ZP Users living in a dream world

[jonnymnemonic]

Whether you think it's the propogator of others' work is the crininal, or the one who takes what is offered, or neither - all matter of opinion. I have to go with the propogator, personally, and I think that will be validated by the judges ere long. (Yes, I know, the judge questioned the industry lawyer harshly, asking how it is any different than your car analogy, for example, but so what - the judges questioned Bush's lawyers in the recount debacle too, then ruled in Bush's favor.)

I have no particular "angle" really. Mostly just an interested bystander trying to grasp what will be possible in the future, both in terms of what jobs might be worthwhile and which will not. I'm primarily a very good customer who respects copyrights, thus the 800 or so purchased CDs (and thousands of books, and a fair bit of software, and a NetFlix subscription, blah blah). I do, for the most part, put my money where my mouth is. That's not to say I am immune to temptation though - make it easy enough to rip people off and okay, I will do some of that too. If I could drive off in a car and nobody'd know, to use your car analogy, I'd probably do that, regardless of the effect on the auto industry - cars are way too freaking expensive in my opinion.

I'd merely like to try to get a handle on whether it will be possible to make a living writing a book, or writing software, or making studio music. If not, then I won't waste my time on such things. But if it IS possible, well, then those are viable options and I'd like to know about them. So, I question things. I try to see things from all perspectives, not merely the selfish I-want-everything-for-free perspective. (I do see things from that viewpoint too, of course - that's the easiest viewpoint to understand, and pretty much *anyone* can see that viewpoint, because selfishness is an integral part of human nature, a survival trait even.)

I don't work for the RIAA, or the gubment or anyone else. Actually. I haven't worked for another person in 15 years, and don't plan to do so ever again. I do try to look at things realistically, as best I can. (Like, what people don't get paid to do, they end up not doing.) Mostly I just try to apply common sense, as with the library idea - extending the library loaning concept across networks doesn't seem unreasonable given today's technology. It's not what we have now though, because it'd be legal, better quality, and the artists *would* still have some income - just via tax dollars rather than directly.

If I have an "angle" it is that I'd like to someday take off a year or three and write a book. But if it becomes impossible to do such a thing and make a living, I'd have to give up that goal, since it really wouldn't be possible for me to do that and pay my bills. Other than that goal, which I can certainly sacrifice if it is necessary, I really have no angle.

I don't consider myself all that "confused" though. I have always advocated that artists deserve to be compensated for their work. Not so much because of my wanna-write-a-book-someday goal, but because I truly believe that removing compensation for creativity will reduce the available pool of new creative works, at least for the common man (which would be me) and that would probably be something I'd end up not liking very much.

While I want the public to have access to everything under the sun for free, I don't think that is possible, or even desireable (if I am right about it impacting the availability of new creative works). So I look for reasonable compromises, such that the public benefits, but not at the TOTAL expense of the artists. And I want to see artists benefit too, but not at the TOTAL expense of the public. For a while capitalism worked to achieve that balance. Maybe it still can, who knows. Certainly not me.

[eivioolla]

Originally posted by jonnymnemonic
Whether you think it's the propogator of others' work is the crininal, or the one who takes what is offered, or neither - all matter of opinion. I have to go with the propogator, personally, and I think that will be validated by the judges ere long.

But you see, leaving your car door open is not "propagating" your car. Neither is leaving your files online. Propagating means that you actively distribute them, i.e. you connect to a server and upload the files there. However, that is not what we are talking about here.

I'd merely like to try to get a handle on whether it will be possible to make a living writing a book, or writing software, or making studio music. If not, then I won't waste my time on such things. But if it IS possible, well, then those are viable options and I'd like to know about them. So, I question things. I try to see things from all perspectives, not merely the selfish I-want-everything-for-free perspective. (I do see things from that viewpoint too, of course - that's the easiest viewpoint to understand, and pretty much *anyone* can see that viewpoint, because selfishness is an integral part of human nature, a survival trait even.)

If I have an "angle" it is that I'd like to someday take off a year or three and write a book. But if it becomes impossible to do such a thing and make a living, I'd have to give up that goal, since it really wouldn't be possible for me to do that and pay my bills. Other than that goal, which I can certainly sacrifice if it is necessary, I really have no angle.

Well, since your starting point to write a book is already the wrong one, I certainly hope you will not end up writing it. We do not need more of the same commercial, produced garbage that is already pushed to us both in the music as well as in the movie industry. Despite your perhaps genuine attempt, you don't seem to understand art or artists. The driving force behind art is not money, it's a need to create.

What comes to writing software, I don't think software industry is threatened by this. There will always be a need for new programs in embedded systems, be it a mobile phone or a car. If anything, this will take the software industry into a healthy direction where code will be written when the need arises, instead of forcefully pushing out new versions with new features that no one needs.

[Afn]

Originally posted by jonnymnemonic

1) I have no particular "angle" really. Mostly just an interested bystander trying to grasp what will be possible in the future, both in terms of what jobs might be worthwhile and which will not. I'm primarily a very good customer who respects copyrights, thus the 800 or so purchased CDs (and thousands of books, and a fair bit of software, and a NetFlix subscription, blah blah). I do, for the most part, put my money where my mouth is. That's not to say I am immune to temptation though - make it easy enough to rip people off and okay, I will do some of that too. If I could drive off in a car and nobody'd know, to use your car analogy, I'd probably do that, regardless of the effect on the auto industry - cars are way too freaking expensive in my opinion.

2) I'd merely like to try to get a handle on whether it will be possible to make a living writing a book, or writing software, or making studio music.

3) If not, then I won't waste my time on such things. But if it IS possible, well, then those are viable options and I'd like to know about them. So, I question things. I try to see things from all perspectives, not merely the selfish I-want-everything-for-free perspective. (I do see things from that viewpoint too, of course - that's the easiest viewpoint to understand, and pretty much *anyone* can see that viewpoint, because selfishness is an integral part of human nature, a survival trait even.)

4) If I have an "angle" it is that I'd like to someday take off a year or three and write a book. But if it becomes impossible to do such a thing and make a living, I'd have to give up that goal, since it really wouldn't be possible for me to do that and pay my bills. Other than that goal, which I can certainly sacrifice if it is necessary, I really have no angle.

5) I truly believe that removing compensation for creativity will reduce the available pool of new creative works, at least for the common man (which would be me) and that would probably be something I'd end up not liking very much.

6) While I want the public to have access to everything under the sun for free, I don't think that is possible, or even desireable (if I am right about it impacting the availability of new creative works). So I look for reasonable compromises, such that the public benefits, but not at the TOTAL expense of the artists. And I want to see artists benefit too, but not at the TOTAL expense of the public. For a while capitalism worked to achieve that balance. Maybe it still can, who knows. Certainly not me.
1) The intelectual property industries are now feeling the effects of globalization and technology. There is a serious issue at stake, and it is this, "If society has the power to create extrordinary productivy and real wealth for a select few corporations, and millions go unfed, does society have a right to stop this practice, or at best, create a society that works for all.

2) It is my view, opinion, dogma ect... that information now at historical value, has peaked, and information based society will crash when information as we know it will be in digital form.

3) Good. There will be millions of people who will take the place of the few industry hacks that churn out pulp fiction novels every quarter. Meaning, people will still create, but to sing, not to get rich.

