NEW YORK, May 24, 2002 – Audiogalaxy.com, a Napster-like clone that has facilitated and encouraged the unauthorized trading of millions of copyrighted songs, was taken to court today by songwriters, music publishers, and the recording industry for wholesale copyright infringement.

The lawsuit was filed in federal court in New York on Friday by the Recording Industry of America (RIAA), on behalf of its member labels, and the National Music Publishers Association, Inc. (NMPA), on behalf of the music publisher principals of its licensing affiliate, The Harry Fox Agency, Inc. and their thousands of songwriter partners. The complaint specifically accuses Audiogalaxy of "willfully and intentionally" encouraging and facilitating "millions of individual, anonymous users to copy and distribute infringing copyrighted works by the millions, if not billions."

The complaint further states that, "With functions such as the ability to download entire songs and albums, cover artwork, and software, as well as a peer-to-peer file-sharing function, Audiogalaxy's system is even more egregious than that of Napster."

“Litigation is never our preferred course,” said Edward P. Murphy, NMPA’s CEO. “But when a company repeatedly demonstrates its intent, despite repeated warnings, to continue to engage in and facilitate activities it knows are causing grave harm to creators and copyright owners, there is little choice but to defend our rights through the legal system. To do otherwise would be to abandon America’s music community to the pirates.”

Among the numerous recording artists and songwriters whose works are being unlawfully distributed include: Brandy, Boys II Men, Dave Mathews Band, Celine Dion, Shakira, Enya, the Beatles, Shakira, Billy Joel, Destiny's Child, Alicia Keyes, James Brown, Linkin Park, Madonna, Jerry Leiber, Mike Stoller, Paula Cole, Lalo Schifrin, Henry Mancini, Johnny Mercer, and countless others.

Matt Oppenheim, Senior Vice President, Business and Legal Affairs of the RIAA, said that the litigation was a last resort after numerous out-of-court warnings to Audiogalaxy were ignored or resulted in half-hearted attempts to fix the problem.

"Audiogalaxy and Napster are cut from the same cloth," said Oppenheim. "Audiogalaxy is profiting by providing its users a library of pirated music, including today's most popular hits. Though claiming fealty to copyrights, Audiogalaxy continues to offer up virtually all of the music we told them should be excluded. The firm's sieve-like filter has been totally ineffective."

Specifically, the suit, which also names Michael Merhej, head of Audiogalaxy as a defendant, charges that:

 Audiogalaxy had ample knowledge of the massive infringements occurring daily on its system, and in fact marketed itself as the next Napster.

 Audiogalaxy clearly had the ability to control the works available on its system and acknowledged the ability to remove users, or alternatively, to exclude certain content.

 Audiogalaxy provided users with a fully integrated, centralized structure and facility, including a hub of central computers to which users connected; a continuously updated database and index of infringing sound recordings; information about file size, popularity and download speed of files; and proprietary software to facilitate efficient identification, copying and distribution of recordings.

 Like Napster, Audiogalaxy seeks to profit from its pirate system by building an extensive user base to attract advertisers and investment dollars.

Audiogalaxy is based in Austin, Texas. A copy of the court submission can be found at www.riaa.com and at www.nmpa.org.

The Recording Industry Association of America is the trade group that represents the U.S. recording industry. Its mission is to foster a business and legal climate that supports and promotes our members' creative and financial vitality. Its members are the record companies that comprise the most vibrant national music industry in the world. RIAA® members create, manufacture and/or distribute approximately 90% of all legitimate sound recordings produced and sold in the United States.

In support of this mission, the RIAA works to protect intellectual property rights worldwide and the First Amendment rights of artists; conduct consumer industry and technical research; and monitor and review - - state and federal laws, regulations and policies. The RIAA® also certifies Gold®, Platinum®, Multi-Platinum™, and Diamond sales awards, Los Premios De Oro y Platino™, an award celebrating Latin music sales.

The National Music Publishers’ Association, Inc., founded in 1917, works to protect and advance the interests of the music publishing industry. With over 900 members, the NMPA represents the most important and influential music publishing firms throughout the United States.

The Harry Fox Agency, Inc. provides an information source, clearing house and monitoring service for licensing musical copyrights, and acts as licensing agent for more than 27,000 music publisher principals, who in turn represent the interests of more than 160,000 songwriters. Besides the core business functions of licensing, collections and distribution of royalties, HFA conducts periodic record company and other user audits on behalf of its principals. HFA is the licensing affiliate of the National Music Publishers’ Association.

