OK what is the deal with the US's problems with P2P...

[Lemitatron]

OK I thought Id open up the table of discussion on the law differences between the US and Canada:
In the Us RIAA and others have started to sue people over file sharing but it still seems that people are still doing it. The amount of files shared on the networks has not really depleted.
Now it Canada file sharing is still overall legal, unless you're making a profit off of selling your files (of course) I live in canada and I feel very sorry for the US and other countries that have felt the heat from the RIAA, etc. I say let us have our music.
Most people in the music industry are multi millionaires.
Can't the music industry just accept the fact that CD buyers were feeling ripped off when buying a CD at the store for $17-25 a pop. And half the time you'd only like 2 or 3 songs on the album, listen to them for a few weeks and then forget about the CD.
At least with P2P you can get the single songs YOU ONLY want and make mixes.
People we need to keep fighting the anti-P2P people and keep free file sharing alive for all nations. Im sick and tried of money being the center of this own thing because it is.
All this is, is a bunch of corrprate punks thinking they can control the little guy by jacking the prices up on everything. But I know for a fact that the "rich man's" days are numbered when money will become useless because of the increses in prices.
Anyway Im babling, anyone that wishes to add something here is more then welcome!

[MushroomheadXIII]

Unfortunately, the riaa don't think of it that way. There goal is to sell the cd's, and make the artists millionares.

[Munter99]

"But I know for a fact that the "rich man's" days are numbered when money will become useless because of the increses in prices."

No, money will become more valuable, the scarcer it becomes.

Remember, Lemitatron, 'Thou Shall Not Steal". Isnt downloading mp3s without paying for them stealing?

[Afn]

OK I thought Id open up the table of discussion on the law differences between the US and Canada:
In the Us RIAA and others have started to sue people over file sharing but it still seems that people are still doing it. The amount of files shared on the networks has not really depleted.
Now it Canada file sharing is still overall legal, unless you're making a profit off of selling your files (of course) I live in canada and I feel very sorry for the US and other countries that have felt the heat from the RIAA, etc. I say let us have our music.
Most people in the music industry are multi millionaires.
Can't the music industry just accept the fact that CD buyers were feeling ripped off when buying a CD at the store for $17-25 a pop. And half the time you'd only like 2 or 3 songs on the album, listen to them for a few weeks and then forget about the CD.
At least with P2P you can get the single songs YOU ONLY want and make mixes.
People we need to keep fighting the anti-P2P people and keep free file sharing alive for all nations. Im sick and tried of money being the center of this own thing because it is.
All this is, is a bunch of corrprate punks thinking they can control the little guy by jacking the prices up on everything. But I know for a fact that the "rich man's" days are numbered when money will become useless because of the increses in prices.
Anyway Im babling, anyone that wishes to add something here is more then welcome!
You have to remember that the music and media industry has a "history". Before the internet, the only way you could share music, movies or video was by giving a physical copy of a tape or record to your friend or friends.

Since the cost of making records and tapes incur COST for equipment and materials, it allowed artists to sell 45 to 60 minutes of sound or 120 minutes of video on a VHS, CD or Cassette for 20 to 100 times the cost of the blank media.

Now, music, video and books can be sent electronically for the cost of a computer (getting cheaper all of the time) and internet connection or internet access.

So before 1999, the music and recording industries (The main product we export that makes any money) had a monopoly on distribution of media. Creators were limited by the technology, demand was controlled by the companies that could sign acts and hold them into long term contracts.

Today, anyone with a internet connection and some time can create a work of art, and put it online competing with the existing publishing and electronic content creation industries.

Canada's total percentage of entertainment exported to the world is a fraction of what the usa exports. Canada is geographically dispersed population makes p2p networks inportant in a land of immense spaces and isolation. Canadians understand the benefits of p2p networking on the public space.

Us Americans just want to export as much product as we can at the highest unit price. If your stupid enough to buy it... we have a market for you. That system of entertainment is under pressure to create wealth for the people who work in Hollywood, CA.

the old model of selling copies at $20 each in high volume does not work anymore. The solution is DRM that restricts copies, or some type of content or download tax.