4)
5) We all know of stories of where people who had the idea or the patent, created a work of great benefit and under our current system, were screwed out of royalities thanks to corporations, or determined individuals. Airbags are an excellent example, since the auto industry waited for the inventor' of the air bag's patent to elapse before manufacturing airbags in cars. As a second aside, they only put air bags in the most expensive cars, providing little security for the vast public. The question is, is this right? Can I restrict distribution, restrict access to a few paying people, when my creation could help millions? I say, the greater public good is more important than excess elite profiteering at the expense of fellow citizens.

6) Who knows what the future will bring, but any type of restriction of information, now that we are in the digital age, in the words of others, "will be viewed as damage and routed around the damage"

[jonnymnemonic]

You must be very young. Would there be a Sistine Chapel without Michelangelo not being paid to do it? No. (He hated painting - sculpture was his bag. Did it strictly for the moolah.) Shakespeare? No. Aristotle, Plato? No. People have created enormously great cultural works all throughout history - for money. Yeah, you get a few (Van Gogh) who are willing to live a life of poverty to create works that no one cares about until they are rotting in the ground. By and large, though, your average creator, however talented he is, wants to make a living. So saying that writing as a career choice only results in bad writing is insanely wrong. Look around! Take any book that you consider "great" written in, say, the last 50 years - you think that author didn't care if he/she got paid. Of COURSE that author cared, a great deal. But sure, we can use the creators like Van Gogh - hey, if people are willing to live in poverty for my benefit, wonderful! The more of those around, the merrier! I just don't happen to expect that, which apparently makes me different from most. I also don't happen to think we'll end up with anywhere near the same number of "great works" without the creators being paid, which again apparently makes me different. (But this seems like common sense to me.)

In any event, whatever the public wants or doesn't want, it is ultimately the creators who decide what happens with their creations. If one guy will pay them more than six billion people will, the one guy will get what he wants. If we as a society let that happen, then, well, you reap what you sow and all that.

There would be great irony in a mass duplication medium becoming the reason that at least some media doesn't get distributed at all (except to the single highest bidder). There is great irony in the idea that "the great equalizer" could ultimately turn out to be the complete opposite.

[eivioolla]

Well, if we have to lower our level into age discussion, then if I'm young, then I guess you must be pretty old to be able to say for absolute certainty what was the driving force behind the artists mentioned above.

Yes, of course, no one would mind to become filthy rich. But tell me, why would someone choose to create some underground techno music or an art movie or anything besides pop and blockbuster films? I mean surely they understand that they're never going to sell like Eminem or xXx. I download new music almost daily and I just can't believe the artists get any money worth mentioning for their work. Yet I just keep getting more and more.

So the assumption that creating will stop if the artist doesn't make a living out of it simply can not be correct.

Also worth noting is that artists are not bottomless wells of creativity. Sooner or later everyone starts repeating himself and fails to rise to the level expected of him. Coincidence or not, this usually happens somewhere there where they start actually making money for what they do.

[Empire]

Painters and sculptors are like performers. They get paid for that one live performance they do. Musicians can stop recording music (making the record companies rich) and start performing more and charging for it.

One might also argue that if Michelangelo hadn't wasted his time on the perhishable Sistine Chapel ceiling, he might have turned out hundreds of sculptures which of course we will never see because he wasted his time painting.

All this conjecture doesn't matter really. Copyright is a human invention that tries to give value to something that is easily copied. Arguing about it is silly because it's entire existence is arbitrary, not necessarily based on natural law. It's like arguing how many angels could fit on the head of a pin.

Originally posted by jonnymnemonic
You must be very young. Would there be a Sistine Chapel without Michelangelo not being paid to do it? No. (He hated painting - sculpture was his bag. Did it strictly for the moolah.) Shakespeare? No. Aristotle, Plato? No. People have created enormously great cultural works all throughout history - for money. Yeah, you get a few (Van Gogh) who are willing to live a life of poverty to create works that no one cares about until they are rotting in the ground. By and large, though, your average creator, however talented he is, wants to make a living. So saying that writing as a career choice only results in bad writing is insanely wrong. Look around! Take any book that you consider "great" written in, say, the last 50 years - you think that author didn't care if he/she got paid. Of COURSE that author cared, a great deal. But sure, we can use the creators like Van Gogh - hey, if people are willing to live in poverty for my benefit, wonderful! The more of those around, the merrier! I just don't happen to expect that, which apparently makes me different from most. I also don't happen to think we'll end up with anywhere near the same number of "great works" without the creators being paid, which again apparently makes me different. (But this seems like common sense to me.)

In any event, whatever the public wants or doesn't want, it is ultimately the creators who decide what happens with their creations. If one guy will pay them more than six billion people will, the one guy will get what he wants. If we as a society let that happen, then, well, you reap what you sow and all that.

There would be great irony in a mass duplication medium becoming the reason that at least some media doesn't get distributed at all (except to the single highest bidder). There is great irony in the idea that "the great equalizer" could ultimately turn out to be the complete opposite.

[shawners]

Say what you will, but the fact that painters sold their works, made money, and others can copy their work and sale it as well as others. Are they being fined with copywrite infringments? No! Just cause someone built something in stone with a penis hanging out, doesnt mean others cant do it or copy it. So if theirs another Mount Rushmore.. With bills and bush face on it, would that be vandalizing? or slap to the face with a frying pan.
Shakespear wrote plays and had them perform, we do his plays, dont give hiim royalties. We buy books that others have written about him, did he get his share? So if artist come along and sing, and we can copy their work and distribute it to the world. Were doing it for free, their charging a price per CD.

[NDGAARONDI]

Good debates here, best I've seen in months!

[Empire]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Afn
1) The intelectual property industries are now feeling the effects of globalization and technology. There is a serious issue at stake, and it is this, "If society has the power to create extrordinary productivy and real wealth for a select few corporations, and millions go unfed, does society have a right to stop this practice, or at best, create a society that works for all.

No. That's the basis of Communism. It doesn't work because productivity is initiated by exceptional individuals. Without those individuals we would all be equal, hunting rodents and eating grubs because we would still be cavemen.

As an example, how many people on this board USE p2p software compared to how many people actually wrote a p2p program? You've got less than 1% of the people giving over 99% a lot of pleasure.

Of course the consumers who didn't produce anything and are essentially just leechers of another sort are the biggest whiners about how bad the producers are. They've gotten thousands of dollars in free software, music and video and they're the first to whine about how "Kazaa sucks". The lower on the scrotum pole you are, the more important you think you are. Ingratitude is the worse human trait. Why do you think Joltid isn't actively pushing Fasttrack anymore? Why haven't they put it into the public domain? I think there is a lot of ingratitude on the part of the users and resentment on the part of Joltid. They created something great but all they got of it was shit: complaints and lawsuits.

You can say everyone deserves equally, but, without things produced to divide up equally, that doesn't work. The producers deserve more.

Those few artists at the top have brought a lot of happiness to people. P2P is just a technological leap that is going to obsolete copyrights. It isn't right, or moral necessarily, it's just a fact.

[BigFatLazyAss]

Yea, I woke up one morning and discovered the limitations that are written on CD's. What a suprise ... I had been doing something illegal for 40 years and did not know. It was in a discusion here at Zeropaid in another conversation like this.

