Public Threats From Music Industry

[Lollypop 0]

Public Threats From Music Industry

 

27/06/2003 09:21 AM

Reuters

 

Music industry groups have turned up the volume in their fight against song-swapping over the Internet, warning Americans in a full-page newspaper advertisement that they could face legal action.

 

The advertisement is part of an aggressive initiative by the Recording Industry Association of America, which said it plans to sue hundreds of individuals who illegally distribute copyrighted songs over the Internet.

 

The legal plans marked a sharp escalation in the battle against Internet piracy that until now had concentrated on shutting down the "peer-to-peer" services used for swapping.

 

Some experts said the group's latest tactic will only alienate the general public.

 

"Next time you or your kids 'share' music on the Internet, you may also want to download a list of attorneys," a bold print headline said in the advertisement in the New York Times, signed by 13 different music trade groups and associations.

 

The RIAA was a signatory to the Times ad, which argued that music can be bought online legally without harm to musicians.

 

"Stealing music over the Internet is no different than shoplifting CDs out of a record store," the ad said. "It's also a very public activity - meaning that offenders can easily be identified."

 

More than 2.6 billion songs, movies and other files are copied over computer networks every month, according to industry estimates. Executives believe such trading has led to a 14 percent slide in revenues since pioneering service Napster opened in 1999.

 

The RIAA, whose roster includes leading media companies, has shut down Napster and several similar networks but failed to stem the tide of Internet sharing. It hopes the lawsuits and advertising might deter people in their own homes.

 

"We hope that parents will pay attention to what their kids are doing ... that corporations will pay attention to what their employees are doing," RIAA President Cary Sherman told Reuters.

 

Adam Cohen, a partner in the litigation department of Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, said the music industry in its battle shows "a lack of concern with alienating the consumer ... It's hard to imagine that this would really spur people to buy more records."

 

Cohen, who has represented online radio and Webcasting services on copyright issues, noted the Napster case ended with a bankruptcy but left open the legal debate on targeting individuals who copy music for non-commercial purposes.

 

RIAA members include AOL Time Warner Inc, Vivendi Universal, Sony Corp, Bertelsmann AG and EMI Group Plc.

[Theunicornhunter 2]

Thanks I had heard something about that and was looking for more info. I gave up on KaZaa anyway because my downloads were so slow

[A l t e r E g o 9]

Here is a copy of something my sons girlfriend posted on her blog.

 

, my sons blog]: senator hatch wants to blow up my computer.

 

from yahoo news

"He said damaging someone's computer 'may be the only way you can teach somebody about copyrights.' The senator... endorsed technology that would twice warn a computer user about illegal online behavior, 'then destroy their computer.'

 

'If we can find some way to do this without destroying their machines, we'd be interested in hearing about that,' Hatch said. 'If that's the only way, then I'm all for destroying their machines. If you have a few hundred thousand of those, I think people would realize the seriousness of their actions', he said.

 

'There's no excuse for anyone violating copyright laws,' Hatch said.

[Theunicornhunter 2]

The problem is the things I want I can't buy (as in can't locate) but then I haven't downloaded them either.

[Lollypop 0]

The problem is the things I want I can't buy (as in can't locate) but then I haven't downloaded them either.

Maybe if they dropped the prices, people who couldn't afford them would buy them.

 

Another thing I think the artists themselves are paid far to much money, and that goes for the movie stars as well. It's obscene what they are paid.

[Lessa_Soong 0]

Its insane that they would consider ruining our computers to make thier point and as stated, it ain't gonna make me want to run out and buy a CD.

 

ANd agree that they are paid too much for opeing their mouths and sining when Teachers, who are the ones that help to shape the minds of out children, are paid so little!

[Theunicornhunter 2]

We could always boycott the music industry for a couple of weeks.

[Goose 0]

Stardate:213485.9

 

 

Well IMHO the RIAA can go

Click for Spoiler:

(I'm trying to misspell a badword but can't)

 

 

themselves :angry: :angry:

 

If anybody finds that offensive I apologize but i feel very strongly about the subject.

[Xeroc 0]

It isn't right to steal music from the industry (because that's really what file sharing is) but i still don't think the music industry would have the right to destroy someone's computer! Also - I don't think they even would be able to! It seems to be an empty threat.

[Takara_Soong 4]

Definitely an empty threat. They've closed down a number of music sharing sites that were based in the US but Kazaa still thrives because it is an Eastern European site that can't be touched by US laws and lawsuits. Canada is actually the biggest user per capita of file sharing sites because we are so wired with DSL that it makes downloading so easy and we're cheap.