The USSR would lock up copy machines and restrict access to photocopiers. The Fax machine is what brought down the USSR. Point is, DRM is doomed to fail.

As for your comment of rich man's days are numbered.... well all of our days are numbered... it is just a matter of time before the content industries fail.

[Malicious Intent]

Canada and America may be less different to what you think. The CRIA, like the RIAA, are trying to sue file sharers. If the CRIA win their appeal, then uploading will be illegal and the CRIA may well come down like a tonne of bricks to make that point. The IFPI are also interested in cracking down on file sharing in Canada.

If the appeal fails, then there is always the implementation of the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) agreements into the Canadian Copyright Act. Fundamental to the agreements is that artist should have a chose over how and where to distribute their material. This means that uploading should be unlawful, else file sharers are taking away the artists right to distribution.

Perhaps in the ideal world art could be part of the public domain. Artists can make their work freely available, but the view that it should be by default is old fashioned in today’s money powered world.

If you are not confident that a CD has enough tracks on it for it to be worth the money, then don't buy it. During some research, the British Phonographic Industry told me that it was as much people listening to music they haven't paid for as it is lost sales. Therefore it doesn't matter if you buy more CDs. In my view, if file sharing helps or doesn't damage sales, then there is no problem with it. But it isn't my decision and I don't believe it should be.

Furthermore, new online services allow for sampling of music and one full play of the track for 1 penny.

Once the WIPO agreements are implemented, the Copyright Act in Canada will be very similar to the American DMCA. The WIPO agreement may not be implemented in full. WIPO is heavily dominated by America and so the Canadians have some reservations about some sections. However, the right for artists to decide on distribution is heavily supported in consultation documents.

[crackerjacker]

Most people in the music industry are multi millionaires.


Well that part is true and the reason is exactly why you said!
Can't the music industry just accept the fact that CD buyers were feeling ripped off when buying a CD at the store for $17-25 a pop. And half the time you'd only like 2 or 3 songs on the album, listen to them for a few weeks and then forget about the CD.
At least with P2P you can get the single songs YOU ONLY want and make mixes.


Well of course the Riaa are loaded they sell cds at 20 bucks a pop and of course they rob their own customers blind as well as treat there own customers like criminals. This is not anything new.
Just to be fair there are alot of millionaries out there that all have businesses and who dont cheat there customers.
I recently read an arcticle where the Mpaa did a survey and it concluded that alot of people download movies and for free and will do it again, but yet the mpaa was disappointed about that part. However at the same time they did recognize the fact that p2p has helped with the sales of dvds etc.

The price of a dvd is worth it, but the price of a cd is not. I will never buy a cd ever again unless its from an independent artist.
Lets get real there are a lot of companies out there that treat there customers fairly, except for the riaa.
hmm
And to get a little further then this look at the new dvd players that are for sell and play many different forms of file types such as divx, avi, etc. Just the idea that these dvd players are being sold shows you that they have embraced these formats. And this shows you sure that divx etc is use for movie piracy, but it also shows you that divx is use legally too.
IF the hardware and technological industry didnt embrace divx or many other video formats they would of tried to stop the sell of these dvd players etc.

The reason I brought this up is because the Riaa only offered mp3s to customers for sell because they were forced into it. The Riaa tried to blame p2p for the downfall in lack of cells. The Riaa didnt even take into consideration that the fact people stopped buying cds were because of the price of the cd not because of p2p sharing.

Its a double standard if you ask me however in the end the customer will get there way as you can see.
I have to be honest about something when I was a mere teenager I always use to see on tv commercials showing how they mixed a cd together of different artists and I wondered how they were able to do this. I also wondered why the price of the cd was so expensive. But at that time I was not knowledgable of such things and realize I guess that it must be this way because its probably expensive to make a cd. I was dead wrong. It was all about making money and ripping the consumer off.

