Study shows downloading helps cd sales
tin...@sound.com
tiny minorty in drop in cd sales. In fact research shows that cd
downloading increases are followed by greater sales for the same cd. It
is not unlike radio playtime, the more it is heard, either by download or
on the radio, the more likely for a purchase. The music biz needs to wake
up and smell the shrink wrap on recordable cdr's. It is a loss in quality
of music stupid and manipulation of talent in an attempt to create the
next "big" act that is at fault.
Bob Cain
The reasoning is flawed. The same pressures which increase
downloading will increase purchase. This doesn't begin to
isolate or disprove the effect that downloading has on sales.
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."
A. Einstein
ryanm
news:c4f0k...@enews1.newsguy.com...
>
> The reasoning is flawed. The same pressures which increase
> downloading will increase purchase. This doesn't begin to
> isolate or disprove the effect that downloading has on sales.
>
individual album sales, rather than combined numbers, and actually showed
that albums which were released in previous years' sales went up directly
proportionally to the amount of times they were downloaded. For a specific
case, albums that sold more than 600k copies were shown to not only *not*
drop as downloading increased, but go *up* by approximately one sale per 150
downloads. It was only the least popular music that seemed to suffer because
of downloading, which I would assume is because people tried it and didn't
like it enough to buy it.
It is not precisely the same pressures that cause increases in both
behaviors, although there is significant overlap. P2P software acts as an
aggregator, allowing people to find music according to genre and other
grouping methods, which actually causes it's own pressure on cd sales.
People are using P2P software to shop for the music they will buy next.
ryanm
Bob Cain
> "Bob Cain" <arc...@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
> news:c4f0k...@enews1.newsguy.com...
>
>>The reasoning is flawed. The same pressures which increase
>>downloading will increase purchase. This doesn't begin to
>>isolate or disprove the effect that downloading has on sales.
>>
>
> You're just not looking deeply enough. The study was conducted based on
> individual album sales, rather than combined numbers, and actually showed
> that albums which were released in previous years' sales went up directly
> proportionally to the amount of times they were downloaded. For a specific
> case, albums that sold more than 600k copies were shown to not only *not*
> drop as downloading increased, but go *up* by approximately one sale per 150
> downloads. It was only the least popular music that seemed to suffer because
> of downloading, which I would assume is because people tried it and didn't
> like it enough to buy it.
That still falls within what I said. There is no reason to
see causality in this coincidence. They can both have the
same cause. Popularity.
Ricky W. Hunt
news:106mke1...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> You're just not looking deeply enough. The study was conducted based
on
> individual album sales, rather than combined numbers, and actually showed
> that albums which were released in previous years' sales went up directly
> proportionally to the amount of times they were downloaded.
Not that this makes any difference but before I ran Kazaa I had about 10
CD's. Now I have over 300 all purchased at retail. Since I stopped using
Kazaa (about a year ago) I think I've bought about 3 CD's.
Mikey
> news:c4f0k...@enews1.newsguy.com...
> >
> > The reasoning is flawed. The same pressures which increase
> > downloading will increase purchase. This doesn't begin to
> > isolate or disprove the effect that downloading has on sales.
> >
> You're just not looking deeply enough. The study was conducted based on
> individual album sales, rather than combined numbers, and actually showed
> that albums which were released in previous years' sales went up directly
> proportionally to the amount of times they were downloaded. For a specific
> case, albums that sold more than 600k copies were shown to not only *not*
> drop as downloading increased, but go *up* by approximately one sale per 150
> downloads.
Which could also mean 149 sales lost.
>It was only the least popular music that seemed to suffer because
> of downloading, which I would assume is because people tried it and didn't
> like it enough to buy it.
>
A good enough point, which is a quality issue, not a moral or legal
one, but...
> It is not precisely the same pressures that cause increases in both
> behaviors, although there is significant overlap. P2P software acts as an
> aggregator, allowing people to find music according to genre and other
> grouping methods, which actually causes it's own pressure on cd sales.
> People are using P2P software to shop for the music they will buy next.
>
> ryanm
And hopefully iTunes, etc. will be the cure, and forever banish the
lame excuses that people come up with to steal music. If you, or
anyone, take music by downloading it, and use it by listening to it,
without the copyright owner's permission you are STEALING IT
REGARDLESS OF WHETEHER YOU INTENDED TO BUY IT. THEFT IS THEFT AND ONLY
THE ARTIST AND/OR COPYRIGHT HOLDER SHOULD BE ABLE TO DECIDE IF THEIR
WORK CAN BE DOWNLOADED. How many artists decide what 'data' you will
release about yourself? How would you feel if an artist uploaded very
important files about you for the whole world to d/l?
Forgive me if you've answered this before, but do you, Ryan M, record
or create music with the intention of profiting or at least breaking
even? Do you offer any music or music service for sale? Or are you
just an onlooker of this group? I've seen a few of your posts, but
only in regard to d/l'ing.
If you are a music professional (or even money-making amateur), or
have any other music industry experience, I will be more inclined to
weigh your arguments as to how d/l'ing can help the industry.
More importantly, do you have any friends in bands? Isn't an unsigned,
on-their-own band the *most* likely to suffer the greatest from music
theft? Most likely from their 'friends' or 'fans'? Every penny counts,
at that stage of an act's development. Or should only the wealthy be
able to afford the equipment and resources needed to succeed? I've
said this before: The ONLY way to assure that an artist doesn't make
any $ on a song is to promote d/l'ing it for free against their will.
If the artist wants to benefit from d/l'ing, THAT IS THE ARTIST'S
CHOICE, NOT YOURS OR ANYONE ELSE'S.
Mikey
Nova Music Productions
Bob Cain
>
> Not that this makes any difference but before I ran Kazaa I had about 10
> CD's. Now I have over 300 all purchased at retail. Since I stopped using
> Kazaa (about a year ago) I think I've bought about 3 CD's.
>
>
I would really hope that effect is found to be widespread
and counteracts the others that cease buying but I'm skeptical.
ryanm
>
> That still falls within what I said. There is no reason to
> see causality in this coincidence. They can both have the
> same cause. Popularity.
>
both, but since the advent of P2P downloading, some artists' back catalog
purchases have gone up significantly. So have "unknowns" that happen to have
names that start with the same letter as popular bands in the same genre.
And so on. There *is* actually evidence that people are finding music they
never would've heard otherwise on P2P networks, and that they are purchasing
as a result. Personally, I don't know anyone who downloads that doesn't also
have a pretty large CD collection. Most of them download for the immediacy
of it; they want to hear a particular song *right now*, and after listening
to it, they often buy the cd so that they don't have to search for it the
next time they want to hear it. I've used it to look up songs I heard on a
movie soundtrack based on the first line of the chorus, which helped me find
the artist and album name, which allowed me to buy it when I couldn't have
otherwise (have you ever tried to read the publishing info at the end of a
movie on VHS? Illegible between the scan-lines and the blur).
If you look at the studies, there really is no doubt that people are
using it to find new music, not just to get what they hear on the radio, and
that many of them are purchasing after finding it. The thing that makes it
look like a lot more people are downloading than buying is the fact that,
when people can sit at home in their underwear and browse 1000 songs, they
*do*. As opposed to having to get dressed and go to the store, find a disc,
get the high-school kid working the section to put it in a demo player
(assuming they even have one), just to listen to a few songs on a single cd.
So, yeah, they download a *lot* more than they buy, but for the most part it
seems to be a browsing behavior, rather than a collection behavior.
ryanm
ryanm
news:526517d0.0403...@posting.google.com...
>
> Which could also mean 149 sales lost.
>
those people would've bought the cd just because they were curious about one
song on it. Chances are, they would've simply done without. All 150 of them.
Instead, 150 downloaded, one bought, and the other 149 didn't like it so
they deleted it. 1 is better than 0.
> lame excuses that people come up with to steal music. If you, or
> anyone, take music by downloading it, and use it by listening to it,
> without the copyright owner's permission you are STEALING IT
>
No, it's not, and I'm not going to go into that again. Theft involves
tangible property, this is a completely different offense with a completely
different set of laws that cover it.
> Forgive me if you've answered this before, but do you, Ryan M, record
> or create music with the intention of profiting or at least breaking
> even? Do you offer any music or music service for sale? Or are you
> just an onlooker of this group? I've seen a few of your posts, but
> only in regard to d/l'ing.
>
> If you are a music professional (or even money-making amateur), or
> have any other music industry experience, I will be more inclined to
> weigh your arguments as to how d/l'ing can help the industry.
>
No, I don't publish any of my music, if that's what you mean. I do game,
presentation, and short film soundtracks occasionally, but those are works
for hire. Mostly, my music is just for me, or for the occasion when I drag
one out for a crowd at my regular (hobby) gig, which is a cover band. But
what, exactly, does that have to do with facts and carefully considered
studies? I'm not stating my opinion, here, I'm quoting or summarizing
scientific studies, conducted by well-respected companies who do the same
kind of studies on the effects of Mtv or radio airplay on purchasing trends.
Or I'm quoting or summarizing news articles, or other perfectly reasonable
sources. Why would my status as a professional musician have any bearing
whatsoever? Just like the question of whether downloading is theft: it is
not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. The law says it is not
theft, so it is not, it is a copyright violation, and that is all that it is
(unless RIAA lobby money can get that changed as well<g>).
