....

[Captain_FLX]

The Riaa is on CRACK! first they say it's good and then they say it's bad i mean wtf? decide which one helps either no File sharing or File Sharing. IN my opinion it helps because you can hear the cd before you buy it and if you like it well you go buy it atleast that's what i do but their stupid ass dont realise that it does help!

[broadwayrock]

QUOTE]Originally posted by killswitch1968


But what if we were able to fully reproduce these packages? It’s now possible to tag the album cover onto an mp3, why not the whole jacket? Lyrics and everything? Where is the motive to buy CDs.
[/B][/QUOTE]

Personally i just glue a hand written label on my cdrs. In the future when there will be no need for mp3 because we could download an iso of a music cd in seconds then there will be a drop in a cd sales. I doubt the cd will become extinct, after all vinyl sales have risen greatly and many new albums are being released on vinyl as well.

I don’t think all people will download their music off the net in the future. A lot of people find comfort in holding a 'real' album.

Sure there might be additional venues for the record industry to grab our money off us, but it will just end up with artists selling their own cds and making money off merchandising and concerts.


Originally posted by killswitch1968

The big difference here is the knock-off is cheap crap that will tear the first time you sit down. Right now, Mp3s aren't exact CD quality (even though most people can't tell the difference), but we can expect that as technology increases (lossless encoding is becoming more common) we WILL have CD quality. Then the Knock-off is indistinguishable from the real product.
[/B]

I’ve owned in the past perfect knock off designer watches. Identical from the real thing apart from the weight. Yet there still is a difference in owning the real deal. Though that difference is not an important one for me.

What many other people like us in this forum feel about cd sleeves and packaging wont really matter. P2P is still a minority compared total sales of cds, most consumers will purchase the real deal be it for lack of awareness or simple need for owning an object to belong in their life.

[Siskabush]

Well, I DL'ed the Entire new Scooter CD, and want to buy it (Because i support them and thier kick ass music)

1 Big problem, the stores I checked have no trance/Techno whatsoever.

I think it would help the RIAA increase sales if they would ship europe's product here. It seems they want people to only like 1 type of music for each continent.

Also, P2P isnt decreasing sales, its the negative image the RIAA is making themselves by threatening/suing people for bullshit reasons, and for insane amounts of cash (Although 12 grand isnt much to the RIAA, but to us it is.)

And by that, people are begining to take a stand against them. If they would leave the P2P world alone, i can guarantee they would still be losing some buisness, but they would have more customers willing to pay then they do now.

[Soothsayer]

I would completely agree - the biggest probem in America with music is that this is all we get, American music. Sure, there are a few breakthrough artists, but they are usually WAY too mainstream. I am remembering Ricki Martin and Shakira, and others like that. All junk music for the most part.

There are plenty of awesome bands out there from around the world, plenty of which sing in English, so we could definitely understand them. Even the ones we could not understand might have some different sounding music - how about a little Sigur Ros? They had to become the number one band in Iceland just to get in here, and not that many people I talk to even know about them.

I also like a lot of music from Peter Gabriel's Real World label, but it is part of the RIAA troop, so I have to try and find it out there on a P2P. Plenty of fantastic rhythyms, different instruments, vocal arrangements that make you feel like you are actually in the country they are singing about... there is no feeling behind any American music anymore. Sure there are a few, but not many.

[killswitch1968]

In conclusion
I think this thread has run its course (although I would like Krell to give his opinion). Here's what I could get:
"Why is the RIAA stopping file sharing if it helps CD sales?"
Answer: "Because they want to control file sharing in a pay-per-play system thus increasing profits further. They claim P2P is killing sales as a means to an end; taking over music downloads"

That's the best reason I found in this thread. Not sure if I totally agree with it. It seems self defeating to waste money on lawsuits to crush something that makes you money anyway, all for the possibility of perhaps more money.

Hi soothsayer, I have to partly disagree as well. Music in todays era is fantastic. However POP music is not (that is anything on the radio or MTV). These are bands designed for the sole purpose of generating money, whether it is their own doing or corporate exploitation. That is the real problem.
BTW: I listen to metal and know all those bands. I'd say I like them all, with Nightwish being my fav amoung them. Their later releases have been waning I find however.

"Sure, there are a few breakthrough artists, but they are usually WAY too mainstream. I am remembering Ricki Martin and Shakira, and others like that. All junk music for the most part. "

:) That's why I moved.

NDGAARONDI: I'm from Sweden, but I'll be moving to Canada. That's why I know about HMV. I am very familiar with European metal which is why i have moved here.

Broadwayrock: " A lot of people find comfort in holding a 'real' album. " I agree. I am one of these people. The REASON for this comfort is because I know I am supporting the bands I love and I have a symbol to prove it. If I could get a 99% identical copy of a CD I would find otherways to support my bands, ie. T-shirts

" there still is a difference in owning the real deal"
Again I agree. This is mostly personal 'piece of mind'. Simply knowing you are wearing something authentic gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling and a sense of social status.
I personal think this is bullshit and not my motives for buying CDs. I suppose for some it is but they are largely in the minority.

[NDGAARONDI]

Hey killswitch1968,

It's good to see someone knows the term power metal and all that :wings

I've found out about money stuff with pop bands too. Saw a clip of an interview on TV that was on Newsround. The interviewer asked that something saying they haven't made a mint...and saying the middlemen are taking it all - producers et all Well this could be a publicity stunt, or a genuine incident. The fact that money has been mentioned so much some part of the music industry....just makes it a business now.

Ones thing I know for sure.........pop is all fame and fortune. There was this program on about who had the better backside........ummmmmm well that's RnB for you....so much for music.........