Jump to content
aberdeen-music
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Neubeatz

Is The Industry Shooting Itself In The Foot?

Recommended Posts

Guest Neubeatz
Sat Aug 5, 12:19 AM ET

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Some of the world's biggest record labels sued the makers of the file-sharing program LimeWire on Friday, saying the software allows users to download music without paying for it.

The complaint, filed in Manhattan federal court, is the latest in a string of lawsuits the music industry has filed in an attempt to curb Internet piracy. That effort was bolstered last year when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that content companies can take legal action against technology firms that encourage copyright infringement.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060805/tc_nm/media_limewire_lawsuit_dc_3

Or would anyone care to defend piracy haha??? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I predict the following headlines to be common in the next few years

MAN SHOT DEAD FOR WHISTLING TUNE OF INTERNET LEAKED SONG

FEMALE HAS HANDS CHOPPED OFF AFTER ILLEGALY BROADCASTING HER TABLE VERSION OF PHIL COLLINS "IN THE AIR" DRUM SOLO

50 YEAR OLD MAN WHO HAS NEVER PURCHASED OR LISTENED TO MUSIC IN HIS LIFE AS EARS CUT OFF BY RIAA SPOKESMAN

UNSIGNED GUITAR BANDS FUCKED AFTER THE SOUND OF A STRINGED INSTRUMENT IS COPYRIGHTED TO SONY

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

shooting themselves in the foot because they are showing their inability or unwillingness to embrace the newly emerging models of music. how many bands had their first album written and recorded before having label interest 20 years ago?

you could argue that the future is heading towards a fan/listener based meritocracy in determining which bands get signed or supported, as opposed to a previous model whereby bands get signed by a combination of location, ability to tour, quality material, timing, luck and money.

the music industry is changing, like it or not. peer to peer networks and file sharing technologies like bittorrent are here to stay - and not just because of the music sharing purposes so commonly associated with the RIAA. "when free speech is outlawed, only outlaws will have free speech", goes some old phrase. the point being that the more that organisations like the RIAA keep trying to curtail file sharing technologies, the more developers and listeners will attempt to circumvent the restrictions.

i am not asking this rhetorically: could someone tell me what artists would stand to lose if there were no RIAA / BPI ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shooting themselves in the foot because they are showing their inability or unwillingness to embrace the newly emerging models of music. how many bands had their first album written and recorded before having label interest 20 years ago?

you could argue that the future is heading towards a fan/listener based meritocracy in determining which bands get signed or supported' date=' as opposed to a previous model whereby bands get signed by a combination of location, ability to tour, quality material, timing, luck and money.

the music industry is changing, like it or not. peer to peer networks and file sharing technologies like bittorrent are here to stay - and not just because of the music sharing purposes so commonly associated with the RIAA. "when free speech is outlawed, only outlaws will have free speech", goes some old phrase. the point being that the more that organisations like the RIAA keep trying to curtail file sharing technologies, the more developers and listeners will attempt to circumvent the restrictions.

i am not asking this rhetorically: could someone tell me what artists would stand to lose if there were no RIAA / BPI ?[/quote']

Ta... Of course we all know that the 'music industry big wigs' ain't too fast in keeping up with the public, the desire to remove them (big wigs) from the equation and creative energy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

erm but the music industries are fighting against illegal filesharing because its making them loose out on money. They are not trynig to stop unsigned bands get their music out there.

sites like Myspace are good for that cause it is the artist who is willingly putting the music up there. They are agreeing to let people hear their music for free and if they want allow them to download it for free.

When it comes to things like Limewire, you can get whole albums for nothing and the artist looses out. Yes the record companies and publishing companies loose out to. And everyone thinks it is just them who are greedy for money. But ive seen figures for how little an act actually gets and every penny counts towards them paying their advances back and finally making some profit.

The RIAA and BPI are not trying to stop all file sharing networks, they are just trying to legalise them all.

The music industry is not trying to deny that the internet is the way forward. They are just a bit slow and are only now embracing peer to peer technology. But it isnt easy for them to do so when there are so many illegal networks out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The RIAA and BPI are not trying to stop all file sharing networks' date=' they are just trying to legalise them all.