Of course when I learned more about computers and the technology behind mixing my own cds surely I was happy that I could mix my own cd and at a reasonable price.

The Riaa claims people use p2p only to download their music. They have a *holy * crusade that its only there music being downloaded and dont take into account that people use p2p legally and for many reasons. In fact if you search the net and read reviews and opinions by other p2p users etc it will show you that they download different stuff.

It will also show you that people download off of p2p because they want to be expose to new music etc.

You see what I mean? I will also like to state that there are many resources open to users on the internet to obtain information on different types of music that people can be exposed too. The Riaa only thinks its about themselves and that they are losing out on sales. Why are they losing out on sales? Prices of the cd is one.

Now if we can look a little further and look at the fruits of our labors *downloading and sharing music to be expose to new music*.
I want to say we have to look further and understand that in fact p2p is good for everyone involved. I will say if it wasnt for p2p I would of never brought more dvds more videos etc. I would of never brought more computer hardware etc that I would need because of being expose to a varying degree of music, music videos and dvds.

Hell its pretty cool now that I have choices to choose from and also I have the right to buy or not buy something that I dont like and that is why p2p allows people to sample anything.
Like with the concept of shareware you like it you buy it, I am sure people buy more stuff because of being expose to what they are interested from p2p. I must say I buy more of a variety of stuff because of p2p.

anyways thats all i have to say and i sure did a lot. woot

[Afn]

You see what I mean? I will also like to state that there are many resources open to users on the internet to obtain information on different types of music that people can be exposed too. The Riaa only thinks its about themselves and that they are losing out on sales....
Hell its pretty cool now that I have choices to choose from and also I have the right to buy or not buy something that I dont like and that is why p2p allows people to sample anything.
The industry considers every download a copy, and every copy according to the industry has to be paid for. So they buy the laws they need to keep a monopolistic hold on distribution of what they consider to be some form of property.

I trade with you for free, you trade with me for free. That is free trade. The riaa and ifpi want a monopoly that allows them set prices and control distribution of intellectual property.

They think intellectual property is a thing, and should be bought and sold according to the terms the industry buys or wants. The last party to buy and sell a monopoly on ideas with out opposition was Adolf and the Nazi's.

fas·cism

A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.


Oppressive, dictatorial control.
I trade with you for free, you trade with me for free. That is free trade.



When you have a monopoly, and suppress of the opposition through terror and censorship, use oppressive, dictatorial control to control information, the riaa and related groups are practicing fascism.

[YWD67]

The industry considers every download a copy, and every copy according to the industry has to be paid for. So they buy the laws they need to keep a monopolistic hold on distribution of what they consider to be some form of property.

I trade with you for free, you trade with me for free. That is free trade. The riaa and ifpi want a monopoly that allows them set prices and control distribution of intellectual property.

They think intellectual property is a thing, and should be bought and sold according to the terms the industry buys or wants. The last party to buy and sell a monopoly on ideas with out opposition was Adolf and the Nazi's.

fas·cism

A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.


Oppressive, dictatorial control.
I trade with you for free, you trade with me for free. That is free trade.



When you have a monopoly, and suppress of the opposition through terror and censorship, use oppressive, dictatorial control to control information, the riaa and related groups are practicing fascism.

Very compeling points there. There is just a slight difference from Hitler's Nazi Government and the media industry you tell of. That difference being that Hitler used his storm troopers to physicaly terrorize and oppress any opposistion. The media industry uses legal and financial terror and oppression to keep control.

[shawners]

Sad thing is.. That everyone think its the MPAA, RIAA or whoever besides them that is greedy... WE ARE greedy in ourselfs. Taking in all thats out there with out paying for it or forging any money over. I say were all greedy and suffer from it. So before you cast stones at them, remember, they are in business to make money, are we in business to take from people without them getting any money? I have downloaded and took alot of stuff. Im a suffer from greed. When my wife has a child, to bring them up to be moral and do whats right. They wont see me on here downloading music/software or what not.