In reality, I think in time the Riaa will embrace P2P and go at it in another direction .... it you can't beat-um; Join them. You might find an ad for Coke-a-cola in a song, only after it is downloaded from Kazzaa. I would & will hate it. I know hackers will make it their lifelong mission to clean them .... but it will take work .... after a while people will get used to the idea and just know if you get a song off Kazzaa it will have ads attached to it. There will be software you can buy to clean them .... then the programs get changed ... a constant war .... But sounds like fun, huh! ....... You know, like viruses Vs. Antivirus sofeware.... So, how much would Coke-a-cola pay to have their brand attached permanently to the next hot single .... and be exposed to millions around the world. This is the only way legally in a free world they could (with technology); they (the Riaa) could capitalize on P2P.

Well that is my crystal ball gazing .... it is cloudy now ...

Big & Fat:fire

[BigFatLazyAss]

.
Shawners wrote this:

Shakespear wrote plays and had them perform, we do his plays, dont give hiim royalties. We buy books that others have written about him, did he get his share? So if artist come along and sing, and we can copy their work and distribute it to the world. Were doing it for free, their charging a price per CD.

Shakespear made money from performances and publications of his work in his day .... But, that was about 400 years ago. (I think) ... Point is, at the moment the copyright laws allows for the artist to collect royalties 70 years past his death. so a song written by someone 20 years old in 1883 and he lived to be 70 years old .... the copyright ran out just this year.

But, not all songs are copyrighted ... a lot of early blues artist never did that ... Lighning Hopkins never signed with any record company, but just wanted $100. cold hard cash & he would play for you & you can record it. Now the record companies may have copyrighted the recordings of his work.

Big & Fat:fire

[BigFatLazyAss]

Afn Said:
Again, I can put ANYTHING on a discs i manufacture

Yes, you can put anything on a disk .... it is called a contract ... that if you buy the CD it is with limitations that you can use it. You can not open a club and play your CD's without paying a royalty ... a top 40 hits band can not play other peoples music without the club paying a royalties fee. Radio stations pay a royalty fee to play music. These fees are distributed among artist by the record sales charts ... the top artist will get the bigest cut, and so on down the line. Now radio has to turn in what they play and sometime are limited to what they play. it is and always has been ... "How can I get paid for doing this??" So next time you sit in a restaurant and hear music in the back ground ... realize that somebody is collecting a fee so you can have music.

Big & Fat

[Afn]

Originally posted by BigFatLazyAss
Afn Said:


Yes, you can put anything on a disk .... it is called a contract ... that if you buy the CD it is with limitations that you can use it. You can not open a club and play your CD's without paying a royalty ... a top 40 hits band can not play other peoples music without the club paying a royalties fee. Radio stations pay a royalty fee to play music. These fees are distributed among artist by the record sales charts ... the top artist will get the bigest cut, and so on down the line. Now radio has to turn in what they play and sometime are limited to what they play. it is and always has been ... "How can I get paid for doing this??" So next time you sit in a restaurant and hear music in the back ground ... realize that somebody is collecting a fee so you can have music.

Big & Fat


Yes, rights management agencies, bmi, ascap, riaa have terrorized businesses and consumers for years. There is a real investment in any business or artist. The problem is now, the system of record distribution is obsolete.

We all have heard stories of the artist getting no royalites for work and albums selling millions of copies. There is no crystal ball to tell a A&R rep what act will sell and what act will not sell.

So if manufactured music as an industry fails, real unpaid culture may emerge, and the artist who has spent the time to structure his act for profit, will be the ultimate winner.

If you wanted to cd record, 10 years ago, you had to own a recording studio, multitrack recording studio, and then outsource the tape to a add converter to make the optical disc.

Today, I can use a pc, soundcard and a cd-r to make 1 or 100,000 discs. Most people would not want to listen to what I have to say or sing, but I have the ability to get the same result that would cost $10,000 just ten years ago for the cost of a blank cd-r .40 (and a PC).

I do not think less work will be produced, there are more web pages and web content online every day. There is less interest in producing something only for profit that may never make a return on investment.

If you want to be the next eminem, and expect people to buy your vulger lyrics, and sing about fuck this and fuck that, then I think the industry has lost vision, and talent and my money.

[mp3MaStA88]

i am totally for filesharing.... right now i share a ton of files on filespree

[Malicious Intent]

Filespree doesn't seem to get a very good response:
http://www.zeropaid.com/bbs/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6945&highlight=file+spree
Looking at their site it doesn't seem to offer anything new to the p2p scene.
But thats a bit of topic.

[MainManMoe]

Originally posted by jonnymnemonic
You must be very young. Would there be a Sistine Chapel without Michelangelo not being paid to do it? No. (He hated painting - sculpture was his bag. Did it strictly for the moolah.) Shakespeare? No. Aristotle, Plato? No. People have created enormously great cultural works all throughout history - for money.

Im sorry to say it Johnny but your argument doesnt hold, especially as you obviously know nothing of neither Shakespeare, Michelangelo, Plato or Aristotle. If you did you would know it is simply nonsense to use these persons and their work in this context (and no, michelangelo didnt hate painting, theres no indication of this in any respected biography about him whatsoever).

[jonnymnemonic]

It's so obvious, I am astounded no one has considered it yet. The idea is predicated on the "what you can destroy, you control" concept. Here's the idea:

Copyright holders release music in 64k format, free, on p2p. This gives people what they want - the preview-before-buy option. They let stuff simmer there for a month or three, using p2p as a promotional tool. Then they take pre-orders for higher-quality formats (CDs, downloads, whatever). If the number of pre-orders exceed whatever minimum they establish, then boom, the credit cards are charged, and those people get the CD (or song, whatever). If the pre-orders never reach the specified level, then nobody's card is charged, and nobody gets the CD and it goes into a vault - and they can try again in a year or whatever.

This allows society as a whole to vote with their wallets on whether something enters into the public's cultural access (very democratic and capitalistic!). If they think something sucks, then it just never gets released and gathers dust in the vault, maybe to be auctioned to some rich guy, maybe just to sit there idle, whatever. If enough people decide that it's worthwhile, then enough pay for it, and they get the CDs (song downloads, whatever).

Of course, the possibility of leaks is the weakness. But constraining access is much much easier before a CD ever goes to print than it is AFTER the CD is printed, so you simply control the access while there exists only one copy. And, as I pointed out, when there is only one copy, he who can destroy it DOES control it.

This preserves the capitalistic freedoms of the producer AND the consumer, and requires no DRM anywhere. It's such a simple solution I am kinda astounded no one seems to have thought about it. I guess no one was really looking for solutions to protect the freedoms of both producers and consumers - everyone is just butting heads wanting to collapse their perceived "enemy" completely.

This does nothing for *existing* works, of course. Hey, I'm only one guy, I can't figure everything out. But it certainly seems to solve any problems with piracy of NEW releases without tiliting the balance of freedom too far toward the producer or the consumer.

[jonnymnemonic]

Quote: "At first, Michelangelo, who had been busy painting frescos in Pope Julius' tomb, refused his successor's request [to paint the Sistine Chapel], feeling that the undertaking of such a monumental task would take him away from his first love, that of sculpture, but the Pope insisted, and his word prevailed."

Another quote: "The Sistine Chapel was to be the last of Michelangelo's paintings, with his focus returning to his first love, that of sculpting."

Plenty of evidence out there to support Michelangelo's preference for sculpture over painting (if you're not too lazy to look). Okay, he didn't HATE painting - he just preferred sculpture over painting to such a degree that, given equal monetary inducement for either, he would have always chosen sculpture. So, compared to love of sculpture, his predilection for painting was inconsequential. Hell, he tried to refuse doing the Sistine Chapel despite the monetary reward AND the Pope's wish that he do it. Money alone might very well have not been enough inducement, but he didn't wanna get on the Pope's bad side, so, he did it. They kinda squeezed it out of him against his will. (But he did get paid very well, so don't feel TOO sorry for him.)

