Study: MP3 Sharing Not Serious Threat To CD Sales 704
pkaral writes "The two distinguished gentlemen Strumpf and Oberholzer-Gee have most likely made RIAA executives choke on their lunches. Those two economists at Harvard and UNC-Chapel Hill have done the research and the math on how much CD sales are actually hurt by P2P sharing. The answer: A whopping one CD per 5,000 files downloaded. Needless to say, RIAA are already trying to discredit the study."
I expect... (Score:5, Insightful)
Record labels should distribute approved MP3 tracks, then offer them as singles on CD, just like the radio stations. They should closely scrutinize the downloading habits, then create an album based on the popularity of certain tracks.
They don't see this as a tool, only as a threat. They're idiots.
TV Production should do this too. If Viacom released official BitTorrents of Enterprise, complete with banner ads at the bottom of the screen, I'd download them. The banner ads would make me more likely to delete it when I'm done watching it, which is what they'd want, right. Then they can still sell me the DVD.
That'll probably never happen, though.
Its still piracy (Score:2, Insightful)
I think its helped the music industry (Score:5, Insightful)
I have found out about so many bands that I like that I would buy their cds or see them in concert because of mp3 sharing. I never would just go buy a cd of some band I have never heard of; but I can download an mp3 or 2 and discover that I really like the band. I'm glad that there are people studying it from the opposite angle of the RIAA.
Hilarious. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm talking to you guys, not the RIAA.
Promotion vs. Sales (Score:5, Insightful)
More or less, at this 1 CD per 5,000 downloads number, downloading is being called a push, it gives just about as much as it takes away from the recording industry.
I think what the RIAA is really scared of is the fact that P2P distribution might allow an artist to gain fame and make money without going through the "major label system" and that'd be the death of that system. So, it's not that P2P threatens CD sales as much as it threatens RIAA-member CD sales by replacing them with something else.
Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
BUT, it might convince lawmakers to whink twise, and it shows the common man what they already know: if you want something that is good, you'll pay for it. If you got a broad selection to sample, you'll more likely find something YOU like.
Regardless... (Score:4, Insightful)
Embrace, not extinguish (Score:5, Insightful)
"Anybody who says that the Internet has not affected sales is just not paying attention to what is going on out there," he said. "It's had an effect on everything else in life, why wouldn't it have an effect on this?"
I think everyone agrees that the Internet has affected CD sales. What they (RIAA) don't get is that it can have a very positive impact on music sales and marketing. It opens a new way to sell music, which the RIAA has failed to take advantage of in any meaningful way. If they were to embrace the possibilities I think they could increase sales dramatically.
This is "result" you guys want to see. (Score:1, Insightful)
Why doesn't Slashdot just simply admit that any study that finds P2P to hurt CD sales is to be considered bogus? You have to take the good with the bad if you want any credibility.
Let's end the charade.
Re:I expect... (Score:5, Insightful)
Many artists battle with the record companies on which songs make their records. As an artist, I wouldn't want "market demand" determining the makeup of my album.
On the other hand, "artists" like P. Diddy or Britney Spears might prefer it that way.
downloading copyrighted music is Theft (Score:0, Insightful)
How about these.
You bring your car to the garage. It gets fixed and the bill comes to some amount of money. You are expected to pay the mechanic this amount. Lets say it was all labor as well and no parts were replaced. You use your extra key and get your car back some night without paying the mechanic for the work he did. Did you just steal from him or did you just violate his right to collect the money you owe him. What is he no longer in possession of in this example? The car was always yours, you just took it back without paying the bill. If the answer is nothing then you did not steal from him although I think a court would disagree.
The following argument is a bit absurd but the point is made. Don't think about the details, think about the concept. Ignore that the charge uses $20 worth of electricity or the outlet is on the street.
Since many people claim that theft can only occur when a physical object is taken then how about electricity. Assume a city produces their own electricity via a solar grid. Say you are walking down the street. You see an outlet. You decide that you need to give your cell phone a quick charge and plug it in. You leave your cell phone there (because this is a perfect world and it won't get stolen) and it charges. When you get back there is a city employee there holding your cell phone (He unplugged it to plug his whatever in) telling you that you owe the City $20 for the electricity you used (your cell phone takes a lot of juice to charge). Did you just steal from the city or not? You didn't take anything "physical" from them.
It's still stealing (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I expect... (Score:5, Insightful)
Their logic probably goes something like this: so long as we can keep making people feel guilty/nervous about filesharing, we'll be able to keep P2P as a promotional tool while minimizing the risk of it taking over as the best way to get music.
They'd never say this outright, of course, as it'd undermine their PR campaign against P2P. But so long as they keep P2P flooded with crap and pursue the occasional lawsuit, they'll be able to reap the benefit of filesharing without having it grow into a serious replacement for their distribution models.
They're not idiots, they're cutthroat businessmen. They care about lots of things, but in the end, making money trumps all other concerns.
The cause of lagging CD sales.. (Score:5, Insightful)
The RIAA is not as blind as we think they are (Score:5, Insightful)
You have a bunch of big corporations, that by definition are not going to be able to react quickly to new changes in the environment. There's layers of bureaucracy within, and many times (think Sony Computer vs Sony Music) the left hand wants to slap the wrists of the right. I think they're just looking for a way to take advantage of the new system but don't have a clean implementation ready to put into production. So they make loud threatening noises and otherwise put up a front.
Then they come out with a new system that everybody had already proposed ten times over three years ago. And everybody, especially the cartel members, end up happy.
"Intel will continue to use its own IA64. No, we are not going to use AMD's x86-64 extensions."
A counter point (Score:5, Insightful)
I think this information needs to be approached skeptically, as there's no way to measure reliably "what would have happened." Given a lack of P2P sharing, can you say for certain how many CDs you would have bought/would not have bought? Of course not.
If CD sales for a popular download increase by 2%, can you ever prove they wouldn't have gone up 3% if not for downloading?
I just don't think this can be proven either way.
Re:Embrace, not extinguish (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Its still piracy (Score:2, Insightful)
The RIAA only hurt themselves (Score:5, Insightful)
They like to jump around like a big angry monkey and spread their lies and misinformation to get the public (and government) to see them as "poor me, people aren't buying our music" instead of coming to the realization of "Hey, maybe the music we're putting out is junk."
Then they huff and puff, throw lawsuits left and right in an attempt to SCARE people into buying their products. Coercion, anyone?
I think we've all known for quite some time that mp3 downloading is equivalent to when recordable cassette tapes were introduced. There was a frenzy from the industry as if it was the end of music and sales as they knew it. It wasn't.
Now we're seeing the truth.