> More importantly, do you have any friends in bands? Isn't an unsigned,
> on-their-own band the *most* likely to suffer the greatest from music
> theft? Most likely from their 'friends' or 'fans'? Every penny counts,
> at that stage of an act's development. Or should only the wealthy be
> able to afford the equipment and resources needed to succeed? I've
> said this before: The ONLY way to assure that an artist doesn't make
> any $ on a song is to promote d/l'ing it for free against their will.
>
Actually, the unsigned bands and the indy acts seem to be, by all
studies and accounts, getting the *most* benefits from P2P downloading. It
gives them instant access to a worldwide market, something that they *never*
would've been able to get under a label unless they were lucky enough to be
one of the (very) few who the labels decide can make a lot of money. It is
only the signed acts on the top labels who are selling hundreds of thousands
of units a year that are seeing *any* decline in sales, and I do mean *any*
decline, which could be attributed to *anything* (the economy, a crap 2nd
album, dixie chicks syndrome, etc), not just downloading. Check out the
other thread I started called "Some Industry News" for some news articles
relating specifically to this subject.
ryanm
Paul Rubin
> > Not that this makes any difference but before I ran Kazaa I had
> > about 10 CD's. Now I have over 300 all purchased at retail. Since
> > I stopped using Kazaa (about a year ago) I think I've bought about 3 CD's.
> >
> I would really hope that effect is found to be widespread and
> counteracts the others that cease buying but I'm skeptical.
Record labels whine all the time about kazaa users listening to CD
tracks without paying for the CD's, but another group of people,
namely radio listeners, does exactly the same thing, without the
labels complaining. The labels even ENCOURAGE radio stations to
broadcast the CD's, sometimes to the extent of dispensing illegal
payola to get their CD's on the air more, to get as many people as
possible to listen without paying. You figure it out.
Arny Krueger
> Bob Cain <arc...@arcanemethods.com> writes:
>>> Not that this makes any difference but before I ran Kazaa I had
>>> about 10 CD's. Now I have over 300 all purchased at retail. Since
>>> I stopped using Kazaa (about a year ago) I think I've bought about
>>> 3 CD's.
>>>
>> I would really hope that effect is found to be widespread and
>> counteracts the others that cease buying but I'm skeptical.
>
> Record labels whine all the time about kazaa users listening to CD
> tracks without paying for the CD's, but another group of people,
> namely radio listeners, does exactly the same thing, without the
> labels complaining.
It's not exactly the same thing. A radio listener usually can't make up his
own play lists. A Kazaa user can.
Ricky W. Hunt
news:CbKdnQncZOB...@comcast.com...
>
> It's not exactly the same thing. A radio listener usually can't make up
his
> own play lists. A Kazaa user can.
>
Exactly. Radio is advertising. You can't "keep" the product. Kazaa would be
the equivalent of a car dealer trying to get you interested in them by
giving you the very car you want to buy. What kind of business could succeed
like that?
Arny Krueger
Agreed, but it's not exactly a black-and-white distinction.
Anybody who wants to can make a recording of a FM station and use a wave
editor to pluck recordings out and save them.
Some people have been doing this for decades. It's always been a relatively
easy possibility, as long as we at least had magnetic tape.
Satellite radio can be "mined" the same way.
The trade-offs relate to sound quality and convenience.
The combination of file-sharing and high speed internet connections made
this sort of thing really scary to many producers.
Too easy, too fast, and the sound quality was too high.
But, it's a qualitative thing. It's not like a car dealer giving away new
cars. It's always been a matter of how nasty the metaphorical free *car*
actually was.
Tom Paterson
>Record labels whine all the time about kazaa users listening to CD
>tracks without paying for the CD's, but another group of people,
>namely radio listeners, does exactly the same thing, without the
>labels complaining. The labels even ENCOURAGE radio stations to
>broadcast the CD's, sometimes to the extent of dispensing illegal
>payola to get their CD's on the air more, to get as many people as
>possible to listen without paying. You >figure it out.
I've read that payola is a CODB.
Doesn't do my appreciation for the money folks in the "biz" to see them siccing
the FBI on kids and suing them besides while they bribe radio stations.
Especially when I read that overall CD sales were actually up a bunch (12%) in
'03.
I remember the Payola crackdown of the early 60's. One of my favorite DJ's, on
WKBW (name sadly lost in foggy memory), said he'd take his in the form of a
swimming pool "because they can't take that back". We've lost a lot.
He had a ceremony:
After lighting the candle, repeat after me: "I will not be a tuning knob
twister, or I will get a K-big blister" (something like that, anyhow).
When do you think the Cult of the CEO is going to decline as a national
pastime?
Back to the peanut gallery. --TP
Druhms
sales tremendously. All of the big labels are freaking out right now. The
plan now is how to tap into it instead of fight it. Whether the musicians know
it or not, it is hurting everyone's chances at ever getting any sort of record
deal from a label with enough money to make a deal worth getting. If your goal
is to make a living doing something other than selling records, then my point
is moot.
JJ
Scott Dorsey
>It is common knowledge among music industry types that downloading is hurting
>sales tremendously. All of the big labels are freaking out right now.
The problem is that the music industry isn't one monolithic block, even though
Sony might everyone to think that it is. Some folks do seem to be really hurt
by downloading, while other sectors of the industry have possibly benefitted
by it (in that obscure and unavailable material has become available, which
would not have been cost-effective for the labels to re-release, and that this
has interested people in other material by the same performers or composers).
>The
>plan now is how to tap into it instead of fight it. Whether the musicians know
>it or not, it is hurting everyone's chances at ever getting any sort of record
>deal from a label with enough money to make a deal worth getting.
In the classical world, those chances are so close to zero (and have been
for thirty years) that it's not too big an issue.
>If your goal
>is to make a living doing something other than selling records, then my point
>is moot.
Well, it would sure be nice if performers could make a living actually going
out on the road and performing. But THAT has turned into a rotten market
too, with a few groups making huge money and the middle-range dropped totally
out. I hear people blaming this on everything from bars banning smoking to
the increase in drinking age to the lack of music appreciation classes in
schools.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Paul Rubin
> It's not exactly the same thing. A radio listener usually can't make up his
> own play lists. A Kazaa user can.
A radio listener with a tape deck can do the same thing.
hank alrich
> Record labels whine all the time about kazaa users listening to CD
> tracks without paying for the CD's, but another group of people,
> namely radio listeners, does exactly the same thing, without the
> labels complaining. The labels even ENCOURAGE radio stations to
> broadcast the CD's, sometimes to the extent of dispensing illegal
> payola to get their CD's on the air more, to get as many people as
> possible to listen without paying. You figure it out.
Okay, I'll figure that out, from the artist/composer/publisher
viewpoint: performance rayalties - ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, etc. How much
performance royalty money can be expected from P2P?
--
ha
Paul Rubin
> > It's not exactly the same thing. A radio listener usually can't
> > make up his own play lists. A Kazaa user can.
> >
> Exactly. Radio is advertising. You can't "keep" the product.
That's silly, as anyone with a tape deck can tell you. When I was in
college, whenever a hot new album came out, the local radio stations
would buy copies and play tracks, and also announce for several days
that at a certain time (say 8pm on Thursday) they were going to play
the entire album start to finish commercial-free. No prizes for
figuring out why listeners would care about such precise scheduling.
It'rs true that music taped from FM broadcasts back then didn't sound
as good as CD's do now, but MP3's don't sound so great either.
You might like reading Prof. Lessig's new book "Free Culture",
available in bookstores or also downloadable from his web site
(http://free-culture.org) in pdf form (Creative Commons license).
It's a good description of how copyright developed and how its reach
has expanded drastically in the past few decades. I have it in HTML
form on my own site:
http://www.nightsong.com/phr/free-culture
(warning, the html file is around 700k). Prof. Lessig seems to think
that the free downloads help sales of the printed version, and there
are obvious analogies with mp3's.
Sean Conolly
news:20040401091609...@mb-m06.aol.com...
> Doesn't do my appreciation for the money folks in the "biz" to see them
siccing
> the FBI on kids and suing them besides while they bribe radio stations.
> Especially when I read that overall CD sales were actually up a bunch
(12%) in
> '03.
I think what the music business leaders don't want to realize is that
they're simply losing money through bad business practices, just like many
other industries have. Any company that thinks suing the customer is the way
to return to profitability is simply deluding themselves.
Sean
Paul Rubin
> > Record labels whine all the time about kazaa users listening to CD
> > tracks without paying for the CD's, but another group of people,
> > namely radio listeners, does exactly the same thing, without the
> > labels complaining. The labels even ENCOURAGE radio stations to
> > broadcast the CD's, sometimes to the extent of dispensing illegal
> > payola to get their CD's on the air more, to get as many people as
> > possible to listen without paying. You figure it out.
>
> Okay, I'll figure that out, from the artist/composer/publisher
> viewpoint: performance rayalties - ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, etc.
At least when payola is involved time, those royalties are a lot lower
than the payola being paid out to get those CD's on the air. And yet
the payola goes out anyway, so somebody must think radio is causing
more CD's to be sold.
> How much performance royalty money can be expected from P2P?
From what I gather, there's no performance royalty from radio
broadcast either, just composer/songwriter royalties. If you record a
(licensed) cover of someone else's song and the radio station plays
your CD, the songwriter gets a royalty from the broadcast, but you
don't get anything. I could be mistaken about that though.
hank alrich
> "Arny Krueger" writes:
> > It's not exactly the same thing. A radio listener usually can't make up his
> > own play lists. A Kazaa user can.