[Afn]

Taking in all thats out there with out paying for it or forging any money over. I say were all greedy and suffer from it.
There is not one record company that did not screw an artist over royalties. The point is they want control of the market. If you can sell or upload Shawner's Greatest hits for free, and flood the market with your tunes, the industry makes no money. If everyone had middle class jobs and lives worth living, then paying a royality for media consumption is viable.

However the industry indoctrinates millions of teenagers and young adults with industry fantasy designed to sell artists with anti social messages and fantasy relationships.

[Malicious Intent]

I think that you are very wrong Afn. I'm not quite to sure where to start.

The term "free trade" does not mean that everyone can do exactly what they want. Sometimes the law does need to step in. Is it any of the governments business if I am trading in stolen goods? Of course it is!

Free trade is associated with international agreements, meaning that exports and imports are not limited by tax and quotas. It isn't a micro economic term.

File trading isn't some sort of opposition. That is like a guy selling stolen cars saying they can do so else the guy trying to sell them legitimately is being a facist.

If there is a problem with the law, then that needs changing. If they are a monopoly, or an oligopoly who have formed a cartel, then the law should deal with them. At best, file sharing is civil disobedience, which I suppose has worked in the past.

[Afn]

If there is a problem with the law, then that needs changing. If they are a monopoly, or an oligopoly who have formed a cartel, then the law should deal with them. At best, file sharing is civil disobedience, which I suppose has worked in the past.Again, the influence of special interest groups control the legislative proces to get the laws the industry wants to prevent competition and turn information into some type of convuluted property.

I argue that intellectual property does not exist, only as a construct in some people's mind, and that intellectual property is this "thing" that no longer is free information to be shared, but a product. I think this reasoning is utter nonsense.

If we have a society where everyone in the society can pay for intellectual property, then fine charge for it. But when millions of people are trying to make a living and live in virtual poverty, then intelectual property is no different than the robber barrons who bought land and then prevented access in exchange for a monopolized toll.

Public access a crime, the rich get richer and we see all of the better jobs taken by apoo in india or replaced by automated technology.

We have the technology to provide a library on demand to all of the latest information, and do this at minimal cost. There needs to be universal public access to information. Filesharing will allways exist until a universal system that guarantees free or low cost .03 cents per download max.

Filesharing in it's present form will continue until all commercial information is displaced by p2p or next generation p2p networks.

my .02 cents

[Afn]

Very compeling points there. There is just a slight difference from Hitler's Nazi Government and the media industry you tell of. That difference being that Hitler used his storm troopers to physicaly terrorize and oppress any opposistion. The media industry uses legal and financial terror and oppression to keep control.You can argue that the industry trade groups use fascism. Hitler gained power and then went Nazi. The pattern of the RIAA does follow the pattern of the Nazi party. It is just a matter of time when the knock on your door is Herr Robert from the RIAA, and he has special police powers, courtesy of the corruption of the political process.

The riaa education program today, riaa-doj stormtroopers soon to follow.

The pattern is disturbing. A war with china over intellectual property may sound trival, but if we did go to war with china over oil or intellectual property, then all of the products "MADE IN CHINA" would not be sold in your local stores and existing retail distribution channels would crash.

[Malicious Intent]

But if IP and art is free to all, then where is the incentive? Why would a drug company spend millions on research, just for another company to copy it for nothing?

What about artistic talent? I can't imagine thinking of a new tune. To me, every tune must be done now. Yet these people need a beat, a tune and lyrics all to fit together. Not to mention the talent to sing and play the instraments. Should they then be forced to give it all away for free?

And we do live in a world where IP can be charged for, look at iTunes. We don't need access to all music. Perhaps humans do need music, but there are always those who will provide art for free, because that is what they love doing. There are websites dedicated to them.

These days, must of the western world operates on IP and services. It is probably only Germany who has any manufacturing left. Everyone else has proven they can't make things even with the Japs building and equiping the factories! Therefore, IP doesn't only freeze out those who can't afford it, but it also generates economic growth.