-- conclusion

It seems the RIAA are determined to tick us all off one by one, and it also looks like they are willing to boot every single file-sharer if they have to to get what they want.

The Gnutella network and all of the affiliates connected with it, including Morpheus must now take steps to be fully prepared for legal action. Many different approaches need to be organised, not just one main argument, and the time is now for everyones support.

Let's just fight a civil war over it. That oughta settle it.

Yeah we should kill and pillage!

I wouldn't underestimate the recording industry. Their profits are a stake. It would be difficult to take down Gnutella, but a small percentage of users are sharing most of the files, so they have a target. Then again, there is always IRC and e-mailing songs to a network of your friends.

It's gonna come down to the ISPs themselves doing the monitoring and the banning if the trend continues. And the invasion of privacy battles will stir up again. But fact of the matter is, you can't do any of this - no matter who or what service/software you use, without connecting to the internet and transmitting the files over the bandwith. And that's where the ISPs will come in and start filtering if the pressure turns their way. That is, if the RIAA doesn't turn around and SUE the ISPs for negligence first. Which I'm surprised hasn't happened yet. Any thoughts?

p.s.

DiscoProJoe/MrXero - Hilarious! A civil war, pillaging. I like it! Loot all the record stores. Leave CD-Rs and ZipDisks with the Napster or AG logo on it in their place as your signature.

The ISPs havent been sued because they are protected under law any actions that their users take. They are simply a way to connect to the internet. Not a filter or monitoring service. Negligence cannot even be placed on them because until such sites get shut down by courts they are (in the eyes of the courts) legal. Therefore, the ISPs are not responsible for providing something that (as of now, or proved by the courts) is not illegal. I can see many companies taking the road that Kazaa is taking by moving from country to country avoiding legal battles such as this. Go Galaxy!

Hail Mp3!!!

Why do I get the feeling that the Recording Industry Politburo (as the RIAA should now be thought of) exhibits behaviors not unlike that of a stuck pig (and I'm not necessarily referring to Hilary Rosen here, now)? It's obvious they're determined to squelch ALL competition and further tighten the "majors'" monopoly on music distribution at the expense of the public, so the consumer would have literally nowhere else to turn for anything. I've seen Communist and Third World countries where this kind of behavior existed. No litigation, but you get the idea.

Not that the industry gives any credibility to the Betamax doctrine as it pertains to P2P, but it sure as hell pertains to ISPs. It's all a matter of framing.

Lots of people know about the big name artists mentioned in this press release (which indirectly accuses the rest of the world of being pirates -- how nice.) Hardly anyone knows about small indie groups who can't buy airplay or big venues. Who's gonna get more downloads, known or unknown artists? Unfortunately for AG, the majority of traded files are probably controlled by the RIAA since most people I knew in college using AG used it to find songs they liked on the radio or every song they could leech from their favorite artists.

I wonder if things would be different if they were based in some little island country instead of Texas; after all, they're not yet the Record Industry Association of the World, right? [duck-and-cover] Either way, I'm all for a civil war, complete with bounties for industry executives. Enough of this civil disobedience!

Not that the industry gives any credibility to the Betamax doctrine as it pertains to P2P, but it sure as hell pertains to ISPs. It's all a matter of framing.

Lots of people know about the big name artists mentioned in this press release (which indirectly accuses the rest of the world of being pirates -- how nice.) Hardly anyone knows about small indie groups who can't buy airplay or big venues. Who's gonna get more downloads, known or unknown artists? Unfortunately for AG, the majority of traded files are probably controlled by the RIAA since most people I knew in college using AG used it to find songs they liked on the radio or every song they could leech from their favorite artists.

I wonder if things would be different if they were based in some little island country instead of Texas; after all, they're not yet the Record Industry Association of the World, right? [duck-and-cover] Either way, I'm all for a civil war, complete with bounties for industry executives. Enough of this civil disobedience!

Sorry for the multiple posts (my browser just sits and waits until I'm disconnected when I hit 'post'), but to W-B: they know they're screwed if they don't keep clawing at every last shred of hope. Like someone else said, the RIAA is very good at locking the gate after the horse has already escaped.