> A radio listener with a tape deck can do the same thing.
Do we have to rehash how long it takes to do that, and then how long it
would take to make a cassette for every person in the online world just
in case they wanted it, too? Versus Kazaaing? Yeah, people could copy
stuff off of the radio, in realtime, and the dupe it in realtime or
halftime, but there is no comparison there with the minimal time and
materials required for P2P distribution.
--
ha
hank alrich
> From what I gather, there's no performance royalty from radio
> broadcast either, just composer/songwriter royalties.
I think you might want to get with the _definition_ of "performance
royalties", Paul. It isn't what you're thinking it is; ASCAP et al are
_performance royalty collection organizations_. Cogent discussion of
these issues requires working knowledge of the terminology.
If an artist is also the composer, then the artist/cpmposer and
publisher will receive payment.
--
ha
Paul Rubin
> Do we have to rehash how long it takes to do that, and then how long it
> would take to make a cassette for every person in the online world just
> in case they wanted it, too? Versus Kazaaing? Yeah, people could copy
> stuff off of the radio, in realtime, and the dupe it in realtime or
> halftime, but there is no comparison there with the minimal time and
> materials required for P2P distribution.
P2P is an enormous pain in the neck. I've never used it. I confess
to having made a few real time cassette dubs off the air or from CD's
or LP's here and there, but I never saw P2P as being worth the hassle.
I know some people who use it and it just sounds like a big mess.
Obviously a lot of other people thought it was worth the
inconvenience. Napster had something like 60 million users. However,
that just means they were willing to go to more trouble than I was.
Anyway, if that much of the public think something is a good thing,
maybe the public policy that criminalizes it needs to be re-examined.
There are some proposals floating around for mechanical royalty
schemes for internet downloads similar to broadcast royalties, but the
industry seems opposed to anything that gets in the way of their
choosing what people are allowed to listen to.
Paul Rubin
> I think you might want to get with the _definition_ of "performance
> royalties", Paul. It isn't what you're thinking it is; ASCAP et al are
> _performance royalty collection organizations_. Cogent discussion of
> these issues requires working knowledge of the terminology.
>
> If an artist is also the composer, then the artist/cpmposer and
> publisher will receive payment.
OK. The fact is though, performers record cover songs and try to get
them broadcast, even though don't collect any royalties that way.
Anyway, if that's your sole gripe, then having a royalty system for
internet distribution similar to broadcast royalties would seem to
take care of the problem, however the industry seems opposed to that,
based on a fundamentally wedged attitude.
Scott Dorsey
>> > It's not exactly the same thing. A radio listener usually can't
>> > make up his own play lists. A Kazaa user can.
>> >
>> Exactly. Radio is advertising. You can't "keep" the product.
>
>That's silly, as anyone with a tape deck can tell you. When I was in
>college, whenever a hot new album came out, the local radio stations
>would buy copies and play tracks, and also announce for several days
>that at a certain time (say 8pm on Thursday) they were going to play
>the entire album start to finish commercial-free. No prizes for
>figuring out why listeners would care about such precise scheduling.
You'll notice that stations haven't done this for years. The whole notion
of an album has changed from the standpoint of radio, too.
>It'rs true that music taped from FM broadcasts back then didn't sound
>as good as CD's do now, but MP3's don't sound so great either.
Actually, I used to get calls at the station from folks who said that
the air processing made them sound better. And we used a little compression,
but nothing like you see on the air today.
>You might like reading Prof. Lessig's new book "Free Culture",
>available in bookstores or also downloadable from his web site
>(http://free-culture.org) in pdf form (Creative Commons license).
>It's a good description of how copyright developed and how its reach
>has expanded drastically in the past few decades. I have it in HTML
>form on my own site:
>
> http://www.nightsong.com/phr/free-culture
>
>(warning, the html file is around 700k). Prof. Lessig seems to think
>that the free downloads help sales of the printed version, and there
>are obvious analogies with mp3's.
Depends. Part of the thing is that the book and/or the physical album
has more of a sense of physical reality, and comes with additional value
(ie. nifty liner notes and photos, and in the case of books the ability
to read them on the toilet without printing a huge file out). If that
value is perceived as being greater than the cost of the product, then yes,
downloaders will be the first people to go out and buy it. If not, they
will be far less likely to buy it than if they hadn't downloaded it.
james
Paul Rubin <http://phr...@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:
>A radio listener with a tape deck can do the same thing.
Digital media changed everything. The people with their Nakamichis
and their quiet reception were the same people who spent the big bucks
on records, videotapes, cd's.
Best case of a 2nd generation tape from the radio was nothing to worry
about. Worst case of a Nth generation digital format is a whole nother
ballgame.
But I don't think the media companies are anywhere near as upset about
file sharing as they make themselves out to be. The whole think is a
smokescreen for the real nefarious plans.
The media companies do not like the idea that people might return to
independently making their own music. Pro audio snobs will disagree
(and I concur with their views), but the reality is that you can do a
pretty damned good job of audio production with pretty damned small
resources. And if your product has any appeal, you have quite the
unlimited distribution channel, and there's no overhead for any of it.
Where the last generations of garage bands had to settle for a 4-track
portastudio and however many cassettes they could make labels for at
Kinkos, today's garage bands can take for granted 24 bit multitrack,
signal paths and distribution entirely in the digital domain, and a
distribution channel that's potentially better than anything the
industry has ever bought and paid for, and it's all vanishingly near
"free." Yes, it takes talent, but that's a constant whether you have
a hundred bucks to make your demo or 20 million to make your reunion
record.
Consumer video is nowhere near caught up with consumer audio. But the
folks peddling their commercial, 2-channel audio-only wares are
understandably terrified at the idea that an individual can churn out
and distribute material that the average consumer cannot discern from
their expensive product. I'm not speaking to audiophiles or engineers
here, I *know* where the hype collides with the reality. But
audiophiles and engineers aren't the audience, and they aren't the
consumer.
So we end up with media companies making sure that it's always difficult
and expensive for an amateur to produce his own creations. They'd
really like to go back to cassette tape and vinyl, but they can't.
So, out of ideas, they turn to the last resort: influence government to
make it illegal to threaten the business model.
james
Tom Paterson <dusto...@aol.comnospam> wrote:
>When do you think the Cult of the CEO is going to decline as a national
>pastime?
When there's enough of them in prison to do a reality show that
demonstrates how prisons really don't have golf courses and full service
dining rooms.
Bob Cain
>
>>A radio listener with a tape deck can do the same thing.
>
>
> Do we have to rehash how long it takes to do that, and then how long it
> would take to make a cassette for every person in the online world just
> in case they wanted it, too? Versus Kazaaing? Yeah, people could copy
> stuff off of the radio, in realtime, and the dupe it in realtime or
> halftime, but there is no comparison there with the minimal time and
> materials required for P2P distribution.
>
That is so fucking obvious I just wish it didn't need
constant repeating. But it sure seems to. Heavy sigh.
james
hank alrich <walk...@thegrid.net> wrote:
>How much performance royalty money can be expected from P2P?
They had a chance to give, say, shoutcast servers the opportunity to
acquire ascap licenses just like your diner has on the jukebox, but they
asked for unreasonable terms, game over.
But really, the goal isn't to get money out of P2P. The goal is to
squash it. See, for an independent artist like a singer/songwriter,
selling the one recording isn't the goal. The *exposure* is worth *far*
more. And there's never been a medium that can provide the kind of
exposure that the p2p networks gives naturally. If your stuff is good,
it'll get out there because of it's merits, not because of the picture
on the jewel case, not because of it's position on an endcap in the
department store, and not because some paid salesman suggested that you
buy it. People will listen to your stuff because they like it. If
you're lucky, they will remember your name, and they will do the legwork
of distributing your material for you. Historically that's been the
single biggest cost for a struggling band. What a miracle that there's
now a way to do that part without work! What a tragedy that the
establishment is trying desperately to take that opportunity away from
you! But it's for the *children*, you see.
The last vinyl thing I was involved in, more of the budget was to pay
the *photographer* and costs associated with moving the boxes of discs
where they needed to be, than everything else combined! If we'd had P2P
in those days, damn, if *only*.
I wish more people could see what's really going on with the attack
against "p2p". I am very offended when I get the impression that anyone
who ever uses p2p for anything is automatically labeled "pirate" and
"thief". I feel that infringes upon my rights as an artist, because
you're painting my own humble works with that brush, and you're trying
to take away the one workable means of distribution that's ever been
available, and I have a big problem with that.
Mike
> Contrary to popular urban myths, downloading doesn't account but for a
> tiny minorty in drop in cd sales. In fact research shows that cd
> downloading increases are followed by greater sales for the same cd. It
> is not unlike radio playtime, the more it is heard, either by download or
> on the radio, the more likely for a purchase. The music biz needs to wake
> up and smell the shrink wrap on recordable cdr's. It is a loss in quality
> of music stupid and manipulation of talent in an attempt to create the
> next "big" act that is at fault.
>
> http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994831
CD sales are not down. CD sales tracked by soundscan are down.
Mike Rivers
In article <7xk70z8...@ruckus.brouhaha.com> //phr...@NOSPAM.invalid writes:
> > A radio listener usually can't make up his
> > own play lists. A Kazaa user can.
>
> A radio listener with a tape deck can do the same thing.
Yeah, but he has to do more work than drag-and-drop, and most of
today's music collectors won't put up with real time recording,
fast-wind-and-search, the pause button, and most of all, not having a
source list generated automatically.