I can't afford a Ferreri, but I'm not going to say that I deserve one. Like wise, can't afford the music, don't buy it.

If you still believe that the world could operate without IP, then that isn't an excuse to file share. It is a reason to change the law. I know that is easier said thn done, which is why I'm allowing the excuse of civil disobedience.

[Afn]

But if IP and art is free to all, then where is the incentive? Why would a drug company spend millions on research, just for another company to copy it for nothing? 1.

What about artistic talent? I can't imagine thinking of a new tune. To me, every tune must be done now. Yet these people need a beat, a tune and lyrics all to fit together. Not to mention the talent to sing and play the instraments. Should they then be forced to give it all away for free? 2.

And we do live in a world where IP can be charged for, look at iTunes. We don't need access to all music. Perhaps humans do need music, but there are always those who will provide art for free, because that is what they love doing. There are websites dedicated to them.3.

These days, must of the western world operates on IP and services. It is probably only Germany who has any manufacturing left. Everyone else has proven they can't make things even with the Japs building and equiping the factories! Therefore, IP doesn't only freeze out those who can't afford it, but it also generates economic growth. 4.

I can't afford a Ferreri, but I'm not going to say that I deserve one. Like wise, can't afford the music, don't buy it.5.

If you still believe that the world could operate without IP, then that isn't an excuse to file share. It is a reason to change the law. I know that is easier said thn done, which is why I'm allowing the excuse of civil disobedience. 6.

1. Most if not all of new drug development is funded by public grants. Here is how the game works. US Government has a grant to find a cure for XXX diesease. So A for proft company sets up a non-profit drug research company and when the research finds a working drug, hands over the intellectual property to the for profit venture, and then charges for profit rates of a drug that should be made available at or near cost.

Drug development is about making money selling DRUGS. The more drugs you sell the more money you make!

Where is public interest? Garlic will never be studied as a drug because there is no money in making garlic pills and selling the pills at $2 each.

2. Salt at one time was very expensive, then guess what, salt became so cheap, we now say "That is as cheap as table salt". Music is going from proprietary to non-proprietary and in the process loosing most of it's value.

Learning to play and making money playing at weddings, parties and events will still exist, but sales from recordings will be less and less profitable as more and more people can use computers to create any sound or style of music they want to, when ever they want to at near zero expense.

3. I tunes saved apple from bankrupcy, or that is what I think, as for Itunes, you can play non DRM'ed files on the ipod, people do not know that there is a choice, and the music that is available on the ipod may work for aging boomers and a few mainstream genX'ers, but the continual fragmentation of the market and what we hear will only speed the obsolesence of the ipod.

4. Agree, the scary news is if my mp3 player breaks, I can not take a screwdriver and a little of my time to fix it. Same for cameras, camcorders, electronic keyboards, computers (if it is a component failure) I can not take a part any of this electronics and go to my hardware store and build a camcorder from parts.

When the electronics fail, and you can not afford or find a replacement, you can not make these products yourself. Your dependent on the factories overseas. I find this fact very disturbing.

5. It is not a question of afford, if X can be found by search, and save a friend time, energy and frustration, the network is better than brick and mortar (mortal). There are many fine open source programs and utilities that are only avaliable for free.

6. the world is close, at least in the USA, is very close to an ecconomic meltdown, the baby boomers as a generation have much debt and very few assets. If oil prices skyrocket, say goodnight to driving cars and living in suburbs.

If IP was a fair game, giving equal protection to all producers of information, and allowing those that produce intellectual property to reasonably profit from the information that they produce, then I would agree that IP is fine. However, the large players have monopolized the market, and any company can challenge any independent work of art right or wrong and use the resources of dollars generated from selling hundreads to thousands of titles and use a legal team to shut down any independent from profiting in the market that the leaders control.

We need ubiquidous access to information. IP is the game now, but there is nothing in the future to say that IP will have value as machine to machine communications automate most transfer of intelligence.

