The crying about stolen sales is the RIAA's attempt to gain some leverage so they can break off a peace of the file sharing action. They're trying to figure out a way to make money from file sharing, and the pissing and moaning is part of that plan.

I still don't get why file-sharing is illegal. If I tape a song off the radio and give it to my friend, that's legal, but if I give my friend the *exact same song* from a CD, somehow that's illegal? @.@

Likewise, if I taped "Notting Hill" when it was showing on USA earlier this week and gave the tape to my friend, that's legal...but if I were to record the movie off the DVD and give it to a friend that's *illegal*?

What's the difference?

My opinion is that file sharing increases sales.

When the RIAA started their routine of sueing children, I reformated my daughters computer, and stopped her from downloading any more music.

Net result? She hasn't asked for a single cd since.

Maybe it has something to do with the $14 price for a 10-cent CD. OK, after they pay the artist her 50 cents, the rest probably goes into the packaging. And I love that packaging, don't you?

It costs a lot to make that package impossible to open.

I remain stupified by the RIAA's insistance on alienating what is, after all, pretty much their entire customer base. You would think they could think of a way to do this without being outright bastards about it.

Two big things the RIAA has done wrong:

1) High prices. The labels have to realize that with file sharing here and here to stay, they're just not going to make as much money on every CD. When the business model changes, you have to change along with it. Given the choice between selling just as many CDs at a slightly lower price and losing lifelong, consistent customers with $18.99 album prices and sore-loser lawsuits against 13-year-olds, I don't see why they're doing the latter.
2) Add stuff to the CDs! One of the reasons DVDs sell so well is all the extra crap they put on there. If the OutKast double album that costs 30 bucks had all the videos and artist commentary as well, I'd be much more likely to buy it.

"Goodness knows, it's not like book publishers are in the habit of suing libraries."

Yet:

'Grossly oversimplified: Publishers want to charge people to read material; librarians want to give it away.

"We," says Schroeder, "have a very serious issue with librarians."

...

The AAP is looking for ways to charge library patrons for information. "Politically," Schroeder says, "it's the toughest issue. Libraries have a wonderful image."'

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A36584-2001Feb7

Pat Schroeder's New Chapter -- Washington Post, February 7, 2001

CDs are way to expensive and record companies have been really stupid recently with their money. Another problem is that they have done a rather horrid job at A&R. Instead of finding new and good stuff, the go for a new _______. If they were to reduce the prices of CDs they would sell more of them. I think that downloaded music is not hurting record companies, instead its crap artists and stupid business decisions.

There are record companies making money like Sanctuary. I wonder if any of the biggies bothered to figure out why?

Industry has been confronted with plenty of issues about 'falling' music sales and the likely reasons for it: the prices of CDs are too high, and many new artists are releasing CDs with just a couple of decent tracks (that are released anyway) and a lot of filler (read: rubbish). File sharing has merely brought these issues to peoples' attention. It's consumer empowerment.

But now it's been found that the greater exposure afforded by file sharing is actually helping sell albums (well, duh). I think RIAA (and BPI, and ARIA, and RIANZ etc etc etc) have been going on for so long that they're too entrenched in their stance. They'll just keep stubbornly bleating "but...it's the Principle of the thing!".

I say here's to new legislation. In NZ we're only just changing the law now to allow format-shifting, and even then RIANZ and some of the record companies all upset about it.

I heard that the biggest loss RIAA is making from file sharing is having to pay for all those lawsuits.

I'm into i-Tunes now, but I have plenty of songs from Napster/KaZaa/Audiogalaxy/Morpheus/etc. My stepkids use that but I'm too wary of viruses and worms masquerading as music. Without a doubt, I have purchased MUCH more music after downloading a few songs. I never for a moment believed that downloading was impacting sales. BAD MUSIC has been impacting sales! There is a reason why there are so many new compilations of oldies out now (many of which I've been buying). Not much good new stuff is being produced, and if it is it isn't getting aired so that we hear it.

I've lost all patience with and respect for the music industry long ago. They will only be screwing themselves when they piss us consumers off.

I used Audiogalaxy to download radio hits I liked, and tracks I couldn't find in my local record store. I bought a bunch of CDs online because of what I found.

