JPF Home Page Forums General Messages General Message Forum Petition to stop P2P-users abuses

Don't enoble him. There is nothing honest about what he does. It is pure, simple greed. Call it what is.

Knute, a CD should NOT I repeat NOT cost less than $12.99, unless the record company and artist WANT IT TO. The reason is COMPARABLE PRICE, which you can read about on my post here or here .

Knute, a Newsweek report @ MSNBC has reported that since April, 360,000 people have bought a RINGTONE from a song by Sean Paul for $2.00 apiece. That SONG RINGTONES are a 94 Million dollar business this year. This points out the hypocrisy of file-'sharers' and 'all-you-can-eat'ers saying that RECORD PRICES ARE UNREASONABLE. 15 seconds of a beep-bleep EVISCERATION of an entire song has people cr@pping themselves to hand over 2 bucks to a PHONE COMPANY? Methinks the 'fair price' whine smells like age-old red herring.

On-demand repeatability, portability, sell-on value are why CDs and downloads are a good deal at $1/cut.

------------------
edx.iuma.com www.soundclick.com/40LOVE www.soundclick.com/EdX


[This message has been edited by ed323 (edited 09-16-2003).]

[This message has been edited by ed323 (edited 09-16-2003).]

Do I have this right? Are some of you suggesting that people shouldn't be able to create something and sell it for whatever they want? And that because something costs more than YOU feel it should, that you are perfectly within your moral rights to steal it?

Brian

That is how i read it Brian. Sad ain't it.
Graham

------------------
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/2/grahamhendersonmusic.htm

Sad, but not surprising..

We cheat on speed limits, cheat on our taxes steal cable the list is endless...
Why is this a surprise to anyone ?

The posturing against it is just like all those folks bitching about the enquirer..
Somebody's buying the damn thing !

99 cents seems a fair price to download a song..we used to pay a buck for 45 rpm records..and a buck was worth alot more then !

If you steal...you're a thief...a petty thief to be sure, but a thief nonetheless.

BUT I want to remind the self-righteous that it's only music not nuclear weapons.

Brian...you're surprised that people have their morals on a sliding scale...?
Wow....you gotta get out more often !

Bob

i'm a she.

and i'm guessing that all yall who condemn filesharing, have never recorded anything off that tv. that's copyrighted. Don't go around spreading lyrics that are copyrighted that aren't yours. Dont' record anythign off the radio.

Talk about stretching logic!!!! I point out that CD pricing is too high (and it is) and that means I give justification to go out and steal. Please! Capitalism is based on a free market where the seller can charge what he wants. Still, pricing is a major factor in determining if people are going to buy. Again, for those who did not get it the first time, high prices are NOT justification to steal.

One record company HAS seen the writing on the wall and has plans to reduce CD's to the $12.95 range. If that company can do it, others will surely follow.

I will be the first to sign a petition pleading for more morality in America which many now seem to lack. But I must say that scumbags "selling" Jesus of all things on Sundays is hardly the way to set that moral example.



[This message has been edited by Knute (edited 09-17-2003).]

And the debate continues....


The RIAA is not after those who simply download for their own use, though undoubtably it is an act accessory to the original crime...making it available for downloading. And they WILL win.


But things are happeing on different fronts and this debate is now behind the times if it is meant to animate public opinion and influence the direction of the industry, or even talk about what is and is not legal (this is "black and white").


Along with the legal actions, which underscores a re affirmation of basic property rorights, the public is being educated, CD prices are dropping (recent announcement), LEGAL file sharing is happening with iTunes and a bunch of others, and record companies, record stores, and artists are looking at other ways to bring the public on side and revise their distribution strategies.


I said it before, and it bears repeating. We are living in a time of fundamental change in how we communicate and how intellectual property is marketed, and there will be those who exploit and those who defend, and those who win and those who lose and all kinds in between...but in the end, there will be a new model that will respect copyright AND harness new the technologies.


Here in Canada there is a file sharing startup that has entered into arrangments with all the major publishers....no problems anticipated. It is simply an iTunes variant...totally legal and responsive to today's generation.


In summary, illegal file sharers beware..and for those who want to see music made available for downloading, it is happening "legally" now and more will come, and for those who want reasonably priced CDs at the record stores, you will get what you want.

Steggy,

It's not illegal to record from your tv, as long as you use it for yourself and are not making money from it. It is also not illegal to record one of your cd's as long as you use it for yourself and are not making money from it. What is illegal, is if you record from your tv and offer your copy for others to record, or if you record a cd and put it on the internet for others to record.

The problem everyone here is wrestling with is that songwriters, artists, and music businesses have a right to be paid for their work. When their work is on tv, the tv stations pay them for it. The consumer then has a right to copy this for themselves as long as they are using it fairly, and not distributing it in a way that the artists, songwriters and music businesses are not getting paid. It is illegal, however, to offer those copies to your freinds to copy from...remember, with digital copies, each copy is as good as the original. You see, your friends didn't copy it from their tv. They didn't watch the commercials you did, or pay your cable bill, which in turn paid the artists, songwriters, and music businesses. Your friends didn't buy the cd which paid the music people, they just want a copy because...it's free.

It's the same with the internet, only it's a lot more easy to offer copies to your friends. You might have bought a cd and put it on your computer, which is fair, you paid money which went out to the music people. When, however, you offer it to other internet users to copy, both you and those users are engaging in an activity that prevents the music people from making money.

The hard part of the problem is that people think because the music is on their computer, or available on somone else's computer, that it is their right to copy it. No...that's why the law is called a "copyright" law. The people who made the music are the only ones who have a right to tell the consumer how they can copy it. That's why your dvd movies all start with an FBI warning.

Think of it this way...McDonalds offers you free ketchup with your meal. If you filled your pockets with ketchup packages and then offered it to your friends who didn't buy the hamburgers, would that be right? It is McDonalds' right to offer free ketchup with certain conditions.

So, here is a moral dilemna for you. Now that you know it is illegal and, although in a minor way, damaging to the artists, songwriters, and music businesses, do you continue p2p sharing? Don't answer that, just think about it. Do I think it's morally wrong? Yes, but about to the same degree as speeding while driving...or taking extra ketchup home from McDonalds...or cheating on my income tax...or drinking alcohol while flying my plane...or...well, come to think of it, this is a problem the old philosophers had with morality. Socrates knew he was right and the state was wrong, but he accepted their punishment and drank the hemlock which killed him, because he also knew that to do otherwise was immoral. Ghandi and King practiced civil disobedience as a political tool, but they did it openly. If one is to download as a protest because the RIAA is corrupt, then one should do it openly and publicly.

Well, I'm starting to ramble here. Anyway, nobody thinks ill of you. Being an adult is full of these little moral dilemnas, we're just arguing about it here because we are the people who are most closely involved in the problem.