[/quote']

the point is, it is not their place to do so. they want to make corporations out of loose entities and organisations (i.e. independent software developers) so that they can bully them into accepting their deals.

it's like when sony tried to sue the makers of the first VHS recorders - just because a technology has the ability to let someone infringe copyright, doesn't mean the technology itself is illegal. the same with the first makers of cd writers and duplicaters. P2P programs don't infringe copyright, people do.

The music industry is not trying to deny that the internet is the way forward. They are just a bit slow and are only now embracing peer to peer technology. But it isnt easy for them to do so when there are so many illegal networks out there.

the internet will evolve' date=' innovate and plough forward long after the RIAA & BPI cronies are still waddling along with their pants down by their ankles. P2P technology has been around since the dawn of the internet, and modern software frameworks have been around for at least 5 years to aid easy development of these technologies.

i don't know where you get this illegal network garbage from - there is only one network in this discussion - the internet. if you are talking about Limewire/WinMX/Emule/Edonkey/Bearshare/Kazaa/Gnutella then do not be confused - they are not networks - they are software applications. anyone can run any of these applications - on any type of computer - on any type of operating system. these applications are true P2P because they are de-centralised and do not rely on a central server for people to be able to search for data nor to download it. email is not a network, it is a service that provides communication between two endpoints using well known ratified protocols. the network is the internet.

describing "illegal networks" like you do is like saying a group of five men with beards speaking urdu is a terrorist cell. and the comparative action of the RIAA & BPI in "outlawing" these networks is like throwing every muslim in prison "just-in-case". it doesn't work and only drives people harder to work around the illegitimate obstacles placed in front of them.

the response of the RIAA & BPI to the copyright infringement is to try to stamp it out - which will never work. they need to work with a better and more fair system that makes it easy for people not to bother file sharing, i.e. music services that have unilateral support from all major labels (i.e. so you can buy any music that you could buy from a selection of real music stores), and where the music downloads are unencumbered by rights management technology, so that if people pay to download a track, they can put it on their mp3 player, play it in their car, play it on their hifi, on their computer.

DRM systems are a waste of time for music downloads and are restricting people's fair use rights. if you pay for it, why shouldn't you be able to do with it what you like.

The reality is, file-sharing is a scapegoat for Sony BMG, Universal, EMI and Warner to use so they can bury their heads in the sand and maintain their crazy oligarchy a little bit longer. they are so scared of the natural devolving of power and distribution that is occurring in the western world's music industry that they are even joining forces with what at one point would have been their fiercest competitors.

There is a natural evolution in progress from analogue to digital media and technologies, witnessed in the slow decline of radio to the overpopulation of cable/satellite/digital tv with a plethora of samey music stations playing the same old label pushed cash cows.

the dilemma for the big four companies is that they have always been able to rely on this push medium, i.e. radio and television content is pushed out to viewers/listeners via their tv's/radios- they can either watch or not watch - if they do, their choice in what to listen to is dictated by the radio/television programme schedulers. the whole process is commercially orientated, via advertising, sponsorship, kickbacks, etc. despite being illegal, record labels have for years being paying radio stations to play and plug records in their schedules.

the new digital mediums are consumer choice orientated - i.e. pull mediums. the user chooses what to listen to or what to watch. this is seen in technologies such as early filesharing via napster/audiogalaxy - users searched for the content they desired - and further in more modern P2P applications like limewire, gnutella, etc. etc.. In the last 2 - 3 years this paradigm has exploded:

- myspace.com (all round media, including music, photos, personal pages)

- flickr.com (photo content)

- blogs (self authored journalistic content)

- youtube.com (video content)

much of this content is of a different standard/quality than typical pushed distributed content, but then that is probably why it is so appealing - because it has less of the contrived, polished, formulated, prescribed format that we are all so used to being exposed to. modern personal computer equipment and associated peripherals have given people with genuine talent the ability to demonstrate it thus - this is the very reason what sites like myspace.com (the music side) and youtube.com are flourishing so rapidly.

