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!

Man Made God wrote: 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!

The difference between legal download sites and illegal ones is that with the legal ones you also support the artist even if you decide not to buy the album.

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.

To me, it's also a wonderful thing...

There used to be a time when I could tolerate the "bad" parts of an album to get to the "good" parts. Don't know if it's an age thing, but my patience for this has pretty much run out.

Now, I download music (legally) and burn compilation CDs. Occasionally, I'll find a concept album that needs to be downloaded and listened to in it's entirety, but these instances are few and far between

JS

Well in my experience P2P programs have given me the opportunity to get to know many bands and albums that otherwise I never would have known. I admit that I don't buy all of them once I've tried them and I've liked them, but CD's are expensive in my country and I only can afford part of that costs. I have to say that my collection of "legal" CD's is big as well.

I'm sure that many, many people wouldn't have got to listen to an entire discography by artists from the 70's if it wasn't with the help of this programs. So P2P programs contribute to expand the culture.

But of course I know that this is not good for the discographic industry and for the musicians.

But technological advance is unstoppable and I'm afraid that in a few years it's very possible that albums won't be sold anymore, because everybody will get them for free. Musicians will have to find other ways to get money (live concerts...).

In fact in my country when you buy a CD-R or a DVD-R you're paying a percentage which is destinated to the Authors Society of Spain, even if you'r buying the CD for other purposes. In some way this is like saying us "Well, you're allowed to download and copy the music, but you'll pay more for the CD-R's instead".

Let's see what happens in the future...

Dirk wrote: With legal sites the problem might be that there still are records which you can't find there. In that case i think downloading and then buying the cd if you like it is ok (i think the artist in question would agree in that case).

Sure, but you can always use legal sites for the albums which ARE available there. I use 4 different legal websites, and those albums which aren't available on any of these websites I try to find on Ebay or in used CD stores. This strategy works quite well for me, and it might work for others too.

I think that part of the prog revival observed recently is due to internet download sites. The opportunity for the new generations to know the works of prog-legends was (is) great.

About the (i)legality I have many doubts. Older people here will remember a device in the 60s/70s/80s sound systems that allowed to record directly from the LP to the tape. Some guys could do dozens of copies every day and sell it "low price" and artists and labels got nothing. This device was an integrant part of the apparatus, made officially by great companies! I can't remember any kind of complaint then...

I remember the value I placed on owning a record , back in the days when vinyl was all the rage but ever since p2p come along and CD Roms got so cheap to buy my value system has cheapened I no longer feel the same way ...  I don`t know, its kind of strange , in a way I`d prefer p2p went away and savoring each line each note each lyric could again be appreciated by forking out the dollars and not just reaching out on the INTERNET and downloading MP3`s,  

I think I learn more from reading reviews from respected sites than I do from downloading MP3 .. also the endings of some songs cuts out and sounds unprofessional  because prog often runs from one song to another without a break and it shows up when compiling a CD,  this spoils the quality , mailto:P@P - P2P    kills the quality of prog if anything , you can`t tell me you get CD quality at 128kbps more like 320 kbps and thats not what most people share (yes I hear a differance)  

Duncan wrote: Legal downloading might be worth considering when it's not all shoddy bitrates and protected formats at essentially the same price as a normal CD.

The "shoddy" bitrates seem to be no problem on the illegal websites ...

About the protected formats: You should have a look at the subscription based services. I don't like to buy music electronically for pretty much the same reasons - it's nearly as expensive as the real CD, but with much more usage limitations. But a flatrate like Napster or Yahoo provide ... that's a very nice offer for music freaks.

TheProgtologist wrote: I am not going to argue or debate  downloading via P2P. But all you people that think by downloading you are robbing an artist of revenue,artists only see a few cents on the dollar for every cd sold,the lion's share go to the record companies. Most of a bands money is made on tour and through merch sales.

Agreed. But most bands still need album sales. They determine if the record company produces more albums and how much energy (money) they devote to promoting the band. And both album sales and promotion make it possible for the bands to tour and earn money.

Of course the best strategy for new bands is to produce the albums themselves and sell them on their website (or on modern platforms like http://www.mindawn.com - www.mindawn.com ). That way they also profit from album sales and aren't totally depending on the live performances.