All the Best,
Mike

------------------
Mike Dunbar Music

since few are interested in talking about what us independent musicians should be doing right now -- here's some of my ideas.

1) small labels need to make quite a few mp3s available for FREE, and allow people to redistribute them by all kinds of channels. it's just good advertising. as rights-holders, i really think most indies benefit from voluntarily allowing people to make copies of our stuff for friends.

2) a big problem with p2p is that it is a fairly unreliable source of good content. lots of junk, lots of broken files, lots of lost connections. iTunes has proven that a startup that has high reliability and large, diverse offerings will actually make money. the industry really needs to get on top of putting something out there that fills the niche for the non-mac world (ie - most of it). i think you'll see a significant drop in p2p use when this happens. i know that i'd be willing to pay 99c a song for a service that offered music i wanted to listen to with high reliability.

3) to work, an industry approved p2p network would need to make it easy for your average human being to (gasp) BURN downloaded music to a cdr so they could listen to it in a car or on standard home stereo equipment. i have many friends who do 2/3 of their music listening on the way to work - they aren't likely to spend any money on music that they can only listen to in front of their computer.

finally - even though the industry could easily cut some p2p traffic by offering a BETTER alternative, there will likely always be people who want it free. and the realities of technology are on their side, not the industries.

so us music-makers need to start adapting. indie people are used to treating CDs less like moneymakers and more like promo. we need to start thinking of our music as a way of getting fans to spend money on supporting us. it may very well be that the days of profitable album sales are numbered. it would be wise to think about adapting.


------------------
kit malone
http://www.kitmalone.com

As someone said already, we're not going to change each other's minds on this one.

But I'd like to throw in a few thoughts. How come kids are willing to pay $2 for a ringtone but not pay 99 cents for the full track? They do so more or less willingly, and in increasingly big numbers. Revenue from ringtones now outstrips singles sales in the UK.

How have we so diminished the perceived value of recorded music? i-Tunes shows that in the right format, enough people have no problem coughing up for something they like. Why don't we consider that rather than running flame wars and (the RIAA equivalent) crucifying music fans, the people that swamp the lyric sites with requests (n° 28 in word searches this week apparently).

The record industry tried to block the development of music on the web, and is paying the price. It deserves everything that has hit it (and I say this as someone that derives an income from it). It has been unable to respond to consumer demand by offering a valid product in an accessible format. It really is that simple. All the other debates are distracting us and wasting our time.

I don't condone file-sharing as you describe it, but I understand it. For years already, it has been increasingly difficult to purchase music that I like - which is usually one-off singles or tracks or even old 30s stuff that I like. So obviously some bright sparks started creating systems to share files. There was a vacuum and - whoosh - no more vacuum.

Whether it is right or wrong is totally irrelevant. It's there and we're not going backwards. So personally I'd be looking to the labels and publishers that are willing to work with the downloaders rather than 50 year-olds that are still hankering for Ye Olde Record Shoppe and the Good Old Days of Radio. Those days ain't coming back, but there's a whole new dawn on its way. So please point me in the direction of the businessman that can monetarise this new generation. I'm up for it.

------------------
Michael Leahy
The Accidental Lyricist
http://michael-leahy.indiegroup.com

Mike,

I see what your saying... but i don't share any of my files, except through my Nick Carter site.. where we leak the new music. I dont share them for selfish reasons though.. so it's really not valid.

I dont see why the music industry is so against this. The movie industry is embracing it.. but music: no, never.

I can understand how some people won't get paid because of d/ling.. but more than likely for newer artist that i like i go out and buy their records so they can get money. Christina Aguilera isn't gonna go broke because I d/led her whole cd.. she has millions. Most people think in this same concept..

And i would also like to knwo who this fine money goes to. Once you are sued for d/ling and charged a;ll this stuff and have pays thousands of dollars per song: where does that money go? to the A&R guy or bass player on the track? some how i am highly doubting that

------------------
Patty Online | Blowing Your Mind: Nick Carter

Hmmmm...

"if rape is inevitable, you might as well sit back and enjoy it" -Slightly paraphrased quote from Bobby Knight.

To address Kit, #1 and #2 points you made are already available in large quantities. #3 to a lesser degree.. Listen.com serves Windows machines. When iMac launches for Windows, we won't see an end to illegal file sharing though.

I've been writing about the solution (similar to some of your points) for 4 years. None of it is brain surgery. But there really are 2 separate issues. If someone who sells expensive sports cars refuses to sell them for reasonable prices, I don't believe we should force them to do otherwise by stealing the cars instead. The same logic applies to music theft. Most file sharers see the problem with stealing the CD's directly from a record store, but the damage is only marginally less when you steal the album via file sharing. After all, the cost of making you aware that music exists, and the cost of recording that music in the studio is what makes up the majority of the cost of the CD being sold in a store. The piece of plastic is a tiny part of it. So the loss when an album is file-stolen is probably far less than a dollar different than when you steal it right out of a store. In the case of store shoplifting, the retailer bears the brunt of the loss.. in the case of file stealing, the artists, writers and labels bear the brunt. But the actual losses are nearly the same. This is a point people refuse to acknowlege.

There is no shortage to free music on the net. There is no lack of songs that artists will be happy to let you download for free and do anything you want to them. Why is it that file sharers are too lazy to find music on their own and download it free? By downloading the music that companies have spend millions of dollars marketing and bringing to their attention, they are having their cake and stealing it too. The reason CD's cost so much money is not the cost of the product, just like the happy meal at McDonalds doesn't cost the price they sell it for. It's the marketing, product development (or recording/artists development cost) and the cost of signing that artist that raises CD prices. Add to that the cost of shipping, in store payola..er.. display... (do you think those record stores put certain CD's on the endcaps and listening stations for you to check out for free because they like them?).

The greatest irony to me is that little kiddies want to steal..er download the songs by their favorite famous artists who they only learned about because of the marketing machine needed to bring it to their attention.. without the label system, ALL music would be obscure like all those FREE tracks they could already get legally and without any negative ramifications.. but they don't want any of those artists.. they want to suck the the tit of the corporate marketing machine.. and they clearly don't want to buy the cow to get their milk for free.

I wish we could magically snap our collective fingers and ALL marketing would disappear. THEN.. when there was no info to be found about music, things would truly be equal and fair. Then no one would really care as much about file sharing. Then people wouldn't need to recoup signing advances, radio and TV payola, retail store payola, outrageous video costs, etc. But then what would all these little kiddies do when there were no longer force fed pop stars for them to consume? They'd be forced to go out and find music they liked on their own. And guess what? They can do that now and choose not to.

Ironic isn't it?