filesharing technologies (and also to a limited extent recently, things like last.fm and pandora) have allowed people to find new music at a rate and of a diversity never really experienced before, in my opinion. in the years i have been using file sharing technologies, i've downloaded countless tracks that i have never bought the original cd for - but i can assure you that i've almost definitely either deleted the tracks soon after or not listened to them - so there is no sale lost. in other circumstances i have downloaded music by bands or similar to other bands i have liked, that have encouraged me to thereafter purchase back catalogues of bands/artists, or see them on tour.

do you have evidence for your claim that record companies are losing money [b']specifically because of filesharing technologies?

are these losses related to a loss of revenue?

are these losses the result of a decline in album sales and/or singles sales?

how do these losses correspond to the specific artists labels are promoting (i.e. cash cow artists over new and emerging talent or vice versa)?

are these losses influenced by the merging and sell-offs of the corporations (e.g. both the Sony BMG merger, and Time Warner selling off WMG in 2004)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's like when sony tried to sue the makers of the first VHS recorders - just because a technology has the ability to let someone infringe copyright' date=' doesn't mean the technology itself is illegal. the same with the first makers of cd writers and duplicaters. P2P programs don't infringe copyright, people do.

[/quote']

which is why they take out law suits against the individuals who upload files allowing them to be downloaded through these p2p programs

and im sorry for not using the word network properly in your eyes but i am pretty sure it was clear what i was refering to. "a network - A system of computers interconnected by telephone wires or other means in order to share information. " By which i was talking about how you can share music files with other people by "other means" ie some software program

Just because i am not completely computer literate there was no need to nit pick at the fact i called them illegal networks instead of illegal filesharing software applications

(and even the IFPI call them p2p networks)

its late at night and ive got none of my uni notes on me but i know that around 20 billion songs were downloaded illegally in 2005.

Potential losses to the industry from file-sharing amount to $2.1 billion in 2004. (bpi)

"A two-year study that tracked the purchasing habits of downloaders against non-downloaders revealed that over time downloaders bought less music; amounting to a loss of an estimated 650million over two years."

Its alright you or i saying that we buy more albums because of stuff we hear for free online. but the average consumer is not like us. They only take 12 seconds to decide what album to buy in a shop.

So people are buying less albums because they are downloading for free. Therefor the record companies are loosing out on money. Yes there is a decline in sales for other economical reasons. Like we are coming to the end of the CD boom, but thats why Legal downloads are important. People buying tracks they may already own in mp3 format so they can upload them easier helps keep the industries going. Just like when everyone bought CDs of the same albums they owned on tape or record.

and for your answer to question about the artist the label are promoting it all depends. If that is the artist that are selling less albums because of illegal downloads then they are not going to be earning back their advances and will stay in debt so the companies may not wish to spend more money on them. But then they will not have any profits themselves to put into new acts. They would have to spend any they have on acts which they think will make them the most money in return for spending it

"Britain's wider music industry currently employs more than 125,000 people in the UK, and its record industry is responsible for most of the UKs investment in new artists; which in 2004 amounted to 17% of its turnover, or 207 million. To safeguard this investment, the BPI has been engaged in a long-term campaign to support its members' adoption of licensed digital distribution.

It has done this by both supporting emerging new digital music retailers, and by raising awareness over the illegality of distributing music on the internet using peer-to-peer filesharing software - including legal actions against the worst offenders."

So if they have less of a turnover.... then you will hear less of your favourite up and coming bands making it big.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
which is why they take out law suits against the individuals who upload files allowing them to be downloaded through these p2p programs

I think one of the points here is that they're suing the makers/distributors of the file sharing technology, not the people actually infringing the copyright.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all about money. People are too greedy these days, no give and all take, hence the emphasis on the quality of music in the mainstream is lower than ever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't they just sue the folks that invented the computer. This all started there, more or less...

They are potentially an easier target, the file sharing software folk, and therefore lets "pick on them".

I for one am not a believer in pirating music for most of the reasons stated above and I do not like the prices charged for legal downloads given that the artists sees a tiny tiny percentage of that cost. Its the game we play though and choose to get into in one form or another. Hohum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's all about money. People are too greedy these days' date=' no give and all take, hence the emphasis on the quality of music in the mainstream is lower than ever[/quote']

Eh? That's some tunnel-visioned view you've got there sir!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why don't they just sue the folks that invented the computer. This all started there' date=' more or less...