Re:It is not about sales but control (Score:4, Insightful)
Iff the recording industry had a clue, they would take the poplarity of P2P filesharing AND the change in their sales numbers as proof that people are sick of paying inflated prices for music of decreasing quality. Just yet another example of people with money trying to use people with less money to keep their broken business model floating...
I would like to see more studies on this subject though. It would be nice if the entertainment industry would get over themselves and began to value their customers' wants and needs.
What is? (Score:5, Insightful)
Do people illegally download copyright material? Sure. But --
Is it piracy when I download out-of-copyright old radio programs [rusc.com]*? Or sample songs from bands who specifically encourage this? What about lectures stored on a Morpheus server in L. Lessig's campus office?
Both "downloading" and "p2p" can mean a lot of things. I plan to buy a CD of Nero Wolfe MP3s in part because of the excellent episodes I've downloaded so far.
Ah, well.
timothy
* Orson Welles' radio stuff is pretty incredible; his presentation of Dracula in particular is great
Of course (Score:5, Insightful)
Optimist (was Re:Well...) (Score:5, Insightful)
Falling sales (Score:4, Insightful)
[me] Who can I blame for my stocks, mutual funds and 401k falling during this timeframe.
[RIAA] Those bad people we've been talking about downloading music.
[me] So the tech bubble was just hype?
[RIAA] Yes and soon as we start making more money we'll refill coffers with funds.
[me] You mean from those $3,000 lawsuits from people that are buying your music.
[RIAA] Err, uh, ahem...
[me] I see so your working for the little guy now?
[RIAA] Err, uh, aheeem.....
You think it goes something likes that?
Re:I expect... (Score:5, Insightful)
Right. Until, that is, someone figures out a way to remove those banner ads, leaving a clean near DVD-quality version for everyone to download. Then the industry will cry fowl saying it hurts they're profits, even though the advertising companies have already paid them. Then they'll start creating all these DRM schemes to try and prevent that from happening, which will only be a smokescreen as they use it's failure to press for laws outlawing all media being downloaded from "unauthorized distribution points." At that point, if they succeed, they will effective control all media on the net, because it is illegal to host and upload any media files to anyone whatsoever, unless you pay a licencing fee. Same story that's been going on in one form or another for decades...
Re:Hilarious. (Score:5, Insightful)
Most other studies that show the P2P is hurting CD sales are put out by folks that are either paid by the record industry or can be otherwise deemed uncredible.
Oh, and
Re:I expect... (Score:4, Insightful)
How Orwellian. There's a word for that in 1984: Doublethink
Re:A counter point (Score:3, Insightful)
I do agree, it's impossible to say for sure - Maybe the music industry would be dead now if not for P2P, maybe it would be twice as big. No one can say anything besides "probably" or "probably not" for either of those, at least without a time machine.
Re:MP3 Sharing is Still Illegal!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Doesn't this same thing occur every time you listen to the radio?
You might say no because there are advertisers who are paying for the space, which the radio station then gives a portion to the music industry, thus paying the artist back...a pittance.
Well, consider this. By downloading a song, many people, according to the study, often go purchase cd's from these artists whose music they have enjoyed for free. This is even better for the artist because they get at least a little more because it is direct revenue for them and the music industry.
Another example, you can go check out a book from the library for free and read it in its entirety. For free! Not a single cent goes to the author. Yet, you're still enjoying the fruits of the author's labor without paying for it.
Open your mind, see the possibilities.
Be pro-active; spread the word (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I expect... (Score:5, Insightful)
They don't see this as a tool, only as a threat. They're idiots.
Actually, the real fun with the RIAA and major labels is that they already do such things. Please view the Wired article:
BigChampagne is Watching You [wired.com].
I say this is fun because the RIAA talks out both sides of its mouth: it wants to limit major expansion of free P2P downloads (control the download market) and simultaneously use the data from such spontaneous sources to make smart investments on marketing.
Of course, when they say "CD sales" have gone down, I'm not so sure they mean all CD-based formats (singles, albums, collections, etc.) or just some sub-categories, like CD sigles. I can believe CD singles have been decimated by P2P filesharing, but I'm more reluctant to agree to a rapid, major decline in album sales without proper evidence. In other words, I don't believe what the RIAA claims is exactly what is happening, merely what they want you to think is happening.
Re:downloading copyrighted music is Theft (Score:4, Insightful)
Downloading music involves no direct loss for the RIAA. Nobody's time is lost and they don't have to pay out any money. The only way they can claim a loss is if they assume you would have bought the album that you downloaded, which is tenuous at best.
Re:Its still piracy (Score:5, Insightful)
If nothing else, this study even deflates the already weak argument that P2P is "stealing", because the argument used to be that by downloading you are "stealing" the potential income of artists. Well, without the economic argument now, then what exactly is stolen? There is nothing missing.
You're correct in pointing out that 1/5000 is still a significant number. But also that the study does not concentrate on the other side; that P2P may inspire sales that never would have been made.
The funny thing, but not unexpected, is that most businesses would be jumping for joy if a study like this came out. That percieved threats to your business in fact turned out not to be that bad after all. The RIAA/MPAA *should* be pleased by this study. IF it was about economics. But their reaction shows that it's not about the money at all, it's about their ability to totally control and manipulate human behavior and destroy capitalism, e.g., power.
In the long term, P2P will kill CD sales (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Problem with big corporations is.. (Score:2, Insightful)
This is probably true (Score:5, Insightful)
During the 3 year period where I did use Napster (and Kazaa later on) to download mp3s I bought the bulk of my 250+ CD collection, mostly of bands that I had initially heard via P2P. In that sense, it did work a bit like radio.
Not unlike many others, I also burned CDs with those MP3 files, but there's nothing like owning the real thing(TM) so I ended up buying the CDs of bands that I really liked.
This has been said (only today) already about 300.000 times but I'll say it again (this is
When will ??AA realize that CDs don't sell because:
a) sometimes the music does suck
b) we all get the feeling of being ripped off when paying 20 EUR+ for any CD or DVD, especially knowing how much of that goes to the artist
c) trying stuff is something you have to do. Would you by a new pair of trousers without trying them first? Would you buy a car you never drove?
Damn lies! (Score:5, Insightful)
Oberholzer-Gee and his colleague, University of North Carolina's Koleman Strumpf, also said that their "most pessimistic" statistical model showed that illegal file sharing would have accounted for only 2 million fewer compact discs sales in 2002, whereas CD sales declined by 139 million units between 2000 and 2002.
Respondeth the RIAA:
Weiss cited a survey conducted by Houston-based Voter Consumer Research that found those who illegally download more music from the Internet buy less from legitimate outlets. Of respondents ages 18-24 who download, 33 percent said they bought less music than in the past year while 21 percent bought more. Of those ages 25-34, the survey found 25 percent bought less and 17 percent bought more, Weiss said.