Brian

wow. i gotta say ... if i had been the victim of an actual rape, i might be kind of insulted by such a casual comparison.

but it's not really worth discussing. you're just proselytizing, and i haven't even made the arguments that you are accusing me of making.

i've never mentioned asking the industry to "forgive" downloading. i've never mentioned that they need to stop suing. check it out -- not once in this thread or anywhere else on this board. i'm not interesting in talking about that because it's been talked TO DEATH.

you have consistently *assigned* that premise to me while ignoring my main question in favor of making stump speeches. well - yay rah man, but those speeches don't really bring any new ideas to the table.

i was just kind of curious about how a bunch of people who purport to be involved in the music industry might be thinking of dealing with the reality of mp3 downloading.

since you haven't offered any ideas of your own -- i guess i'll just have to assume that you don't have any. cool -- whatever.

i'll shut my trap now, because we are turning this into a mere shouting match, and one that isn't really giving me anything new to think about. feel free to have the last word.

------------------
kit malone
http://www.kitmalone.com

[This message has been edited by kit (edited 09-17-2003).]

Ironic in deed, particularly since having kids go out and find music they liked on their own is the last thing the label system wants to happen. That, even more than P2P file sharing, really would kill their industry.



[This message has been edited by Knute (edited 09-17-2003).]

Kit,

The problem isn't me misunderstanding you.. the problem is that you think every comment I make relates to you. The only case where it did, I mentioned you by name.

The Rape quote IS offensive.. that is why I posted it.. it is totally sick.. and many people here suggest the same type of warped mentality as being okay.. it's "inevitable.. so live with it" I think you need to read everyone elses posts rather than just your own Kit and you'll see there's a lot more discussion going on here than just you and me. I was actually agreeing with some of your points and have stated them myself for a long time.. but you missed that part I guess.

Brian

By the way, to be a bit more precise. I don't believe we should just shrug our shoulders either. At our indie level, we obviously heartily approve of controlled downloading. It's handy inexpensive promotion, and if fans start sharing files, that saves us time and bandwidth too.

But it will take a bigger intitiative to get the music industry globally back on a firmer footing. Ringtones are great for the business, although there are countless grey areas (anyone ever recieved a royalty cheque for ringtones? Do I see a hand at the back of the room? No, not even one?). But it will evetually stabilise and bring in money. All the mobile phone networks in Europe are working on plans for selling single tracks to their customers. It won't cost much, they can control usage, it will be hard to copy and easy to trace as they are not MP3s (the music industry wouldn't go for that). This is what I'm talking about. The manager and label owner of the (near) future will also know a few people in tech companies and will be organising promo tie-ins, giveaways and what have you.

The principle is quite simple: go where the kids are spending money (such as on phones) and make yourself accessible in a fun, easy-to-consume way.

Sorry to talk like a marketing man, but someone has to do it. The day music is accessible and valued by the consumer because he can play it on his Nokia, PDA, iPod or whatever then we will be back in business. Watch out for formats that will include the music, plus the lyrics. Or the tabs. Or the sleeve. Or whatever. And each will cost a little more.

The actual pricing is another issue. Concert tickets have shot through the roof in recent years, and there is no earthly reason for them to come down again. People are willing to pay the prices apparently. Music will get there again.

Let's keep our eyes on the road, instead of commenting the car crash on the other side of the street



------------------
Michael Leahy
The Accidental Lyricist
http://michael-leahy.indiegroup.com

These are some good points Bob but just for the record...

I do not steal cable. I do not cheat on my taxes. I do break the speed limit but that's not stealing from anyone is it?

The point of the thread is that people are stealing music by "trading" songs via the internet instead of buying them. Certainly, the industry needs to think outside the box and find a new way to embrace this technology but nothing they do justifies people stealing.

I honestly don't know how much file sharing hurts CD sales but I do agree with one of your earlier points about the industry putting out a lot of crap these days. But that tends to cycle back and forth every few years anyway. We just happen to be in a downward spiral these days.

In the end, we'll all survive regardless of whether we make a living doing what we love.

My point was, Buzz, that people obey the rules right up to their own comfort level.

Then they start rationalizing their behavior...

It's not new.....

It's not going to be legislated away..

It's a moral issue plain and simple..

Bob

Assuming there's no argument that P2P sharing of copyrighted recorded songs is illegal, it seems to break down to these schools of thought.
1. It's illegal and it shouldn't be. Therefore, we: a. Work legally to change the copyright laws. b. Participate in civil disobedience as a political tool. c. Do nothing. d. Simply break the law to get the free music.

2. It's illegal, and it should be, but the laws need change. Therefore, we: a. Work to change them. B. Do nothing.

3. It's illegal and the laws are good. Therefore, we: a. Work to protect these laws. b. Do nothing.

We already have two threads representing the basic ideas. I'd recommend we use this forum to work for, as well as argue for, our points of view.

Here's my point of view. I'm for finding a way to pay the piper. The musician, songwriter, and music business isn't the enemy. The enemy isn't us. Downloading isn't paying us yet, too many people use downloading to get free music and that cuts into our old ways of making the little revenue we could squeeze out of the music business. Along comes the new technological revolution and it greedily attacks the music business...pretty effectively too, I've heard reports from 15% to 35% losses.

So educate me. Are the laws as currently written, good? What do we need to change and what do we have to do to change them?

Mike




------------------
Mike Dunbar Music

I hear you Bob. I once read a book published in the mid 70's by Robert J. Ringer called "Looking Out for Number 1." He described this very phenomenon and called it "The Line Drawing Game."

Basically, it just means everyone draws the line between right and wrong so that what they do always falls on the *right* side of the line. If they decide to do something that's on the wrong side of the line, they simply move the line so that this activity is now on the right side of the line. Pretty much what you said and I have to agree that it's a pretty accurate assessment of many people.

Buzz

You know, I don't know that changing the law would help. I could make a really good arguement that the reason we are in this quandry in the first place is because the law was not followed in the Sony decision allowing for a "personal" copy. The "fair use" section of the law was clearly meant to allow for academic and journalistic discussion of art, it was not meant in spirit or wording to allow for consumers to make "personal copies". Common sense applied to the situation back then might say a personal copy is OK, but the law doesn't really, and if it had been followed, all these devices for copying may not have been developed in the manner in which they were, or Congress would have been forced to change the law to somehow allow for personal copies but without the free-for-all we have now.

Copying of CD's to your hard drive is assumed to be legal because that specific point I don't believe has ever been challenged. And it hasn't been challenged because of the Sony decision way back when.