[aqlo]

Thanks Jonny, you've got Michelangelo down.

I'm going to speak up for Aristotle. Unlike his predecessors Plato and Socrates, Aristotle was a successful author of wide publications that didn't have to be severely edited by his disciples. He did this by living on a government subsidy from Phillip of Macedon, he earned it by supporting what would become the Empire under Alexander with extended political propaganda. He sold out numerous true ideas well-known to Pythagoras and Heraclitus as well as his own school for ideas that were more mentally platable, in order to keep his position. Set astronomy back hundreds of years for example.

Moe where do you get your facts? You gave me 28's decease yesterday in the Zen Hot Dog as his advent, I didn't want to correct you there because it isn't supposed to be a correct thread. But I'm suspicious of your sources.

[Malicious Intent]

Originally posted by jonnymnemonic

This allows society as a whole to vote with their wallets on whether something enters into the public's cultural access (very democratic and capitalistic!). If they think something sucks, then it just never gets released and gathers dust in the vault, maybe to be auctioned to some rich guy, maybe just to sit there idle, whatever. If enough people decide that it's worthwhile, then enough pay for it, and they get the CDs (song downloads, whatever).


I can see a couple of problems. Firstly people don't like to pre-order anything, especially if they don't know if they will ever be getting it or not. There were lots of comlpaints about BT who said that enough people had to pre-order broadband before the local exchange was upgraded.
Imagine having to pre-order every song you buy. Its like a daily pop-idol with a million contestants. Once a year is too much for me.
Secondly the song has to be produced to release it in 64kbs quality. Once the song has been produced, why not sell it to the people who wanted it? Its a sunk cost, so as long as people are willing to pay more than the value of a blank CD and processing cost, why not sell it to them? Its all contribution.

[jonnymnemonic]

Good points. But your card isn't charged until it ships to you, so no big deal there. Secondly, the reason not to give it to buyer number 1 immediately is that suddenly buyers numbers 2 through 1,000,000 can get it for free and thus have no incentive to buy at all. Waiting until enough orders are present guarantees that you don't even GO into production mode until or unless you know that it's going to be worthwhile to do so.

You also juke some contracts around to accomodate this model over time. Tell the artists upfront this is how it's gonna work, and they will be paid for each copy that gets sold but only when and if it actually goes to production. And of course, it's to the labels and artists' benefits to promote the new stuff, via p2p, or whatever.

Basically, there is no great need to risk large losses from piracy. You simply transfer the risk to the consumer - if they don't buy enough, they give up on that particular release, they just never see it. Only the good stuff will get sold (or at least stuff that society wants, I guess Britney would be around).The 64k songs will still be floating around, and maybe people will like them more in a year, or a decade. If not, no big deal.

I also thought of a clever idea to even help reduce piracy of established works. Tie the level of piracy of already-released works to the price of the next (unreleased) CD. And lower the "base price" to $5 (cuz you KNOW there's gonna be SOME piracy). Then if people just pirate the crap out of Radiohead (or whoever), then the price of the next Radiohead release begins incrementing from $5. And let people check on what that next price is, so they can watch it going up in realtime. (Yes, I know, you can't really be perfect on piracy estimates - just do the best you can and double it, under the assumption that you can only know about half of what goes on, extrapolated from samples of p2p traffic). The more a particular band is pirated, the less likely society is to be able to access that next release. Thus, it creates a kind of self-limiting system.

This also means that those who pay for what they get will increasingly view the freeloaders with hostility, because the freeloaders are driving up THEIR prices. This results in piracy being viewed as a "bad thing" over time, a psychological effect on society. The more honest you are about buying stuff you like, the more you end up disliking those who pirate it, because they are costing you money out of your wallet because of their greed and selfishness. This also makes it less likely that someone who DOES buy something will give it away to others - I mean, that'd drive up their price for the next release. If they like the band, and think they might want the next release, why would they do that? It doesn't help the band, it doesn't help you. It helps some anonymous freeloaader, yeah, but, well...

And if all, or any, of this comes to pass, I'm gonna feel pretty damn smart. They probably just haven't thought of it themselves because they've all got that lawsuit bloodlust clouding their eyes.

[Afn]

Originally posted by jonnymnemonic
It's so obvious, I am astounded no one has considered it yet. The idea is predicated on the "what you can destroy, you control" concept. Here's the idea:

Copyright holders release music in 64k format, free, on p2p. This gives people what they want - the preview-before-buy option. They let stuff simmer there for a month or three, using p2p as a promotional tool. Then they take pre-orders for higher-quality formats (CDs, downloads, whatever). If the number of pre-orders exceed whatever minimum they establish, then boom, the credit cards are charged, and those people get the CD (or song, whatever). If the pre-orders never reach the specified level, then nobody's card is charged, and nobody gets the CD and it goes into a vault - and they can try again in a year or whatever.


Nothing new, pre-sales model is as old as cash. I assume that you would partially release a CD, and then give people a way to order on your web page. When you get 10,000 orders, at $20 each, you charge alll credit cards and make 200,000 gross. That would cover your costs, and any p2p duplication would be ipso facto to you.

Cool idea. :)

One suggestion, might not work, charge people $20 up front, and after a specified time, release the work.

Most people will not want to pre-pay if they never know they are getting anything. Secondly, if you only get $1,000 worth of orders, that is better than spending $10,000 and getting 9,000 dollars of returns because of p2p.

A good idea. Why didn't I think of that.

[tMoD]

jonnymnemonic, I can't speak for everyone but I am sure I would be buying a lot less music if I was basing my judgment on shitty 64 kbps versions. If I didn't like the 64 kbps version there would really be way to predict whether or not I would like it with a higher sound quality. I think a lot of sales would probably be lost this way. This idea would also not end the boycott of the RIAA and whatever (probably modest) effect it is having would continue.

[jonnymnemonic]

You could certainly still boycott, any business you wish! The difference would simply be that you'd end up not getting the products you are boycotting. Which is fine, that's what capitalism is all about! If everyone boycotts Ford, they'll disappear. If everyone boycotts the RIAA and all those labels, then THEY will disappear. They'd probably be replaced by other labels and something similar to the RIAA, but perhaps an organization that thinks more creatively, and doesn't simply whip out the lawsuit stick. (Which is, frankly, pretty dumb in my opinion.)

The power of the consumer is mighty, no question about that!

[tMoD]

Maybe I was too opaque but the boycott was not the main thrust of my argument. I'm saying there might very well be a significant drop in sales if your plan were to be implemented because so much good (or at least decent) music would sound bad at 64 kbps.

Edit- never mind, I saw your response in the news section. One problem though is that if the quality is too low you dissuade people from buying because it sounds bad and if the sound quality is too high you dissuade people from buying because they already have a decent copy. I'm not sure if there is a way for them to really win that game.

[eivioolla]

Sounds like a good idea to me. Worth trying anyways. Imho you can sufficiently judge the musical content from a low quality file to make the decision whether you want it or not. Artist could always sell at least enough to get by. On the other hand it would be more difficult to make insane sales when some of the people would hold on and see if others are enough to buy it, after which it would naturally spread to the free nets.