Earth to Weiss: These people bought fewer CDs in the past year, yes. But your stats show nothing about that being correlated with the fact that they are file sharers. Where is the control group? The stats on CD purchases of non-sharers? I'm sure their CD purchases skyrocketed last year, right? Oh wait:
illegal file sharing would have accounted for only 2 million fewer compact discs sales in 2002, whereas CD sales declined by 139 million units between 2000 and 2002.
Huh. Who'da thunk it?
Re:Its still piracy (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)
I wouldn't have this 3 CD limited edition box set of Blutengel sitting next to me here. I wouldn't have 3 Cryonica Tanz compilation CDs so I can pick other bands I like and then buy their stuff
I wouldn't even be into this whole genre! I'd still be looking around local music stores in a bored manner because there is nothing new or exciting on offer.
Times have changed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:A whopping 5000 (Score:3, Insightful)
Just because somebody downloaded it, doesn't mean they would have bought it had they not been able to download it. Before you rush to discredit that - it's true that this argument doesn't hold up as an excuse for piracy (which it is often used as) but it *does* hold up as a reason why just seeing the amount that's being downloaded doesn't let you measure the amount of sales the firms are losing.
For example, 6060 CDs a month? Do you think that most of those filesharers could have afforded to buy their share of those? Do you think that they would save up and buy those CD's a few months later instead of buying the new CD's released in the later months?
There is no way they are losing that many sales.
(Anyone responding with a 'but why should you get it for free because you can't afford it' argument gets a free bash on the noggin, which they certainly can afford. As above, the argument is *not* an excuse for piracy, but it *is* a clear reason for a disparity between piracy volume and volume of lost sales.)
RIAA vs GPL (Score:5, Insightful)
If you don't agree with the license, don't use it.
Hurt the RIAA by stop using their music.
Let the market decide (Score:4, Insightful)
If you want to prove something from this, you have to let the market decide. If some labels allow file sharing and the P2P networks actually had mechanisms to enforce copyrights, we would soon see whether file sharing really has a positive or negative effect.
-a
Re:The cause of lagging CD sales.. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, I don't remember where that little tidbit originally came from, but it was a bit of research that basically showed that the drop in available CDs was suspiciously close the RIAA starting to bitch and moan about the drop in sales, and it came very soon after P2P started to become fashionable.
Re:A whopping 5000 (Score:3, Insightful)
From the article:
Oberholzer-Gee and his colleague, University of North Carolina's Koleman Strumpf, also said that their "most pessimistic" statistical model showed that illegal file sharing would have accounted for only 2 million fewer compact discs sales in 2002, whereas CD sales declined by 139 million units between 2000 and 2002.
Re:A whopping 5000 (Score:4, Insightful)
For the mathematically disinclined, where is the remaining 99.995% of their alleged losses coming from?
Re:I expect... (Score:5, Insightful)
True. On the other hand, this would allow you to release songs that wouldn't ordinarily go on your records AND give you actual data (lots of people downloaded this song and e-mailed me to tell me they liked it) to use to fight the record company. Which is another reason why they're scared of P2P. They're afraid that artists wouldn't have to rely on their nebulous marketing data and might actually have some say in their music.
I am not surprised (Score:5, Insightful)
As Napster became more and more vilified, companies refused to let employees use napster at work. As a result, by the end of 2001, I was no longer able to use it at work (and had dial up at home, so the time it took to screen potential candidates was approaching an hour per song). With the covert and overt poisoning of tracks placed for sharing, it is not worth my effort to sift through the trash in the hopes of finding gems.
Since being unable to hear new music due to the interference of the record industry (and its cronies BayTSP and congress), and the concentration of ownership by conglomerates like Clear Channel, all the radio stations are becoming the same play list. As there is no way for me to discover new music worth listening to, my purchases of albums dropped from 200+ per year in each of 1999 and 2000 to 1 album in 2002 and zero in 2003. I have about 700 CDs, enough CDs that I probably do not need to purchase any more for the rest of my life. Since the record industry is determined to prevent me from discovering new music, it looks like I already have a lifetime worth of music. From 200 albums per year to zero, the RIAA has decided that I do not need to buy any new music ever again.
What could convince me to buy more albums? I would have to find stuff worth listening to. I enjoy classical, techno, jazz, new age, folk and stuff that gets called world. With the exception of 2 spanish language stations, my local radio stations only play country, pop and rap. The spanish language stations have more interesting music than the english language ones. Guess I need to brush up on my spanish.
The current distribution system for music is BROKEN. Existing and proposed legislation just serves to enforce and prop up a distribution system that was (and still is) corrupt and crooked for the last 70 years. I chose to not support the corruption with my money. I chose to not support the crooked politicians who dance to the tune of the RIAA. It is my money and there is no law requiring me to subsidise their corruption, not that it would be a constitutionally valid one even should one exist.
Unfortunately, the RIAA have painted themselves into a corner with the jihad they have declared against P2P. There is no possible way for them to admit their mistake without them losing billions in the RICO lawsuits that would result. Unfortunately for the RIAA, it is them or America, and and currently, the RIAA is winning the propaganda battle while subverting the justice system of the US. It is as corrupt and evil as if AlQeda was in charge of the White House.
Copyright, in the right hands... (Score:5, Insightful)
A work's creator, and only the creator, should have full control of the work's copyright for a strictly limited time, after which the work should enter the public domain. This is all just my opinion, and is an awful lot of shoulding, but there it is.
Also, I haven't seen this suggestion here before, but if you want to try out different artists/genres/whatever, and if you live near a half-decent public library system with half-decent interlibrary loan services, you can check out CDs instead of (at the moment) illegally copying them.
Just my 2 cents worth (for large values of 2).
Re:I expect... (Score:2, Insightful)
Correlation Does Not Prove Causation (Score:2, Insightful)
Just because there was an increase in P2P trading at the same time as there was a decrease in sales does not mean that one affected the other.
There were also an increase of shark attacks during that same time. Most people when they are being attacked by sharks don't buy CDs.
P2P doens't affect CD sales? DUMBEST MEME (Score:2, Insightful)
We're technologists, right?
We believe in the ultimate triumph of the network, right?
Unregulated P2P doens't affect CD sales -- c'mon, how stupid can this debate get? If the network gets faster, and the P2P reliability better, and the increasing ease of CD-burners, and printers, etc.
And what about pay-for downloads? Is unregulated P2P downloads also not an issue there?
The Sneaker Net Is Alive And Well (Score:2, Insightful)
AFAIK there is no paper trail on a sneakernet.
Re:P2P doens't affect CD sales? DUMBEST MEME (Score:3, Insightful)
Hint: the most obvious outcome isn't always the actual outcome.