Because of "fair use" as defined by the courts, it is much harder to prove what on the face of it is copyright infringement. Basically with file sharing, you have two choices, infringement of the right of reproduction, or infringement of the right of distribution (or both). I've seen some very good arguements (that will probably ultimately be defeated) that say simply having files on your hard drive that others can access in and of itself is not distribution. That point has not been decided by a court yet. And that is probably why it appears the RIAA, while saying sharers are violating distribution rights, appears to have pinned the cases on evidence to prove violation of the right of reproduction. As far as the right of reproduction, this is made harder to prove because of "fair use" because the copy on the hard drive may be a "legal" "fair use" copy. So, what the RIAA has done is take advantage of the fact that when you rip a copy of music from a CD, the ripped copy is not an exact digital copy of what is on the CD. All CD media have "error rates", and in ripping, on first pass if the software cannot figure out if a bit is a 0 or a 1, it guesses based on some algorithm. Therefore, you have on the hard drive an inexact digital copy. The hash (adding up all the bits) on the original CD might be 1,000,000, while the hash on the copy to your hard drive might be 1,000,051. That's a simplified explanation. The thing is though, when copying that digital file around the world in Windows, you are making exact digital copies of the source. So, every copy you make has a hash of 1,000,051. That is how they traced files back to Napster, and that is the technology the RIAA is using to prove the file on your hard drive is not a "legal" personal copy. There are some holes in that arguement as well, one would be that there is now software available that will rip an exact digital copy of a CD (it uses several passes and takes longer), which may eventually render trying to prove infringement of the right of reproduction in regards to a song on a hard drive impossible. All because of "fair use" as defined by a court long ago and never challenged anymore.

Anyway, the feeling I get despite new technologies that come along giving music a new place to go (ringtones, etc,), and despite the ideas that Brian has floated that making paid downloading easier than free is the way to combat free downloading (but then what to do about CD burning - where one kid buys a copy of a CD and then burns 50 for his friends?) is that a permanent, irreplaceable music market share has and is being taken away because everyone has a printing press in their home. Movies are next...Book publishers should be thankful not many people want to read a book from an etch-a-sketch, as they would be crazy to put large portions of their content in digital form. The barriers to copying a book into the form people want to read it in (paperback or hardback hard copy book) are still high, so digital form would be really stupid right now. And, back to music, even paid downloading gives away the store to some extent. The usage rules for some services allow for unlimited burning of singles to a playlist, copies on up to 5 computers, like copies to three ipods, so on and so forth. That's a lot of copies floating around for the price of one, and the days when someone might actually buy one copy for home and one for the car, for the time being, seem to be coming to a close.



[This message has been edited by Liszt Laughing (edited 09-18-2003).]

I want to repeat this point because the issue is being clouded.


No one is after those who simply downloaded and played songs not originally made available by their copyright owners via the internet...even though they ARE party to illegal activity... being in receipt of stolen property.


The RIAA is after those who make it available to everyone else via file sharing services. Kinda like like the drug trade....going after dealers but not users.


Another thing I'll repeat. This discussion is already behind the times.


We now have several LEGAL internet distributors with payment mechanisms that compensate copyright holders, and more are popping up every month.

And the Senate Committee charged with looking at the RIAA's activites has strongly endorsed the property rights, and taken issue ONLY with due process in identifying "targets" and issuing subpoenas


So for those who are still adament that you can make copies of other people's work and distribute it via the internet, or who have rationalized this action in some way shape or form, by all means stick to your guns until the day you are charged with copyright infringement.

From P2Pnet, here's an interesting slant


Song sharing on the internet - an artist's perspective

By Annah Moore

Being a musician and recording artist, as well as a digital artist and programmer, I find great interest in the hubbub that is going on right now with the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and the rest of the world with regards to file sharing. This is my perspective on the subject, which may or may not matter to you, but maybe it will be a spark to ignite further thought or ideas about it and I at least hope to provide an alternative view about the matter.

First of all, if you take some time to read about the latest events in the industry regarding music sharing on the internet, you will find that the RIAA is making quite the big stink about all this. They're pissed-off that people are copying and sharing their music online and getting something for nothing while keeping the industry (Which is all of five huge record companies) from making their gazillions from over-priced CDs and DVDs.

Having been involved with music for twenty years, and studied the industry for several of those years, I can't say I have a thorough understanding of what exactly goes on in the corporate end of things, but I do know that CD duplication costs less than $.40 per disc. By now, who knows what the actual cost is, and I'm sure it changes depending on the packaging, and in massive bulk quantities it's probably far less than that. My point is that the cost is low and I have a hard time believing that a standard music CD is really worth the $15.99 price tag on most CDs. Of course, what we're paying for is the artist's material, right?

If I could make sixteen dollars for each CD I sold I would be a happy camper, however, it doesn't work out that way for most artists. We would be lucky to get $.50 per unit sold, and that's after we pay the company back their advancements. Granted, the record company has some overhead; the artist royalties, the recording process, mastering, duplication, publishing, copyrights, there is the printing for the insert and on the CD, the packaging, etc., and the marketing. But does that justify the markup? Assuming that the company would glean an equal profit from each disc as the artist, is there really $15.00 worth of other investment per disc involved? Especially with regards to a mass-duplication project for a mega-star? I really doubt it. Maybe I could make far more money per CD if I sold them myself for $5 each, but I wouldn't have the mass-market promotion like the big corps have, or would I?

The big music companies may have hundreds, even thousands, of artists in their roster at any given moment, but surprisingly they only focus their energies (and investments) into a select few. I suppose that this makes some sense in business terms, but is it really fair to those artists who aren't getting as much promotion as even the mid-sized acts?

Another interesting point about big companies is that they tend to like to influence the artist's creative process. This includes it all, song writing, lyric development, image, clothes, attitudes, style, production, everything. Of course, they'll tell you it's in your best interest to follow their "suggestions" because they "know what works". I'm sure this must be good for many artists out there who need some direction, but for those who are content with the way they do what they do and don't want the intervention, it's just a bubble buster and can even throw some artists so off-track and jade them so much they give up on music all-together.

As an artist, how do we maintain our integrity and still find success in the business of music?

Anyone can speculate all they want to about the industry, but my opinion on the business end is this: I believe as artists we should work together to remain independent artists, if nothing more than to maintain our own artistic integrity. When it comes to file-sharing on the internet, I think that if there were a way songs could be verified and tracked, and people who downloaded songs were charged a very small fee for each download, say $.25 (yes, that's twenty-five cents) per song, most of which would immediately go straight to the artist, then file sharing could be a very lucrative method of music publishing and distribution while still giving people an inexpensive and easy means for trying and buying new music. I would not mind paying a quarter for a song.

Now for the coolest part, give each person who shares a song $.02 for each song they share, just for having it available on their computer. Just by them having it available makes it marketable and they should get paid for that. This would give people incentive to keep songs available to others, which would subsequently give the artists more opportunity to make money from their music. Keeping the songs alive on the peer-to-peer networks would be very desirable, and this could be a fantastic way to do that.

With this plan, everyone wins. Oh, wait, except for the recording industry. Now maybe we can see just what they're fighting so hard to protect.

