MikeEnRegalia wrote: Firepuck wrote: After the record companies handcuff P2P sharing they will go after e-Bay for royalties, then shut down second hand record stores, start bringing lawsuits against garage sales, then sue your neighbour for playing music without headphones on, because hey, he's sharing music illegally. Mark my words! Nonsense.

I'm sure he's being sarcastic, and its almost obvious.

Internet and p2p - saviours - under the supposition that user ALSO buys original albums to the best of one's ability.

moodyxadi wrote: I don't care about USA record companies. I do care for my favourite artists. What I could do to support their job, I'll do. But I don't think that p2p is the cause of the destrcution of western civilization. It's the opposite. If sites like this grow day after day they must pray to p2p services, that help people that don't know most of the groups that appear in here to discover their work. Technology should be used to allowing the growning of the knowledege. Industries' cry don't affect me. Don't be innocent and reproduce their discourse thinking that you're defending your heroes' rights. Metallica sucks.

Well said

I've said it before and I'll say it again - I love this site.

I hadn't bought a progressive rock CD in at least 15 years (still listen to my old vinyl) until I came upon this site and my interest in exploring the 'prog scene' exploded.

Do I use P2P - yes.

But in the last year and a half (since finding this site) I've also spend 100 times more on CD's than I did in the decade before finding this site.

PUT THAT IN YOUR PIPE AND SMOKE IT!!!

TheProgtologist wrote: My hats off to the topic creator Jesperz. This has been one of the best threads I have seen in awhile. Great discussion.Very informative too.

Hear! Hear!

 

And from January...

Canadian Record Label Blasts RIAA Over File-Sharing Lawsuits

01.27.2006 1:25 PM EST

Nettwerk Music Group head says, 'Suing music fans is not the solution, it's the problem,' will pay one family's legal fees.

 

The Recording Industry Association of America has drawn plenty of fire from the thousands of consumers it has sued for illegally downloading music. But on Thursday, a record label threw its hat in the ring, speaking out strongly against the RIAA's actions and offering to pay the legal fees and fines for one family that has been sued.

Nettwerk Music Group, the Canadian record label and artist-management company that is home to Avril Lavigne, Sarah McLachlan, Barenaked Ladies and Sum 41, is taking on the RIAA on behalf of Elisa Greubel, a 15-year-old Texan whose father was sued by the recording industry trade group in August 2005 for owning a computer that allegedly shared more than 600 music files.

Among the nine songs the RIAA is focusing on in the suit, according to Nettwerk, is management client Lavigne's "Sk8er Boi." The RIAA is demanding Greubel's family pay $9,000 to settle the suit, or half that amount if the family signs off on the conditions built into a standard settlement agreement (see "RIAA Sues 784 For File-Sharing, Gives Props To Supreme Court Ruling" and "Single Mother Of Five Takes On RIAA In Downloading Case").

Nettwerk Music Group CEO Terry McBride said in a statement that legal action is not the answer. "Suing music fans is not the solution, it's the problem."

The company got involved after Greubel sent an e-mail to another one of its artists, self-described "post-punk laptop rapper" MC Lars, who has a track on his upcoming album called "Download This Song."

The track, from The Graduate (which comes out March 22), finds Lars castigating the music industry for suing fans and features Jaret Reddick of Bowling for Soup singing the refrain, "Hey mister record man, the joke's on you/ Running your label like it was 1992/ Hey mister record man, your system can't compete/ It's the new artist model, file transfer complete."

According to Nettwerk, Greubel heard the song and wrote an e-mail to Lars' Web site in which she said, "My family is one of many seemingly randomly chosen families to be sued by the RIAA. No fun. You can't fight them, trying could possibly cost us millions. The line, 'They sue little kids downloading hit songs' basically sums a lot of the whole thing up. I'm not saying it is right to download but the whole lawsuit business is a tad bit outrageous."

A label representative denied that its actions are at all intended to promote MC Lars' album.

Chicago attorney Charles Lee Mudd Jr. has defended more than 100 consumers who have been sued by the RIAA. He said he took on the Greubel case — which names Elisa's dad, David — prior to Nettwerk's involvement because of his philosophical and legal opposition to the way the RIAA is pursuing users through litigation.

