Say goodbye to your right to privacy...

well, can I?

Hell yeah. Love the avatar.

HELL YA

HELL YEAH!!! (I been wonderin'... what are spelunkers?)

I been wonderin'... what are spelunkers?) Posted by Mouko-Ryuu

Spelunkers, crazy people (usually geologists, although not always) who like to crawl on their bellies through caves, get lost, and risk their lives just so they can say they found a new hole in the ground.

www.umsl.edu...

lmao I fell out of the chair. Don't know why, but I saw an ant farm with geologist climing around in dif positions.

Originally posted by dragonrider
William:

PLEEEAAASE tell me you dont actually buy into the RIAA arguement that each and every download equates to a lost CD sale??? There is absolutely NO evidence to support these claims!

The 4 university students that are being sued by the RIAA are accused of having about 1 million songs on thier LANs, at $150,000 per song, that comes out to be $150 BILLION damages that the RIAA is seeking. That is like more than the total amount of money generated by music since the gramophone was invented!!!!!!!!

As an artist who's material has been pirated online, I understand RIAA's position. This doesn't mean I agree 100% with the current letter of the law. But it is the current law. The current letter of the copyright law allows for tripple indemnity penalty on violations.

Let me ask you this... do you disrespect the artists so much that you would deny them the only method of payment (other than concerts) currently available?


And no, no one can claim any copyright of qualifying value without evidence to support. And the law cannot be twisted in the manner you suggest.

Well, your not too far off there... most caves, at least where I am, are rather labrynthine, and can litterally go for miles. It can easily resemble a giant ant farm.

Let me ask you this... do you disrespect the artists so much that you would deny them the only method of payment (other than concerts) currently available? Posted by William

Well for the most part, I prefer rather obscure musicians, and therefore prefer to buy direct off of their websites, so that at least the artist is getting his/her money, rather than the record labels. I do buy my CDs, but I do get hearburn over the fact that something like $0.50 per unit is actually going into the artists pocket.

And, I do beg to differ, it is that easy to obtain information, without showing probable cause of violation.

news.zdnet.co.uk...

God knows what they are planning to do... Perhaps Steve Jobbs has a solution to how make money on mp3s on the net? But that he needs to be in control to make it happen? The music industry certainly haven't done anything but whining since the mp3 format came around. I've seen no attempt to try and make money on this media revolution. No subscription possibilities. No rental deal to be made. No better-but-locked formats have come around. No anything. The music business can only thank themselves for their falling income due to the mp3 revolution.

Blessings,
Mikromarius

The music business can only thank themselves for their falling income due to the mp3 revolution Posted by MikroMarius

I disagree with that.

The record labels only have themselves to blame for their falling incomes for the following reasons:

Greed

Absolute mismanagement

Lack of decent product

Failure to properly develope decent available talent in deference to chasing the "Next Big Thing"

Total disregard for properly investigating and exploiting new technologies

Total lack of regard to personal freedoms and rights of consumers

Totally pissing off and confrontationally engaging their target customers

Price gouging

Im sure there are many others that I am missing as well.

And what will happen when your local friar is in custody because Peter North has reported him for having watched one of his copyrighted porn movies via the net?

Blessings,
Mikromarius

I think that if people want music from smaller bands they should buy the CD's. But on the same token, p2p allow more publicity and play for their music to "get out". When you talk of albums vs. touring, depending on how often they have shows, bands usually make more money touring. Also, another thing to remember:any band or group that has made it big makes fists full of cash from other ventures like commercials, tv, magazine appearances, etc. So don't feel sorry for the big timers like Metallica, and Dr. Dre. One note: It WOULD be nice to see music at the same pay levels as sports athletes. Meaning sports athletes make WAY too much $! But hey, I wouldn't put that money down. While I'm at it, so do lame ACTORS like Kevin Costner and Keanu Reeves, but those are seperate topics!
PS-If I wanted a song and Kazaa was taken off the net I'd find a friend at school with the CD and borrow it.