1/2 of the story (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Its still piracy (Score:2, Insightful)
It gets songs out to the public. In almost all cases, that is good for the artists. Most artists benefit from the exposure. And the ones who don't need the free publicity, are so good they can charge outragous prices for their live shows.
It is the recording industry that must change. The basic infrastructure will be needed for years to come, but they no longer have the almost exclusive responsibility/right to find and promote new artists. And frankly, based on what I hear when I veer away from the oldies stations, they aren't doing so hot at that either. Word of mouth and P2P are so much better. And it isn't that good music isn't made anymore, it just isn't promoted. The recording industry and big corporate radio are shooting each other in the feet.
Re:I expect... (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you realize how close this sounds to 1998-esque dot-com business plans? "Let's give away free pies so that, we, umm, can see which pies people like so that we can, umm, sell pies!"
However, you do one better, with your inane "create an album" idea. Ignoring the first fundamental fact that you shit on artist ingretiy this way and ignoring for a moment that the RIAA has PLENTY of popularity data already based on record sales, polls, radio monitoring, and a host of other means and they dont need terribly much more, you seem to forget that the RIAA's constituent members want to maximize their profit. If the public is willing to buy 10 individual cds to get 12 songs they like, then why bother putting all 12 songs on 1 cd?
You do one better still by talking about video downloads and ignoring the 10,000 pound gorilla in the room which is to say that as bandwidth increases, in a few years videos and movies are going to be facing the exact same problem that the RIAA has today and you'll bitch about the DVD just as you bitch about physical CDs today.
I dont know who in hell modded you as insightful.
IUMA, before there was mp3.com (Score:2, Insightful)
But none of those bands were RIAA whores, and that's what scares the suits at the RIAA. Loss of control. It's been said about guns, but we'll adapt and say it about copyright, too: "copyright control mechanisms are not about copyright; it's all about control."
-paul
Re:I expect... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you are aware enough to recognize art when you see or hear it, you are also aware enough to seek out venues that feature such artists. Such venues do not cater to mass marketing. These are the bars, honkey tonks, indie recording labels that have been showcasing the best artists for generations. You find them at the edge of the university district, in the raucus dives, the after hours clubs, in the back of the local news rag that nobody really reads, and in the small record stores in the old strip mall downtown.
The major labels are good at doing one thing well, and only one thing, and that's making money. Don't let them kid you, even if CD sales are falling, they are still making money hand over fist. They will try to tell you that since this years take is smaller than last years take, they have somehow lost money. That is simply not true. They have made money, just not as much as last year. Boo Hoo.
If there are any record RIAA executives reading this comment, this is for you: "It's the ECONOMY, stupid!"
Re:I expect... (Score:3, Insightful)
2 seconds? Never mind the reaction time, but are you actually waiting for the start of the commercial?
Here's a recurring pattern in a(t least one) legal drama I watch regularly:
* Shocking information is revealed
* 4 seconds closeup shot on lawyer looking shocked
* Commercial break.
I know that as soon as a lawyer looks shocked after shocking information is revealed, I can fast forward - 3 seconds before the commercial actually begins.
The most likely-not-to-be-skipped time is the last 4 (on average) seconds of the last commercial - chances are you'll see some of that.
Of course, an even better time is during the actual show, when we get to see how fulfilling those lawyers' lives are, just because they use very specific brands.
Of course an even
Re:I expect... (Score:4, Insightful)
It;s probably worth pointing out that P. and Britney are making the recording industry a hellova lot more than you are.
No offense intended, and I'm not saying it's a good thing. In fact, I think that this is one of the reasons why the recording industry fears P2P so much - not because it effects sales, but because it's capable of smashing down the barriers between artist and listener.
RIAA execs don't lie awake in bed worrying that in 10 years times, sales will have been cut in half by P2P.
They instead lie awake in bed worrying that in 10 years time, artists will deliver their music straight from the recording studio in their attic, through the server in the basement, to their Internet based community of fans.
OK, this is an extreme idea, but it's plausibly that it will happen to some lesser greater extent. Regardless, it will make the record companies a much less powerful force.
Re:Its still piracy (Score:3, Insightful)
One of the amazing things about the English language and languages in general, are their ability to be continuously changing and to adapt to how people use words over time.
Webster's Dictionary seems to define piracy [webster.com], in definition 3, as copyright infringement. Similarly, if you look at the definition of to steal [webster.com], it only says to take or appropriate, it says nothing about the original owner losing anything. Like the example they give to "steal a kiss," that doesn't imply it stops, say the original boyfriend, from kissing the girl (unless it was a really good kiss...).
Of course the dictionary doesn't carry the connotations of the words, which are slightly different. People are going to use the connotation that represents their opinion of how bad the act is. And since whether this is wrong or not is an opinion and not a fact (as in morally, not legally), this is going to differ between people. If the RIAA wants to communicate it is morally wrong in addition to legally wrong, as they are perfectly allowed to do, they will probably want to use a stronger word. In a legal sense, things a little different and legalese is definitely more precise... but thankfully we don't all speak or communicate in legalese.
I think it is pointless to debate over which single word they should be using, since all of them seem to work. Instead, I think some people need to say why they think it is right or wrong instead of hiding behind claiming which word is the only correct word since it happens to have a better connotation.
Re:I expect... (Score:3, Insightful)
I wouldn't want Pink Floyd's "The Wall" without "Is There Anybody Out There?" I didn't really appreciate the song the first time I heard it, but it's one of my favorites now.
Re:It is not about sales but control (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not so sure that this is the case. The industry promotes the hell out of its crappy pop releases in order to sell more albums - everyone knows the quality of the songs before they make a purchase. The sad fact is that many people have no musical taste - they enjoy the manufactured pop stars and the tired chord progressions that form the base for modern rock.
Unfortuneately this lack of taste is not limited only to children I've known many adults who listen to Britney Spears or Justin Timerberlake - and when I call them on it they claim that "it's irony". But I don't buy it - wannabe hipsters use irony as a way to legitimize their awful musical tastes.
The point is that many people like crap. They will continue to buy whatever the pop music/MTV marketing machine tells them is cool this month (including CDs, clothing, video games, sports drinks, batteries and virtually every other product). Filesharing has virtually no affect on the buying habits of these people.
Re:I expect... (Score:4, Insightful)
Then again, the same could be said not only of a show watched via any recording device, but live TV watching as well. You only see the first couple seconds of the first commercial before you get up and use the bathroom, get a snack, or flip the channel. The first commercial has always been the prime position and advertisers already pay more for it.
Re:I expect... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure that your two-cents' worth is absolutely correct regarding the effect that filesharing has had on the sale of singles, but I would also like to add my own pennies and say that I think the sale of singles was already on the skids before P2P made the scene.