[Captain Jean-Luc Picard 1]

Here is a copy of something my sons girlfriend posted on her blog.

 

, my sons blog]: senator hatch wants to blow up my computer.

 

from yahoo news

"He said damaging someone's computer 'may be the only way you can teach somebody about copyrights.' The senator... endorsed technology that would twice warn a computer user about illegal online behavior, 'then destroy their computer.'

 

'If we can find some way to do this without destroying their machines, we'd be interested in hearing about that,' Hatch said. 'If that's the only way, then I'm all for destroying their machines. If you have a few hundred thousand of those, I think people would realize the seriousness of their actions', he said.

 

'There's no excuse for anyone violating copyright laws,' Hatch said.

That sounds illegal, doens't it?

 

Anywho, here's a few ideas...

 

1. Cut CD prices in half. If people only had to pay $8 or so for a CD, they might be more encourage to go buy one instead of downloading.

 

2. What if you can't find a CD? Are you to be denied great music?

 

3. Why not go after the peep-2-peer programs and the other "less known" programs instead of threatening the general public?

 

4. Give people the option to pay-download or go buy the CD. People might do less "free" downloads.

 

I could go on and on, but there are many solutions here. I myself do not mind spending $15 on a CD as I don't buy CD's all that often. Besides, if you download a track or two, I don't think they care, I think they get upset when you download an entire CD. I know several people who just downloaded the Nemesis soundtrack when it came out instead of buying it. :angry:

[Theunicornhunter 2]

I would be glad to pay for the music and entertainment I want - but I guess I have some eclectic or "niche" tastes. I don't want to pay 19.95 plus shipping to buy a movie I'll watch once because blockbuster doesn't carry it. I would also like to be able to downloand specific songs and create my own cds and I wouldn't mind paying for them. But they won't even let you search the databases for those monthly services unless you pay up front.

 

And goodness knows I'd be happy to have Enterprise on DVD.

[Goose 0]

Here is a copy of something my sons girlfriend posted on her blog.

 

, my sons blog]: senator hatch wants to blow up my computer.

 

from yahoo news

"He said damaging someone's computer 'may be the only way you can teach somebody about copyrights.' The senator... endorsed technology that would twice warn a computer user about illegal online behavior, 'then destroy their computer.'

 

'If we can find some way to do this without destroying their machines, we'd be interested in hearing about that,' Hatch said. 'If that's the only way, then I'm all for destroying their machines. If you have a few hundred thousand of those, I think people would realize the seriousness of their actions', he said.

 

'There's no excuse for anyone violating copyright laws,' Hatch said.

That sounds illegal, doens't it?

 

Anywho, here's a few ideas...

 

1. Cut CD prices in half. If people only had to pay $8 or so for a CD, they might be more encourage to go buy one instead of downloading.

 

2. What if you can't find a CD? Are you to be denied great music?

 

3. Why not go after the peep-2-peer programs and the other "less known" programs instead of threatening the general public?

 

4. Give people the option to pay-download or go buy the CD. People might do less "free" downloads.

 

I could go on and on, but there are many solutions here. I myself do not mind spending $15 on a CD as I don't buy CD's all that often. Besides, if you download a track or two, I don't think they care, I think they get upset when you download an entire CD. I know several people who just downloaded the Nemesis soundtrack when it came out instead of buying it. :angry:

Stardate:213488.9

 

Well put Captian.I agree if they cut the prices of Cd's I wouldnt download as much.For the price of one Music Cd i can buy 20 burnables.So of course the Amerian public is gonna go for the cheaper deal.

[mrskirk 0]

Another thing I think the artists themselves are paid far to much money, and that goes for the movie stars as well.  :angry: It's obscene what they are paid.

Musicians who are paid obscene amounts of money are a select few. Most musicians get paid very little-it's the music companies who are raking it in hand over fist. If you talk to the majority of artists, they will tell you that they feel they were ripped off by music companies after signing contracts where the artist gets pennies while the music company makes thousands.

[Theunicornhunter 2]

Another thing I think the artists themselves are paid far to much money, and that goes for the movie stars as well.  :angry: It's obscene what they are paid.

Musicians who are paid obscene amounts of money are a select few. Most musicians get paid very little-it's the music companies who are raking it in hand over fist. If you talk to the majority of artists, they will tell you that they feel they were ripped off by music companies after signing contracts where the artist gets pennies while the music company makes thousands.