That is I would borrow the CD and burn it. (There's no skips or scratchy sounds that way-Oh, yea, that was downloading on the old Kazaa!)

Originally posted by dragonrider
The music business can only thank themselves for their falling income due to the mp3 revolution Posted by MikroMarius

I disagree with that.

The record labels only have themselves to blame for their falling incomes for the following reasons:

Greed

Absolute mismanagement

Lack of decent product

Failure to properly develope decent available talent in deference to chasing the "Next Big Thing"

Total disregard for properly investigating and exploiting new technologies

Total lack of regard to personal freedoms and rights of consumers

Totally pissing off and confrontationally engaging their target customers

Price gouging

Im sure there are many others that I am missing as well.

Well said! That was actually much of what I meant.

Blessings,
Mikro

Originally posted by dragonriderThe record labels only have themselves to blame for their falling incomes for the following reasons:

Some are correct... some are wrong...

Greed

While "pure greed" is almost always wrong, most major corporations (record labels included) are started with the end-game idea of actually making money. Those that go public, have an even larger responsibility to make money. It's pretty simple really.


Absolute mismanagement

In some cases... but on the whole, what other entertainment industry sub-set has an overall better track record of turning a profit than the music industry? None. In your eyes (consumer) you may perceive mismanagement because they're not doing what you'd like. In their eyes (bottom line) they've been doing pretty good up until 5 years ago.


Lack of decent product
Failure to properly develope decent available talent in deference to chasing the "Next Big Thing"

Lumping these two together... I do believe this is the most serious problem. However, it's not entirely their fault. The dumbed-down masses are unable to discern real quality art when they hear it anymore. Both parties (we and them) are to blame here.


Total disregard for properly investigating and exploiting new technologies

Wrong. Digital distribution is not a "new" technology, it's a paradigm shift; thus it is much larger. We're in that transitional period that might be compared to major buggy whip makers are trying to find ways to squash the automobile. You can't blame an industry for trying to resist change that has the potential to kill them... it's a natural response.


Total lack of regard to personal freedoms and rights of consumers

What about the rights of the artists and distributors? They have a legal contract to get paid for the sale of the music... a contract based on law that specifies you, and only you have the right to use and make personal copies for yourself. By freely serving up these copies, you violate the law (one that has worked properly for small business, inventors, and individuals for over 100 years).
True, the giant publishing/distribution machine has faults. True, many artist have poor deals resulting in little real income. But it is the system in place for distribution, promotion, and awareness.


Totally pissing off and confrontationally engaging their target customers

Yes. This problem could have been better handled. However, if you recall, musicians began the fight, not labels. (Metallica)


Price gouging

Knowing something about CD-ROM publishing and distribution, I can safely say that music CD prices are not as artificially high as you might think. In addition to paying for the cost of the disc, packaging, distribution, promotion, and advertising for that particular album a company needs to set aside profits for research, new talent development, corporate promotion, and big expensive promotional parties for the music industry press (by the way... you should divert some of your attention in that direction and see what you discover). Music CD's could be less, but not by as much as you might think.



Change is painful. But in the end, you will not be able to freely distribute the intellectual property of another person, without their permission. In essence, this is what MP3 file sharing really is. There will be new business models to digitally distribute the files at a significantly reduced per-song price, that that will be it for now.

Instead, consider the backlash to your personal freedom rampant, irresponsible file sharing has caused. Every major computer company is developing means to protect the individual files on your computer from being freely distributed. The genie is out, and he's pissed.

William:

A number of articles I have read regarding an analysis of the RIAAs own figures about how they are "loosing a significant amount of revenue due to file sharing" has shown that thier claims are complete BS.

The main reason that the labels are loosing money is because over the last 2 years, they have not developed and released as many new artists/products as they did in the previous years. When you consider that the labels have only produced about 2/3 to 3/4 of the new product that they did in previous years, but only dropped about 9% in sales, its nowhere near as bad as the labels would have it painted out to be. Indeed, if you look at it as a weighted average of income per new talent/product, the labels actually increased their revenue.