--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mri...@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Mikey
> > lame excuses that people come up with to steal music. If you, or
> > anyone, take music by downloading it, and use it by listening to it,
> > without the copyright owner's permission you are STEALING IT
> >
> No, it's not, and I'm not going to go into that again.
Yes it is, and you won't go into it because you are both morally and
legally wrong.
> Theft involves
> tangible property, this is a completely different offense with a completely
> different set of laws that cover it.
If you think that's true, go to a doctor, dentist, or barber shop, use
their services and walk out without paying. See what happens. It's
called theft of services.
snip...
> >
> Actually, the unsigned bands and the indy acts seem to be, by all
> studies and accounts, getting the *most* benefits from P2P downloading. It
> gives them instant access to a worldwide market,
of people who will d/l their stuff w/o paying, against their will. The
are other options.
> something that they *never*
> would've been able to get under a label unless they were lucky enough to be
> one of the (very) few who the labels decide can make a lot of money. It is
> only the signed acts on the top labels who are selling hundreds of thousands
> of units a year that are seeing *any* decline in sales, and I do mean *any*
> decline, which could be attributed to *anything* (the economy, a crap 2nd
> album, dixie chicks syndrome, etc), not just downloading. Check out the
> other thread I started called "Some Industry News" for some news articles
> relating specifically to this subject.
I realize the sales decline is/was not only a d/l problem. But
someone's desire to do an end-run around the labels does NOT require
abandoning moral, fair-to-the-artists-wishes approaches to the
situation.
I notice you haven't replied to the part of my last post saying that
the decision to offer for download should be the artist's, not yours
or some freeloader's. Or do you feel that the artist should not have
that right?
Mikey
Nova Music Productions
"my turn in the barrel..."
Ricky W. Hunt
news:7xk70z8...@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
I think he means in radio you can only tape what they play. Meaning if they
don't play the songs you want your screwed. Whereas with Kazaa everything is
available to you.
EggHd
Care to explain?
---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"
EggHd
purchases have gone up significantly. >>
Who?
hank alrich
> P2P is an enormous pain in the neck. I've never used it.
Me either.
> I confess
> to having made a few real time cassette dubs off the air or from CD's
> or LP's here and there, but I never saw P2P as being worth the hassle.
> I know some people who use it and it just sounds like a big mess.
Probably, and I'm not all that interested in opening up any part of my
computer to a world of folks passing around music that isn't their own,
because that sounds like it could turn into unprotected sex easily. I'd
rather swap music in person with other poeple who are manipulating
musical instruments.
> Obviously a lot of other people thought it was worth the
> inconvenience. Napster had something like 60 million users. However,
> that just means they were willing to go to more trouble than I was.
> Anyway, if that much of the public think something is a good thing,
> maybe the public policy that criminalizes it needs to be re-examined.
> There are some proposals floating around for mechanical royalty
> schemes for internet downloads similar to broadcast royalties, but the
> industry seems opposed to anything that gets in the way of their
> choosing what people are allowed to listen to.
Okay, mechanical royalties and performance royalties (what you are
calling "broadcast royalties") are two different things. The latter
would apply appropriately to streaming broadcasts and the former to
downloads.
--
ha
hank alrich
> (hank alrich) writes:
> > I think you might want to get with the _definition_ of "performance
> > royalties", Paul. It isn't what you're thinking it is; ASCAP et al are
> > _performance royalty collection organizations_. Cogent discussion of
> > these issues requires working knowledge of the terminology.
> > If an artist is also the composer, then the artist/cpmposer and
> > publisher will receive payment.
> OK. The fact is though, performers record cover songs and try to get
> them broadcast, even though don't collect any royalties that way.
Right, because in theory that drives both product sales and concert
ticket sales.
> Anyway, if that's your sole gripe, then having a royalty system for
> internet distribution similar to broadcast royalties would seem to
> take care of the problem, however the industry seems opposed to that,
> based on a fundamentally wedged attitude.
I wasn't griping at all, just pointing out who earns from what when a
tune is boradcast ovr the radio.
--
ha
hank alrich
> hank alrich wrote:
> >How much performance royalty money can be expected from P2P?
> They had a chance to give, say, shoutcast servers the opportunity to
> acquire ascap licenses just like your diner has on the jukebox, but they
> asked for unreasonable terms, game over.
I'm not up on that but it sounds interesting. What were the terms? Were
they different than for a traditional radio station broadcast in amount
of money per play?
--
ha
Paul Rubin
>
> I think he means in radio you can only tape what they play. Meaning if they
> don't play the songs you want your screwed. Whereas with Kazaa everything is
> available to you.
True and valid. However, at least back in the day, you could call a
radio station and ask them to play a particular song, and they would
play it.
Paul Rubin
> << but since the advent of P2P downloading, some artists' back catalog
> purchases have gone up significantly. >>
>
> Who?
Here's one: http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html
EggHd
It doesn't really talk about what the sales were of At 17 and now as far as I
can tell.
Paul Rubin
> > They had a chance to give, say, shoutcast servers the opportunity to
> > acquire ascap licenses just like your diner has on the jukebox, but they
> > asked for unreasonable terms, game over.
>
> I'm not up on that but it sounds interesting. What were the terms? Were
> they different than for a traditional radio station broadcast in amount
> of money per play?
From Prof. Lawrence Lessig's book "Free Culture" (http://free-culture.org):
This financial burden is not slight. As Harvard law professor
William Fisher estimates, if an Internet radio station distributed
ad-free popular music to (on average) ten thousand listeners,
twenty-four hours a day, the total artist fees that radio station
would owe would be over $1 million a year.14 A regular radio
station broadcasting the same content would pay no equivalent fee.
...
Why? What justifies this difference? Was there any study of the
economic consequences from Internet radio that would justify these
differences? Was the motive to protect artists against piracy?
In a rare bit of candor, one RIAA expert admitted what seemed
obvious to everyone at the time. As Alex Alben, vice president for
Public Policy at Real Networks, told me,
The RIAA, which was representing the record labels, presented some
testimony about what they thought a willing buyer would pay to a
willing seller, and it was much higher. It was ten times higher
than what radio stations pay to perform the same songs for the same
period of time. And so the attorneys representing the webcasters
asked the RIAA, . . . "How do you come up with a rate that's so
much higher? Why is it worth more than radio? Because here we have
hundreds of thousands of webcasters who want to pay, and that
should establish the market rate, and if you set the rate so high,
you're going to drive the small webcasters out of business. . . ."
And the RIAA experts said, "Well, we don't really model this as an
industry with thousands of webcasters, *we think it should be an
industry with, you know, five or seven big players who can pay a
high rate and it's a stable, predictable market.*" (Emphasis added.)
Translation: The aim is to use the law to eliminate competition, so
that this platform of potentially immense competition, which would
cause the diversity and range of content available to explode,
would not cause pain to the dinosaurs of old. There is no one, on
either the right or the left, who should endorse this use of the
law. And yet there is practically no one, on either the right or
the left, who is doing anything effective to prevent it.
-----
14. This example was derived from fees set by the original
Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel (CARP) proceedings, and is
drawn from an example offered by Professor William
Fisher. Conference Proceedings, iLaw (Stanford), 3 July 2003, on
file with author. Professors Fisher and Zittrain submitted
testimony in the CARP proceeding that was ultimately rejected. See
Jonathan Zittrain, Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings
and Ephemeral Recordings, Docket No. 2000-9, CARP DTRA 1 and 2,
available at link #45.
For an excellent analysis making a similar point, see Randal
C. Copyright as Entry Policy: The Case of Digital Antitrust
Bulletin (Summer/Fall 2002): This was not confusion, these are just
old-fashioned entry barriers. Analog radio stations are protected
from digital entrants, reducing entry in radio and diversity. Yes,
this is done in the name of getting royalties to copyright holders,
but, absent the play of powerful interests, that could have been
done in a media-neutral way. 461: Distribution, Picker,
Henry Salvia
Downloading is a little different than listening to the radio.
Imagine a radio where every station is an individual song.
And every time you tune in that station, they start playing that song.
Makes copying that song a lot easier...
The Internet is a distribution system, not a broadcast system.
This is why record labels are resorting to tactics like suing 12 year
olds.
Its a little ironic that after so many years of crying wolf over
cassettes
and then CDs, something came along that could really wipe them out and
they
didn't even notice until Napster demonstrated what people like Todd
Rundgren
had been trying to tell them for years.
henry salvia
Ricky W. Hunt
>
> However, at least back in the day, you could call a
> radio station and ask them to play a particular song, and they would
> play it.
You're showing your age! LOL You haven't been able to that for years. And
even before that (at least where I live) they just took requests out of
courtesy (but never actually played what you requested). Since most people
were probably requesting stuff that was in rotation on the playlist already
they were never the wiser. Anybody remember dedications? When's the last
time you actually heard that done? (Not counting Casey Kasem's thing).
Ricky W. Hunt
news:406CBC53...@cadence.com...
> Its a little ironic that after so many years of crying wolf over
> cassettes
> and then CDs, something came along that could really wipe them out and
> they
> didn't even notice until Napster demonstrated what people like Todd
> Rundgren
> had been trying to tell them for years.
>
The industry does seem to be extremely out of touch with both technology and
their customer's needs and understanding of what the customer is willing to
pay for (if they would just give us an easily-accessible, decently-priced
option). I'm sure all of this is great news for the indie artist though.