[Malicious Intent]

Hey jonnymnemonic,
I'm not picking to be awkard, I'm just trying to find answers to potential problems, I hope you understand that. I always like people who try and think of new ideas.

I'm still not convinced that people would sign up for it, even though you don't pay until it is decided. BT did not make anyone sign up with ISPs before the upgrade, just made sure that people said that they would. The problem was still there. People have to think, "do i want that music in the future?". The question "do I want in now?" is much easier for people to answer.
What about people who don't have access to the internet or the time to preview songs? That will be a large market segment. Say people who like "Rockband" arn't gernerally internet users, or are busy at with work, then "Rockband" wont stand a chance. Much easier is if they hear a song whilst driving home and drop off on the way to buy it.
I don't think I could survive a world of 364 day pop-idol.

[drei]

What I would LOVE to see is a few major artist just revolt and say at the end of our contracts we will distribute our music on our own via the web or other means. That would be so ILL! Imagine Eminem selling $6.00 CD's on the web $2.00 for production,distribution and other expenses $4.00 for his bank account and creative control out the ASS! A move like that would surely put the industry into a whole new way of thinkng.

[Malicious Intent]

Well perhaps they are already part of the way there:
http://www.zeropaid.com/news/articles/auto/09112003i.php
(and that isn't the only article posted here)

But what you need to remember is artists need the record labels to make them famous. They sign a contract which they have to live out.
After that contract exspires, I think you are right. The technology is now there for artists to go independent.

[Afn]

Originally posted by Malicious Intent
Well perhaps they are already part of the way there:
http://www.zeropaid.com/news/articles/auto/09112003i.php
(and that isn't the only article posted here)

But what you need to remember is artists need the record labels to make them famous. They sign a contract which they have to live out.
After that contract exspires, I think you are right. The technology is now there for artists to go independent.

The record companies know how to sell records. They 'own' the channel so to speak. Net via p2p, unless it changes, is very word of mouth, or download by mouth. This is really kewl, here it is ... download this..

No one knows how successful distribution on p2p networks will be for acts, or artists. Any demographic data is a guess, and I think most people do not want to have informantion pooled for marketing and chart creation and then that information is sold ... to develop acts that mirror what people are downloading, or sell you demographically targeted soap via free downloads.

[Malicious Intent]

Technology has moved on more than just p2p. The music industry barely has anything web based.
Once the music industry has got the artists name known and their contract has run out, then the artist could fall back onto his/her website and sell music directly, either mail-order or with mp3s.
Naturally you have the problem that one person could buy the mp3 and make it available for everyone else on p2p.
And lots of people don't like mail-order as it relies on snail-mail.
Other than that it has potential!:fire

[BazR]

I'm an artist. The narrow minded ill thought through attitude that comes through, particuarly in other threads is shocking.

I also effectively run a small label.

P2P sharing is incredibly convenient and getting music in otherways requires a lot more effort, dedication and money.

However it is clearly wrong.

It seriously undermines my ability to make a living out of music. It also is currently seriously undermining the ability of any new artists to get a meaningful recording contract.

We are vaguely successful, you might have heard what we do on Radio One or MTV, we write dance music - there is no 'playing live' to earn money from as someone suggested, I work in a recording studio which I paid for with another job.

I do it because I love it, but I do feel strongly that I should be able to sell copys of what I do and I also feel that I should be able to organise the promotion of whatever I do however I like, and that I should also be able to set the price at whatever I liked.

I agree that CDs are overpriced, but if it costs me a pound a CD to produce them including all the art work etc and it cost fifty grand to set up the studio and I have to eat as well then I'd like a couple of quid a CD perhaps (particuarly as sales seem to be down as P2P increases), distribution of the CD (not everyone has a computer and quite frankly I'd rather have physical product out there where the quality is better, someone encoded one of our tracks at the wrong bloody speed ... and there are people ripping music off vinyl though shoddy A/Ds in a soundblaster card using crap needles on their decks, what kind of online promotion is that??) adds maybe a 100% mark up to 4 quid then shops generally mark things up by another 100%.

It is also causing an arms race with the copyright owners who are desperate for some protection which is inconveniencing everyone.

Anyway, I suppose the point of this message, as it seems to have become a bit confused since i started writing it, is that, whilst it would be nice if music was free it isn't. There's a cost to producing it. And in a society based around capitalism, those who make the most popular music product perhaps deserve to be rewarded in the same way as the people who make the best vaacuum cleaner or who make the best car.

This isn't to say I'm in favour of most of the things the record industry stands for ...

anyway, breakfast time ...

[Malicious Intent]

Hi BazR.
You can be assured that you are not our first muscian to drop by this site.
You can be assured that you have the industries backing when you say,
and that I should also be able to set the price at whatever I liked
Unfortunately this has caused much of the problem.
What you really need to ask yourself is are you really losing out due to p2p? How do you know it is effecting your sales? Look at Radiohead. Their album was pirated months before its actual release. People should have been forewarned how bad it was, but sales were every bit as high as originally budgeted for.
You should look to p2p as an oppotunity, not a threat. A chance to incredably cheaply get your name known. This would give you a chance to have a bit of power back over the industry which you clearly arn't a fan of.
Don't forget that it is the BPI protects your copyrights, not the RIAA. The BPI believe in education, not suing. This is what you are trying to achieve. If you ask me, you should leave the work to them.
Take a look at their website on anti-piracy measures: www.bpi.co.uk

[Afn]

Originally posted by BazR
1) I'm an artist. The narrow minded ill thought through attitude that comes through, particuarly in other threads is shocking.

I also effectively run a small label.

2) P2P sharing is incredibly convenient and getting music in otherways requires a lot more effort, dedication and money.

3) However it is clearly wrong.

4)It seriously undermines my ability to make a living out of music. It also is currently seriously undermining the ability of any new artists to get a meaningful recording contract.

5)We are vaguely successful, you might have heard what we do on Radio One or MTV, we write dance music - there is no 'playing live' to earn money from as someone suggested, I work in a recording studio which I paid for with another job.

6) I do it because I love it, but I do feel strongly that I should be able to 7) sell copys of what I do and I also feel that I should be able to organise the promotion of whatever I do however I like, and that 8) I should also be able to set the price at whatever I liked.

9) I agree that CDs are overpriced, but if it costs me a pound a CD to produce them including all the art work etc and it cost fifty grand to set up the studio and I have to eat as well then I'd like a couple of quid a CD perhaps (particuarly as sales seem to be down as P2P increases), distribution of the CD (not everyone has a computer and quite frankly I'd rather have physical product out there where the quality is better, someone encoded one of our tracks at the wrong bloody speed ... and there are people ripping music off vinyl though shoddy A/Ds in a soundblaster card using crap needles on their decks, what kind of online promotion is that??) adds maybe a 100% mark up to 4 quid then shops generally mark things up by another 100%.

It is also causing an arms race with the copyright owners 10) who are desperate for some protection which is inconveniencing everyone.

Anyway, I suppose the point of this message, as it seems to have become a bit confused since i started writing it, is that, whilst it would be nice if music was free it isn't. There's a cost to producing it. 11) And in a society based around capitalism, those who make the most popular music product perhaps deserve to be rewarded in the same way as the people who make the best vaacuum cleaner or who make the best car.

This isn't to say I'm in favour of most of the things the record industry stands for ...

anyway, breakfast time ...

1) Most of us are artists. Some more than others.

2) P2P is the new broadcasting model. Owned by no one, and controled by no one. P2P can be used for any content, not just music.

3) Opinion.