If they weren't such a bloated, inefficient, and downright evil bureaucracy, maybe they'd realize that they're going for a Pyrrhic victory (a victory achieved at so great a cost that it's really a defeat). Pissing off their artists and consumers was a really good start.

bleh!
i say grab the guns and lets go!
*grabs his swords and guns and runs out the door*

Who's next?

Any moron company who makes it far too easy and worth the RIAA's time.

Stick with decentralized P2P software, like WinMX.

Even if they go after Frontcode, the RIAA can't stop their WinMX software from being used forever, because it can be used on any OpenNap server in the world.

I have a feeling this is all going to go on until their offices are bombed to the ground, and the funny thing is this doesn't seem so unrealistic anymore.

They can fight us, they can hurt us, but they'll never stop us. They're taking on the whole world, armed with a huge load of cash.

I have my current version of the WinMX update saved on both a ZipDisk and a
CD-R. If they stop it from being distributed, then I will just do it myself to everyone who asks me for it AND his brother too.

Hell, I will make MEGA-COPIES if need be!!!!

Wish Hilary "BITCH" Rosen could be introduced to a LARGE VAT OF ACID!!!!

)

Hang on a mo, it's ok to possess a firearm, capable of destroying lives but it's not ok to possess software capable of downloading music. The RIAA are doing something right - they're shooting themselves in the head every time they claim a 'victory'. Long live P2P and bring on the war! It's time to start a bodycount, Hilary please step forward.

Yeah it's all about the fucking money aswell, greedy bastards. They accuse us of being pirates, when they steal the talent, sell it and make the money for their own greedy friggin bank accounts. An amazing similarity to the Pimp & Ho system. Entertainment was always supposed to be an exposition of human talent, not a way of grabbing cash but as always, it will turn into that.

I don't buy CDs because they are a fucking rip-off; it's theft. I go into my local HMV and they want £17 for the Prodigy's Experience album, yes that's $24 of your good American money (It's 10 years old by the way!). They have simply got to be taking the piss and therefore, I refuse to buy CDs.

Oh and fuck Lars Ulrich by the way, not only is his music shit but he's a complete fuckwit who's killed his band's income, well done Lars, who's a clever boy then?

I think that the RIAA will eventually run out of people to sue. Gnutella, Blubster, and the like will still work, even if their creators web sites get shut down, because they have no central point.

Filetopia will be even harder for the RIAA! It combines random port scanning, decentralization, and encryption.

filetopia has another advantage: it's so shite, noone serious about trading mp3 uses it.

bring back ftp, and irc..

i agree, there should be more a lot more FTP sites. The thing that bothers me is that most of these musical groups that the RIAA supports are crap pop groups that only teenie boppers and people who don't know any beter listen to. they make millions of dollars making commercials and videos, they really aren't hurt as bad by sites like AudioGalaxy as they'd like everyone to think. So what if a song is available on the internet two months before the CD comes out, the record will probably still sell anyway. The loss of sites like AudioGalaxy will only really hurt the independent bands, and people like me who just mess around with the occasional friend making noise in their basement. i've been turned on to a lot of music that i otherwise would never had heard of thanks to AG and other similar sites, i have bought CD's as a direct result of hearing bands on AG. also, the actual cost of making a CD is probably smaller than 1/10th the price the consumer pays for it, hardly any of that money goes to the artist, it's the record company and the distributor that get the profits. most bands that i listen to go out and play concerts in order to make money to keep their band going. the same bands also encourage taping and sharing of these shows. they have made their feelings pretty clear about it too. many of these Pop-crap-corporate bands don't even play instruments when they play live, many of them don't even tour, no musical talent i guess. lastly i have to say that Property Is An Illusion, the sharing of MP3 files is an example of that, who really owns the files? not the RIAA, not the artist who plays the music, not the multi-national record company execs either. if anyone really Owns the MP3 file, it is the guy who went out and purchased the album, went home and ripped the MP3 file from his CD. He (or she) is the closest thing i can see as the Owner of the MP3 file. Property Is An Illusion. thank you for your attention.

But of course, as everyone knows, the RIAA doesn't give a rat's tuchis about the average music fan or the fact that certain fans may bypass the manufactured teenybopper pablum being shoved down everyone's throats (which is tied in to the RIAA's "work for hire" claim) in favor of certain of the "independent bands" spoken of. Nor do they care about the middle-aged or "geezer" fan looking for music unavailable in decades (i.e. Theodore Bikel's entire Elektra catalogue from c.1955-1966). All they care about is themselves, and maintaining their power in a fashion similar to anaerobic decomposition. If they wanted to make a deal pertaining to compensation, etc., with these entities, they would've, but their stuck-pig litigation indicates that their real goal is to eliminate any competition (or potential competition) to their insidious monopoly.