[Malicious Intent]

Well I don't know how the drug situation works. I thought they sometimes received government funding, such as for cancer, but was otherwise private. I don't know and therefore I can't discuss that point. However, I hoped that it would be an illustration. What if Dyson (or whoever) finally managed the robotic vacuum cleaner? In your world, another company can just build it themselves but without the overhead of all the research. There are plenty of other examples besides drugs.

Lots of your other comments (I'm avoiding the word "arguement" lol) seem to be about the value of music. The fact that they can make money by performing at events isn't in itself a reason that money shouldn't be made from recordings. Discarding that, the value of music should be dictated by the laws of supply and demand.

I have no objections to music made for next to nothing being shared on a P2P network, as long as the creator of the track doesn't mind. I don't see why the two can't live side by side. Those who want to charge can, those who did it as art and want it shared also can. If you don't want to pay, then stick with the free stuff.

I think your views on an IP free world is a bit of a utopia. It would be really nice if everyone gave up their time to produce music and advertise it. I just can't imagine that we would have artists like the Killers if there was no revenue from recorded sales. Currently it is hypothetical, we wont know the true effect of scraping IP law unless we did it.

[Afn]

In your world, another company can just build it themselves but without the overhead of all the research.It is called reverse engineering.


The fact that they can make money by performing at events isn't in itself a reason that money shouldn't be made from recordings. Discarding that, the value of music should be dictated by the laws of supply and demand.

Commercial music is marketed to create a high need and demand for product. Supply is restricted using IP and Demand is created by using marketing.


I have no objections to music made for next to nothing being shared on a P2P network, as long as the creator of the track doesn't mind. Universal access is and must be preserved if we are to have a free and democratic republic. Sharing music has little value, when the information is locked up in DRM and this information if you had access to it could extend or improve your life, then access to information becomes a life and death issue.



I think your views on an IP free world is a bit of a utopia. It would be really nice if everyone gave up their time to produce music and advertise it. I just can't imagine that we would have artists like the Killers if there was no revenue from recorded sales. Currently it is hypothetical, we wont know the true effect of scraping IP law unless we did it.The music trade is dependent on people having employment or other forms of income to purchase entertainment goods and services. There is nothing on earth that says that intellectual property rights are a divine right from god, and enforceble through the nation state.

IP as a social device of control concerns me. IP is fine if everyone in the developed countries have a middle class lifestyle. Until we have economic security and wealth for the masses, most people agree IP is anti-democratic and serves no purpose when information is electronic.

Soon the machines will parse information and when that happens you can kiss most value generated from IP goodbye.

[Malicious Intent]

Reverse engineering or any other name, can we live in that world? Lots of things would never be developed.

Marketing is part of the world we live in. It isn't ideal, but (hopefully without triggering a completely different debate) we have yet to find an alternative. Anyway, you can't blame marketing for file sharing. "The industry made me want it so much, that I had to steal it from P2P."

IP isn't about limiting supply, it is for making sure those who put in the effort get the money they deserve, which ensures future development.

You say that the industry is dependent on people having jobs, but how are the artists suppose to get any of that money if it is all free? Less people will have jobs if there was no money or less money in music.

Until we have economic security and wealth for the masses, most people agree IP is anti-democratic and serves no purpose when information is electronic.


Are you saying that muscians and other artists should continue to provide their service for free until we can afford them? Perhaps the middle classes should have to pay and the lower classes can use file sharing?

I don't believe money has anything to do with this. There are lots of things that the lower classes can't afford that the upper classes can. That is life. There are lots of things I can't afford that I want and I have things others can't afford.

I'm a little confused with your democratic arguement. It sounds to me that you are putting the wagon before the horse. Perhaps in a democratic environment, IP laws would not exist as the people would have the power to stop them in the first place, or repeal them. America, or any other country, would not be more democratic if IP laws did not exist.

On the other hand, I would vote for the existence of IP laws.