4) Agree, so why should a few artists get protection and 'controled' distribution, when factory workers did not have protection when jobs were outsourced to third world cheap labor. You could argue that an iraqi can not sing or look like elvis, so outsoucing it would be impossible, but it is ok to let the team of programmers go so 'Hindi' in India can write code at 1/20th the cost.

5) psst... there will be money in production jobs, but not in distribution. The problem is, many act's only exist to get rich quick, so this will eliminate many jobs that depend on act's to create revenue. Any bloke now can record a cd in a home studio and market his or her stuff online.

The problem is, with no 'clear channel' of distribution, you may never reach critical mass to make any money. So alot of content will not be produced. Also, any bloke can record anything, and release it on p2p for free. I guess some of this material will be very good.

6-8) Passion does not translate into sales. The world has changed, and it is unclear what will happen long term. My own belief is content industries are going to post extreme losses and go out of business.

A few independents will exist, and a few will be profitable. Not many.
9) Society makes up rules. Then technology changes the rules. P2P is a change in how information reaches the consumer. Few businesses will survive in the post physical media 'information' world.

So you are saying, I make toothpaste, I am going to sell my tube of toothpaste for $20 dollars, and now I want the government to write a law that makes it illegal not to give-a-way toothpaste or to charge any less money for toothpaste than $20 a tube.

Replace toothpaste with compact disc, and you will see my point.

10) Well tell that to all of the blue collar jobs that were sent offshore, thanks to world trade agreements, such as GATT and NAFTA.
11)Today we have 'managed' or controlled capitalism. Some say we are entering an age of corrupt captialism. As information increases it may be impossible for anyone to make anything profitable unless they have a secure monopoly.

[Brycen257]

I agree with Malicious Intent. Contrary to the propoganda spewed out regularly by the RIAA, I have yet to see any definitive proof that P2P file sharing has any impact on CD Sales.
The RIAA has made this ridiculous claim in order to rally the artists behind them and in order to justify their small minded and misguided campaign against P2P users.

Its a fact that the methods of distributing music are changing as technology changes and groups like the Music Industry seem to be very slow to recognize that. Whether they like it or not, technology has advanced to the point where it is no longer essential for people to buy Cd's to enjoy the music they love. Unless the Riaa and the music industry adapt their methods of distribution to acknowledge this, they will go the way of the dinosaur.

I would also suggest that due in large part to the availablity of music through file sharing networks, I have become aware of numerous musicians that I either would never have known about or simply not bothered to check out. Being able to download the music encourages music lovers to listen to the music of new bands and artists and then make the choice whether they want to support them by going to concerts, buying their Cd's etc.

[aqlo]

Bazr thank you for posting. I hope you read around a bit and find out what people are like when they are not puffing themselves up to fight this battle. I don't know though, this is one of our most civilized threads on this subject that is also artist-friendly. Malice has already covered my theoretical opinions on this subject, in particular I would draw your attention to the increase in sales as napster thrived and the sharp losses that occurred once the music industry began warring on us. I would like you to consider what would have happened to Elvis if he had sued the radio stations and then his fans.

Got that all in your mind now? Good. Now it is my sad duty to inform you that copyrights of items consisting of 0 and 1 are no longer a viable proposition. I disbelieved this concept as hard as I could when first introduced. I have since learned better on a grand scale. So your best bet is to learn how to market first yourself, and then thereafterward whatever products suit your fancy. Good luck in all your future endeavors. :gj

[Empire]

Originally posted by BazR
I'm an artist. The narrow minded ill thought through attitude that comes through, particuarly in other threads is shocking.

I also effectively run a small label.

P2P sharing is incredibly convenient and getting music in otherways requires a lot more effort, dedication and money.

However it is clearly wrong.

It seriously undermines my ability to make a living out of music. It also is currently seriously undermining the ability of any new artists to get a meaningful recording contract.

We are vaguely successful, you might have heard what we do on Radio One or MTV, we write dance music - there is no 'playing live' to earn money from as someone suggested, I work in a recording studio which I paid for with another job.

I do it because I love it, but I do feel strongly that I should be able to sell copys of what I do and I also feel that I should be able to organise the promotion of whatever I do however I like, and that I should also be able to set the price at whatever I liked.

I agree that CDs are overpriced, but if it costs me a pound a CD to produce them including all the art work etc and it cost fifty grand to set up the studio and I have to eat as well then I'd like a couple of quid a CD perhaps (particuarly as sales seem to be down as P2P increases), distribution of the CD (not everyone has a computer and quite frankly I'd rather have physical product out there where the quality is better, someone encoded one of our tracks at the wrong bloody speed ... and there are people ripping music off vinyl though shoddy A/Ds in a soundblaster card using crap needles on their decks, what kind of online promotion is that??) adds maybe a 100% mark up to 4 quid then shops generally mark things up by another 100%.

It is also causing an arms race with the copyright owners who are desperate for some protection which is inconveniencing everyone.

Anyway, I suppose the point of this message, as it seems to have become a bit confused since i started writing it, is that, whilst it would be nice if music was free it isn't. There's a cost to producing it. And in a society based around capitalism, those who make the most popular music product perhaps deserve to be rewarded in the same way as the people who make the best vaacuum cleaner or who make the best car.

This isn't to say I'm in favour of most of the things the record industry stands for ...

anyway, breakfast time ... I am a songwriter, or, I should say I WAS a songwriter, musician and band member. I gave it a shot early in my career but my band and I were rejected often enough by the standard record companies that we gave up on making a living that way.

From my point of view, the record companies have a monopoly on how music is distributed. While it isn't a monopoly in the strict legal sense, the entire industry is brainwashed in doing things a certain way and if you don't do it that way, you lose.

The music industry in LA when I was there was NOT about music. It was about drugs, hedonism and just about everything except music. That's why the LA scene died and won't recover without a purging.

P2P will cleanse the world.

You know, in a real sense, The Internet is removing the Middle Man in ALL industries. It is making it possible for producers and consumers to connect directly with the Grabbing Hands That Grab All They Can; the people who pretend there are shortages. The people who produce nothing of value any more since they are no longer needed.

Physical media for music is no longer necessary. If I were you I'd read the writing on the wall and stop wasting your time on selling an unecessary commodity.

[shawners]

You can make a great living, but i mean if you really want to make money. You can release an album through the web, and a software that allows it to burn one copy of it before deleting the songs. You can make more money then signing a recording contract. All that person does is put it on a shelf and mass produce it, the money from the sales, pay for the studio, the artwork, the distribution, and what do you get?? a million dollars, and you have to make videos off mtv which can be 100,000 easy. You dont make any but a little change through each cd that is sold. You could make 8 dollars on the web which is seven dollars more profit, or you can get 15cents on the album and only get that after your album sold enough copies where they can give you a cut of the pie.

[Goosehound]

While Empire raises some valid points with p2p he fails to adress issues such as dvd rent N rip yourself. Borrowing cds to copy ect. AND the generaly unprofessional way the RIAA is running round like a headless chicken trying despratly to find ways to stop the wave of p2p aps that are slowing killing it off and suing (with little effect TBH) everyone from 12 year old kids to software companys. Looks like they are panicking to me.
The film industry will go on regardless of p2p because people LIKE going to the cinema, therefore the money will be there.. Anything else (ie dvd sales) is a nice little earner for the industry but I doubt p2p will bring that industry to its knees. After all, wasnt the cinema industry huge before the introduction of home video recorders and dvd sales anyway? I can only see the film industry getting stronger, but I dont think the music industry will fare so well. I wouldnt believe the hype if I were you.