Warning: rant commencing in 5...4...3...2...1...In my experience (i.e. - Take it for what it's worth; I'm not gonna research a bunch of statistics right now and this rant was spawned by a number of incredibly frustrating attempts to go out and buy the single versions of songs that I liked), many albums (dare I say most) only have one or two good tracks anyway. Selling a cheap single of the one track that people will pay to hear probably cuts into the sale of the full album, which many people will buy anyway just to hear the one or two tracks that they like! In addition to that, CD singles cost upwards of $5 (YMMV), so there wasn't a whole lot of incentive to buy them even before P2P. A $6.99 single is an hour's wages for most of Britney's target market, and the added value of some pop princess doing a crappy B-Side live cover of a Stones song that her producer suggested (after telling her who the Rolling Stones are), is not enough incentive to pony up for a single.
Your .02 plus my .02 equals 4 cents that I would rather use as a suppository than contribute to the Rectal Invasion and Assault Association.
The Dalai LLama
what the hell happened the old Chuck Berry 45's?
Re:I expect... (Score:3, Insightful)
Example: I typically watch the Superbowl twice on my ReplayTV - once for the game (starting around half an hour late) and once for the ads (ok, not this year, in protest of CBS's slap at MoveOn).
Re:I expect... (Score:2, Insightful)
The point isn't to make you want to buy the product, it's getting the brand in your head so it's the first thing you think of in that catergory. It's not to get you to buy the product, it's to get you to buy that brand if you are buying that type of product.(although some comercials are blatent you need this, such as infomercials)
quick name a brand of cola!
lemme guess, It was coke or pepsi, the most advertised brands, not RC, or jolt, or zeddy-brand zellars cola etc.
Re:downloading copyrighted music is Theft (Score:2, Insightful)
No it isn't. It's an indirect loss. If it was a direct loss, then you could put an entry on a balance sheet called "Losses due to piracy", and every time someone copied the track, you'd be able to put another value in there.
Yet it would likely hold up in court. No royalties were generated from the illegal distribution of the copyrighted work(s).
No royalties would have been generated if the file hadn't been illegally distributed either.
Re:In the long term, P2P will kill CD sales (Score:4, Insightful)
I got news for you: Bandwidth isn't going to increase.
The cost of real bandwidth -- actual, symmetrical, guaranteed bandwidth, not that overprovisioned ADSL or cable modem crud you may be using -- has remained essentially flat for the last three years. Costs for T1 circuits are still running roughly USD$1/kilobit/sec for "dialtone"; extra charges may apply for bandwidth usage over a certain amount.
There is no market pressure to bring these prices down, and no alternative source to provide lower-cost services since the ILECs have a monopoly and just got the government to agree to lock out CLECs from their central offices. Wireless won't help; at some point, you have to tie down to the wired networks, and you're back to paying the ILECs again. Fiber to the home won't help; it will be rolled out by the ILECs or, worse, by your cable company who only wants you to watch, not talk back (no Counterstrike servers for you, muttonhead).
So, no, I don't see a significant drop in datacomm prices any time soon, which means the Internet for end-users isn't going to get any faster.
Schwab
Re:I expect... (Score:5, Insightful)
An example is a friend of mine's mother. She loves religious shows. But where she lives she can't get any. And she can't afford a dish. So a friend of her's set up a transmitter at his place, which was a few miles away, to broadcast the religous channel from his dish. All she had to do was tune in to his transmitter. It didn't take long for the cops to shut that down, with orders from the CBSC [www.cbsc.ca]. He didn't alter the programming in any way. The channel was broadcast in full, commercials and all. But he wasn't allowed to rebroadcast it, because he didn't have a licence to...
Yeah, sure...a lot of what I said is the tin-foil hat kind of rant, but just because I'm wearing a tin-foil hat doesn't mean I'm not telling the truth...
Other markets (Score:1, Insightful)
It was said, that when one piece of music is often downloaded, the sales increase. I don't find anything special about it. When it's popular, more people buy it, and more people download it.
There is a possibility that somebody downloads mp3, finds it very good and decides to buy it on CD. But on the other hand, somebody who's waiting for an LP (and wants to buy it) downloads mp3 before album is released and finds it not good. Then he doesn't purchase it at all.
p2p decreases music sales, especially in developing countries. It's not only the mp3 thing. Images of almost every CD can be found on the net, as well as CD-RWs in people's houses.
Finally the most importand thing. When music companies set high prices, people steal music from p2p. There is no other way to listen to the music for many people in the world. If p2p was stoped, the sales wouldn't rise. People would steal music in other way. You can call music companies' policy stealing as well, but it's another topic.
There are two solutions. One is decreased prices. It's better to sale 1 mln copies for 5 euros, than 0.2mln for 15. I can tell you that it works, it's not just a theory. In Eastern Europe you can find cheap CDs (1/3 of average price). They always occupate first places on top sells lists. Doesn't matter if they are good or not.
Second solution is internet. Selling throughout the net, for a reasonable price, is the future market, which will wash away the present one. No matter what the music industry thinks, changes are coming.
Re:I expect... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I expect... (Score:3, Insightful)
Nonsense. I don't have a TiVo and I don't watch all the ads. I flick channels, I get up to make something to drink, etc. The Tivo owners simply stay on the same channel and skip the ads. Net result, same number of ads skipped and watched pre-tivo and post-tivo.
Re:I expect... (Score:1, Insightful)
Fine. Self-publish. The record companies aren't for artists anyway.
The point is the medium not the media sales (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't think that's how advertising works (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I expect... (Score:5, Insightful)
They traditional record label and its goons aren't needed anymore. They're becoming extinct.
The answer is in my sig.
Gaming is the reason that CD sales are down (Score:3, Insightful)
Really, why should it take a research team from an esteemed college or institution to figure out the obvious?
Games sales, console and computer, have increased dramatically in the period of time that CD sales have decreased.
One need not be a genius to figure out that games cost money. The demographic that makes up the largest percentage of CD sales is the same demographic that makes up the largest percentage of CD sales.
If I spend more money on games, I have less money to spend on CDs.
Entertainment priorities are changing, more people are spending more of their discretionary incomes on gaming rather than music.
Yes, it's that simple.
Re:I expect... (Score:4, Insightful)
You do realize that you sound like a pompous ass right?
I guess all the people who like music that is popular just can't recognize "art" when they hear it. It's only people such as yourself who hang out at the local "honkey tonks" and "after hours clubs" that truly understand music.
The truth is that many people know that pop music is a marketing tool (I mean, it is pretty obvious) but enjoy it anway. The value of any work of art is completely subjective. So while you and I might prefer Johnny Cash to Justin Timberlake - this does not give us the authority to act like condescending assholes towards people who do like (in my opinion, overly manufactured and soulless) pop music.