[moneoa]

I will tell you whats the problem in one easy sentence:

Corporate rights over personal rights!

Welcome to western styple capitalisim my friend

[moneoa]

I have no objections to music made for next to nothing being shared on a P2P network, as long as the creator of the track doesn't mind. I don't see why the two can't live side by side. Those who want to charge can, those who did it as art and want it shared also can. If you don't want to pay, then stick with the free stuff.

You hit it on the head Mike, Whats important is that we consider the ARTIST,
If an artist publicly states he does not mind his material being spread that way
then it should be his right to let that happen regardless of his labels wishes concerning for profit schemes.
However it is a matter of respect and consideration that if the same artist says he does not want that to be done to his work
then that too is his perogative as it is something he made and with effort.
I think alot of people who aren't artists don't realise
how protective artists are of thier work for the simple reason of its something from them,
inspired in them and expressed by them making most art personal and private in nature.
Artistic control isnt a lawful thing its a matter of respect and consideration.

The question is why does the states have a problem with it and I will go back to my previous post and say greed. As for the question of why some artists might be against it, I can only say what I just said and point out that to the artist as well even though they might put a price on thier work its often priceless to them as its a part of them.

Is this making any sense?

[Afn]

You hit it on the head Mike, Whats important is that we consider the ARTIST

Is this making any sense?I take the view that creators create for reasons other than money. Digital information CAN be cheaply distributed at less than pennies per work. The issue is then:

Who has the right to access, and at what cost.

If it is digital, access should refect the distribution costs.

Never at any time have we had a technology that allows you the ability to download 10 hours of audio in five hours, for example. At one time Salt was expensive and wars were fought over control of the salt mines. Modern technology has made salt cheap. The same is true with works of art.

My issue is public access. Just because you want to restrict access to IP because we now can access 1,000 times the material that any previous generation could not -- It is wrong to restrict access so you can collect a royality.

It may take you a lifetime to produce La book or La screenplay, but the rate of consumption and technology are powerful forces that is depressing the market of IP to less than pennies a download.

That is my point, more or less. We have 24 hour media channels and most of it is of no value. Corporations can fill the 24 hours with original programming but most if not all of it is of useless value.

The ability to quicly access information is of greater social importance and utility than trying to collect a royality off of every copy. Public benefit aways comes before profiteering. We are in a new age, and I personally do not think publishing information and selling access to that information for a fee has any use in a digital society.

[YWD67]

Seems that some people just can't stand to see someone get something with out paying for it; even if it some of it is legal. They find it easier to intimidate by threat of legal and finacial attacks (even if it is legaly baseless) rather then to adopt the growing market.

[long time lurker]

why complain about the price of a cd 10-20 dollars when it cost you 50-100 dollars to see the band live.and they have the nerve to have 2 or 3 warm up bands so that they don't have to play as long. boycott the concerts instead

[moneoa]

Seems that some people just can't stand to see someone get something with out paying for it; even if it some of it is legal. They find it easier to intimidate by threat of legal and finacial attacks (even if it is legaly baseless) rather then to adopt the growing market.
No thats not entirely true, Some artists are cool with the new technology but would still like to get paid for thier efforts. Just because an artist wants to get money for thier work does not mean they are close minded and only want for greed.

Another important distinction is that what the artists want and thier labels want are usually two diffrent things. Most of the lawsuits are from the labels not the artist, at least in the U.S. Keep in mind most of the money made off of the music industry goes into corporate pockets not the artists, they only get money AFTER they pay for everything related to the album in question. (marketing, tours ect) I dont have any problem with giving a good artist
finantial tribute if it went in his own pockets. I DO have a problem giving his boss the dollar so he can give the worker 10 cents for his efforts. Its all about perspective and reality

[Malicious Intent]

Afn - yes creators do make for reasons other than money, but those who do create for money should be able to try and do so. If they couldn't get money, then they wouldn't bother. Then those who would be happy to pay those artists wont get the chance to.