TheProgtologist wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ sure, I don't want to imply that illegal file sharing is an "evil" thing in itself. But I feel that people underestimate the illegality and no matter what the effects for the artists are and how unfair you think the music business is - illegal downloading is still essentially stealing. I just think that there are better alternatives. It's here,it's not going away. Now the record companies are scrambling but they are way too late,it got out of control long before they even attempted to get a handle on it. They'll never put a stop to it.

Amen!

TheProgtologist wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ sure, I don't want to imply that illegal file sharing is an "evil" thing in itself. But I feel that people underestimate the illegality and no matter what the effects for the artists are and how unfair you think the music business is - illegal downloading is still essentially stealing. I just think that there are better alternatives. It's here,it's not going away. Now the record companies are scrambling but they are way too late,it got out of control long before they even attempted to get a handle on it. They'll never put a stop to it.

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?

^ 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.

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.

I agree with you Cobb, I don't think this "lost revenue" argument that the RIAA and MPAA, etc uses convinces me either. If there has been a large drop in CD sales this could be for a number of reasons.

IE: Most vinyl has now been reissued on CD and most people who wanted to replace their vinyl with CD would have done so buy now. Hence a big fall off of CD sales would occur as people stop buying CD's of reissued music.
Also CD's due their apparent long-life mean that you are less likely to replace them as you would do with scratched vinyl or mangled tape. It's also easier to sell them second-hand than previous media.
CD's are now in the same market space as legal downloads, Mp3 players, digital radio, music TV, internet radio streams, mobile phones, console games, DVD's, etc.
The market has changed and moved on but a lot of these big record (and movie) companies haven't.

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.

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

TheProgtologist wrote: 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 .

That's true. But then again that just showed that most Metallica fans were casual, paying more attention to the image not the actual music. It's undeniable since Metallica became a part of the pop music industry. Imagine them not making all the fuss and, for example, providing a "hot video clip" instead - they would get more popular that way.

 -- Ivan

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.

They did just that. Of course they sued the kid's mother, who also confessed that she used filesharing. The case was in the media about half a year ago - you must have heard of it?

Woah, reading this thread, I wonder how I have managed to get by with any kind of "downloading program" (gee, I don´t even know the proper term for this device, lol)  whatsoever for the last three years since I got into music for real...! Heck, I don´t even have a sound system on my computer so I can´t even listen to any samples before going out and expanding on my collection. Yet I have already scraped together a 200 + CD collection and can't recall more than a few of them having been truly disappointing. Either I have been damn lucky or my taste in music is very forgiving

"Internet essential, downloading redundant" has been my motto so far. I won´t even accept any burned copies anymore, unless the product is a rare one that has either not been released on CD or is out of print. Thanks to my ex I have too many burned copies of records that I really like but sadly the motivation to go and buy them legally is not that great when there are so many other records, which I don´t have in any format, to be bought. It's wonderful that he introduced me to all that great music but in the long run I wish I hadn´t had access to those CD-R's and had just gone and purchased the real thing instead at some point... I mean, I don't know if there is a qualitative difference between burned copies and those so called mp3-files but there must be, since CD-Rs to my ears don't sound that inferior to legal CD's.

I would never have found prog without the net, that is for sure, but it had nothing to do with downloading the actual music, it had to do with discussions on forums like this, and having access to all those reviews online. I prefer to read my way through to music, rather than listening to samples beforehand -it's more fun and exciting, and so far, I haven't been burned, really! (knocks on wood three times...............................)  

lunaticviolist wrote: I hate what P2P has done to music.  MP3s are far inferior to CDs, which in turn are inferior to vinyl.  Itunes, etc. have killed the album.  People just download one song they heard on the radio.

That has nothing to do with mp3. Even 30 years ago popular music was song oriented ... that's why genre labels like AOR (Album Oriented Music) were created.

lunaticviolist wrote: Personally, though, I would never have gotten into prog without Napster, Kazaa, etc.  I downloaded every Tull album, and liked them so much that I bought every album.  2 years later, I'm back to downloading new artists all the time.  P2P would be fine if everybody bought the music they downloaded if they enjoyed it.  But not everyone does that.

When you use legal subscription based services like the new Napster, you can download as much as you want and listen as often as you want, and don't need to buy it.

A lot has been said about how much an artist makes on a CD sale.

I submit...

The following is a breakdown of where the money goes when we buy a CD. Typically, the artist earns just over $1 on every CD sold. Promotion, video, recording and touring costs are often subtracted from that figure, leaving the artist with very little after every one else has been paid.