Pooh Bear
< snip >.
> People are using P2P software to shop for the music they will buy next.
True for me.
How else would I get to hear it ?
Uk radio programming is so biased that it's virtually useless.
Also allows you to 'trial' older works - or just be plain adventurous about
stuff that might interest you but you'll never find played anywhere.
Just amazes me that record companies haven't twigged that it's the new 'high
street window'.
Graham
EggHd
courtesy (but never actually played what you requested). >>
In radio today phones are VERY important and that's one reason they don't back
announce. They want to get 5 phones calls saying "wow what was that?"
Samuel Barber
> Paul Rubin wrote:
> > Bob Cain <arc...@arcanemethods.com> writes:
> >>> Not that this makes any difference but before I ran Kazaa I had
> >>> about 10 CD's. Now I have over 300 all purchased at retail. Since
> >>> I stopped using Kazaa (about a year ago) I think I've bought about
> >>> 3 CD's.
> >>>
> >> I would really hope that effect is found to be widespread and
> >> counteracts the others that cease buying but I'm skeptical.
> >
> > Record labels whine all the time about kazaa users listening to CD
> > tracks without paying for the CD's, but another group of people,
> > namely radio listeners, does exactly the same thing, without the
> > labels complaining.
>
> It's not exactly the same thing. A radio listener usually can't make up his
> own play lists. A Kazaa user can.
Downloading arguably competes more directly with CDs than radio does.
But the moralistic argument that some people use does seem to apply to
radio, at least in the U.S. (because radio stations do not need to
obtain permission to play, nor do they pay a fee for the recording).
Sam
Bob Cain
> ryanm wrote:
>
> < snip >.
>
>
>>People are using P2P software to shop for the music they will buy next.
>
>
> True for me.
>
> How else would I get to hear it ?
>
> Uk radio programming is so biased that it's virtually useless.
Curious, can you get XM satelite radio there?
I've had it about a month now and it's everything I had ever
hoped FM could be (not enough classical though.) I was so
out of touch with what is current (other than my ability to
hear stuff at Border's listening stations) that a lot of the
mentions here went right over my head. That is changing now.
I have the USB controled PC version and there is an ability
to click and save a reference to whatever you are hearing
and later put the artist or group in your "favorites" list.
Subsequently, any time that artist is on any of the 100
channels you get notification and the opportunity to tune
in. That is really refining my preferences.
Their blues station, yeah just one, is awesome.
Mike Rivers
In article <TsYac.3943$LO2....@bignews1.bellsouth.net> sjcono...@yaaho.com writes:
> I think what the music business leaders don't want to realize is that
> they're simply losing money through bad business practices
So how do you suggest that they change? Do what they're doing now only
drop the retail price by 50%? That's a good way to lose even more
money.
ryanm
news:20040401113148...@mb-m14.aol.com...
> It is common knowledge among music industry types that downloading is
hurting
>
This is a great statement because it sounds important without actually
saying anything at all. Whose sales have been hurt? Several studies released
recently show the only declines among the least popular top 40 artists, and
everyone else actually *gaining* sales due to downloading. In Australia,
ARIA is having a record year for sales, despite their very loud
prognostication that the bottom was about to drop out of the industry over
there due to sharing.
> All of the big labels are freaking out right now.
>
They do this every time anything new happens. Remember "Home taping is
killing the music industry", or are you old enough to remember that?
> The plan now is how to tap into it instead of fight it.
>
No, it isn't. The plan is to kill it any way they can. It is absolutely
the *last* thing the majors want, because it takes away from them the
control over distribution, essentially reducing them to a bank that lends
money to artists under unconsionable terms. No one would want a deal if they
didn't control distribution, they would just hire a good manager, call their
band a business, and take out a small business loan to pay for recording or
touring or whatever.
ryanm
Pooh Bear
> Pooh Bear wrote:
>
> > ryanm wrote:
> >
> > < snip >.
> >
> >>People are using P2P software to shop for the music they will buy next.
> >
> >
> > True for me.
> >
> > How else would I get to hear it ?
> >
> > Uk radio programming is so biased that it's virtually useless.
>
> Curious, can you get XM satelite radio there?
Not that I'm aware of.
Of course you can use Real Networks stuff to get many online stations but I
hate the way their software acts like a virus !
> I've had it about a month now and it's everything I had ever
> hoped FM could be (not enough classical though.) I was so
> out of touch with what is current (other than my ability to
> hear stuff at Border's listening stations) that a lot of the
> mentions here went right over my head. That is changing now.
Sounds like good news.
> I have the USB controled PC version and there is an ability
> to click and save a reference to whatever you are hearing
> and later put the artist or group in your "favorites" list.
> Subsequently, any time that artist is on any of the 100
> channels you get notification and the opportunity to tune
> in. That is really refining my preferences.
>
> Their blues station, yeah just one, is awesome.
Ahhh - you sound a bit like a man after my own heart - but I like a lot of
new(ew) stuff too ! I have *no idea* what kind of consumer category a record
label would place me in. Totally untypical I guess ?
Actually - on the subject of Real Networks - I had to upgrade to view
something and got invited to a trial of Rhapsody - their online music
service.
It was in fact pretty good ! $9.99 pcm for unlimited listening to anything in
their catalogue - and they do good cross-indexing too - so you'll get
interesting suggestions that are well worth listening to.
$0.99 for a 'CD quality' download - which would be fine I guess if it
translated according to 'wire rates' to 55 pence ( £0.55 ) but (a) the
service isn't actually available in the UK and (b) I expect most US companies
think that £0.99 is the same.
So, after my trial period that I managed to 'frig' I was cut off - and - oh
well there you go.......
Why do record companies see the net as a problem instead of seeing it as the
amazing shop front that it is ?
Graham
ryanm
news:20040401164034...@mb-m03.aol.com...
> << but since the advent of P2P downloading, some artists' back catalog
> purchases have gone up significantly. >>
>
> Who?
>
which names several artists and indy labels. There are more, but I don't
know why I should bother to look them up if you won't even read what I've
already posted.
ryanm
EggHd
which names several artists and indy labels. >>
There are 30K titles released a year and you are talking about seevral artists
and indie labels that have seen sales go up. neato.
<< There are more, but I don't
know why I should bother to look them up if you won't even read what I've
already posted. >>
I am broken hearted.
ryanm
news:c4hpq...@enews4.newsguy.com...
>
> That is so fucking obvious I just wish it didn't need
> constant repeating. But it sure seems to. Heavy sigh.
>
Also extremely fucking obvious and I wish I didn't have to repeat it is
that *the consumer doesn't care*! The only people who care about the poor
quality of 2nd generation tapes are the musicians and audiophiles, who are
out right now buying music on vinyl at high-dollar prices because they want
the extra quality. Consumers weren't unhappy with the quality of vinyl, they
were unhappy with the inconvenience. They weren't unhappy with the poor
quality of 8-track, they were unhappy about the inconvenience of only 4
songs with a big "KA-CHUNK" in the middle of each one. They weren't unhappy
with the quality of cassette, they were unhappy that moving, mechanical
parts break. They weren't unhappy with the quality of cd, they were unhappy
with the inconvenience of it skipping in the car. They like mp3s because
they are *convenient*, and could give two shits about the quality (or lack
thereof).
And when it comes to piracy, why is there such a strong line in the sand
that *any* piracy is theft, but then when asked about taping off the radio
it's ok because it was time consuming and low quality? I thought it was all
"steeEEEeeling", regardless of whether it was a single song taped for a
friend or a million copies of an mp3 downloaded on the internet? What's the
difference, it all needs to be stamped out right now, before we concern
ourselves with silly things like education or public health, right? This is
what congress needs to be thinking about, rather than unimportant stuff like
troops in Iraq or the Patriot Act, because what's important, what's *really*
important, right now is that we make sure that people who download go to
prison, right? That's what we need, because federal mandatory minimums have
been shown to work so well in the war on drugs that we need to start
implementing more blanket laws to put people in prison for inconsequential
crimes, right? Isn't that your point, when it comes right down to it?
ryanm
ryanm
news:znr1080841276k@trad...
>
> Yeah, but he has to do more work than drag-and-drop, and most of
> today's music collectors won't put up with real time recording,
> fast-wind-and-search, the pause button, and most of all, not having a
> source list generated automatically.
>
"steeEEEEEeeeling!!!!" Why does how difficult or easy it is matter if it's a
fundamental crime against humanity that deserves a prison sentence?
ryanm
ryanm
news:i%%ac.156884$Cb.1613095@attbi_s51...
>
> I think he means in radio you can only tape what they play. Meaning if
they
> don't play the songs you want your screwed. Whereas with Kazaa everything
is
> available to you.
>
ryanm
ryanm
ryanm
ryanm
news:526517d0.04040...@posting.google.com...
>
> Yes it is, and you won't go into it because you are both morally and
> legally wrong.
>
No, it's not. Read the statutes, please, we've been through this a
thousand times on this very group.
> If you think that's true, go to a doctor, dentist, or barber shop, use
> their services and walk out without paying. See what happens. It's
> called theft of services.
>
Theft of services is not a crime listed in the statutes. It is a nice
little phrase invented by the cable companies to address illegal tapping of
cable feeds. It is not the same thing, it is not defined as theft, and it is
not even called "theft of services". Again, read the actual law, it covers
this quite clearly.