The loss of sites like AG will only hurt the indies until the next two or three incarnations pop up and become widely used. And they think they have a chance of stopping it from happening. It's like they have this deluded notion that they can completely restructure a global network of computers to maintain what little power they still hold. Ha, fat chance. It's stuck-pig mentality once again.

I won't speculate on the cost of making a CD, but I don't trust a team of blatant liars to tell me why I should give them so much money that won't go to the artist. They claim the biggest cost of producing a CD is marketing and promotion, or people who exist to profit off others' work. One part on their "The Cost of a CD" page jumps out at me: "...when you hear a song played on the radio -- that didn’t just happen!" Well, duh. I don't want to pay marketing scum to get songs overplayed.

I hope the next time they end up shooting themselves in the head, they don't hit the music fans standing in the way saying "can't we all just get along?"

Let them shut down AG and any other sites that they want too. There will always be new sites to take their places. The people have spoken and the people will win in the end. When the smoke finally cleares and the battle is done, the RIAA will have had about as much success at stopping file swapping as the Motion Picture Industry had when they tried to stop the VCR

RIAA is digging themselves into a huge hole... they are whacked out on crack so they dont notice, i say let them eat their shit, and then choke on it.

Damn it all to hell. I love AG. I hate the RIAA. Greedy Bastards.
Do realize what we could do to the RIAA if everyone in the world stopped buying cds just for a weel? All the labels would probably go bankrupt or something and there would be no RIAA because there would be no labels. I buy most of my cds off of ebay nowadays, and occasionally I'll buy some at the store.
AG is great because even when users are signed off it still keeps track of what songs have been posted which is great for tracking down live recordings from bands.
Filesharing programs are responsible for 90%(at least) of the cd's I have bought in the last 3 years. And I have bought a lot of cds. They are so stupid to realize that most people just use these programs to find new music, and will then buy the cd. I love having the artwork. All the burned cd's I have are either live shows, compilations of band's whose cd's I have or band's whom I only like one song from.
The day will come when the RIAA fuck themselves so bad that the consumer with just get fed up and the majority of us will stop buying cd's from primary markets almost entirely, either that or the RIAA will smarten up and learn that we have the power not them and realize that there is no way to defeat us and try to use the the mp3 system to their advantage.

Organizing and promoting a boycott is no easy thing. But It can be done if we dialogue about how it could happen. someone has to organize such an endeavor. I want to join in solidarity the peope around the world who are going to bring this boycott to fruition. I need leaflets to hand out. come on let's get organized!

Oh wait I've found it! This website provides all of these things! Sign me up!

Since I've started downloading music, I don't buy CDs any more. I consider CDs to be old technology. Besides, the artwork is also available on Gnutella. I think the recording industry is still doing well because allot of people still buy CDs. However, we all know that the future will be different. It should be interesting.

I think its about time the consumers gained power over the large record companies. They have been overcharging consumers for music for a long time now. They say they are losing money because of peer-to-peer networks such as Audio Galaxy, yet Album sales are on the up.

I think the record companies should just deal with the fact there is nothing they can do to prevent the free distribution of music.

BIG UP AUDIO GALAXY!!

I AM A 3RD YEAR UNIVERSITY STUDENT FROM EAST LONDON. MY DISSERTATION IS ON THE SUBJECT OF P2P EMPOWERING THE CONSUMER AND I WOULD BE VERY GREATFUL IF YOU COULD GO TO THE URL BELOW AND FILL IN MY ONLINE SURVEY.

THANKYOU

http://www.FreeOnlineSurveys.com/rendersurvey.asp?id=15694

What amazes me it that even though AudioGalaxy has blocked thousands of songs demonstrating that they're trying to stay "legal" the RIAA still isn't happy! Let's face the facts, it's IMPOSSIBLE for AG to anticipate each and every permutation and misspelling of a band name/song title that could slip through their filtering system. Besides, if I use a Smith & Wesson to rob a bank, does Smith & Wesson get slapped with an armed robbery charge? If I use a Ford Thunderbird to run somebody over, does Ford get hit with a homicide charge? NO! Then why should it be any different with AudioGalaxy? There are thousands of files which are legal to trade, therefore AG serves a legal purpose. If the RIAA continues to get away with this, maybe sometime soon we'll all be able to send our speeding tickets to the manufacturer of the car we used to break the law! Also, the RIAA is crying that we're taking money from them when we download? Consider this: It costs more to manufacture a cassette than it does a CD, but I see albums selling for $18-20 on CD that are selling for only $10-12 on cassette, now you tell me who's robbing who!