So, that's $40,250 / 500,000 CD's = $0.08 per CD

If the group has 4 members that's $0.02 per member per CD sold - before the managers, agents, etc. take their cut.

For those who utilize P2P to expand their music collection you will be pleased to find out that:

A 2005 survey of 600 UK music fans, reported in the http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/news/0,12597,1536888,00.html - Guardian Online , (July 27, 2005) found that those who illegally share tracks over the internet also spend four and a half times as much on digital music as those who do not.

FOUR AND A HALF TIMES!!!

Do I use P2P - yes.

Am I afraid of reprecussions? - no.

I AM CANADIAN

And in Canada today...

The Copyright Act contains a special exception for "private copying": it permits the copying of music files "onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy", but does not permit copying for the purpose of "distributing" or "communicating to the public by telecommunication" (s.80). It is generally accepted that downloading music for personal use is legal under this section. However, the record industry disputes this on the basis that a computer's hard drive does not constitute an "audio recording medium".

According to the Federal Court, in a http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fct/2004/2004fc488.html - decision issued by Justice von Finckenstein on March 31, 2004, neither downloading a song for personal use nor merely making that file available to others to download from your computer (without some more active sharing activity) amounts to infringement under Canadian copyright law. The court ruled that "the mere fact of placing a copy on a shared directory in a computer where that copy can be accessed via a P2P service does not amount to distribution" or "authorization of the reproduction of sound recordings" under the Copyright Act. However, this decision has been appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal, so the issue remains in legal limbo.

YYZed wrote: Savior. Without it I wouldn't have explored a lot of bands that I am huge fans of today. I of course bought the albums afterward. I find that a lot of the music on P2P programs is of poor quality, but on Bittorrent it is marginally better.

In Spain thousands of people use a program called e-mule, based on e-donkey and Kad networks, and you can find in a few seconds virtually ANY album with good quality (MP3 at least 192 kbps, or better formats like .ogg or .mpc).

Very, very interesting thread.

Yeah, I use P2P. And guess what? Since then I've found myself buying some tenfold of CDs than that I used to do in the past. I've discovered wonderful bands, of whom I would otherwise never have heard off. I go to numerous concerts, buy merchandise, etc. So I don't think I'm actually doing anything wrong.

It also makes a HUGE difference for me whether an artist has a mega-mega-mega deal with Sony/Universal/etc. and plays in 'enormodomes', or when they do everything on their own merits, tour throughout the country in an old shoddy bus, have to ask *fans* to have a place to crash at night, etc.

The first category I don't mind getting their stuff through P2P. The latter category I'll be sure to BUY their CDs at their concerts.

That is so weird.

The internet has been a great boon for "forgotten" music, because people can come to websites like this one and find out hundreds of people's opinions on an album that almost nobody has heard of almost instantly. It's also very easy to get semi-rare CDs for very good prices at places like Amazon.com. Personally, I buy all of my CDs physically; I like the artwork and lyric sheets; I don't entirely trust my computer; I also don't have an iPod.

I regard P2P as wrong in most cases because you're breaking copyright laws. However, I don't think it's all that bad, if bad at all, if what you're downloading a) You had no intention whatsoever of purchasing b) You're going to buy it eventually anyway but can't decide which one to buy first (and you're strapped for cash). Just because the person you're staling from is rich doesn't make it any less wrong; would you steal a Rolls-Royce and then appeal that they "made" you do it by setting their prices so high and that they have too much money anyway? 
Now obviously, using a CD ripper to copy a physical CD to an iPod is not wrong, although it may be technically illegal. But you paid for the CD; copying it for personal use does not take money away from them unless they expect you to repurchase all of your music in digital form.

P2P has put a dent in sales, but there are people who use it only to find out about new bands, so I think it's more that msuic sales are going down more because there isn't much music worth buying.

I agree that P2P has its dangers for the artists concerned, but i've certainly found it useful to test out some unfamiiar bands before buying (or not as the case may be...) it definitely saved me some money with bands like Dream Theater, who are completely lost on me I'm afraid...