(c)2003 Annah Moore

And from CNET

Why file swapping tide is turning
Last modified:September 18, 2003, 4:00 AM PDT
By John Borland
Staff Writer, CNET News.com


The Recording Industry Association of America sent ripples of fear, confusion and anger across the digital landscape last week when it sued 261 ordinary computer users for illegal file swapping.
Many of those targeted said they didn't know file sharing was illegal, or said they didn't even know their children were using the family computer to run Kazaa.

Record companies had held individual lawsuits in abeyance for months or even years, worried about just the kind of headlines that splashed across New York papers last week, spotlighting the case of Brianna Lahara, the 12-year-old public housing resident who was the target of one of the suits.

The result has been calls for boycotts of CDs, a lawsuit filed against the RIAA and intense public discussion about the legal dangers of trading copyrighted music online. And that's what turns something many see as a public relations disaster into a long-term success, RIAA leaders say.

The new chief executive of the RIAA, crack Republican political strategist Mitch Bainwol, has kept out of the limelight on the issue so far, holding himself to a few terse prepared statements. But CNET News.com spoke with RIAA President Cary Sherman, the man who led the group's legal battles against Napster, Kazaa and the rest of the file-swapping world for years, about backlash and future plans.

Q: The lawsuits have been out there a week. What's your take on how things are going?
A: I think the message is getting out. The amount of media coverage was truly phenomenal, and I think the best news is that we have inspired extraordinary amounts of discussion between parents and kids and among adults about what is moral, as well as legal behavior on the Internet. Considering that just a short while ago this practice was simply taken for granted without anyone even thinking twice about what they were doing, I think that's a phenomenal change in a short period of time, and we're very pleased about that.

We knew that this was not going to be a good PR experience from the get-go.
Were you surprised at the number of people who said, "Wow, we didn't know this was illegal?"
The problem is that you're always going to get that defense, whether it's accurate or not. It's the exceptional defendant who will say, "You're right, I knew what I was doing was illegal." Therefore you have to try and figure out whether these are truthful responses. But it's the kind of thing that can be taken into account when working out settlements, and we will act accordingly.

Clearly, record companies and the RIAA had some concerns about backlash before going into this. Certainly the story about the 12-year-old in public housing who was sued hit the headlines fast and hard. Are you at all concerned about public relations backlash?
We knew that this was not going to be a good PR experience from the get-go. But the (record) companies were of the view that this was something we had to do without regard to the PR implications. If PR were the dominant consideration, we would not have taken these actions, and the problem would be continuing unabated, and people would not be thinking twice about the legality of what they're doing. If bad PR is the price, it's a relatively small one compared to the size of the problem.

Why didn't you investigate the people you were suing beforehand? What was the calculus in essentially going in blind?
There were several reasons. First, if your message is deterrence, you want people to understand that they face a risk of being a defendant in a lawsuit regardless of who they are. You don't want a kid to think he can get away with this just because he's a kid, or that an octogenarian can get away with it because he's in his 80s. You need to be applying the law indiscriminately to whoever comes within the range of activity that is being targeted.

Second, I think that the privacy implications of investigating your targets would be even worse than suing without knowing who the target is. What would people think if we had stakeouts or were combing through private records to determine who it is who was a possible defendant? And what kind of message would that send about our deterrence program? It would basically establish that this is a cynical program that is designed to avoid suing the wrong people, like a senator's daughter. We've really made very clear that it doesn't matter who you are and that's why you don't do investigation.

What has been the response from Washington?
The response from Washington has been quite supportive. We've had a number of senators and congressmen speaking out that this has been the right thing to do, (saying) "We gave you copyright laws; it's up to you to enforce them." There have been some who have had questions about the program, but our responses have--I think--been quite satisfying in many ways. It doesn't mean that we won't have a lot of questions to respond to in the future. But so far, I think the people who have looked carefully at what we are doing think we have been doing it cautiously, prudently and responsibly.

One of the issues last week in Washington was pornography on peer-to-peer networks. That's tangential to the music issue, but you've still raised it. What would you ultimately like to see in terms of regulation of peer-to-peer software?
I'm not sure we have any great ideas on regulation of peer-to-peer software. But we do think that parents should know about all the dangers of peer-to-peer software, so this isn't viewed as simply a copyright infringement issues.

A lot of parents have suddenly been asking their kids whether they're downloading music because they're suddenly concerned about exposure to damages. They should also be talking to their kids because the kids may be seeing pornography that the parent doesn't want them to see, or that the kid even intended to see. They should be talking to them about the fact that their hard drive may be open to the rest of the world to browse through because the kid didn't know how to set up a shared folder properly and the parents' tax returns, credit card information, medical records, resumes and other private information is being shared on a public network. A lot of viruses are spread though peer-to-peer networks, and I would think parents would want to know about that.

The best defense here is to simply stop distributing music files or quit sharing them online, and then you won't have to worry about being a target for litigation.
The amnesty program offered by the RIAA has met with some approval from people who are worried about this, and a fair amount of criticism from RIAA critics. Have you had anyone respond to it yet?
I actually don't know. We've been getting a lot of calls. We advised people to consult with an attorney, and hopefully they're doing that. Forms have to be notarized before they are sent in, so it will take some time before we know how many people participate.

But the point of this program was not to suggest that this was a panacea in any way. We got calls when the information subpoenas started going out from people who wanted some comfort of knowing they would not be the target of a lawsuit. We wanted to provide some mechanism to give people some comfort. Really the best defense here is to simply stop distributing music files or quit sharing them online and then you won't have to worry about being a target for litigation.

What is the process from here on out? You've got well over 1,500 subpoenas, and only 261 lawsuits. Do you expect the difference to be made up in lawsuits? Are you evaluating the response to the first round with an eye to any changes?
We'll be filing another round of lawsuits next month. The idea is to keep the lawsuits coming in order to reinforce the message that we are serious about changing people's behavior, and that they should not engage in the illegal activity. If people thought this was a one-time thing, the deterrent impact would be lost. So we feel like we have to go forward with additional lawsuits, and we intend to do so.

It may be too early to really see an effect, but what is your sense for the direct effect at this point. Are you watching file-swapping networks or reading message boards? Are you seeing any effect inside the communities of file swappers themselves?
I don't think this is the kind of thing that is capable of measurement in the short term. Or, to be more accurate, one could look at measurements, but it wouldn't necessarily reflect the long-term impact. We're looking at changing a cultural paradigm here, making people think twice about downloading copyrighted works on the Internet, understanding that they're not anonymous, understanding that there can be consequences. All of those things are part of a very broad effort to try and create legitimate e-commerce on the Internet for music, and for all other copyrighted works.

These kinds of things take a very long time. Think of how long it took to change people's attitudes toward smoking. We may be dealing with something similar here. I don't know.

Will there be lawsuits from you and other copyright holders until that culture is changed?
I have no idea.