> I realize the sales decline is/was not only a d/l problem. But
> someone's desire to do an end-run around the labels does NOT require
> abandoning moral, fair-to-the-artists-wishes approaches to the
> situation.
>
Please return to reality.
> I notice you haven't replied to the part of my last post saying that
> the decision to offer for download should be the artist's, not yours
> or some freeloader's. Or do you feel that the artist should not have
> that right?
>
Since when has the distribution method been up to the artist? Name one
artist on a major label who has a say in the distribution of their music.
Name one artist who gets to decide which radios stations they want their
music played on. These are decisions made by the label, not the artist, so
they would have to *have* a right in order for it to be taken away from
them.
ryanm
hank alrich
> So it's about how difficult it is? I thought it was all
> "steeEEEEEeeeling!!!!" Why does how difficult or easy it is matter if it's a
> fundamental crime against humanity that deserves a prison sentence?
I don't think anybody said it was cool to dupe tapes; but I think even
you could understand the implications of the of giving away via P2P that
which is not yours to give away.
--
ha
james
I regard the potential for an independent artist to use the p2p networks
as an open distribution medium as being of far more consequence than any
other consideration.
To me it's not about "what's not yours to give away", it's about a
communication medium not being suppressed by the state or by a state
interest driven by influence of a corporation.
If my neighbor kills his wife with a steak knife (maybe she burned the
Ziti?), does that mean I should accept it when the state police go door
to door confiscating everyone's steak knives? Okay bad analogy.
There are other problems. First one being, pandora already opened her
damned box. There's a lot of wishful thinking going on among those
who'd like to close it. I'll bet my canoli to your donut that you could
spend the entire federal budget trying to suppress "open file trading" and
fail. I believe that what "They" (and some of "US", considering the
nature of this newsgroup!) want, is impossible to deliver. And I
absolutely believe that any successful suppression of the whole P2P
thing is going to seriously abridge certain fundamental rights.
Even to the extent that I agree there could be some damage done by the
combination of copyable media and easy, cheap, effective distribution
methods, I will not accept the abridgement of my own rights as an artist
or as a citizen, as collatteral damage.
If there is a fundamental crime against humanity deserving of a prison
sentence, I'd like to submit abrogation of the means of mass communication
to be placed on the list immediately below intentionally ending the life
of a human being. Incidental copyright infringement is not even *on*
that list, get it?
Kurt Albershardt
>
> Of course you can use Real Networks stuff to get many online stations but I
> hate the way their software acts like a virus !
Switch to Linux and try Helix https://helixcommunity.org/
ryanm
news:406CE966...@hotmail.com...
>
> Of course you can use Real Networks stuff to get many online stations but
I
> hate the way their software acts like a virus !
>
where some ex-employees were interviewed about their aggressive practices,
I'll have to find it.
> Ahhh - you sound a bit like a man after my own heart - but I like a lot of
> new(ew) stuff too ! I have *no idea* what kind of consumer category a
record
> label would place me in. Totally untypical I guess ?
>
Yeah, see, the problem is that you *are* the typical listener. They've
known this for decades, but there isn't anywhere near as much money in
releasing every little niche band that people want to hear. The *real* money
is in releasing a single artist that they can sell to everyone.
Unfortunately, the only way they can get everyone to buy that one disc is to
keep everyone from ever hearing all of those little niche artists that they
might like better. See, 1000 artists selling 1000 copies is a million sales,
but they have to pay for production and advertising 1000 times. Meanwhile,
if they can have 1 artist sell a million copies of the same album, then they
only have to pay for the production and advertising once, which means the
profits are an order of magnitude higher.
An interesting book which has absolutely nothing to do with music or P2P
downloading is called _The Cluetrain Manifesto: The End of Business as
Usual_ by Chris Locke. You can find it, in its entirety, online here:
http://www.peak.org/~luomat/misc/cluetrain/www.gonzomarkets.com/cluetrain/foreword.html
It's really a book abvout marketing, and it's several years old by now,
but the reason it's important is because it discusses the revelation that
there is *no such thing* as a mass market: the mass market was invented by
companies who wanted to sell the same product to lots of people. It talks
about how the internet has made it very easy for companies to cater to all
of the niche markets out there, and it's a good thing too because the
consumer can also use the internet to become more informed and find
competing products if your company *doesn't* cater to them. It talks about
the importance of aggregagtion, personalization, and most importantly,
choice.
A site like Amazon is the perfect example, because it encompasses all of
those. Amazon offers *lots* of products at reasonable prices, but that's not
what makes it great. The really great thing is that each customer can offer
a review for each product. So the products that look great on paper but
actually break when you get them home, you can now read the customer reviews
and find out *before* you purchase. They also act as an aggregator by giving
you the "Other people who purchased this product also purchased..." feature.
It allows them to push personalized content at you without having to ask you
a bunch of invasive quastions about how much money you make and what size
underwear you wear. What it basically does is everything the record labels
*don't* want you to be able to do with music: try before you buy, hear what
other people thought about it, publicly deride them for charging too much or
offering an inferior product, and find all of the little niche artists that
you would never be able to find under the old model. I recommend the book if
you have the time, but it *is* a book about marketing so it may actually put
you into a coma from boredom. His (Chris Locke's) story is really pretty
good. He made a ridiculous amount of money trying everything he could think
of to get fired from some really big companies, everything from insulting
customers and vendors to insulting CEOs and VPs, but all they would do is
give him a promotion, because sales kept going up no matter how hard he
tried th screw it up. Fun story.
> Why do record companies see the net as a problem instead of seeing it as
the
> amazing shop front that it is ?
>
One word: control.
ryanm
Paul Rubin
> I don't think anybody said it was cool to dupe tapes; but I think even
> you could understand the implications of the of giving away via P2P that
> which is not yours to give away.
Congress and the RIAA have said it's cool to dupe tapes (Audio Home
Recording Act).
ryanm
news:1gbl1j0.1nob2360d2msN%walk...@thegrid.net...
>
> I don't think anybody said it was cool to dupe tapes; but I think even
> you could understand the implications of the of giving away via P2P that
> which is not yours to give away.
>
these threads, at least as an alternative to downloading. But that's not the
point, the point is, it's simply not that big of a deal. It is less of a
crime than littering, literally. And that's how it should stay. I mean,
yeah, you *could* go to prison for littering, but you'd have to be a real
dumbass. Likewise, just downloading a few songs (or even uploading 1000)
doesn't deserve a prison sentence.
I understand the implications, and I can live with them. I say this as a
copyright holder and person who makes at least part of his income selling
independently created IP (even though it's software instead of music).
ryanm
james
ryanm <ry...@fatchicksinpartyhats.com> wrote:
> I think if I looked I could probably find you condoning it in one of
>these threads, at least as an alternative to downloading. But that's not the
>point, the point is, it's simply not that big of a deal. It is less of a
>crime than littering, literally.
Have you heard some of the crap that passes for music these days?
Playing it at audible levels *is* littering. Pollution, even!
It'll all work out in the end. 9 out of 10 kids that have cars today,
are going to be completely deaf from their 160dB car "stereos".
hank alrich
For personal use, not to mimic P2P as if done by centipedes. <g>
--
ha
hank alrich
> I think if I looked I could probably find you condoning it in one of
> these threads, at least as an alternative to downloading.
Let's see it then. You think plenty of things.
--
ha
Sean Conolly
>
> In article <TsYac.3943$LO2....@bignews1.bellsouth.net>
sjcono...@yaaho.com writes:
>
> > I think what the music business leaders don't want to realize is that
> > they're simply losing money through bad business practices
>
> So how do you suggest that they change? Do what they're doing now only
> drop the retail price by 50%? That's a good way to lose even more
> money.
1. Look around for way to tighten up operations. I've worked for a number of
large companies and there were always plenty of ways to improve the
efficiency of operations.
2. Set reasonable prices to increase volume. If you reduce prices by 30% but
double your volume you will come out ahead. Considering the portion that
actually goes to the creators of the music and the retailers, $20 CDs are
just outrageously priced.
No matter how large the profit margin may be, a company will tend to expand
it's inefficiency to absorb those profits to the point of just breaking
even. When demand is reduced (weren't we just in a recession?) they suddenly
find themselves on the wrong side of the profit / loss equation trying to
figure out what went wrong.
Don't get me wrong, downloading is clearly harming the industry and is flat
out illegal, no question about that IMO. On the other hand I firmly believe
that the industry has made some of their own problems and need to figure out
how to get CDs from artists to consumers for less money. I've worked for
several companies that reduced their costs by 50% and actually expanded
their gross revenue at the same time, they simply looked hard at where the
money was really going. Usually there's no pressure to make that kind of
hard assessment until you're already losing money.
Sean
Sean Conolly
news:106puor...@corp.supernews.com...
> the
> > amazing shop front that it is ?
> >
> One word: control.
Which is strangely valued more than profit. That's why the record companies
are always the last ones to figure how to make money from something new.
Sean
Scott Dorsey
It's all stealing. The point is that making it easier for people to steal
things is a bad idea. People who are determined will steal things no matter
what precautions you take, but the majority of people who steal things do
so just because it's easy and they don't think they'll get caught.
Putting a lock on your front door doesn't do anything to prevent a determined
thief from getting in, but it will keep random kids from walking in and perhaps
taking a souvenir.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Mike Rivers
> > Curious, can you get XM satelite radio there?
I thought the thing with XM was that you could get it everywhere. Is
staellite coverage limited to the US?