But one of the problems with the computer generation is that it's far too easy to discard tracks - and whole albums - that are not instantly accessible, in favour of the more easily digested material. The whole point of prog rock is that it often needs quite a few plays before it can be appreciated. For instance, I hated every Yes album I ever heard, with the exception of the Yes Album, and if I'd started hearing them now I could easily have dismissed them, and would have missed out on some wonderful music. The act of buying a vinyl album was part of the excitement - opening the cover to discover lyrics, sleeve notes, personnel etc made it a much more direct and visceral experience. Mp3s are a boon in so many ways, but you can miss out on so much if you're not pretty determined to keep an open mind,

__________________

"Seasons can pass you by"

Tuesday 4th April 2006

Music industry starts 2,000 file sharing lawsuits 3:47PM

The music industry has initiated 2,000 new lawsuits targeting alleged file sharers across 10 countries.

The International Federation of Phonographic Industries (IFPI) announced today that the actions include the first in Portugal, where it claims the music market has been 'devastated' by the impact of file-sharing. The organisation said that hundreds of p2p users have so far paid an average of €2,633 to settle the lawsuits. Not one case has yet been tried in court.

The IFPI is also pressing for file sharers in Denmark to be disconnected by their Internet service provider; 130 French sharers have already been cut off as a result of the IFPI action.

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

The latest lawsuits target users of all the major p2p networks, including FastTrack (Kazaa), Gnutella (BearShare), eDonkey, DirectConnect, BitTorrent, Limewire, WinMX and SoulSeek and they are being launched in Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Hong Kong SAR, Iceland, Italy, Sweden and Switzerland in addition to Portugal.

Despite several tens of thousands of lawsuits across Europe and the US, there has been no overall drop in the levels of p2p sharing, although the IFPI says that it has fallen in certain countries where authorised services such as iTunes are established. With the IFPI escalating the penalties in France, and possibly Denmark, the emphasis has shifted from deterrence to punishment.

'This is a significant escalation in our worldwide campaign against illegal file-sharing,' said John Kennedy, IFPI chairman and CEO.

'People who file-share illegally often claim to be music fans but in fact they are hurting investment in music, breaking the law and risking financial penalties by their actions. There have now been so many campaigns to educate people that file-sharing is wrong and illegal that there is simply no excuse for people to continue,' he said.

In the UK, the BPI has now reached settlements with 102 file sharers and won summary court rulings against four others. Another 32 cases have yet to be resolved.

'We continue to make progress in court cases against illegal filesharers, and all the cases that have made it to court have ruled in our favour,' said BPI general counsel Roz Groome. 'Litigation will continue to be an important part of our campaign against illegal filesharing.'

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

ivansfr0st wrote: 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

But that's what most P2P is about, surely. Take eMule, as just one example. Kids -- and adults for that matter -- download track after track after track. They don't pay for it, but still derive benefit from it and don't pay for the latest single/album. Or any single/album, come to that.

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

THE RECORD COMPANIES CONTINUE THEIR ASSAULT ON OUR WALLETS

From yesterday...

Record Industry Pushes Apple to Raise iTunes Prices

By Jennifer LeClaire
http://www.macnewsworld.com/ - 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 http://www.apple.com/ - Apple (Nasdaq: AAPL) http://www.technewsworld.com/perl/search.pl?query=Apple&scope=network"> 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 http://www.itunes.com/ - iTunes has the lion's share of the market -- about 80 percent, according to the company -- with http://www.napster.com/ - Napster and RealNetworks' http://www.rhapsody.com/ - 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, http://www.technewsworld.com/story/49727.html## -

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. http://www.riaa.org/ - Recording Industry Association of America http://www.technewsworld.com/perl/search.pl?query=%22Recording%20Industry%20Association%20of%20America%22&scope=network"> (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 http://www.technewsworld.com/story/49727.html## - 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."

Personally I feel that the music industry is going about dealing with illegal file sharing completely the wrong way. They should be making it cheaper to get hold of the music legally either in store or over the net rather than suing people who cant afford to buy music at its current price.

I buy most of my CD's online now as I can find them cheaper on sites like Play.com than in stores. For instance I got Shadow Gallery's Room V for £5.99, RRP £16.99, all CD's should be at the first price.

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 http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1504993/06302005/id_0.jhtml - and http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1507708/08162005/id_0.jhtml - ).

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 http://www.mtv.com/news/topics/d/digital_music/ -

— Gil Kaufman

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!

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!

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.

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!!!

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.

Meddler wrote: 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.

I hope so ... but I heard that kind of reasoning from many people, and some of them weren't joking at all. To me these "reasons" for doing ilegal filesharing are ridiculous:

• "I wouldn't have bought the album anyway, so my listening to the stolen files created no financial damage".
  