Personally, I can't stand the amount of radio play songs that "The Industry" tells me are good get. There used to be this law against paying radio stations to play your song more, so they figured a way around it by giving them free stuff to give away which will make the thousands of mindless drones listen in an effort to win a CD that cost them like $.86 (US) to create and MAYBE the artist will see $.50 of the total cost of each CD sold off of thier 1st "HIT" CD after they have to pay for all of thier own transportation and gig costs until the record company makes a profit from thier songs which with a bit of creative book-keeping may never actually happen. I love how the industry has said in the past that they barely make a profit...or they loose money every year... I don't know too many companies that stay in business loosing money... maybe its the 8 or 9 figure execs..... maybe you should do at the top what most companies these days are doing at the bottom, hire people that will do the work for less.... (I'll do it for 6 figures! ) And save some money, I don't know much about piracy, but I do know a fair amount about what I'm willing to pay for, and if CD's were averaging $9-10 then I would pay for every single album I downloaded and liked (I still think I should get to hear it first) and I might even pay a bit more if the CD wasn't 90% pure untainted SHIT! most so-called albums suck nowadays they put crap songs in with marginally good stuff to fill the space. I'd rather have a cd with 6 or 7 good songs and maybe a couple of remixes of those same songs thrown in at the end, than a CD with 20 tracks and only 1 that I actually like. QUALITY CONTROL PEOPLE..... not a difficult concept to grasp I think... but I'm gonna end my rant by saying that I think if they made CD's affordable enough to the average consumer who's got more important things to spend 1/3 of their income buying 4 CD's (okay maybe thats a bit of an exaggeration) then they'd see me in line a bit more often, and they'd have alot less money to spend on trying to "protect members' rights" while not offering any significant technological advantages over a CD made say 15 years ago.... most technologies that old have made some type of improvement of the product they sell in order to justify the stagnation of the product price (and no, I don't consider that stupid so called protection on the FAKE-CD's as coined by Phillips an advancement) I like the interesting turn that Phillips took as the original patent holders on the "CD" brand, specifications and technologies, by saying that music labels could not market these FAKE-CDs with their branding on it, in other words, they could not call it a CD as it did not adhere to the CD specifications. If they continued to do so, Phillips would sue.... (read it in an article a few weeks ago) I thought it was sorta ironic that another company had to threaten to sue the recording industry over the rights of their intelectual property....

i was using audio galaxy back when they made the transition from borg mp3 search! its a sad day. the riaa knows that file sharing cannot be stopped, but theyre gonna cash in on all they can as long as theres big corporate file sharing clients to sue like audiogalaxy.

riaa, please sue imesh next, they put spyware on my computer!

I would LOVE to see a boycott of CD buying, but the SAD fact is that there are too many dizzy little teeny-boppers out there that will keep on buy all the fake ass bullshit like NSYNC and Britney Spears

And as everyone knows, you won't find either Britney or the members of *NSync -- or, for that matter, other wussy-voiced "boy bands" (an oxymoron if ever there was one) or bimboized, sex-objectified, voices-that-sound-like-they-inhaled-helium-balloons-before-recording "pop princesses" -- at meetings of the Recording Artists Coalition . . . and if they were at any meeting, it would be of a "counter" group to be fronted by the RIAA as a reaction to RAC.

I haven't bought a CD in years. Ever since the early '90s, all the music I heard on the radio sucked big floppy donkey d*ck. It all sounded the same to me, and speaking as a music major, I had the knowledge to be somewhat more critical than I might have been.

My point is that I simply decided not to waste my money on a cd with one or two good songs on it when I could, oh, buy a game like Quake that I could remake again and again. Most of the music that's played on the radio is repeated over and over to get you to buy the cd, when most of the cd shows how little talent many of the top groups actually have.

Fortunately there are now ways to prelisten the cd in record stores, but you don't get to hear a sample from every cd in the store; it's a limited list (we have those here at a local Barnes & Noble).