...I confess when AG got shut down I was horrified at the number of people on the forums that had posted bragging about the thousands of CDs they'd downloaded. I'd like to see some of them sued just to wipe that smug grin off their face. I think there's a line.

Just my $.02: since the RIAA started suing, I haven't bought any new CDs. I'll buy used, but not new.

Canada just ruled today that P2P file sharing doesn't violate copyright laws. The judge likens it to a library leaving a copy machine in a room full of copyrighted books.

http://www.torontostar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1080732966812&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154

Gotta love that.

Huh. On reflection, I take back the things I said about how cold Vancouver was. Canada kicks butt.

Oh for Christ's sake, Dean, why did you have to go and post a topic on which we agree? Where's the fun in that? :oP :o)

For those who don't know about it, check out the Baen Free Library: http://www.baen.com/library/

Yes, it's science fiction, and mostly of a particular subgenre at that.

Baen claims that books in the Free Library, which you can download, unencrypted and without restriction in several formats, sell better in bookstores than those that aren't. Several of the books in the Library are from authors who don't publish with Baen, but believe that.

Clearly the same principle applies to music. If people like something, they'll pay for it if they can -- citing a 13-year-old kid for having stolen half a million dollars' worth of music is stupid: do they really think he would, or could, have bought it? And we all know artists have to eat, too.

The RIAA hates file sharing and downloading for the very reason we like it -- it allows us to see what c*p they're peddling before wasting $20 on something we'll listen to once and store (because it's too expensive to throw away.)

Initially file-sharing/downloading music made me buy A LOT of new CDs, DVDs, and tix to shows I would never even thought of attending. As soon as the RIAA started suing 13 year olds and retired grandmothers I stopped. If they were out there to stop them, why would they sue for millions and settle for pennies on the dollar? Wouldn't you want to make a very permanent example with a huge windfall instead of thousands of petty ante settlements? Maybe I am just missing the point but it seems like legal extortion to me. And in my opinion it can all be traced back to the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) which was the most broad and vague concept in its origination, and the most misused and misinterpreted ball of wax ever to pass itself off as a law. Until it is gone more extortion will continue. And as long as the extortion continues the RIAA and its associates will have no need to change their tactics, pricing, or bad tastes in music.
Just my humble opinion of course.

file-sharing/downloading music made me buy..tix to shows I would never even thought of attending

Actually, while the sale of recorded works has reduced, sale of tickets to live gigs has increased.

Since the file sharing debate exploded, record companies have started trying to find other ways to make money - a major British star has signed a contract where the record company get a significant cut of his tour profits.

I think it's an indication of the mentality of the recording industry; even if they're not actually losing money due to file sharing, they think that clamping down on file sharing will allow them to make more money, even if it their customers or their artists are being ripped off.

This is classic media industry behavior. With damned near every new media technology to come down the pike in the last several decades the media industry feared it, hated it, slandered it, and sued the crap out of it. Those oh so dangerous technologies that don't die from this treatment (some do, like DAT) then go on to make yet another fortune for the industry. It happened with VHS, and video tapes, and CDs, and MP3s. Remember when even the MP3 file format was quasi-taboo? Now it's all mainstream and the industry banks on it (just ask Apple).

Someday they're going to get their ass bit from being so stupid. I wish it would happen soon.

P.S. I meant audio tapes.

I still don't get why file-sharing is illegal. If I tape a song off the radio and give it to my friend, that's legal

Technically, no, it's not. There's "legal" and then there's "exceedingly unlikely to be arrested for doing." That scenario is the latter.

Artists are not as stupid as the record companies and are using the internet/mp3 to give their fans and potential ones tasters of their music. Its a fairly cheap and effective way of creative way of creative a buzz about your product. Then there are bands like Marillion who are totally independent and are generating enough revenue to continue recording and touring pretty durn good albums.

I think one of the main problems with record companies is their socialist/collective attitude towards advertising. Every single CD on their label costs the same even if they label has spent f-all on marketing on that CD and just pissed it away on the latest from one of their high profile artists. Never mind the ludicrous deals that some artists are given (Mariah Carey...) and the production expenses for their albums.