Re:P2P doens't affect CD sales? DUMBEST MEME (Score:5, Insightful)
By the way, unregulated P2P DID affect CD sales. They went UP. When everone gets their fat pipe, that too will help sales of music, if not CD's.
Re:Copyright, in the right hands... (Score:3, Insightful)
"Copyright is good when it is in the right hands: those of a work's creator(s). Unfortunately, many artists have been/are being forced to enter the music market through the "loving" hands of the RIAA member companies, where they lose important rights ("voluntarily," of course)."
Typically, when you sign a recording contract, you have the rights to the words and music, and the record company has the rights to the particular recording of that music. A track on the CD is their recording of your work, so rights are shared, in a way. For example, the record company can't have their latest boy band record a cover version of your song without your permission, and you can't distribute the recording on your own without their permission.
"A work's creator, and only the creator, should have full control of the work's copyright for a strictly limited time, after which the work should enter the public domain. This is all just my opinion, and is an awful lot of shoulding, but there it is."
I agree with you 100%, and that's how it presently works. I think a lot of people get lost on the idea that a recording's creation process doesn't end with the writing or even the performing, but with the recording, mixing and engineering. Artists typically sign deals with record labels because record labels possess the resources that they don't: cash, access to the distribution channel, and the talent of various engineers, artists and marketers that can get the record sold. In turn, the record companies get exclusive distribution rights on the recordings to offset the massive costs of the endeavor. Record companies, like a company that you or I might work for, or even own, are not philanthropic or non-profit organizations. If they don't recoup their expenses, they shut their doors.
The way to keep the rights to everything is to do everything yourself. Set up your own studio, or come up with the cash to rent time at a studio. Find an engineer that won't ask for a copyright on the recording. Shop your recordings directly to the download services like iTunes, or find a recording company like Magnatunes or CDBaby that does not ask for exclusive distribution rights (as they are not funding your recording and not sinking the kind of marketing money that a traditional record company would). Start a web site or pay somebody to run one for you, put some tracks online, and let viral marketing take care of the rest. Design your own label art or pay a designer to do it, then shop around for a CD duplicator, and then get on the phone with the distributors to get your CD placed at retail. It is hard, sweaty, backbreaking and (above all) expensive work, but it can be done. And you will learn that, as with so many other aspects of life, the cliche you cannot have your cake and eat it too applies to the profession of being a musician.
Of course, there will always be musicians who will prefer to go the label route if they have the chance. Many musicians don't have the resources, skills and/or the desire to be businesspeople -- they'd really rather just play their music and let the engineering/art/sales/marketing geeks go to work. This is a perfectly acceptable choice.
Re:P2P doens't affect CD sales? DUMBEST MEME (Score:5, Insightful)
The only thing dumber than the notion that unregulated P2P doesn't affect CD sales is the notion that unregulated P2P actually helps them.
Fat pipe, indeed.
Re:I expect... (Score:2, Insightful)
With the RIAA, OTOH, there is no way conclusively to establish the extent of their injuries resulting from P2P filesharing. All we have are a bunch of studies with conflicting conclusions, and it's extremely difficult to establish an objective estimate of the true extent of the damages when every conclusion is based on statistical interpretations.
While the accident victim's claims can be shown by medical authority to have been made with fraudulent intent, the RIAA has statistics showing a correlation between the rise of P2P filesharing and the decline of industry revenues (these numbers are not in dispute, AFAIK). Whether there is causation is another matter entirely, but it appears to me that at present there is as much evidence to support the RIAA's claims as there is to refute them. IOW, while I may believe them to be wrong, I have to admit that they may have a rational basis for their claims, which prevents me from inferring malicious or fraudulent intent on their part.
Re:I expect... (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, just to maintain a standard... (Score:3, Insightful)
As long as it benefits the Slashdot crowd, we all eat them up and say "Yeah! Exactly!"
The second some statistics come out to the contrary, I've always seen the arguments here go "Well, those are just statistics, they skewed them to their advantage..."
Just an observation. Flame away. Thought about posting Anonymously, but I've got some karma, and I think it's a justifiable point.
Re:I expect... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Of thirty thousand CDs that the industry released last year in the United States, only four hundred and four sold more than a hundred thousand copies, while twenty-five thousand releases sold fewer than a thousand copies apiece. No one seems to be able to predict which those four hundred and four big sellers will be."
- source: The Money Note [newyorker.com], by John Seabrook
RIAA execs don't lie awake in bed worrying that in 10 years times, sales will have been cut in half by P2P.
Unless their cluelessness approaches nearly mystical levels[1], recording industry executives know that digital distribution is inevitable. Sure, they're probably a bunch of old white guys who never heard of the internet before 2001, but that was three years ago, and you'd better bet they have *some* smart people working for them. Fact: digital distribution of music is more efficient than physical distribution - i can download a much wider selection of songs, at any time of the day or night, than i can get at the record store, and i live in a capital city. Imagine if you live in Armpit, Ar.
But gearing up for digital distribution is going to take a) time and b) money. Time because not everybody has broadband yet - especially when you figure that, to these guys, the market is worldwide. Money because somebody has to invest in the infrastructure to make all this possible. Ask Apple how much they spent on their music store. On the other hand, the infrastructure for doing business in the bricks and mortar world is pretty much paid off and the profit margins are fat.
The recording industry is squeezing every last cent of profit out of their current way of doing business before they switch to digital delivery and start all over. What keeps them awake at night is the idea that by the time they get there, sharing on p2p will have changed people's value perception of music: that they will think of it as something you get for free on the net.
They instead lie awake in bed worrying that in 10 years time, artists will deliver their music straight from the recording studio in their attic, through the server in the basement, to their Internet based community of fans.
In any market with many producers and many consumers, middlemen will always emerge. Over time, seeking to maximize profits by reducing inefficiency, these middlemen will be reduced to a few big players. Once this happens, these big players will start to exhibit monopolistic/oligopolistic behaviour - they will think of the market as "their market", not in terms of the market they compete in, but in terms of the market they own, like a private club. Eventually, this behaviour will distort the market and decrease the gains to the producers and consumers - thus providing incentive for somebody to offer an alternative. If that alternative proves profitable, copycats emerge and the power of the old middlemen diminishes until they are driven out of business (in their current form: they usually become just another copycat, vis. Barnes & Noble) and the market is governed by the new middlemen. Over time, seeking to maximize profits by reducing inefficiency, these new middlemen will be reduced to a few big players....
Of course: i could be full of shit. "Professional" musicians have existed for thousands of years, whereas the recording industry hasn't. Then again, how many troubadours in the middle ages lived in castles? Only the ones who worked for the king.
[1]"No one in this world
-- H.L. Mencken
Re:Its still piracy (Score:3, Insightful)
That being said, there was a bunch of complex mathematical modeling. Did anyone follow it enough to say whether they figured out how to perform an experiment without a control?