Until the recording cartel- er, industtry- learns how to reconcile fair use with profits, they will continue to sue and sue.

Obviously, what is needed is an organized respone that cuts to the very heart of the industry's money base. It should become very cool to listen to live music by local musicians. Maybe something like a linux type license for music which makes it free to distribute. Maybe creating a cultural demand for music and muscians who are not part of the commercial scene. Musicians should make a good living playing music, but the megabuck industry terrorizes my soul. Something better will come.

I love AG for the chat and the groups. Made many freinds tehre. I stil buy cds, but I don't think any of the artists I like are with RIAA. I like country music (old and new) not this other stuff(rap, heavy metal, jazz) It won't be hard for me to stop buying their cd's LOL. Even though I can burn my own, I still buy new releases, or albums with some of the older artists (hank williams, patsy cline, loretta lynn). I've read about MOCA, and an article that said that the Pentagon wanted to use P2P to help with compatibility issues between departments. When MOCA goes through the RIAA will now longer be able to stop us. Face it RIAA the Pentagon wants P2P are you gonna try to shut them down or sue them. I would like to see you try. Also, how mahny agencies - over how many years -- havbe tried to shut down porn sites. Have they succeeded - NO. I will gladly pay a few $$ a month in order to download music, but I am hoping MOCA gets passed. MP3s aren't the only type of media that is having problems. The MPAA is doing the same thing with movi downloads. We can't fight this on our own. Congress MUST pass Moca and other laws to make file-sharing legal. I have emailed my rpresentatives and congressmen asking that they support MOCA. I suggest you all do the same. Eve if AG is shut down before it passes, when it does AG can come back stronger than ever, and RIAA can take a flying leap. Who wants to get the first KICK in. OOPs I am the first in line. LONG LIVE P2P.

By the way I would like to see the porn sites stopped.

And there's another aspect of the RIAA's strategy viz "the music" that recently came to me. Can you say "gentrification," everyone?

i buy cds all the time, and i use p2p all the time also. the riaa is trying to neuter america by brain washing them. just think, you get a company that likes to castrate other things(other companies, dogs, cats, p2p networks). whats gonna happen when they collect every last mans testicles? theyre only gonna have their own to remove(i wanna be there for that). plus, how many of you read that companies are trying to plug the analog hole? stupid. o well. i think that we need to gather up all of the riaa and cut their balls off. no, wait, i wanna see them do it to themselves.

by the way, as long as there are laws, there is no such thing as freedom.

and on a lighter note, porn will live on, just in other forms, like music has.

to each his own, and to the backstreet boys (funny, that makes me think their balls havent dropped) and nsync, its not a band unless you play your own music. it CANNOT be a band just because you dance like homsexuals or because you can lipsync (which is strangly similar to nsync) really well. just look at milli vanilli. one day the cd (or tape) is gonna start jumping and your gonna become yesterdays news.

and for those of you who just wasted your time for listening to me say balls or castrate in different ways sorry, but this is exactly the way i see the riaa. completely off the subject and not worth the time. just tried to make a point. and i wanted to (hopefully) make someone laugh to relieve the seriousness in this forum. even though i see this as a serious subject. i used to use ag also.

and i am willing to boycott cds (unless they're cd-rs)

Principales argumentos a favor de los programas de intercambio de archivos musicales:
1.Una inmensa riqueza musical puede volcarse en la sociedad,permitiendo a los individuos experimentar y aprovecharse de todo cuanto el hombre a creado en el mundo de la música hasta el momento.Hasta ahora el precio ,la creación artificial de la demanda por parte de las multinacionales y la prostitución del arte lo impedían.
2.Que un grupo venda millones de copias se debe más a una estrategia publicitaria que a criterios de calidad.Hay miles de creadores de los estilos más pintorescos cuya calidad es tan buena como los que alcanzan el éxito.Estos no pueden ser conocidos a no ser por unos pocos que se arriesgan a comprar sus cds.Programas como audigalaxy da la posibilidad de conocer a fondo todos los estilos e interpretes.
3.Mundo diferente,negocios diferentes.Si millones de individuos y empresas se "reciclan",por qué no han de hacerlo también las multinacionales discográficas.Es una cuestión de experimentación,de probar nuevos negocios.
4.La música se puede entender de otra manera,ya no como una forma de ganarse la vida directamente con la venta de cds,cosa que sólo pueden hacer cuatro en comparación con la inmensidad de creadores que a lo largo de toda la historia han tenido que trabajar en otra cosa.Se seguirá creando música independientemente que esta se remunere o no.Además los compositores que quedrían ganarse la vida con esto podrían hacerlo mediante giras y nuevas puestas en escena(motiva la creatividad y la diferencia).
5.Los compositores encontrarían reconocimiento en los lugares más reconditos del mundo y no tan ceñidos a sus países de origen.
Termino diciendo que ojalá estos sistemas se generalicen a todoelículas,documentales y sobre todo documentos gráficos de denuncia social,valiosos archivos,etc.Abre una etapa de crítica sobre una amplísima base documental.Animo a todos los que luchan por estos sistemas y mi enorme gratitud a quienes los crean.