  That's wrong. It's not only not true, but even if one would really not have bought a single album if file sharing was technically impossible, it would still be wrong to do it. File sharing is stealing, and the above statement is the same as saying "I wouldn't have had the money to buy it anyway" when caught shoplifting. If the item was important enough to you to take the risk of stealing it, it must have some value to you. Another analogy is "I didn't like the movie anyway" when caught watching a movie without having a valid ticket.
   
  
• "It's a good thing to steal the albums, because the artists don't earn anything from the sales anyway, and - in some Robin Hood like fashion - we must fight against the evil music industry which is exploiting the artists"
  
  That's a misguided and dangerous attitude. If you think that - go ahead, but don't complain when they sue the hell out of you.
   
  
• "I don't use legal alternatives which employ DRM - it is limiting my use of the audio too much"
  
  Ok, you can't burn it to disc (at least the subscription based songs), some services provide only streaming, so you can't even save it to disk. But isn't the true purpose of these services to enable you to listen to the music? Looking back at my P2P "career" a couple of years ago, I see that 90% of the albums that I downloaded (and I downloaded A LOT) didn't make it into my collection in the end. Why even waste a CD-R on them? For $10/month you can listen to all tracks that are available on Napster - and that is a really good deal.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Looking back at my P2P "career" a couple of years ago, I see that 90% of the albums that I downloaded (and I downloaded A LOT) didn't make it into my collection in the end. Why even waste a CD-R on them? For $10/month you can listen to all tracks that are available on Napster - and that is a really good deal.

From your posts i would not have believed you ever had a p2p "career" .

The problem with Napster is that it's only available in: Usa,UK,Canada and Germany at the moment.
I mailed them and they told me they are working on broadening there coverage but it takes time.

Dirk wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: Looking back at my P2P "career" a couple of years ago, I see that 90% of the albums that I downloaded (and I downloaded A LOT) didn't make it into my collection in the end. Why even waste a CD-R on them? For $10/month you can listen to all tracks that are available on Napster - and that is a really good deal.   From your posts i would not have believed you ever had a p2p "career" .

That was until a couple of years ago, when it was not "definitely illegal" to download mp3s.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: The problem with Napster is that it's only available in: Usa,UK,Canada and Germany at the moment. I mailed them and they told me they are working on broadening there coverage but it takes time.

Yes, that's a big problem. It's mostly licencing issues, because licencing deals are only valid for single countries. In Germany we only have Napster and staytuned.de, and I really hope that this year Yahoo will join in.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: I will check out Yahoo music next. In the meantime i'm interested in what you think of a site as allofmp3.com. Here you can buy albums for 1-2 $ the album or subsribe for 14$ a month. A friend of mine is using this site. There are some doubts about legality here though. There are lots of people on the Internet including the site itself claiming that it's legal using a lot of disclaimers in their statements so i don't think they are totally sure.

It's not legal. The problem is that this website only has permission to sell the files to Russians (more exactly: In Russia), and even that is questionable, since the big record companies generally don't allow online music downloads without DRM.

You can buy mp3s at websites like these, and the risk is certainly smaller than when using P2P, but:

• Problems might arise later because legal authorities will most likely not accept allofmp3.com receipts as proof that you purchased some files
• The money you pay them most likely doesn't benefit the artist at all, not even in the small amount that they earn through regular album sales.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Meddler wrote: 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. I hope so ... but I heard that kind of reasoning from many people, and some of them weren't joking at all. To me these "reasons" for doing ilegal filesharing are ridiculous: "I wouldn't have bought the album anyway, so my listening to the stolen files created no financial damage". That's wrong. It's not only not true, but even if one would really not have bought a single album if file sharing was technically impossible, it would still be wrong to do it. File sharing is stealing, and the above statement is the same as saying "I wouldn't have had the money to buy it anyway" when caught shoplifting. If the item was important enough to you to take the risk of stealing it, it must have some value to you. Another analogy is "I didn't like the movie anyway" when caught watching a movie without having a valid ticket.   "It's a good thing to steal the albums, because the artists don't earn anything from the sales anyway, and - in some Robin Hood like fashion - we must fight against the evil music industry which is exploiting the artists" That's a misguided and dangerous attitude. If you think that - go ahead, but don't complain when they sue the hell out of you.   "I don't use legal alternatives which employ DRM - it is limiting my use of the audio too much" Ok, you can't burn it to disc (at least the subscription based songs), some services provide only streaming, so you can't even save it to disk. But isn't the true purpose of these services to enable you to listen to the music? Looking back at my P2P "career" a couple of years ago, I see that 90% of the albums that I downloaded (and I downloaded A LOT) didn't make it into my collection in the end. Why even waste a CD-R on them? For $10/month you can listen to all tracks that are available on Napster - and that is a really good deal.

