Internet.. P2P.. A saviour or a killer?

MikeEnRegalia wrote: I'm sure that once services like Napster really have 99.9% of all the albums and you can use the services not only at home and on selected players, but also in the car ... once that happens, illegal file sharing will no longer be necessary. Why risk prosecution and spend a lot of time searching for something, being disappointed because a download is a fake etc. ... when you get exactly what you want for the price of one CD/month?

I wish I could agree, but some people will always want something for nothing.




Edited by Empathy

^ optimism! In the end the legal services will simply be much more convenient - simple to use and no risk. In combination with severe punishment of illegal file sharers it will surely work.

cobb wrote: Atkingani... The number of illegal copies made with previous technology was not measureable. The number of downloads occuring over the internet via P2P is. The RIAA and MPAA (who are acting on behalf of the companies, not the artists) use this figure to state they have lost this much in revenue. Makes good press, but it cannot be used as a figure of revenue lost- most of these downloads probably wouldn't have been purchased anyway if P2P wasn't there. I have always maintained that P2P is about losing control of the media and that is what frightens the Sony's etc.

Agreed. Control of the media is in the middle of the question.

P2P (illegal or not) had also a good side effect. The number of re-releases done in the last 5 years is astonishing. Many people use(d) downloads not to get hits and recent pop songs but to get old recordings some of them not having been released in years and very difficult to find.

TheProgtologist wrote: I understand all that.I think it;s an even trade off though because so many people can get exposed to and listen to these bands through p2p,thus increasing their fan base.

I agree with you... to a point. Being in a band that has invested a fair amount of money into recording/production of two CDs now, it would be ideal to actually have the revenue generated FROM music sales be able to at least cover the expenses required to continue to release new material. But, as I sit here, every member of my band sits at another desk somewhere else, grinding away at a 9-5.

Jody, you're spot on with your comment about _signed_ acts getting pennies on the dollar per CD sold, and the record industry is scrambling to compensate for their lost revenue. As far as I'm concerned, it's a fitting demise for an industry whose greed allowed it to bloat to ridulous proportions by sponging off of, and exploiting its talent.

However, for an _unsigned_ artist, when you cut out the middleman, there is some actual potential to make some decent money from CD sales. Companies like CD Baby are ushering in a new era for independent artists.

Yes, the internet and P2P can be useful tools for marketing and building a fanbase... bt what no one's figured out yet is how to shut the box once Pandora opens it!

Edited by Empathy

Some of my points regarding downloading that nobody seems to agree with me on:

1. You don't hurt the artist in any way if you download his album illegally. Unless buying is an alternative.

2. There are other ways of supporting musicians besides buying their music.

3. Let's say the album is ultra rare... You can probably find it for download for free easily, whereas you can waste a huge amount of money bidding for it and the artist will not get anything anyway. 200 bucks for something that can be acquired for free? No thanks.

 -- Ivan

Okay, P2P must mean "Pay to Play", based on people's comments.

I personally wouldn't call it a saviour or a killer.  First off, a person should  have to buy the songs so that they musicians aren't cheated out of their income and livelihood.  It's flat out wrong for musicians to not get paid what belongs to them to make a living.

With that in mind, P2P is good when it comes to obscure out-of-print albums.  I've recently found several albums that are basically impossible to find as CDs, but are available as mp3.  The down side is that you lose the album art, which has been a big part of prog. (to visually compliment the colorful music.)

As for illegal downloading, I think it's wrong, but then again, the music companies have been overcharging the price of CDs since they first came out (roughly 20 years ago).  In America, it only costs several dollars to cover the costs of CD manufacture, distribution, and artist royalties, but they jack up the price about 5 times that amount for extreme profit.  Vinyl records didn't have that huge profit margin.  And early on, the CD manufacturers said that the prices would come down, but they never did.

 

 

Edited by Flip_Stone

Flip_Stone wrote: Okay, P2P must mean "Pay to Play", based on people's comments. I personally wouldn't call it a saviour or a killer.  First off, a person should  have to buy the songs so that they musicians aren't cheated out of their income and livelihood.  It's flat out wrong for musicians to not get paid what belongs to them to make a living. With that in mind, P2P is good when it comes to obscure out-of-print albums.  I've recently found several albums that are basically impossible to find as CDs, but are available as mp3.  The down side is that you lose the album art, which has been a big part of prog. (to visually compliment the colorful music.) As for illegal downloading, I think it's wrong, but then again, the music companies have been overcharging the price of CDs since they first came out (roughly 20 years ago).  In America, it only costs several dollars to cover the costs of CD manufacture, distribution, and artist royalties, but they jack up the price about 5 times that amount for extreme profit.  Vinyl records didn't have that huge profit margin.  And early on, the CD manufacturers said that the prices would come down, but they never did.

P2P mean Peer to Peer.Which is basically people using a program that allows them to download music for free from other users shared folders on that network.

TheProgtologist wrote: And another question...... How do you think the record companies are going to look if they start headhunting?? What would you think of a company that is suing a 13 year old kid that has thousands of mp3s on their puter? Who would appear to be the bad guy in that scenario? To most of the general public......not the kid.

The situation you just described sounds a lot like the Metallica Napster accident.

 -- Ivan

Edited by ivansfr0st

chopper wrote: Man Made God wrote: Well, to me it is absolutely a saviour. I've learned about a lot of good bands through the internet, and bought cd's online which I wouldn't know without the internet. Heck, I even download a lot of music just to see if it is any good, so I don't buy any crappy albums! There are a lot of (legal) internetsites where you can listen to cd's but not download them. I don't really see the difference as long as you support the artists by buying the original cd's! I think you've hit on the nub of the problem there. A lot of people will just download a load of music and the artist will never see a penny of it. I too have discovered a load of bands via the Internet that I never would have heard of otherwise and have been buying their CDs, but not everybody does this.

This is not artist problem, just  publisher.  Most artists earn  money  at koncerts.  I think many artists doesnt care  that  someone  download   his album  for  free.  Wrost  thing is  when  people  doesn't listen his music.  Someone who have not money for album - dont buy it, so where is a  problem?
Many people download music for first listen, when album is good - they buy it

ivansfr0st wrote: TheProgtologist wrote: And another question...... How do you think the record companies are going to look if they start headhunting?? What would you think of a company that is suing a 13 year old kid that has thousands of mp3s on their puter? Who would appear to be the bad guy in that scenario? To most of the general public......not the kid. The situation you just described sounds a lot like the Metallica Napster accident.  -- Ivan

Yes,and Metallica and mainly Lars Ulrich were villified because of it.

I know many,many Metallica fans that turned their backs on them after that .