Una buena estrategia para reventar el sistema es precisamente lo que lo ha hecho reventar hasta ahora:la falta de demanda.NO CONSUMIR.Ante la imposición de criterios dictatoriales planteo el no consumir los productos de los artistas y compañías que demandan.Es la respuesta más efectiva.

this is really a simple one, but the majority of people would not agree to it. The recording industry is only as powerful as we let them be. They are completely within our control as consumers. That's right! If you want to lessen their power and have them scrambling to please us, it's simple to accomplish - STOP BUYING CDs! That's not just online advocates, but everyone. If there were a formal, and large scale boycott of the recording industry, they would screaming for forgiveness within a few months.

“Litigation is never our preferred course,” said Edward P. Murphy, NMPA’s CEO.
- hoo boy, just about pissed my pants laughing at that bold-faced lie.

first, i'd like to ask what the hell is lodged in hilary rosen's patoot? not many women are in a high-ranking position like hers, and she has to be a dictator. thanks for making us gals look like complete flippin' morons. we should all chip in and buy her a top hat and monocle for her monopoly.

ahh.. the riaa. these bastards don't stop, do they? i haven't bought a cd related to the riaa in about 2 years, and since this latest flurry of lawsuits, and also because i hate the music, i can't see myself rushing out to buy whatever it is that's popular at the clubs now. is nsync still the cat's ass? can anyone tell these groups apart?

metallica. pfft. does anyone else find it amusing that while lars and fellow circus freaks feel that they should sue the pants off of any company who makes use of the word 'metal' in their name, metallica in fact stole their name from some magazine? a tad hypocritical there, aren't we boys?

purchasing cds is not a problem, as long as you don't buy cds from 'bands'(read: 'no-talent hacks') that are affiliated with the riaa. what that basically means is never listen to the radio. EVER. trust me, you're not missing much by not hearing that new puddle of mudd/creed/anything remotely related to fred durst/nicklecrap single that gets played 6 times an hour. same goes for those top 40 cookiecutter assmonkeys as well.

supporting local artists and indie bands that come to town is a great way to hear new music. concerts are the only places that i ever buy cds now. they're always half the price they are at retail. of course, also take into consideration that it's rarer than a picture of a fully-clothed britney spears that i can actually find the music i'm looking for amongst the heavily marketed tripe. i'm all for paying for my music, as long as a significant portion of the money is actually going to the people who are the creative force, instead of these riaa representatives and labels whose only income is from leeching off of someone else's creativity and profitability.

it's rather difficult to believe that the riaa hasn't caught on to the new direction that music distribution has taken. even my 61 year-old father downloads mp3s. no longer can these infinitely rich people easily dictate to everyone what they should be listening to. so many people are out searching for more music, clicking on that 'other listeners liked...' option, and rejecting that they be forcefed manufactured music. of course, there will always be those people who have to listen to what other people say is the song du jour, but i'm one of those people who want to dig for more substance, and i'm guessing that everyone else here is as well. bravo.

let's just face it, we're not the 'good' consumers. we've strayed from the flock. let's keep the music where it belongs: to everyone.



oh, and by the way, narfboy, i seriously doubt that nsync really lipsyncs. would you want someone to believe that your voice sounded that horrible if it actually didn't?? eeyick! no amount of studio magic can make that tolerable.

Audiogalaxy has officailly shut down operations........This really sucks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I dont see why you are soo upset. This isnt fair to the artists. If the artist put it up there themselves then yes but these people are profitting off of copywritten work and for some reason that doesnt matter?