Here's why you're insane (Score:2, Insightful)
After all, this automatically proves everything.
They should be trying to increase downloads like radio stations try to increase listeners.
Yes, because after all, all those millions of Kazaa downloaders are merely "sampling" all those albums. They should be INCREASING piracy, which will magically increase sales!
Record labels should distribute approved MP3 tracks, then offer them as singles on CD, just like the radio stations.
You mean like THEY DO ON ITUNES AND OTHER ONLINE MUSIC STORES?
They should closely scrutinize the downloading habits, then create an album based on the popularity of certain tracks.
How stupid. The users can just download what they want from iTunes and burn their own mix CDs.
They don't see this as a tool, only as a threat. They're idiots.
No, it is a threat. This is the bizarre logic of the Slashdotter. Somehow, there is no connection when millions of people grab something for free and don't pay for it in the stores. Somehow, they think there's not going to be a drop in sales as a result. Somehow, they think sales are magically going to occur when people are sticking everything online to download.
But, yeah, CmdrTaco and the rest of Slashdot tells me they're idiots, and the RIAA is evil! The true distraction of the issue. After all, the RIAA is wrong for legally pursuing people illegally distributing their copyrighted product! Even though this is EXACTLY what Slashdot was saying they should do when they were suing Napster!
TV Production should do this too. If Viacom released official BitTorrents of Enterprise, complete with banner ads at the bottom of the screen, I'd download them. The banner ads would make me more likely to delete it when I'm done watching it, which is what they'd want, right.
Yes, because posters on Slashdot should be dictating to everyone how they distribute their property.
Then they can still sell me the DVD.
People will just rip the DVD and put it online and download that. Seriously, you think millions of eMule/Kazaa users are going to "sample" the DVD and then go out and buy it when they've just downloaded the DivX?
That'll probably never happen, though.
That's because it's ridiculous. Thanks for playing.
Slashdotters have yet to legally or morally justify pirating an artist's music. An artist who willingly signed their contract, who willingly went into the studio, who spent months recording and mixing and performing and having cover art done in order to have a CD in the stores--only for college kids to pirate the fuck out of it.
Minority Slashdotters, i.e., those who think their niche opinions magically represent the majority, are honestly going to go around and justify it as "sampling" and better yet, "free advertising," even though you don't have the right to decide for anybody how they distribute their works. You don't have the right to just obtain their product without paying for it simply because it's there. And your opinion that it's "sampling" is completely hilarious, and everybody but Slashdot laughs at it because those millions of p2p users are not "sampling" everything. I could list about 20 websites that collect e2dk links. The biggest, Sharereactor.com, was recently shut down by Swiss authorities. People like you, as usual, are bitching about it because it got rid of your convenient piracy portal.
All this stems from an attempt to remove the aura of criminality that permeates what you do. Sorry, you can't remove the guilt, because you are...guilty. The RIAA is not the bad guy here for--*GASP*--protecting their intellectual property by suing individual downloaders, just like Slashdotters said they should two years ago.
Re:I expect... (Score:2, Insightful)
I could have sworn the biggest issue is that artists are getting ripped off. Why does, in EVERY SINGLE ARTICLE on this issue, Slashdot completely ignores the artist? It's always the RIAA. You think the artists want you to be taking their music without paying for it? You think those millions of p2p users are "sampling" those RAR files of albums and promos and cover art?
Looks what's happening to the PC games industry--it's dying. Sales are dying. People are going to consoles because it's safer, it's harder to pirate, and easier to control. Everyone is going to pirate the shit out of Doom 3, and it's going to have an effect--nobody's "sampling" Doom 3. It's the same with music albums, which people grab in archives now and not individual mp3s.
They're losing their power over distribution, very rapidly.
Yes, it's call violating copyright. Slashdotters and pirates don't have the right to dictated to companies how they distribute their works. This is such a given I can't believe it escapes everybody.
Even if people are still buying CDs, what does the future hold when traditional music companies are replaced by alternative means of music distribution?
The future holds online music labels. Not p2p networks where nobody gets paid for anything. Please explain how Kazaa and eMule are going to get artists and labels paid. The only one you can offer is "free advertising," which, barring the fact that distributing their copyrighted material is illegal anyway, is also a dubious argument with no basis other than "well this one time I found a couple of mp3s and went out and bought the CD because I was on dialup and didn't want to finish the rest."
Next.
They traditional record label and its goons aren't needed anymore. They're becoming extinct.
Why are they "goons?" Because they go after people illegally distributing their copyrighted materials?
Let's say you spent three years writing, directing, and editing a movie. You finally get it to theaters, only to come online and see that it's all over the p2p networks. Are you going to smile and kick back, thinking, "man, what free advertising!" or are you going to freak out when you realize that you just spent three years creating a popular e2dk link?
Disregard (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I expect... (Score:3, Insightful)
Sadly, yes. There is diffrence between how enjoyable a song is, and it's artistic merit. There are those that say good when they mean enjoyable, and there are those they say good when they mean artisticlly well done.
Re:Serious question for Slashdotters (Score:4, Insightful)
Then consider the case of DVD's, as you mentioned. For slightly more than that overpriced CD, I can get not only a full length movie, but usually a whole other disc filled with behind the scenes info, out-takes, alternate endings, directors commentary, etc. It's not just about wanting something without having to pay for it, it's about getting a product at a reasonable price. In any market where people feel gouged, any reasonably priced alternative will flourish, even if that involves the creation of a black or grey market. Of course, getting something free will always be an attractive offer if the perceived consequences are minor.
It's the strong-arm tactics of the RIAA, without the promotion of reasonable alternatives that earns them the label of "goon".
Re:Serious question for Slashdotters (Score:2, Insightful)
The only songs I've downloaded are from iTunes Music store, so I reject the assertion that I don' t respect copyrights.
On the other hand, and the reason this is relevent, I refuse to pay $16 for a single disk music CD, so I've not bought a new release CD in about 4 years. Now, I was never a major CD buyer, but I probably bought 10 - 15 each year.
RIAA's pricing is a major contributor to the sales decline, I'd say. I suspect if one plots sales vs price one would see there's a price point at which sales plummet -- for me $16 was it. Also, once I made the decision to stop buying at that price, I didn't reset to "$15.99 is ok" -- I probably haven't bought a CD over $13 since then. A hysteresis effect, I suspect.
Re:Serious question for Slashdotters (Score:3, Insightful)
See? That has absolutely nothing to do with anything. If you don't like CDs, use iTunes! Shop online! There are alternatives to ripping artists off because you don't want to go the store and pay for it.
Then consider the case of DVD's, as you mentioned.