Well then, lets boycott the music industry. Who will in turn cancel all their contracts and then the musicians can offer their music directly to online music providers at reasonable prices. There's still a middleman but truth is - its' hard to survive without some middlemen

[Lollypop 0]

Dear music industry, low quality = low demand

Posted by leflaw in Industry News on July 3, 2003 at 10:49 AM

Printable Version

 

 

Thursday, July 3, 2003

 

Dear music industry,

low quality = low demand

Commentary

 

By Mandy Jenkins

The Cincinnati Enquirer

 

Memo

 

TO: Music Industry Executives

 

RE: The truth

 

I've heard the music industry is upset. You say a bunch of downloading kids are stealing your money and you're gonna take their shoplifting butts to court. Record sales are down and have been for a few years. You blame this on music pirates; I think you're missing the point.

 

This is all your fault.

 

People aren't buying because the music industry itself is faulted. First of all, CDs are too expensive for Gen X-ers and teens to buy. They will buy only the music of artists they really have loyalty to - otherwise, it's easier to download a single hit than slap down $20 for a whole CD of crap.

 

That's right, I said it. The music industry sucks right now and your audience knows it. You aren't putting out music that is worth the cost of a CD.

 

Your problem is that as soon as one band or singer gets big, you go right out and find 10 more who sound exactly like them and slap together a CD with one or two good songs in the bunch. The result? Low-quality music that all sounds alike and tons of one-hit wonders on the airwaves.

 

Who can tell the difference between Avril Lavigne, Michelle Branch or Vanessa Carlton? They were created to imitate each other. Why would I buy each of their CDs, when I could download "Sk8r Boi" and "Game of Love" and be done with it?

 

Same thing goes for Nickelback, Staind, Puddle of Mudd and all of those bands that were created to be the "new" Creed (a rip-off of Pearl Jam, anyway). And the emo/wannabe punk bands like All-American Rejects, Simple Plan and Good Charlotte? They all sound the same.

 

The first bit of evidence: the album sales top 10. The long-lasting sales on the charts go to groundbreaking new artists (Norah Jones, 50 Cent) or perennial favorites with proven talent (Metallica, Steely Dan, Radiohead). Those one-hit wonder bands don't stick around for long and it isn't because of downloaders - it's because they aren't that good.

 

The second bit of evidence: I'll bet almost all online file-traders are between 15 and 30; however, they are not the only people who listen to music. What about everyone else; why aren't they buying music?

 

My mom couldn't download a music file if her life depended on it, but you aren't going to catch her at a record store, either. Music isn't good enough to get her to pay that much for anything less than a "greatest hits" CD - and most of today's artists will never see one of those.

 

Get my point? As long as the music industry continues to charge more for putting out garbage, your sales will decline. It doesn't matter how many college kids with T1 lines you find to sue - you will still lose in the end.

 

This isn't a question of ethics and it isn't a statement of legality; it is a measure of quality - and you aren't delivering anymore.

[RomanticStrings 0]

Well, I persoanlly stick with movie scores. I think that the music industry's only sin with those is that they don't publicize them enough. It's great music, IMHO, and it's always fresh and exciting. There are a few albums that are a little messed up because of the bureaucracy involved, but everything has alittle of that. And, though I don't buy to many classical CDs, it seems like that is doing fine. These download issues seem to be the biggest problem for the popsters. I know every kind of music can be found on the sharing sites, but I think that the pop music lovers have the biggest problem getting rid of their file sharing needs. It's not a matter of cost, but, rather, it's a matter of people having no regard for the law. Because something doesn't work for people, they go to illegal acts before even trying to change the law. Most nations are becoming more democratic, and one of the major benefits to democracy is that the people have the power to change things. We need to get the music industry to lower their prices, we need to start earning more money, or we need to start making our own music to cancel the need for buying it or file sharing it. This can be delt with legally.

 

~Conor

[Captain Jean-Luc Picard 1]

Well, heh, I'm lucky. My favorite music genre's are classical and soundtracks and that music doesn't really "go bad", so in my opinion, it's well worth the $15 for the CD unless I just want a specific track.

 

Oh, here's a thought: Putting costs aside, which do you prefer: CD's or Downloads?

[Chataeya 0]

FOR THOSE THAT USE KAZAA........BE WARNED THE GOV. HAS LEARNED HOW TO PUT THREADS INTO ANYONES PC THAT USES THAT PROGRAM, OR ANY LIKE PROGRAMS, TO TRACK AND FIND YOU....................IT IS TRUE!

[RomanticStrings 0]

CJLP, I much prefer buying CDs. I like going into the store and browsing. It's a lot better than sitting in front of a screen and just moving and clicking the mouse. I also like to have the CD cases, and I can transport CDs with me everywhere. I bring CDs with me in the car even for a quick run to the store for milk and ice cream. I prefer CDs because they're legal, as well :)

 

~Conor