Hi Mike,

Yes, I was being sarcastic - I should have made that clear in my post. As I previously said:

"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 spent 100 times more on CD's than I did in the decade before finding this site."

And here in Canada (at least today) P2P is legal - the moral issue is another matter I will not comment on here. Bottom line is that my (illegal?) downloading has led to me purchasing many, many CD's I would never have know of, let alone bought.

The day P2P becomes illegal in Canada is the day I stop using it. Enough said on that topic, but I have a new topic to discuss!!!

Several developments have occurred in the industry that I really like and will hopefully stem the tide of illegal P2P downloading.

My brother asked me last week if I had ever heard of a group called IQ, and thanks to this site the answer was yes. He is a big Yes and Genesis fan and came across this group and started listening to MIDI files on their website - and on the weekend he bought his first IQ CD.

Other groups have music available for download on their websites - a perennial favourite of mine is Steve Hackett. His site has fully 30 songs available for download.

This site - OMG - you could download music for days (I know!) and fill CD after CD. I've made several various CD's with music just from this site.

Internet radio - a great boon for us progheads. Much has been said about the difficulty in finding music, just tune in and don't worry about it.

Internet video - love watching prog video (ie. google video, U tube).

In reality - I never need buy another CD. There is more music available legally on the internet than one could possible ever listen to.

Comments?

Firepuck wrote: And here in Canada (at least today) P2P is legal - the moral issue is another matter I will not comment on here. Bottom line is that my (illegal?) downloading has led to me purchasing many, many CD's I would never have know of, let alone bought. The day P2P becomes illegal in Canada is the day I stop using it. Enough said on that topic, but I have a new topic to discuss!!!

I read some articles that said that P2P downloading is legal ... but on most P2P platforms you can only download when you also permit uploading, and that is still illegal.

Firepuck wrote: Several developments have occurred in the industry that I really like and will hopefully stem the tide of illegal P2P downloading. My brother asked me last week if I had ever heard of a group called IQ, and thanks to this site the answer was yes. He is a big Yes and Genesis fan and came across this group and started listening to MIDI files on their website - and on the weekend he bought his first IQ CD. Other groups have music available for download on their websites - a perennial favourite of mine is Steve Hackett. His site has fully 30 songs available for download.

On my website I built a list of websites which offer free audio tracks - I think it also includes Steve Hackett's website. Have a look at http://www.ratingfreak.com - www.ratingfreak.com -> Music Database -> Websites.

Firepuck wrote: This site - OMG - you could download music for days (I know!) and fill CD after CD. I've made several various CD's with music just from this site. Internet radio - a great boon for us progheads. Much has been said about the difficulty in finding music, just tune in and don't worry about it. Internet video - love watching prog video (ie. google video, U tube).   In reality - I never need buy another CD. There is more music available legally on the internet than one could possible ever listen to. Comments?

It still makes sense to buy CDs if it benefits the artists. You can do so at http://www.emusic.com - www.emusic.com , http://www.mindawn.com - www.mindawn.com and http://www.cdbaby.com - www.cdbaby.com ...

the man machine wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: "I wouldn't have bought the album anyway, so my listening to the stolen files created no financial damage".That's wrong. It's not only not true, but even if one would really not have bought a single album if file sharing was technically impossible, it would still be wrong to do it. File sharing is stealing, and the above statement is the same as saying "I wouldn't have had the money to buy it anyway" when caught shoplifting. If the item was important enough to you to take the risk of stealing it, it must have some value to you. Another analogy is "I didn't like the movie anyway" when caught watching a movie without having a valid ticket.  Thats wrong. The shoplifting analogy does not apply because if you steal say a pair of shoes it actually cost a company money to make them whereas an illegal copy of music itself does not cost anything to make. so if one would have not bought the music anyway and they then download it there is no financial benefit or detriment to the company. is thst clear?