"I believe the RIAA's approach is wrong and there are a number of better alternatives out there," Mudd said. "I think they're misusing the copyright laws, which were designed to be used more as a shield than a sword. They're going after families that, in a lot of cases, don't know that what they or their children are doing is illegal." Unfortunately for the Greubels, Mudd said that "most" of his clients have been compelled to settle with the RIAA because the cost of fighting the charges was insurmountable.

"Stealing another person's property is theft, it's against the law and breaking the law must carry consequences or no one will think twice," said RIAA spokesperson Jonathan Lamy. "Theft undermines the ability of the music companies to invest in the new bands of tomorrow and deprives labels, songwriters and musicians of their hard-earned royalties."

McBride said he decided to weigh in because the action involves his artists. "Litigation is not 'artist development,' " he said in the statement. "Litigation is a deterrent to creativity and passion and it is hurting the business I love. The current actions of the RIAA are not in my artists' best interests." Nettwerk has offered to pay all legal fees and any fines for the family in the event that they lose the suit and Mudd said he has reduced his fees in the case.

David Greubel, who lives with his family in Arlington, Texas, and found out about the suit last year when he read his name in a local newspaper, said his family owes a huge thank you to Nettwerk for helping him fight the suit.

"The more I looked into it, the more it seemed like a classic [case] of David and Goliath," Greubel said. "The RIAA had the resources to bring these suits against people who didn't have the resources to fight them." Greubel would not discuss the specifics of the case, but said he hopes the attention his plight is receiving will result in more debate about the RIAA's actions and lead the organization to seek alternatives to the lawsuits.

For complete digital music coverage, check out the Digital Music Reports.

— Gil Kaufman

 

THE RECORD COMPANIES CONTINUE THEIR ASSAULT ON OUR WALLETS

From yesterday...

Record Industry Pushes Apple to Raise iTunes Prices

By Jennifer LeClaire
www.MacNewsWorld.com
Part of the ECT News Network
04/03/06 12:02 PM PT

Record labels make about 70 cents per download, and that's more profit than they make selling CDs, according to Apple CEO Steve Jobs. "If they want to raise the prices, it just means they're getting a little greedy," Jobs said at the Apple Expo in Paris in September.

The recording industry wants a bigger slice of the digital download pie. Some labels are pushing Apple (Nasdaq: AAPL) to change the 99 US cents pricing model it pioneered when it launched iTunes three years ago.

Apple has sold more than 1 billion songs since then, helping labels pad their declining CD sales. More than 350 million digital songs were sold in the U.S. alone last year, according to U.S. SoundScan. That's 1 1/2 times as many as were sold in 2004.

Apple's iTunes has the lion's share of the market -- about 80 percent, according to the company -- with Napster and RealNetworks' Rhapsody among those competing for the remaining share with a subscription-based pricing model.

"I hope that every customer, artist and music company executive takes a moment today to reflect on what we've achieved together during the past three years," said Steve Jobs, Apple's CEO. "Over one billion songs have now been legally purchased and downloaded around the globe, representing a major force against music piracy and the future of music distribution as we move from CDs to the Internet."

Record Labels Reflect

It seems the music companies have done plenty of reflecting. The record labels agreed to Apple's one-price-fits-all model three years ago. However, when Apple's license expires, the labels are expected to push for higher prices, especially for new releases.

Apple was not immediately available for comment on its licensing deals. Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) spokesperson Amanda Hunter did not return calls seeking comment on the issue.

Record labels, though, have spoken out publicly in the past. Warner Music Group CEO Edgar Bronfman Jr. last fall suggested that Apple should not have a one-price-fits-all strategy. An emboldened Bronfman even suggested that Apple should give the labels a cut of iPod sales.   Meanwhile, EMI Group CEO Alain Levy lobbied for higher prices for best-selling bands and discounts for lesser-known artists.

At the Core of the Issue

Record labels make about 70 cents per download, and that's more profit than they make selling CDs, according to Jobs. "So if they want to raise the prices, it just means they're getting a little greedy," Jobs said at the Apple Expo in Paris in September.