> Of course you can use Real Networks stuff to get many online stations but I
> hate the way their software acts like a virus !
I use the Windows Media player to listen to on-line radio. My only
complaint is due to my slower dial-up connection, which of course
could be remedied by throwing more money at it. I try to avoid Real
Audio when I can, but I haven't found any virus-like behavior. There
are tales that it "phones home" to report what I'm listening to, but
so what? The worst it can do is generate more spam, and I'm dealing
with that. Whenever Zone Alarm pops up and says that Real Audio wants
to access the Internet, I tell it no and it keeps playing.
[someone else said]
> > I've had it about a month now and it's everything I had ever
> > hoped FM could be (not enough classical though.)
I had a rental car last month that had a satellite radio in it, though
I think it was Sirius rather than XM. I found it kind of like the
Direct TV on Jet Blue flights - plenty of choices, but all of them
boring. Very little creative programming.
Mike Rivers
> So it's about how difficult it is? I thought it was all
> "steeEEEEEeeeling!!!!" Why does how difficult or easy it is matter if it's a
> fundamental crime against humanity that deserves a prison sentence?
You still refuse to get it, trying to take every statement as a
complete answer without putting the whole picture together.
As you repeat ad anusium, it's not worth prosicuting 100,000
individuals each for $2 worth of royalties so they need to take
another approach. If the record companies see this as a loss of
$200,000, that ain't hay, so they're looking for a way to stop the
process so there won't be anyone to prosecute. Prosecution of those
that they can catch is just an interim step. Eventually all the
violators will go away and then there won't be a problem.
The fact that it's easy just increases the number of violators, so
it's going to be easy to catch more of the dumb ones.
Mike Rivers
In article <4V6bc.21021$Q45.8552@fed1read02> fish...@conservatory.com writes:
> I regard the potential for an independent artist to use the p2p networks
> as an open distribution medium as being of far more consequence than any
> other consideration.
That's certainly their right to release their own material for free
and uncontroled distribution, and in fact many independent artists
have samples of their product on a web site free for the downloading.
However these are almost always incomplete versions of the songs, or
one or two complete songs. They're smart enough not to give away the
whole product.
> Even to the extent that I agree there could be some damage done by the
> combination of copyable media and easy, cheap, effective distribution
> methods, I will not accept the abridgement of my own rights as an artist
> or as a citizen, as collatteral damage.
That might be a short term bump in the road, and the sooner people
stop doing the thing that causes that bump, the sooner it will go
away.
Mike Rivers
> Also extremely fucking obvious and I wish I didn't have to repeat it is
> that *the consumer doesn't care*! The only people who care about the poor
> quality of 2nd generation tapes are the musicians and audiophiles, who are
> out right now buying music on vinyl at high-dollar prices because they want
> the extra quality.
I wouldn't lump musicians in with audiophiles when it comes to
enjoying playback from vinyl. Musicians, as a generalization, don't
have audiophile-quality playback systems. (they have their money tied
up in instruments or recording gear)
> Consumers weren't unhappy with the quality of vinyl, they
> were unhappy with the inconvenience.
More accurately, they embraced the added convenience of the CD.
> And when it comes to piracy, why is there such a strong line in the sand
> that *any* piracy is theft
Because it is. There's more of it as a result of computer and
network technology than there was when people had to tape off the
radio or from a record in real time. The industry was always worried
about it, and that's why we got SCMS with our DAT recorders, which
came before Internet file sharing.
> but then when asked about taping off the radio
> it's ok because it was time consuming and low quality?
It's a little different. It's publicity that's paid for by the record
companies (sometimes) - and at other times it's an invitation to
steal. But in the days when a station played a whole side of an LP
uninterrupted (and announced it beforehand) recording technology was
at the point where it was pretty much one copy for one listener.
If someone who taped an album from the radio played the tape for his
friends, maybe some of them would go out to buy the album. But today,
they'd just ask for a copy of the file.
Mike Rivers
In article <io7bc.21146$Q45.253@fed1read02> fish...@conservatory.com writes:
> Have you heard some of the crap that passes for music these days?
> Playing it at audible levels *is* littering. Pollution, even!
I agree, but some people like it - perhaps not for listening, but for
dancing and jumping around and getting crazy. For whatever reason,
there's a market for it.
Mike Rivers
In article <10808839...@nnrp1.phx1.gblx.net> ku...@nv.net writes:
> > Real Networks stuff
> Switch to Linux and try Helix https://helixcommunity.org/
I'm not about to switch to Linux just for this, but is there something
other than a Real product that can play their format? I thought they
pretty much had it locked up. If there's a Linux application not from
Real that can play their streaming audio, why isnt' there a Windows
application?
DrBoom
> Contrary to popular urban myths, downloading doesn't account but for a
> tiny minorty in drop in cd sales. In fact research shows that cd
> downloading increases are followed by greater sales for the same cd. It
> is not unlike radio playtime, the more it is heard, either by download or
> on the radio, the more likely for a purchase. The music biz needs to wake
> up and smell the shrink wrap on recordable cdr's. It is a loss in quality
> of music stupid and manipulation of talent in an attempt to create the
> next "big" act that is at fault.
>
> http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994831
This is just common sense.
CD sales are back up, by the way -- just like the economy. I wonder if the
two are related.
Naaah, too obvious.
The whole copyright thing has come up before, of course. Thomas
Babbington MacAulay laid it out pretty nicely in a speech before the
British House of Commons back in 1841. His conclusion reads,
in part:
"Just as the absurd acts which prohibited the sale of game were
virtually repealed by the poacher, just as many absurd revenue
acts have been virtually repealed by the smuggler, so will this
law be virtually repealed by piratical booksellers.
At present the holder of copyright has the public feeling on his
side. Those who invade copyright are regarded as knaves who take
the bread out of the mouths of deserving men. Everybody is well
pleased to see them restrained by the law, and compelled to
refund their ill-gotten gains. No tradesman of good repute will
have anything to do with such disgraceful transactions. Pass
this law: and that feeling is at an end. Men very different from
the present race of piratical booksellers will soon infringe
this intolerable monopoly. Great masses of capital will be
constantly employed in the violation of the law. Every art will
be employed to evade legal pursuit; and the whole nation will be
in the plot. On which side indeed should the public sympathy be
when the question is whether some book as popular as Robinson
Crusoe, or the Pilgrim's Progress, shall be in every cottage, or
whether it shall be confined to the libraries of the rich for
the advantage of the great-grandson of a bookseller who, a
hundred years before, drove a hard bargain for the copyright
with the author when in great distress?
Remember too that, when once it ceases to be considered as wrong
and discreditable to invade literary property, no person can say
where the invasion will stop. The public seldom makes nice
distinctions. The wholesome copyright which now exists will
share in the disgrace and danger of the new copyright which you
are about to create. And you will find that, in attempting to
impose unreasonable restraints on the reprinting of the works of
the dead, you have, to a great extent, annulled those restraints
which now prevent men from pillaging and defrauding the living."
The concept is pretty simple: the passage of contemptible laws leads
to public contempt of all the laws.
Anyone who cares about this issue should read the full text of his
speeches.
http://www.baen.com/library/palaver4.htm
-DrBoom
EggHd
actually goes to the creators of the music and the retailers, $20 CDs are
just outrageously priced. >>
1. Please show where people are buying $20 Cds anymore.
2. Please explain where the money goes from a $20 CD.
If you post this kind of thing, please back it up.
james
EggHd <eg...@aol.com> wrote:
>1. Please show where people are buying $20 Cds anymore.
When I can bring myself to buy a CD at all, it's usually something
*very* special, albeit rarely a single disc. Last CD I bought was
harpsichord music, 2 discs, $35.00.
>2. Please explain where the money goes from a $20 CD.
I think all of it goes straight up the nose of some elected official,
plus a lot more.
hank alrich
> As you repeat ad anusium
I've wondered what his deal is. That does explain it.
--
ha
reddred
"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:c4jurp$l6n$1...@panix2.panix.com...
Media and software companies have the right to protect thier software by
whatever non-intrusive and non-destructive means they can come up with,
including not selling non-secure media in the first place (cd's). They can
put on a lock, they can change the lock as often as they want, they can
change or move the door.
They don't, or shouldn't, be allowed to attack, physically or legally,
networks that belong to someone else and legislate themselves into a
monopoly on distribution.
Currently, the RIAA companies have been given the right by the US govt. to
nefariously hack any public network that has no central server, in which
there has been any instance of piracy. I can see how a lot of people might
be interested in hindering p2p technology.
jb
reddred
>
> In article <10808839...@nnrp1.phx1.gblx.net> ku...@nv.net writes:
>
> > > Real Networks stuff
>
> > Switch to Linux and try Helix https://helixcommunity.org/
>
> I'm not about to switch to Linux just for this, but is there something
> other than a Real product that can play their format? I thought they
> pretty much had it locked up. If there's a Linux application not from
> Real that can play their streaming audio, why isnt' there a Windows
> application?
>
That would be something to ask them, but given that it takes a lot of hours
to port code from Linux to Windows, they probably just haven't done it yet.
I'm not familiar with that project, but my guess is it began as a way to add
functionality to Linux, and Windows would/will be an 'afterthought'.
jb
reddred
> downloading is called _The Cluetrain Manifesto: The End of Business as
> Usual_ by Chris Locke. You can find it, in its entirety, online here:
>
>
http://www.peak.org/~luomat/misc/cluetrain/www.gonzomarkets.com/cluetrain/fo
reword.html
>
A great fucking book!
jb
Paul Rubin
> > Even to the extent that I agree there could be some damage done by the
> > combination of copyable media and easy, cheap, effective distribution
> > methods, I will not accept the abridgement of my own rights as an artist
> > or as a citizen, as collatteral damage.