We've had one criminal case filed against a person who was part of an underground music distribution network. Is it important that criminal charges ultimately be brought to bear against the kind of ordinary file swappers who were the target of civil lawsuits?
No.

Civil liability is ultimately enough to get your message across?
I think that there would always be more civil lawsuits than criminal lawsuits in any event. So since file sharers are already calculating how great their risk is given the number of file sharers versus the number of lawsuits, I think civil lawsuits are--in the long term--going to play a more visible role.

Having said that, criminal prosecutions for online piracy of all forms are helpful in getting the message out that illegal behavior on the Internet is not going to be acceptable.

John, if you have any way of contacting Ms. Annah Moore, please pass this information along, would you?

CDs pressed and packaged in a store-ready package cost between 98 cents per unit (1000 qty) down to 85 cents (4000 qty), not including shipping from the manufacturer. That's from the lowest price manu I can find.

Her math completely ignores the margins that the distributor and retailer build into the $15.99 price. DnR margin on a disc-so-priced would amount to $4 per. This reveals a wholesale price of $11.99, for the sake of example only; some are higher, some lower.

What she doesn't understand about the business of selling records is that record companies then are strong-armed by retailers to drop wholesale price via rebates for quantity, purchasing prime display location and spots on listening posts, giving money directly to retailers (called "co-op") to pay for print advertising and free goods. THESE ALL ARE COSTS, and reduce profit. Add to this that many large retailers then price the most popular product at or below their cost to drive traffic into the store, a technique called "loss-leader". Sometimes these loss-leader prices are below wholesale, driving other smaller retail accounts to then buy their inventory from that retailer rather than the wholesaler, reducing the wholesalers' sales. And this is just at retail.

She also has no idea what is spent to TRY to get a song played on the major-market radio (no guarantee that it'll get traction), including video production and tour support. It's a six-figure amount, even for the smallest acts at a major.

She's welcome to her opinion as to why CDs are overpriced, she just has NO idea how it works and why. Ed Bertrand



[This message has been edited by ed323 (edited 09-18-2003).]

Without getting specific, let me give you some real-world info.

My Cd was produced by me.....
I delivered a mastered, Id'd product to my label..

They paid for the packaging, the artwork, pressing the CDs for retail..EVERYTHING.

Those costs are repaid by me to the label as the cds sell..

That's the way most indie labels work..

Now,,...

My cds are available at several major outlets in the Chicago area...

Borders, Barnes and Nobles, Best
Buy etc.

We (my label) has a seperate deal with each of those outlets..
What that means is that each store gets my cd at a different price..their pricing of my cd is basically up to them (we do have a minimum price in place)
The cds that the label sells me to resell at live gigs are another price..
We are on EBay...those cds are made available at a different wholesale price..
What I'm getting at is that in the real world of independent artists, prices and costs are infinitely variable.
What the "majors" do has absolutely nothing to do with what happens to us, the independent artists.

We are also available at several small independent record retailers in the 4 state area.
Those are similar but still seperate arrangements as well.

Bottom line is some of my sales make me a nice piece of change while some leave me barely breaking even.
The highest profit percentage is, as you might guess, on the cds I sell from the stage.
My label gets a fair share as well...
We're not greedy so we're very happy with the way things are going.

Greed will kill you as an artist and as a small businessperson.
Avoid it !

Bob Young

...just about everything.

I know you typed this, but I really hope you don't mean it.

One of our papers had a feature article on Kazaa this weekend and on reading it I did the check out on the net.
Downloaded the program and did a search for a song i have been looking for for a long time to no avail.
Found it, and it told me the song was in fact on an album and which one.
I didn't download and won't as I still think it is wrong to do so, but it did give me another place to look. I can now asklisteners o my show if any have the album. My search on the local record shop data base came up with nothing, but now knowing the album it is or wsa on, I can do a more refined search, or write to the record company and ask them if it is available. Plus do a search of the old record and /or sheet music outlets.
To me. The site is another search tool even though I don't feel I will ever see the right in doing the actual download.
I guess it is all up to the individual ewhat level is within the bounds of fair use.
And the copyright holder to tell them if they got it right or not.
Regards.
Graham


------------------
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/2/grahamhendersonmusic.htm

Hey Graham,
Now that you know the album and tha artist, it is real easy to search eBay for it. My dad was looking for a rare album, and found it there, at a lower price that could have been possibly expected.

Got it on its way already Kaboom. Thanks Cobber. That would have been the next step if the shop hadn't tracked a suppier once I found what album it was on. Unforgetable must have been the only track list we had not gone through. Is still available.
Shop said hen may start loking for the obsures the same way as I did seeing it bore more fruit than his in house search machine.
Feature o the news tonight was once agin p2P. Seems it is going to be front the beak time down here too for some.
Regards.
Graham

------------------
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/2/grahamhendersonmusic.htm

hahaha - I had forgotten all about encryption and how it could be applied to file sharing! Read this:

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/internet/article/0,12543,487363,00.html


The RIAA will have to have turn-coats and deep cover spies now...

Man - this whole file sharing thing and the just as equally destructive CD-R copying is a permanant, market-share eroding thing, unless something radical is changed. Like outlawing P2P software and CD-R burners. And I still say a major reason those exist in the forms they do now is because the law wasn't followed regarding "fair use" way back when. Innovation and education may recover market-share, but this is just way more insidious than some of the other examples people have used that say fear of technology and it's end effects are overstated.


[This message has been edited by Liszt Laughing (edited 09-22-2003).]

Truman, I meant it and I'll repeat it. Everyone is so busy debating morals, we're forgetting sales - mine included. I don't approve of file-sharing at this scale. I scowl when people ask me to burn a CD for them. But hoping it will stop because we don't like it is plain silly, at best. It's a different world since about 1998 or so. The record companies have been in denial and refused to take the opportunities that were offered to them on a plate. So we're paying the price.

The moral debate is irrelevant because whatever we think is irrelevant, simply because it won't change diddly-squat one way or the other.

So we could spend hours lamenting each other's lack of moral fibre/lack of flexibility and the oxygen could be put to better use. So let's debate how to get back into promoting music in a form that people value (and concerts are a good way to start). Deal?



------------------
Michael Leahy
The Accidental Lyricist
http://michael-leahy.indiegroup.com

Michael,

If what you say is 100% correct, then why not just catch every single file sharer we CAN catch, and take all their money and possessions to help compensate? Sure.. many will figure out higher tech ways to steal.. but as the bar rises.. average theft will decrease.. then the serious law enforcement agencies can focus on the top of the heap hi tech violators through sanctions against countries and ISP's, and the RIAA can just keep collecting fines/punishment money until the average file sharing thief finally gives up. And even if 100% of them get to the point where they can't be caught, we can recover a LOT of stolen money until that happens and give it to writers and artists and the rightful owners of copyrights while we can? Let's punish those who voluntarily steal..instead of those who create everything.. sounds simple to me.