Indeed, with that little fact in mind, when you factor in file swapping, it would appear that it does in fact help with sales. (Again, I would remind you that these findings came from the RIAAs own released data.

So, I maintain my claim that greed has a major part to play in the music labels downfall.

As far as price gouging, you mentioned the overhead associated with production, publicity, airplay ect (I have to ask, do you mean to say that part of this revenue is diverted into PAYOLA to radio stations, which is illegal???). I would remind you that when an artist is signed to a contract of say $20 million, the labels immediately begin deducting costs for recording, production, publicity, promotion, ect out of that same contract. Almost ALL production and distribution costs are borne by the artist with practically none borne by the labels. However, whatever is left is split something like 60/40 in favor of the labels (IE, the labels are getting pure profit for no financial outlay). In the end, for a $20 million contract, an artist should count him/herself lucky to walk home with a million.

Did I mention greed with regards to the labels?

As far as disregard for new technologies, I stand by my claim. Reason: Yes, the labels have put a few online music distribution systems online, but they are totally destroying the concept of "Fair Use". You can download for at a minimum of $1 per song, and with some systems, you can burn 1 CD and then the file locks up. Others, you cannot burn to a CD and you have to pay a monthly fee. If you stop paying, the music stops playing (Although you already bought it!)

The favorite wet dream of the labels is to turn the "play" button into the "pay" button.

William, tell me the truth, have you never stuck a tape in a VCR and recorded a movie off of cable? As we discussed in a previous thread, the money you pay for cable is only for the delivery system, your not paying for the movie. If you record off of cable, is that piracy?

I have to wonder, if the labels really start enforcing the laws against file sharing and start throwing people in jail for it (consider that there is between 30 and 60 million people in the US alone using P2P aps, do we propose to put all of them in prison? Is that the real reason behind Rex84?) what is that going to do for the music industry? You will, overnight, see a huge backlash. We will total and complete boycotts of music and movie sales. Then, we will see TRUE damage done to the industry.

Recording off cable is only piracy if you then distribute the recording. Same for MP3's, you can RIP all you want, but don't distribute them.

I never claimed I liked the business models music lables are using today. There's far too much wrong to discuss here... I suspect we're both correct on several points. (I have somewhat of an inside track, a personal friend is the first lead guitarist of the Goo Goo Dolls... he was there during the early days of their contract negoitiations.. it was hell).

But again... this battle against file sharing was begun by the artists... not the lables, some 4 years ago.

William:

I will agree, we both have good cogent points on this arguement. It would appear we are on opposite sides of the issue, but thats whats so great about America, you can agree to disagree

But, back to the main point of the matter: The DMCA. In fact, in order to obtain a subpeona for personal information, all one has to do is go to a federal court with a signed afadavit claiming to be the owner of a copyright, and claiming that it has been infringed with $30, and you *will* be granted that subpeona.

So, if you dont mind lying, and dont mind putting your lie in writing, there is NO judicial oversight to this process, no checks and balances as to who is getting what information on who.

Im not real comfortable with that for any reason...

Originally posted by dragonrider
William:

A number of articles I have read regarding an analysis of the RIAAs own figures about how they are "loosing a significant amount of revenue due to file sharing" has shown that thier claims are complete BS.

The main reason that the labels are loosing money is because over the last 2 years, they have not developed and released as many new artists/products as they did in the previous years. When you consider that the labels have only produced about 2/3 to 3/4 of the new product that they did in previous years, but only dropped about 9% in sales, its nowhere near as bad as the labels would have it painted out to be. Indeed, if you look at it as a weighted average of income per new talent/product, the labels actually increased their revenue.

Indeed, with that little fact in mind, when you factor in file swapping, it would appear that it does in fact help with sales. (Again, I would remind you that these findings came from the RIAAs own released data.

So, I maintain my claim that greed has a major part to play in the music labels downfall.