The recording industry's response reeks of "greed and ingratitude," agreed Envisioneering Group Director Richard Doherty.

"I would ask any of those labels to show a balance sheet that reveals what the artists have gotten of that money," Doherty told MacNewsWorld. "I would challenge the studios to open their balance sheets and show where they are losing money on this." [  like that's ever going to happen]

A Return to Illegal Downloading?

If there is anything in relation to digital downloads that concerns RIAA more than pricing, it's piracy. The association continues its push anti-piracy efforts around the globe. The question is, would raising download prices spur a movement back to illegal downloads? Or are consumers willing to pay more?

"The general feeling from our consumer interviews is that the market can't tolerate -- or need it have to -- a 100 percent premium, or even a 60 percent premium. The fact is, Apple Computer makes less money on the downloads than any of the labels it is dealing with, and even less than some of the credit card clearing companies," Doherty said. "If digital download costs are going up, the recording industry must be using a different Internet than the rest of us."

 

 

I should have made my view clearer in the end of that sentence. If you download things, you search for them, sometimes for hours, think about what exactly you want, you listen, you make decisions etc. This is an intellectual process that requires a lot of energy. What I meant by the last part of the sentence in my previous post was that there are people who put huge amounts of music on a hard disc and put it on a server for many people to download. Even official companies do that here(at least speaking about my country).

Basically what I intended to mean is that if a person can not afford buying legal, overpriced music to feed music companies that are richer than your average person anyway, he will keep on downloading. If he no longer has that opportunity, he will simply lose his interest in music due to some idiots' interference, but will, in no way, be left in underpants just to keep listening to new music just like he did in the past. Was that comprehensible this time?

 -- Ivan

Fitzcarraldo wrote: In Italy, seventy computers have been seized, each of which was serving, on average, 1,000 users and storing 30TB of music files.

Bingo!

There is a significant difference between downloading music for your own enlightment or doing it for profit, or even supplying pirate files to everyone who wants it.

 -- Ivan

My policy is, if I get something off a friend, who dls illegally, and I like it, I'll do my best to find an original copy. I don't buy off the internet, i'm old fashioned like that, but I do my best to find original copies of everything. Stuff like Yes and Floyd is fairly easy to find for me, but my PT original copy collection is small at best.

But yeah, I would have never discovered this music if a friend hadn't had such a large, illegal collection in the first place :)

BL~


Edited by Blackleaf

I have no problem downloading music illegally and I don't hesitate to use the "i wouldn't buy it anyway" argument at least with  90% of what I listen to.  The way I see it, music is something that should not be controlled by the oligarchical recording industry bceause it hurts everyone, artists, listeners, everyone except the recording industry itself.  When oligarchies exist and the only medium to release music is through them, this creates a situation that produces mass produced crap music at exorbitant prices, with a detriment to quality and prices.  This oligarchy is being somewhat broken up by online music downloading, sharing and P2P networks, but is still largely in tact for the majority of society.  The way I see it is that in our system of capitalism, buyers of commodities have votes with which they make the producers aware of what we want and what we will pay to get it.  Since so many of us choose to download because CDs are so ridiculously expensive, we are counting our ballots everytime we download and share music for MUSIC PRICES TO BE LOWERED.  It is simple market economics that when alternative sources of music come up, such as downloading and file sharing, the original source of music must lower its prices to make its product appealing again.  Millions of people all over the world have "cast their ballots" as a protest to the oligarchic stranglehold on music, but the recording industry has not lowered their prices one bit.  Of course this is because every oligarchy wants to keep high prices in tact and profits at their maximum.  If they think that they can maintain such high prices for CDs while more and more people switch over file sharing, they are pretty much setting up the music revolution themselves!!  The only reasonable solution is to lower the prices of CDs, given the fact that a large portion of society refuses to pay the high prices.  In capitalism, nothing can be sold for more than what people are willing to pay, which is what the recording industry is doing.  They must follow the dictates of the market and learn that people are not willing to pay for CDs, so they must lower the prices to rectify CD prices to the point of maximum demand.  If CDs were 8 bucks, I sure would buy a hell of a lot more CDs, wouldn't you?