As for the p2p users not beeing able to do anything about it. Hmmm I bet Thatcher thought the same about the UK public when she forced the poll tax on us... and look where that got her..

[charmed31]

I'm going to use Michelle Branch and Liz Phair as examples, since I can't think properly yet :) Michelle Branch used the internet to promote her music before she even hit is big. To this day, she still uses her website as promotion. She is even an admitted downloader. And yes, she does buy the music she likes. And Liz Phair did the same. In fact, on her latest album, she couldn't put all the stuff she wanted on the album due to the industry having their say, so the darker stuff she had wanted to add she put on her website,available for download. It isn't a case of we're all thieves. Just give us a sample. The industry should be embracing the technology instead of pointing fingers and yelling "Thief!" This is turning into a witch hunt. There's too many ways that all the different players could work out agreements. Eminem wasn't hurt when his new album was released online. And the recording industry does have too much say as to what gets played. We don't have a single radio station in our area that plays altetnative, metal type stuff. I would love to be able to hear Godsmack, Bush, Drowning Pool, etc. on the radio. But I can't. All we get are country, oldies, the bubblegum pop, top 40 crap, and christian and talk. We don't get a choice. And in all honesty, you can only tolerate so much Skynard and Allman Bros. before you want to puke!!!

[Kooperman]

I couldn't agree more. I'm FROM the Allman Bros era, but I'd like to hear more new music on the radio. There just aren't enough venues, thanks to huge radio station chains and tightly controlled playlists.

[Omyn]

You only hear what they want you to hear.

[MainManMoe]

Come on, why try to justify ourselves? Fact is, p2p is here to stay and its bad news for the industry, including the artists. The only thing really relevant discussing is for artists and production companies to find out what they can do to adapt and survive. Ill cut it out for you:

1) p2p users wants things cheap (or for free preferably), so does everybody else and some saved rant here doesnt change that picture. We are talking about humans here.

2) p2p apps are here to facilitate this desire, and it is technically impossible to eliminate p2p in the long run. Thats as fact as it gets.

3) Artists and industry needs to talk among themselves what can be done, and maybe come up with something realistic to propose as a political agenda before they even have a voice. This has not happened, they are as divided as ever.

4) the p2p community have a great advantage, admittedly, as they have "altruistic motives" to hide behind, where as the artists and the industry cant hide that money is their motive. This forces the industrys solution (as described in point 3) to be much more wholesome than they have hitherto realized. They must propose some vision for our global web world, a lofty project indeed, but absolutely essential to a solution. Before the artists and industry are geared to talk FUTURE, we as p2p'rs have nothing to talk with them about, we just have to keep on putting the pressure on them.

5) There is no point 5, point 4 made it obsolete. See what Im saying?

[Afn]

Originally posted by charmed31
I'm going to use Michelle Branch and Liz Phair as examples, since I can't think properly yet :) Michelle Branch used the internet to promote her music before she even hit is big. To this day, she still uses her website as promotion. She is even an admitted downloader. And yes, she does buy the music she likes. And Liz Phair did the same. In fact, on her latest album, she couldn't put all the stuff she wanted on the album due to the industry having their say, so the darker stuff she had wanted to add she put on her website,available for download. It isn't a case of we're all thieves. Just give us a sample. The industry should be embracing the technology instead of pointing fingers and yelling "Thief!" This is turning into a witch hunt. There's too many ways that all the different players could work out agreements. Eminem wasn't hurt when his new album was released online. And the recording industry does have too much say as to what gets played. We don't have a single radio station in our area that plays altetnative, metal type stuff. I would love to be able to hear Godsmack, Bush, Drowning Pool, etc. on the radio. But I can't. All we get are country, oldies, the bubblegum pop, top 40 crap, and christian and talk. We don't get a choice. And in all honesty, you can only tolerate so much Skynard and Allman Bros. before you want to puke!!!

Yes, same here. Radio stations just are on the air to sell advertising for the people who own them, and not much more.

P2p Does prevent many sales of 'pre-recorded media'. The good news it will force only the best material to generate sales. The bad news, few businesses will be able to compete.

[charmed31]

uummm, ok, had a thought , lost it, ....anyway! this argument will always have two sides. and you can call us thieves, etc, but at least we share our "toys"! we're the most generous community on the net. we get a cool new song or app and we share. see, we aren't so bad!:black

[Lamourlady]

i still say that the industry cannot prove that i or anyone else would have indeed "bought" any of the music we downloaded. p2p has only given many people the chance to get music they probably would have never even heard in the first place. something the industry has never really been able to accomplish on their own. it was always what "they" wanted us to hear.

mind u, there r some with high-speed, who will download like crazy, getting every tune they can...and we know that they would have indeed bought most of those cds. but i'll hear an old 70's tune i remember out of the blue....i download it for nostalgic reasons, but it's music i would never buy. p2p just makes it easier...more on-the-fly. like when flipping through radio stations and u hear some gay tune, but u kind of like it....and haven't heard it in awhile....so u leave it on. p2p gives us that little extra we have never had. whether it be financial, songs we just forgot and see in someone's list, boredom, intrigue about the name of a song in someone's list...

to me, most of the music we get....the industry is lucky to have us hear. don't they realize that sometimes p2p only tantalizes us to want more? many people do buy "the more". they just need to realize that we also like having the ablility to get our music in the comfort and privacy of our own homes. with the ablities to get it just how we like. there is so much they could do, in the future, with a site dedicated to getting music, if they can make it profitable for everyone concerned.

they could take ideas from some of the sites....listing the top songs from every past year to date.....with the ability to download on the spot. they could have an oldies section...rap, techno..and the list goes on. and then to be able to download the art which an artist might have with a cd...the lyrics...everything. it could be very exciting. one's collection could be complete. only these collections would be on our computers. it is the future and the industry needs to embrace it, seeing the dream and then making it true.

these new pay-to-download sites r a beginning, but they have a long way to go to get us to want to go there and actually pay. they need to slow up on the public bashings and admit that there are many more reasons why p2p is so popular, other than just the fact that it is free. people have the ability to become a part of this "music" process. getting the tune.....cleaning it up.....changing the bitrate, burning it, making their own sleeves...becoming part of "that" creative process.

and it is by far the coolest thing to have a line of people looking over your tunes and hoping that you'll let them have a listen. and then see them get it successfully, especially if u know it is a hard tune to get or one you particularly like...and then u start shooting the shit about it and end up making friends with people from all over the world.

in the end....yeah, i like getting my tunes for free.
but i would also pay, if everything was in it's place for all concerned.

[Promo]

As long as we can continue to have many different philosophies on the subject of p2p, that is good, even though most of us can only voice our opinions anonymously on forums.

he problem is when we get caught or have to pay huge fines. Then no philosophizing will help us so I agree with Empire.

I just hope that a group will arise to fight the RIAA and actually win.

[Malicious Intent]

I think there is a good chance that the group you refer to is the EFF. It is yet to be seen if they manage to stop the school bully.

Hey charmed31, I love your avatar. It makes me smile every time I see it!

[charmed31]

Thamks Malicious! it makes me smile too! kinda like when people fall down, i have to laugh!

[Lamourlady]

Originally posted by Promo
As long as we can continue to have many different philosophies on the subject of p2p, that is good, even though most of us can only voice our opinions anonymously on forums.

he problem is when we get caught or have to pay huge fines. Then no philosophizing will help us so I agree with Empire.