I never thought I'd ever defend the record industry, but here I am... There should be no doubt that the music industry looses alot of money because of filesharing over the internet with pirated recordings. Overall sales (both old and new music) dropped with 10% just in the USA last year according to recent data from IFPA (the organisation for the international record industry). For the world in general the figure is about 7%. The year before: 5%. The image is getting worse every year. And much of this is due to filesharing services like Kazaa etc. As you said there has been less newbiz activity, but this could very well be due to tighter budgets because the industry is loosing money (I haven't got anything to back up this assertion, though).

Originally posted by dragonrider
As far as price gouging, you mentioned the overhead associated with production, publicity, airplay ect (I have to ask, do you mean to say that part of this revenue is diverted into PAYOLA to radio stations, which is illegal???). I would remind you that when an artist is signed to a contract of say $20 million, the labels immediately begin deducting costs for recording, production, publicity, promotion, ect out of that same contract. Almost ALL production and distribution costs are borne by the artist with practically none borne by the labels. However, whatever is left is split something like 60/40 in favor of the labels (IE, the labels are getting pure profit for no financial outlay). In the end, for a $20 million contract, an artist should count him/herself lucky to walk home with a million.

Did I mention greed with regards to the labels?

As far as disregard for new technologies, I stand by my claim. Reason: Yes, the labels have put a few online music distribution systems online, but they are totally destroying the concept of "Fair Use". You can download for at a minimum of $1 per song, and with some systems, you can burn 1 CD and then the file locks up. Others, you cannot burn to a CD and you have to pay a monthly fee. If you stop paying, the music stops playing (Although you already bought it!)

The favorite wet dream of the labels is to turn the "play" button into the "pay" button.

William, tell me the truth, have you never stuck a tape in a VCR and recorded a movie off of cable? As we discussed in a previous thread, the money you pay for cable is only for the delivery system, your not paying for the movie. If you record off of cable, is that piracy?

I have to wonder, if the labels really start enforcing the laws against file sharing and start throwing people in jail for it (consider that there is between 30 and 60 million people in the US alone using P2P aps, do we propose to put all of them in prison? Is that the real reason behind Rex84?) what is that going to do for the music industry? You will, overnight, see a huge backlash. We will total and complete boycotts of music and movie sales. Then, we will see TRUE damage done to the industry.

A modern music video alone costs hundreds of thousands of US$ and could without problem reach up to millions. Promotion, a 30 sec. TV commercial alone costs tens of thousands of US$s to get on the air, not to think of what it costs to make them. Then you have distribution, a staff of project leaders, advisors, managers, stylists, roadies you name it. The contract covers it all. Showbiss is big business and US$ 20 mill. doesn't last long if you're serious. And did I mention time in studio with producers, engineers, studio musicans, rent... You are blinded by the large figure I think. These things cost money. A lot of money. If I get a contract here in Norway, I can perhaps get NOK 7, perhaps even 10 if I'm extremely lucky. A new CD costs just below NOK 200 so you can make the calculations yourself (I'm not esp. good at counting ). It doesn't seem like a lot of money. Buth that's what it costs to get through to the marked, to sell the sh*t and be able to earn my living. The alternative would have been selling a fraction of the records with provision of nearly NOK 200 and that with much energy I could have used on becoming a better musican or to make new material, or even drink beer and partying with Madonna.

But let's not get too deep in to this. Let's rather discuss what could be in the coming: a whole new industry of webbased distribution companies and record labels selling music over the internet using a special new develloped fileformat (.xyz) and a new medium (let's call it DD). Let's say that I invented this new music standard where you can download files in .xyz format from the website of the webbased record company. If they are unlocked using a unique code you can buy via SMS or mail, you can burn the record down to the new low-price DD medium and pick up lables and sleeves in the snail-mail a couple of days later. Unlocked you can only hear a selected clip from each track of the DD. This way one should be able to earn money on internet music. But no record company I know of have ever wanted to look into this. If they don't react soon, their days under the sun could be sealed. Sound like a good idea?

Blessings,
Mikromarius