>
> That might be a short term bump in the road, and the sooner people
> stop doing the thing that causes that bump, the sooner it will go away.
Nonsense, it's about control, not copying. Also, we've had a war on
drugs for the past 30 years that's showing no signs of slowing down.
The war on copying will never slow down either, unless politicians and
the public actually stand up to the MPAA/RIAA, which will stop at
nothing.
I really urge you to read Prof. Lessig's new book "Free Culture" (it's
a pretty fast read). It explains quite well what the copyright wars
are about. You can buy it in bookstores (Penguin Press), or, yes, you
can download the whole thing from its web site (http://free-culture.org).
ryanm
>
> I wouldn't lump musicians in with audiophiles when it comes to
> enjoying playback from vinyl. Musicians, as a generalization, don't
> have audiophile-quality playback systems. (they have their money tied
> up in instruments or recording gear)
>
> It's a little different. It's publicity that's paid for by the record
> companies (sometimes) - and at other times it's an invitation to
> steal. But in the days when a station played a whole side of an LP
> uninterrupted (and announced it beforehand) recording technology was
> at the point where it was pretty much one copy for one listener.
> If someone who taped an album from the radio played the tape for his
> friends, maybe some of them would go out to buy the album. But today,
> they'd just ask for a copy of the file.
>
And what data do you base that assumption on? All the data I've seen
suggests quite the opposite. I can think of at least 5 factors that *should*
have contributed to lower cd sales in 2003 - 1) The release of DRM cds that
don't work and piss off consumers 2) Less variety in the artists being
publicized 3) Rising costs of cds 4) Severe drop in the economy 5) Bad
publicity due to lawsuits causing many people to boycott RIAA labels - but
by all the available data, the numbers are actually up. So how do they
manage to show an *increase* in sales despite all of these factors? It
certainly can't be that downloading is *hurting* sales. Worst case,
downloading has no significant impact on cd sales. Best case, it is
*responsible* for the rise in sales despite the other factors which
should've contributed to a decline.
ryanm
ryanm
>
> As you repeat ad anusium, it's not worth prosicuting 100,000
> individuals each for $2 worth of royalties so they need to take
> another approach.
>
> If the record companies see this as a loss of
> $200,000, that ain't hay, so they're looking for a way to stop the
> process so there won't be anyone to prosecute.
>
It's not my problem how they see it, that's their problem. *I* don't get
to change the law just because I think I could make more money if it weren't
so damn hung up on people's rights and all that. Why do they? And why do you
condone buying justice?
ryanm
ryanm
news:s4abc.5304$ym1...@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>
> Which is strangely valued more than profit. That's why the record
companies
> are always the last ones to figure how to make money from something new.
>
profits right now.
ryanm
ryanm
news:69adb0eb.0404...@posting.google.com...
>
> The concept is pretty simple: the passage of contemptible laws leads
> to public contempt of all the laws.
>
> Anyone who cares about this issue should read the full text of his
> speeches.
>
> http://www.baen.com/library/palaver4.htm
>
ryanm
Sean Conolly
news:20040402112435...@mb-m24.aol.com...
> << Considering the portion that
> actually goes to the creators of the music and the retailers, $20 CDs are
> just outrageously priced. >>
>
> 1. Please show where people are buying $20 Cds anymore.
>
> 2. Please explain where the money goes from a $20 CD.
>
> If you post this kind of thing, please back it up.
How about this, I'll retract the statement about $20 CDs since it's been
quite a while since I've bought any, and I'll keep my *opinion* that there
is a lot of money per CD that the labels can use more efficiently. I'll top
it off by shutting up now and stepping out of this discussion.
Sean
Bob Cain
> mri...@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers) writes:
>
>>>Even to the extent that I agree there could be some damage done by the
>>>combination of copyable media and easy, cheap, effective distribution
>>>methods, I will not accept the abridgement of my own rights as an artist
>>>or as a citizen, as collatteral damage.
>>
>>That might be a short term bump in the road, and the sooner people
>>stop doing the thing that causes that bump, the sooner it will go away.
>
>
> Nonsense, it's about control, not copying.
So what if it is? All producers of services and goods wish
to control the means of distributing them. Nothing new
under the sun here.
I just feel that an artist and his agents have the right to
set the terms of aquisition of their work and can expect it
to be honored. If it takes new law to make that absolutely
explicit with criminal culpability, then bring it on.
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."
A. Einstein
Pooh Bear
> In article <10808839...@nnrp1.phx1.gblx.net> ku...@nv.net writes:
>
> > > Real Networks stuff
>
> > Switch to Linux and try Helix https://helixcommunity.org/
>
> I'm not about to switch to Linux just for this, but is there something
> other than a Real product that can play their format? I thought they
> pretty much had it locked up. If there's a Linux application not from
> Real that can play their streaming audio, why isnt' there a Windows
> application?
I've often wondered something similar Mike. As in a simple plug-in.
Seems like the answer is no. I guess Real want to preserve their format
and player as unique.
This was actually a major part of the recent issue betwwen the EU and
Microsoft. This time - instead of being berated for bundling their browser
with the OS - to the detriment of Netscape at the time, Microsoft got
clobbered for trying to dominate media content through Media Player. This
time there are TWO other major players; Real and Apple they're head on
with.
It's a pain for us users though !
Graham
Bob Cain
Precisely. How nice it is to see that some can still think
that way. 99% of what is wrong with our economy and job
market now and in the future is the loss of this perspective
at every level.
reddred
"reddred" <opa...@REMOVECAPSyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:acOdnarCyPb...@rockbridge.net...
Oh, I see. I misunderstood. I guess the reason Real doesn't allow their
format to be used by others is because they want you to download their
adware.
jb
reddred
"Bob Cain" <arc...@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
news:c4ko2...@enews4.newsguy.com...
> ryanm wrote:
>
> > "Sean Conolly" <sjcono...@yaaho.com> wrote in message
> > news:s4abc.5304$ym1...@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> >
> >>Which is strangely valued more than profit. That's why the record
> >
> > companies
> >
> >>are always the last ones to figure how to make money from something new.
> >>
> >
> > That's because control means long term profits, rather than just
more
> > profits right now.
> >
>
> Precisely. How nice it is to see that some can still think
> that way. 99% of what is wrong with our economy and job
> market now and in the future is the loss of this perspective
> at every level.
Vertically integrated control is precisely the reason our economy sucks
right now, jobs move overseas, and the free market doesn't work for 98
percent of the people on the planet.
jb
Paul Rubin
> I just feel that an artist and his agents have the right to set the
> terms of aquisition of their work and can expect it to be honored.
If you really believe they have such a right, then the way to get it
recognized is get two thirds of both houses of Congress and three
quarters of the state legislatures to amend the Constitution to say
so. Right now there is no such "right" anywhere in the law. Rather,
copyright is an economic incentive to produce new works under the
Constitution's Progress clause, similar to the tax credit for buying a
low-emission car is an incentive to reduce air pollution under the
Clean Air Act. Both incentives are simply public policy decisions
made at the discretion of Congress. Neither one is a "right", and
either one could be withdrawn tomorrow if enough people got Congress
to vote that way (think of 60 million angry ex-Napster users). What
we're seeing instead is a bunch of powerful corporate lobbyists
corrupting Congress under the guise of helping creators, who pretty
often don't want that kind of "help".
ryanm
>
> I just feel that an artist and his agents have the right to
> set the terms of aquisition of their work and can expect it
> to be honored. If it takes new law to make that absolutely
> explicit with criminal culpability, then bring it on.
>
come into play in civil matters of property? It's not stealing, that much is
obvious (in order to be theft, the owner must be denied possession of it at
least temporarily), it's not even property damage. This, and should be, a
civil matter. There is no inalienable right to have a monopoly on property.
I urge you to read the excellent reference someone else posted:
http://www.baen.com/library/palaver4.htm
It is a quote of some speeches given in Parliament in 1841 regarding
copyright law, and it outlines some of the problems with copyright law as a
whole, which puts these questions of criminal charges by 3rd party owners of
copyrights in a completely different light if you can be bothered to
understand his (Thomas Babington Macaulay's) point.
ryanm
ryanm
news:406DE583...@hotmail.com...
>
> This was actually a major part of the recent issue betwwen the EU and
> Microsoft. This time - instead of being berated for bundling their browser
> with the OS - to the detriment of Netscape at the time, Microsoft got
> clobbered for trying to dominate media content through Media Player. This
> time there are TWO other major players; Real and Apple they're head on
> with.
>
> It's a pain for us users though !
>
and is getting sued for it. They are not trying dominate media content, they
are simply trying to provide a single player capable of playing back all
media types, which comes with Windows so that no 3rd party downloads
(especially of invasive, aggressive player software) is necessary to view
online media.
ryanm
reddred
I think it's more a question of what needs to be done in order to enforce a
new law. It could become a very dangerous and non-free world with the
technology in place that would enforce the law, not to mention that
deployment would cost more than the entire music and movie industry is
worth.
They don't need a new law, they need to stop selling a format that can be
ripped off so easily - cd's and dvd's... Their problem, their solution. Then
we can all bitch and moan about how our cd players are obsolete.
jb