Brian

Busy? Nah.

Your conclusion seems illogical. Why are some folks so sure that an intelligent person cannot debate one issue AND deal with other issues at the same time? We aren't that single-minded. Most people I know are perfectly capable of multi-tasking.

If what you allege were true--that by debating this issue we are all forgetting other important things--then I would agree with you. But it isn't true.

And I'll repeat myself: right vs. wrong is NEVER irrelevant.

We got little girls in India selling their kidneys for a hundred bucks..
We got little kids in Mississippi still chewing leaded paint off the wall..
We got nuns getting raped and butchered in Peru and Bolivia..

And we should worry about a bunch of spoiled brats getting their friggin 80 cents for their CD !!

Shame on us !

Worst part of that Bob is. Someone offered to buy the kidney in the first part. And no doubt they were not hungry. As in the needs a meal way at least.
Graham


------------------
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/2/grahamhendersonmusic.htm

Bob, Brian and Truman.

I'm not in the "catch-a-thief" mode at all. We should lose that mentality. What I'm trying to say is that we should be looking towards the future. MP3 file-sharing has brought very mixed blessings. It has enabled the indies like us to get our stuff out there a bit more, but inflicted damage on the industry as a whole. We seem to be losing the game of making money from music at that level.

OK. So how about thinking up a new game to play? How about thinking deeper about ring tones and the phone industry? They know the value of music. And they sure as hell aren't going to give anything away that could be added to a phone bill - even if it's 99c. What will it take to get out music on their systems? Who do we talk to?

All the "content" industries are very aware of the mistakes made by the record industry. They will be very careful before throwing new toys at the public that could hurt their revenues. They all love music, 'cos they know the audience still loves music and is willing to pay for it (again, the ring tone and concert ticket examples). Let's start building the strategic alliances that will put music back where it belongs.

There is simply too much out there to be done for us to sit around and debate the moral fibre of our "consumers". We'll just end up calling each other names (see this and other threads to see how easily we can get up each other's noses). And at the end of the day, we - as JPfolkers - will not have moved one centimetre forward.



------------------
Michael Leahy
The Accidental Lyricist
http://michael-leahy.indiegroup.com

Michael, the reason songs end up as ringtones is their previous exposure to the public, either as oldies or as radio-charting new stuff. And it only charts because a major record company has put the money and effort into getting it onto radio, back-in-the-day or this week. You won't find any Motorhead or Yngwie ringtones (well, MAYbe on YOUR side of the pond?). You won't find any indie song ringtones (or maybe you know of some?). The phonies are just like every other business; they want to do volume. No volume in songs a couple hundred folks have ever heard.

Why the Record Companies Have to Pl...ns far more than just the music industry by Michael Rogers on MSNBC.com

-----------------
edx.iuma.com www.soundclick.com/40LOVE www.soundclick.com/EdX

[This message has been edited by ed323 (edited 09-24-2003).]

And it gets nuttier.... newsflash in Canada. The music industry here says dentists and others who play CDs in their waiting rooms should be sending money to SOCAN because they are "broadcasting music and using it to relax their patients".


Can't help but think this is a "publicity ploy", or at least an "over reaching" negotiation ploy which will be given up by settling for "less".


I mean I see the point, but there is absolutely no practical way to enforce this, and if they try, hey, just turn on the radio (oops running afoul of re broadcasting rules????)

Actually, there is a performance fee for using music in public places to enhance the environment. So I am not sure why the dentist thing would be surprising or odd? If they need to play music to improve their business conditions so they can make more money from happier patients, how would that be different from a bar booking music cover bands to enhance their customer experiences and bring in more people? Unless you are going to argue that no one should have to pay those fees, then it's logical that everyone who helps their own business through using music should have to pay the fees.

As for bringing up starving kids who sell their kidneys to belittle people here trying to make a living, I'd suggest you should sell all your possessions that aren't critical for life, and give every penny of your personal earnings to help those starving kids moving forward.. otherwise you're being hypocritical. If someone collecting from the use of their work is bad because kids are starving, then the fact that you have internet access and a computer is also bad and you should sell it and stop spending those dollars and instead send them to those starving kids right?

Brian

ED323,

I know what you're saying concerning the ring tones (only the hits will be rung, so to speak). But it's not necessarily that far away. A very healthy slice of music out there is sourced from independent labels. Here are some figures from the UK for 2002:

5 out of 13 (38.5%) UK artists who reached platinum status were UK indie signed.

9 out of 29 (31%) UK artists who reached gold status were UK indie signed.

8 out of 24 (33.3%) of UK artists who reached for silver status were UK indie signed.

Note, this doesn't count indies from the Good Old, Scandinavia or Ivory Coast.

So indies are charting and are "tonable". Also, as the market matures, the operators will set up more niche sectors to meet demand. Yep, you can look forward to Death Metal ring tones and individual tracks (just sign up here...).

Whether you or I have a chance of getting in there is another matter that's in the hands of Buddha. But as a non-performing lyricist, I like to nurture the fantasy that I still have a chance.

I went through the dotcom process and paid dearly for the experience. But I can see that the opportunities are there now in ways that didn't exist only five years ago.

My whole point is that some bright cookie out there is probably working on some scheme to sell music in some other way as we speak. Let's keep our ears open.

Michael

------------------
Michael Leahy
The Accidental Lyricist
http://michael-leahy.indiegroup.com

I agree that if you make money from playing, performing, or otherwise re-selling/re-packaging Other People's Music, you should pay fees for such usage. If you use music in a soundtrack, you should pay. If you use music to draw people into your nightclub, office, or other place of business, you should pay. If you run a radio station, even an Internet webcast, you should still pay.

Likewise, the people who are downloading whole albums, burning them and reselling them, like they do over in Europe and Asia, should pay for the privilege. After all, they are making a PROFIT from the activity.

And that's where my personal disconnect with P2P is. I firmly believe that the people who stand to PROFIT from re-distribution of music (and that includes audible broadcast and performance) should have to abide by licensing terms.

The grey area is in the consumer arena. Call my cynical, but I truly believe that in ten years, there will be almost NO money to be made in selling recorded music to the Average Joe or Jane.

But back to the latest point: if the dentist's office in question is paying a subscription fee to a piped-in musak service, then he/she shouldn't have to pay AGAIN to allow the music to be heard by people in the waiting room. If it's just a radio tuned to an FM station, the station pays for it in the form of PRO fees. In any case, the real question is: does this person substantially profit from use of the music and therefore pay a licensing fee? In the case of the dentist, my gut reaction is a firm "no."

------------------
Scott Andrew and the Walkingbirds
DIY acoustic pop and weirdo country thing
Hear it: http://www.scottandrew.com/main/music
Buy it: http://www.scottandrew.com/main/records

[This message has been edited by scottandrew (edited 09-24-2003).]