DVDs? Did you know the full DVD-R rip of Return of the King is already online? And Matrix Revolutions? DVDs are freely pirated too.
It's the strong-arm tactics of the RIAA, without the promotion of reasonable alternatives that earns them the label of "goon".
Apparently, strong-arm tactics mean suing people breaking the law by distributing your product without your permission. Remind me next time Slashdot tries to rally the troops against the next GPL violation.
Promotion of reasonable alternatives? Yet again, Slashdotters ignore online music stores.
How can one reasonably expect people to follow the GPL while simultaneously arguing that the RIAA is wrong for stopping illegal piracy? Face it--piracy is wrong. It's ripping off artists because you think you have a beef with the "goons" of the RIAA. Once again, you completely ignore the artists who aren't getting paid because you're not buying their albums. How long do you think their record label is going to keep them signed if they don't make any sales?
Re:Serious question for Slashdotters (Score:3, Insightful)
Not for me there isn't. Not living in the US means I can't use itunes. So...now?
Re:Serious question for Slashdotters (Score:3, Insightful)
Just a question-- why do you think that Slashdot is some sort of hivemind with a single thought process? Slashdot is a large number of people (several hundred thousand if user ID numbers are to be believed). These people cross the spectrum. Some are against any copyright at all. Some think copyright is a perfect and should be expanded in power. Some hold more moderate positions. Some even hold more nuianced positions that appear contradictory on the surface. This diverse population posts the comments you read and submit the articles that the editor's post. End result: a huge pile of amazingly inconsistent content with little to no pattern to the belief system. All nice and clear?
Of course, I suspect you're just looking for an opportunity to troll. The situation isn't new, and it's been explained. Repeatedly. Furthermore, the post you replied to doesn't make any claims about the GPL or copyright!
Re:Serious question for Slashdotters (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Serious answer (Score:3, Insightful)
A majority mindset? No. A collection of popular beliefs held by vary varying people? Yes. Slashdot is a large group. Contrary to popular opinion there is quite a bit of variance of opinion here. If one were to take the highly rated posts and and headlines as a whole, one must come to the conclusion that Slashdot both loves and hates both Gnome and KDE. The "majority mindset" of Slashdot, such that it exists is amazingly conflicted. I'm glad for it, it keeps the place more interesting.
As for the articles, well, the editors post what they get and what their audience wants. Their audiance submits and wants this strange mix of things, so they post it.
Fascism? [reference.com] "A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism." Heck, even the most appropriate definition, "Oppressive, dictatorial control," suggests a dictatorship that doesn't exist. I think the worst you can realistically charge is mob-rule and group-think, dangerous possibilities of democracy.
An equally valid possibility is that the moderators genuinely believed your post wasn't worth their time for any of a wide variety of reasons. Regretably, neither one of us can really support either theory. We don't have the data.
followed a bit later with...
You're not talking about some small subset of Slashdot. You repeatedly refer to Slashdot as a singular entity. As a member of that entity (as, indeed, are you), I felt it appropriate to refute what I see as incorrect views of Slashdot.
Okay, accepting that there are people who might hold both ideas in their head at the same time, just a few possibilities how one can do it:
"I should be free to redistribute any content I want, whenever I want." or it's cousin "All content should be free." Well, no problems here. The whole point of the GPL is to ensure that content can be redistributed. Someone violating the GPL is attempting to stop the redistribution of content. The two ideas certainly don't conflict.
"I'm against copyright on every level." This is seemingly at odds with the GPL. However, the GPL represents a compromise. Copyright exists today. If you release software for absolutely free into the public domain, someone else can take it and turn it into a proprietary, copyright protected program. So by using the GPL you ensure that at least some things remain (basically) free in a society in which copyright exists while you work to eliminate copyright.
Ultimately, the GPL is about giving people the right to share your work. Is it so surprising that someone who feels that their work should be shared (and remain free to be shared) should want the same thing of others?
Boycott RIAA affiliated bands (Score:4, Insightful)
By using your purchasing power, you decide the fate of these almost-Nazi-like corporations. Send them the message where it hurts them the most, The Bottom Line. By denying the RIAA your hard earned dollars, their shareholders suffer. And while they'll claim p2p responsible for further reductions in sales (as if the economy, CD prices, the thousands of stupid lawsuits that contribute to the price of a CD aren't enough), the truth will be shown that the above study, and other studies that have shown the RIAA incorrect, are in fact true, and the RIAA will be forced not only to rethink their PR strategy, but their ailing dinosaur of a business model.
The number of independant bands/labels has increased a hell of a lot, and of course the quality of the music is superior simply because there isn't the corporate pressure to compromise musical integrity just to satisfy a shareholder. I discovered a progressive rock stream, progrock.com [progrock.com], via an article here on SlashDot regarding the current release of IceCast [icecast.org]. This stream has been the main source of bands whose CDs I now purchase.
I haven't purchased an RIAA affiliated CD in probably over 5 years because they haven't released anything worth buying, especially at US$20 a CD. During that time I've been purchasing independant CDs from non-RIAA affiliated labels, and I do so gladly knowing the artist receives more of the money, and the quality of music is far superior. The cost of these CDs is typically US$5-US$7 (not including S&H) cheaper than RIAA affiliated labels CDs too.
As an independant artist, I offer my own original music in mp3 format, freely downloadable, and distributable, see the link in the sig below.
Re:Serious question for Slashdotters (Score:5, Insightful)
If you can PURCHASE the media (song, movie, dvd) somwhere, anywhere... online store, for-fee download, brick and mortar store - if you can buy it somewhere, then you should really question why you are downloading it "illegally". It's pretty much as simple as that.
You may have to search the internet for the label; you may have to purchase from the label directly - if that's the case, do it. If you think it's too expensive, if you can't afford to buy it, then don't. But that's no excuse to download it. Bascially, just don't download anything that is available for purchase somewhere. It's unethical. Unless, of course, it's one of those rare books or works of art that are available under a creative commons license or some other license that allows you to do that. But those are exceptions, not the rule.
And this is sort of a catch-22, because prior to the "PC", young folks have often spent money on media (music, magazines, movies) that they couldn't really afford; it would be fair to say that the entertainment industry thrives on money collected from millions of people that really couldn't afford to give that money in the first place but were sort of suckered into it by the hype and the fanatacism that surrounds celebrity.
So the "PC", a.k.a Redmond, has usurped the scam; replacing it with another one.
But seriously, if you can buy it somewhere, don't download it. If you can't afford it, just be tough and don't download it either. Maybe if enough people don't buy because they can't afford, maybe the industry will recognize that and do something about it. Doubtful, but in any case, it's your money, and you shouldn't allow people to sucker you into spending it on something you can't afford. But that's not an excuse to try to circumvent the system, either.