The price of material should fall to reflect cheaper distribution, but do not forget that an overhead still needs to be paid. It isn't a case that the bandwidth cost 1p and so that is all you should have to pay. The artist has mouths to feed and instraments to buy. Then there are the marketing costs etc. That needs to be covered, which P2P doesn't do.

Yes, I believe that access should be restricted, because of the importance of collecting royalties to cover costs and pay the workers. Many pay sites release material earlier than CD, as the technology allows that.

Moneoa - Remember that it is not our job to fight the industry on behalf of the Artists. They chose to sign up to those labels as they believed it value for money. That is their call, not ours. You should therefore decide what to buy based on what you enjoy and how much it costs, not where the money is going.

[Malicious Intent]

I have decided to end my participation in this discussion at this point. I think everyone involved has brought up some excellent points. I just feel that from here on I will only succeed in antagonising people. However, I hope that people will think about their arguments for file sharing more closely. With some comments that I read, particularly news comments, I think that file sharers can be every bit as bad as the industry sometimes.

Everyone can be assured of my neutrality when writing news articles.

[Afn]

Afn - yes creators do make for reasons other than money, but those who do create for money should be able to try and do so.Having a hit song is like winning the lottery, many players only a single winner once a week.

Most if not all music is manufactured to market to various markets with product.

As more music is produced, and is avaliable, over time this will depress the market for new music.

If you want to make money selling your CD, then you need a market of buyers. My point is technology, DRM or no DRM will distroy the contract between listener's and producers.

There will still be a market for profesional musicans that play live events, there will still be a very small market for physical distribution of media, however most of the profit incentive will no longer exist because of over production of media in general.


The price of material should fall to reflect cheaper distribution, but do not forget that an overhead still needs to be paid. It isn't a case that the bandwidth cost 1p and so that is all you should have to pay. The artist has mouths to feed and instraments to buy.
So does every one else. Good incomes and jobs give people the ability to pay for media. The problem is compact disc and music distribution loss the window of oppertunity for capturing mp3 and turning it into a profitable format.

As long as corporations can make a profit and pump out 24-7 media on demand and have an audience, the independent artist is going to have a very hard time trying to sell anything. The problem is more content is produced that is competing for time and your money.

I think it is insane to think that mp3 technology makes compressed music on demand a reality that the industry can force the music into a bottle called the compact disc and sell it at $15 to $20 each copy.

[Kerensky97]

In debates about shared music I'm always reminded about what David Crosby said on Frontline: (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/music/interviews/crosby.html)"When it all started, record companies -- and there were many of them, and this was a good thing -- were run by people who loved records, people like Ahmet Ertegun, who ran Atlantic Records, who were record collectors. They got in it because they loved music. …

Now record companies are run by lawyers and accountants. The shift from the one to the other was definitely related to when the takes started to get big. Somebody [in] a forensic accounting job could probably establish the exact moment at which it reached the level that brought in the sharks."

Most bands start out wanting to be heard, they would rather be well known than rich.
Even Metalica attributes their success to fans sharing copied tapes back in the 80's to get ehm into the mainstream. But in the record companies eyes money is more improtant than the music, and Metalica proves that even the bands can be swayed against their own music proliferation by greed.

[shawners]

There is not one record company that did not screw an artist over royalties. The point is they want control of the market. If you can sell or upload Shawner's Greatest hits for free, and flood the market with your tunes, the industry makes no money. If everyone had middle class jobs and lives worth living, then paying a royality for media consumption is viable.

However the industry indoctrinates millions of teenagers and young adults with industry fantasy designed to sell artists with anti social messages and fantasy relationships.


They are the ones that are going to have to pay when they leave this world... die for their sins. People wouldnt be paid as well, or be as big and have all that they have if we didnt glorify them and worship the very ground the stumble upon. If we quit buying, quit downloading, quit listening and seeing.. Quit picking up any tabloid, quit goint to artist sites and spend time doing the things that are more enjoyable. They would be working two jobs and not have what we gave them.