[/quote']

Charles Babbage has been dead for an awfully long time, otherwise they probably would... maybe they can sue his descendants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hpbae.jpg

"Mr Babbage. May we have a word with you about the potential for your new invention to allow future and widespread copyrigyht infringement through the initiation and development of P2P filesharing software? You do understand that we hold you responsible for other peoples choices?"

"Huh"o_O

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Mr Babbage. May we have a word with you about the potential for your new invention to allow future and widespread copyrigyht infringement through the initiation and development of P2P filesharing software? You do understand that we hold you responsible for other peoples choices?"

"But, but... My sole intention was to display lithographs of lithe young maidens indecently exposing a glimpse of ankle..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's all about money. People are too greedy these days' date=' no give and all take, hence the emphasis on the quality of music in the mainstream is lower than ever[/quote']

Exactly the point, This whole media business for me is geared towards greed and fuck the people. If only people would stand up and say fuck this we are sick of getting ripped off by these cunts, that will never happen though. If the lables care so much for the artist then why do they rip them off too? It's this simple they dont give a fuck, fat cats who earn lots of money and give little back to the artist. People and artists should fight way more than they are doing right now. I choose to buy from smaller lables alot because for me they care more and as for the mainstream bigger lables well fuck them.

It seems a total joke to me that it is made more acceptable that lables rip off artists and people more but when it's the people who try and rip these scrounging cunts off its a different story. Fuck them. Far too many companies infringe our rights without us even knowing about it. Ala sony and symantec. Who knows who else infringes our privacy.

I would love it if a user took action against the riaa or such likes if they found out that those bastards were caught scanning their drives

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I view the sueing of the makers of peer to peer 'networks' to largely be about control rather than directly about fiancial losses (although both of these things are related). Big record companies are scared at the prospect they could loose control over where people buy music from and what music they listen to. The idea of someone downloading a few tracks of some band then buying their CD's, directly from their websites, bypassing a record company terrifies some record company fat cats.

It is time to question the merits of this system of copyright in music. The power essentially lies with major corporations. Bands get a tiny percentage of money from album sales. A system which dosen't rely on PR companies and marketing so heavily is an improvement. It is time to remove the need for so many middle men to get a musical artist beyond their first stages.

The huge bands like metallica who moan about copyright theft are multi millionaires and wont suffer in the slightest if they never sold another CD again. Metallica also had fiancially one of the most sucessfull tours, just a few years a go with their Summer Sanitarium tour.

CD sales have never been higher despite being more expensive in the UK than the US.

The witchhunt has extended to guitar tab and song lyrics websites. These websites have helped create a market for guitar tab books. Remember, guitar tabs books were not that popular up until recently. Artists usually get money for these books (i think).

I am actively persueing a career in music and believe I should be able to make a decent living from doing this. I don't expect to be able to gain my entire income from performance or CD sales. The internet has given rise to specialist music scenes globally which couldn't exist large-scale before, this will help me when I realease recordings. With the internet, the aritist has the means to promote music, by themselves.

The facts and figures in Catherine's post resemble the sort of propoganda you might find from a record company press release. Statistics like that prove nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That only proves my point further.

You can make up statistics about anything. The assumption that every song downloaded would have otherwise been bought as a CD is foolish. A few years a go a survey even showed that people who download music buy more CD's and buy differnet sorts of CD's. This only goes to show that music downloading has helped supports the musicians and supports artists who are outside of current mainstream trends and long term radio play (bands who never stopped getting played on radio).

There is room many more bands and a lot more styles of music.

Of course it would be good if there was an all-inclusive system where bands could make many tracks available to be downloaded for free and other's can be bought. All the existing systems are critised for either not offering enough range of artists, only clips of tracks to download for free, not enough range of diffenrent tracks, too expensive or tying you in with other hardware i.e I Tunes.

We must question how the system with copyright and loyalties works at the moment. Is it fair that we should have to pay for music on CD format again if we already own it on vinyl? Should it be illegal to download songs by artsists who would recieve no royalties if you bought it (i.e expired copyright)? The current laws are unclear over what is acceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...