Any product as pervasive as music will always be a saleable commodity, we're just in the middle of a technological revolution.

By the way, I've quit drinking coffee because there are children sleeping in Africa.

Mike

------------------
Mike Dunbar Music

You got it there Scott. The pay to play in public thing needssome looking at.
Sure. If a business plays music othr than radio within the public hearing, it should be covered in the umbrella of the performing rights bodies charter in whatever country.
Radio stations all pay for the right to plsay music, and broadcast it for the public so I don't see why the end user should pay anything.
Nobody can argue people buy records often because they liked what they heard on the radio, and if hearing a song they like while trying on a pair of sneekers (which were probably made by some starving kid in some distant land in the effort to keep both his/her kidneys) and then trots off to the record shop to get them some of that swet sound they just heard, that has to be good for the artist/ writer whatever. That way songsplayed on radio, basically become a commercial for said singr. artist/record company.
In the early days of Roar Radio, Bob Young did one called Turn It Up Loader especialy for my show.
On the way to do the gig, I took it into the record shop and he played it throughthe house speakers.
A woman walked in off the street and asked who the heck that was. Told her and she said she had to have some of Bob Young.
Don't worry Mary. I showed her a picture of Bob, and it was decidely only his music she was after.
I pointed her to Bob's sites and Cd Baby as the records are not available down here.
That confirmed my thoughts that the performing rights bodies have got it arse about hitting business houses for playing radio within the public's ear range.
Is in fact hypocritic that they can send the sniffer dogs around, even in remote areas like little old Esperance to police the hear it in a shop thing, and yet they can't police the live performance thing which to my mind is a much bigger issue.
Graham ( who won't eat a particular brand of baked beans because they are on record as having bought the whole lima bean crop fronm a particular country then sold it in cans to the Australian Government to be sent back to the same contry as famine aid.)H

------------------
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/2/grahamhendersonmusic.htm

Listen Brian...

In case you've forgotten..
Music is how I make MY living !

I have spent my whole life living off of music..
So forget you and your snide aside..
I'm not trying to belittle anybody..
Fortunately the folks reading this are certainly aware of that..
Thank goodness the lack of comprehensive skills is your and not theirs..
That's your interpretation and I've learned how faulty your judge ment can be..

Try and understand...

In the grand scheme of things this is nonsense!

No one, and I mean NO oNE that posts on this board is gonna go broke because of this stuff.

This isn't gonna make the difference between making a living or not making a living to anyone here.

Truth may hurt , Brian..but that's the truth !

You can psuedo-intellectualize all you want...
This is just an economic wrinkle..

It'll work out and we'll all be fine.

You think it's all-important..alot of us don't.
We do think there are other things more important..that's why I do all the charity work I do.
Alot more than you, I'll bet..my record is public...

Don't preach to me about doing stuff that matters..you could learn quite a bit about it from me....
Sad to see Mike Dunbar taking a slap at me..he comes from a time when people that brought up larger issues were applauded..
not made fun of.
Evidently I didn't make it clear enough to Brian and Mike that in my opinion there are larger issues to work on than a few cents on
a cd
Brian goes into his schoolboy stance and sez "Oh yeah..wellsell everything and feed the poor!"
That , of course, has nothing at all to do with the point I was trying to make..but..that's what Brian does...I'm getting used to it.

Oh well...God save the King eh, Mike

Bob




[This message has been edited by bob young (edited 09-24-2003).]

Bob,

When you suggest that someone should care about losing money they earned because it's not as important as people starving in Africa, I have to point out how full of crap you really are. You accuse me of talking out of context, yet you did exactly that.

Evil and bad things exist in the world.. it doesn't mean we should forget that people have the right to their property, or to make a living. We aren't talking 80 cents by the way.. we're talking 80 cents per album.. since 60 Million people are illegally file sharing, that adds up to quite a bit Bob. Why is that someone else's earnings are of no consequence just because it doesn't affect you personally? Right is still right.. wrong is still wrong.

If I come to your house and steal all your CD's from you, that would pale in comparison to all the bad things in the world like starvation.. so does that mean you being robbed is perfectly okay? Of course not.. but that is exactly the point you made. And it's BS.

You are free to give away and let people download your music all you want. It still doesn't make it right when someone else is being stolen from. Contrary to your ego, you don't set the royalty standards or the copyright laws.. and you seem to have a problem with both. If you feel unaffected by the issue.. then why are you involved in discussing it? That in and of itself indicates you're just trying to stir stuff up you couldn't care less about right?

Brian

Bob,

I wasn't taking a shot at you, I was making a cheap joke. But your logic escapes me. We are musicians and we are discussing problems in the music business. There are bigger problems in the world, but guess what? I don't know that child starving in wherever, and I'll bet you don't know one starving child. I give a fairly substantial amount every year to a charity that helps kids. That doesn't mean I can't either be concerned about something else, or make fun of the whole sorry situation. I can, and I will, with no guilt whatsoever (no matter which guilt some would assign to me).

Yes, seven and a half cents doesn't sound like a heck of a lot, but give it to me every hour, every day of every week, and I'll have enough to feed some starving kid and help pay for the charity manager's speedboat.

Mike


------------------
Mike Dunbar Music

Once more, so the logic is accessible to anyone..(or almost anyone)

My point is...

In the grand scheme of things this is a minor issue..
There are many, many more serious issues we could and should be dealing with..
This does not and will not affect ANY of us in an economic way
NOONE is going broke because of file sharing

If people like Brian believe that file sharing is more important than world hunger..

god Bless them..

I see it a bit differently..

The big companies and major artists are going to be fine..
The new concerns raised by new technology will be dealt with as they always have been in the past..
We have a conservative big-business friendly administration in Washington..
Little folks like us can cry out all we want..Washington is gonna take of the big boys first (and then be done with it)
That's history..

What I'm saying Brian..is...

There's other, more important stuff to worry about !

Thanks for the full of crap remark..
I would say the same back..but I have a very high regard for crap !

Bob

And, Brian,...
I'm not tryin g to "stir anything up"
That's you talking,,not anyone else...
But I guess your opinion matters more....
Anybody who lists their quotes with Shakespeare and Socrates must be right !
Honestly, my remarks were aimed at no one in particular..please read them.
Brian comes in taking a swing at me so I swing back..
just read it.......
I'm not gonna go on and on with this..I've said what I have to say..
If you don't agree..that's fine...
I'm gonna do important stuff tomorrow..gonna get my hair cut..get my tux out of the cleaners and pack for a gig in Orlando on Fri night.
Sure, file sharing is important..but getting my guitar accepted into the overhead bin...now THAT"S important !

My advice to all of you boys and girls is..chill..it'll be whatever it is.

And Brian...decaf...decaf !

[This message has been edited by bob young (edited 09-24-2003).]