Right - and wrong. The shoplifting analogy is correct - in legal terms. I know what you're saying, but this is a case of having your cake and eating it too ... or picking the raisins. A mp3 file represents a value - something which people would like to have. The person (or company) which created the file wants people to pay if they want to listen to it - or even get a copy of their own. Making a copy without paying is indeed like stealing. The damage is not the "missing" file, but the money that the owners of the file demand. So essentially each file you download and listen to creates a damage of $1/EUR 1/whatever price they put on it.

So what I'm trying to say is that you can't say that something is worthless ("taking it away creates no damage") and on the other hand you really want to have it so much that you risk criminal prosecution when downloading it. Either it represents a value - then you have to pay for it, or it doesn't - then you don't need it.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Firepuck wrote: And here in Canada (at least today) P2P is legal - the moral issue is another matter I will not comment on here. Bottom line is that my (illegal?) downloading has led to me purchasing many, many CD's I would never have know of, let alone bought. The day P2P becomes illegal in Canada is the day I stop using it. Enough said on that topic, but I have a new topic to discuss!!! I read some articles that said that P2P downloading is legal ... but on most P2P platforms you can only download when you also permit uploading, and that is still illegal.

Hi Mike, as I have mentioned before - not in Canada... (yet)

According to the Federal Court, in a http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fct/2004/2004fc488.html - decision issued by Justice von Finckenstein on March 31, 2004, neither downloading a song for personal use nor merely making that file available to others to download from your computer (without some more active sharing activity) amounts to infringement under Canadian copyright law. The court ruled that "the mere fact of placing a copy on a shared directory in a computer where that copy can be accessed via a P2P service does not amount to distribution" or "authorization of the reproduction of sound recordings" under the Copyright Act. However, this decision has been appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal, so the issue remains in legal limbo.

the man machine wrote: can you truely give something like an mp3 a value? if you have 1 song and then duplicate it 1000 times on your hard drive do you have the worth of 1000 songs?

No. But if you give it to 1000 people. I'm sure that any musician who made a (mp3) track and sold it on his/her website would strongly agree that it has a value.

the man machine wrote: i would not asign the act of listening a song as being what you are paying for. i beleive as with most products you are paying for the product not the right to use it (in this case listen).

You always buy the right to use music, and never the music itself. In case of the (legal) music downloads, you are not even permitted to sell these purchased files to somebody else. You are allowed to listen to it and to make copies for yourself in some fashion, but that's about it. When you buy a tangible CD, you can do more - but also not everything, for example you are not allowed to make money with it in any other way than selling it.

the man machine wrote: so i guess as your opinion on what constitutes the value in a product differs from mine. right and wrong it is then.

Yes, two different opinions. I'm just saying that judges and prosecutors will more likely agree with me here, and I'm sure that file sharers will more likely agree with you.

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.

Actually in today's world there could be brainwashed people who would go that far...

 -- Ivan

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Dirk wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: Looking back at my P2P "career" a couple of years ago, I see that 90% of the albums that I downloaded (and I downloaded A LOT) didn't make it into my collection in the end. Why even waste a CD-R on them? For $10/month you can listen to all tracks that are available on Napster - and that is a really good deal.   From your posts i would not have believed you ever had a p2p "career" . That was until a couple of years ago, when it was not "definitely illegal" to download mp3s.

See, you did it too.

My activity, from a strictly legal standpoint, is above board. And as I have already stated, once this activity become illegal in Canada I will stop.

Firepuck wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: Firepuck wrote: And here in Canada (at least today) P2P is legal - the moral issue is another matter I will not comment on here. Bottom line is that my (illegal?) downloading has led to me purchasing many, many CD's I would never have know of, let alone bought. The day P2P becomes illegal in Canada is the day I stop using it. Enough said on that topic, but I have a new topic to discuss!!! I read some articles that said that P2P downloading is legal ... but on most P2P platforms you can only download when you also permit uploading, and that is still illegal. Hi Mike, as I have mentioned before - not in Canada... (yet) According to the Federal Court, in a http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fct/2004/2004fc488.html - decision issued by Justice von Finckenstein on March 31, 2004, neither downloading a song for personal use nor merely making that file available to others to download from your computer (without some more active sharing activity) amounts to infringement under Canadian copyright law. The court ruled that "the mere fact of placing a copy on a shared directory in a computer where that copy can be accessed via a P2P service does not amount to distribution" or "authorization of the reproduction of sound recordings" under the Copyright Act. However, this decision has been appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal, so the issue remains in legal limbo.

Sorry, I did not consider this legal limbo ...