I just hope that a group will arise to fight the RIAA and actually win.

Originally posted by Empire
Physical media for music is no longer necessary

yes, that is my opinion. but it is not put out there to "philosophize" why i use p2p. i put it there to state that there r many other reasons we have come to love p2p.

as Empire states, there is no demand for the physical medium any longer...as well as the middle-man, and i agree.
i am one who believes in supporting my fav artists. When Napster was around, i had just gotten my first computer, and honestly didn't realize i was doing anything wrong. times have changed and i have educated myself to know that it is.
but over the years i have also seen deeper into the topic and what i have written is an excitement about how we will all get our music in the future...all, including financially supporting our fav artist.
p2p has become a way of life that the industry needs to embrace.
there is much more to my downloading than just "getting" that music for free.
and those reasons are what can shape the new p2p generations.
the "is it wrong or right" issues have been beaten to death.
and there will always be 2 sides, as u, Promo, have stated.
we now have to look at where this issue can go in the future.
and if that means the RIAA will topple...then so be it.
if they don't...let's just hope we can all win in some degree.

[Brycen257]

I am a huge fan of the P2P networks and it has definitely changed the way that i spend my time (much less Tv and much more internet) .It has also changed the way I listen to music. I nlisten to a far broader spectrum of music than before for two main reasons:

1. I can listen to some artists I am curious about, have heard about or simply encountered somewhere on the internet that I would have missed previously either because I could not afford to buy everything the music industry throws out on its grossly overpriced Cd's or because I had never heard of them.

2. I still buy Cd's of the music I enjoy the most simply because I want to encourage and support the artists. This helps me to encourage the ones I want to survive without supporting all the other crap out there. In other words I am more selective about what I buy.

3. The radio has to be the most outdated forum for music that exists now. I agree with the comments made that we only hear what the RIAA wants us to hear. I am totally sick of the oudated and recycled stuff from the 60's, 70's and 80's on the radios. All the radio stations we have where i live have very restictive and outdated forums and never play most of the newer music that is available on the internet today. They only play a small fraction of the artists I actually enjoy listening to ( I would estimate no more than 15-20 % )

Long live the EFF and I hope they take the put the RIAA in the graveyard where other obsolete ideas and concepts belong !!!!

[jonnymnemonic]

Don't release new stuff until you've sold it, by promoting it and letting people listen to it in lower quality than what they'd prefer. It's not like the public can then say "screw you, buddy, I'm just gonna download it for free" - because it won't be available for download unless and until they've sold what they need to sell. I mean, them being the artists, they can do that, and nobody can say a thing about it. Oh, you want FREE stuff. Well, download some old stuff then. You want the NEW CD though? Well, someone's gonna pay, or no one's gonna get it. End of story. It doesn't matter to the artists whether "the industry" survives, only that THEY do, and if every artist implements this idea, then tada, that's how it works, whether the public likes it or not. Technology then doesn't get this stuff for free, until technology can break into their homes and steal the master copies.

What happens if everyone does that, but no one pays? That's right, the cultural product stream more or less grinds to a halt. But would that happen? I don't think so. I think there will ALWAYS be demand for new stuff, because as music and such gets older it becomes less relevant. You want to hear music, watch movies, read books that are relevant to YOUR life, not just relevant to people who are now rotting in graveyards.

So, as the pinch gets tighter, that's what I would expect to see happen: artists banding together and presenting a united front and using p2p networks and such as just another promotional tool, but at the same time not providing the users of said networks with copies of anything new that they want to KEEP, just copies that are adequate for review. And then releasing their stuff in higher quality formats only when they are satisfied with how many they have sold, and the price. And if society doesn't like that, well, boohoo, it's not like society will have a choice in the matter other than not buying the product (and thus not receiving it either).

Of course, society *could* say that it's okay if the cultural product stream grinds to a halt. And, if so, well then, in a hundred years we'll all still be listening to the same stuff we are today, and people will be crying from the boredom. ;)

[crackerjacker]

a cool news article
just your basic supplement to this one thread
http://www.zeropaid.com/bbs/showthread.php?threadid=14998

[drei]

a cool news article
just your basic supplement to this one thread
http://www.zeropaid.com/bbs/showthread.php?threadid=14998


"The last time so many otherwise law-abiding citizens broke the law, we called it Prohibition and changed the law."

All I'll say is this file sharing is out of control and lawsuits obviously haven't stopped US citizens from downloading. Also what about music fans overseas doing very serious pirating by the bulk? You can whine all you want but the p2p train is still rolling full stream. Change the business model or suffer, give music fans what they want or suffer. Sorry indie artist but that's just the way it is. If you want to go to congress and let big government into this fine.
But be ready for the consequences of your actions. Freedom is great but watch what you ask for because I can see many other places in our lives where p2p restrictions could very well restrict all of us.

C-Ya! I have to go finish downloading!
OH and F*ck all of you who don't want innovation and change!

[Afn]

Come on, why try to justify ourselves? Fact is, p2p is here to stay and its bad news for the industry, including the artists. The only thing really relevant discussing is for artists and production companies to find out what they can do to adapt and survive. Ill cut it out for you:

1) p2p users wants things cheap (or for free preferably), so does everybody else and some saved rant here doesnt change that picture. We are talking about humans here.

2) p2p apps are here to facilitate this desire, and it is technically impossible to eliminate p2p in the long run. Thats as fact as it gets.

3) Artists and industry needs to talk among themselves what can be done, and maybe come up with something realistic to propose as a political agenda before they even have a voice. This has not happened, they are as divided as ever.

4) the p2p community have a great advantage, admittedly, as they have "altruistic motives" to hide behind, where as the artists and the industry cant hide that money is their motive. This forces the industrys solution (as described in point 3) to be much more wholesome than they have hitherto realized. They must propose some vision for our global web world, a lofty project indeed, but absolutely essential to a solution. Before the artists and industry are geared to talk FUTURE, we as p2p'rs have nothing to talk with them about, we just have to keep on putting the pressure on them.

5) There is no point 5, point 4 made it obsolete. See what Im saying?


I am thinking of the ending sequence in Final Fantasy 7, and if you have not played that groundbreaking game, basically the tech world in the game is distroyed, the "mako reactors" (make stuff reactors) implode and all that is left is pure love and nature.

Titles will still be hits, there will still be demand... Who can win in this new world? No winners yet.

[DudeAsInCool]

Empire:

Your 'cautionary warning' post may actually save some people from some legal grief. However, your belief that ZeroPaid people are uninformed and ignorant is way off base. You should search the forums--the people here are legally and technically more informed than anyone I know in the entertainment and legal industries when it comes to anything to do with P2P technologies. They are politically astute, too. Hang around and check it out... you may learn something.

[aqlo]

Dude, nice touch :gj

But Empire knows us all very well already, some of us by name. This is not by any means the first stream of this content, just the best so far. I still think this is the best of all the negative threads, and contains some of the most useful content you will find on this board about the legal issues.

[Afn]

How long do you think anti-piracy has being going on?

And after 15+ years of anti-piracy efforts, where are we now? In a situation with more piracy or less?

Also, p2p will continue to exist...

Creation of music and software freeware is the next step to totally distroy the RIAA's and SPA's ransom of the content industries. High quality freeware products that function as good or better to existing commerical software will be just as disasterous as p2p casual swapping.