Artists have to make a living too. Try being a solo artist and promoting yourself without promoters and see how far you go? You aren't supporting your favorite artists by stealing from them.

i'm sure you dont like it when people steal from you and more people are downloading and burning copywritten work. With the cd you just burned dont lie to me and tell me you are going to go buy it. I know because all of my friends do this. Every single one of them. Tons of burned cds and they dont go out to shows either so this is a complete rip off!

This is not good for the future of artists. Leave the net for the artists to decide if they want you to listen to have their music for free not companies that blindly put spyware on your machine and make money from advertisers while you think everything is free and this is a free service.

It is not. If I were you, I would get rid of the audio galaxy satellite and other programs and download something called Ad aware.

You'll be amazed at how much spyware is on your machine and they don't even warn you so these people aren't as nice as they appear.

Quit defending the ripping off of artists because it's going to discourage future artists from getting their name out.

P.S

Dont give the same old lie claiming that you dont want to buy a cd that you cant listen to when you can go to your cd store and listen to it on headphones. Plus on sites there are samples of the music before you buy.

There are also some cd stores that charge $13.00. Don't go to Blockbuster Music if you cant afford pricy cds, go to another store that isn't so corporate.

Plus some online stores have special deals too.

You wouldn't want to work for free would you? Neither do artists and recording cds, mixing, mastering, etc takes alot of time, effort and money.

How do you think artists feel when their new song leaks out before they get to release it?

Put yourself in their shoes for once.

That's interesting 'sowhat' considering I've bought more cds since I've started using AG than ever before. This is all because of the simple fact that it allows me a much broader range of music to listen to, and I can actually find out if I like a band before hand.
Plus, on mp3.com and the like where you get 'samples' it's usually a 30 second part of one or two songs. It's hard to actually tell if you like a band from 30 seconds of one song. However if I download say 20 songs, make a cd and listen to it over and over, it grows on me. At that point I'll go and buy it (and I've done this numerous times, so I guess your friends are just lying pirates )
I also know of several small bands (a few of them personally) who love audiogalaxy. It's a great way for them to get their songs out to people who otherwise wouldn't be able to hear them. You see, there are these people out there who make music not for money, but because they love doing it and they want people to hear them. Sure some greedy bastard band that was formed just to make money may get screwed over by file sharing, but the small bands who actually appreciate their fans usually love file sharing. Mainly because it gets more people into them, and alot of people I know who use file sharing WILL go out and buy the cd if they like the band. By shutting down sites like this the RIAA is basically saying "SCREW YOU" to most of the people who buy the music in the first place. This is why we need to stop buying cds, screw over the RIAA and the record companys. Let them know that we are what makes them money, and if we want we can take all that money away. Screw the RIAA and long live file sharing. Hell, even if AG doesn't come back up, 3 more will be there to take it's place

Its not good at all!
Audiogalaxy and Napster are the first.
So who`ll be the next...

Yeah. Those damn dirty music moguls and their companies are to blame, not the artists. I'm sure the average music artist doesn't at all mind that his or her product is being stolen and distributed without his or her knowledge or consent. I bet the artists are banging down doors and breaking contracts and whatnot, ready to forego potential profits of their creativity and effort in order to heed the call of their outraged true fans, who only want to ensure their right to easily accessible, well organized and totally free songs from any of their favorite artist. I mean, who the hell do they think they are, attmepting to force us music fans into actually paying for CD's all over again?! That's free speech, man! I think you're all right, I mean, the point is not about what's fair to the artist, it's not about letting them choose, it's about those damn record companies gouging us with $17 CD's. What choice do we have? That's the point. That's from A to B. That's why we download songs for free. If CD's were a reasonble $1.50 or $2.00 each, we would never download the albums for free. And the poor artist, playing gigs, recording, working for years for peanuts in hopes of breaking in and getting signed....all they want to do is give their music freely to anybody who will listen. They were never in it to make a living or enjoy the success of what they've worked for. It's not like they "really" work or anything, I mean, it's not like someone's asking them to forfeit wages or anything. Or asking them at all. Why give them the choice when you can just take what you want. I'm quite sure they trust that the fans will take care of them if their sales fall or if they hit hard times. You know, send them a little something for all the free music they've enjoyed. We're very much like that, a tight-knit, conscientious community of mature and caring fans, ready to help if needed. Kind of like a big co-op. And what's this about sales dropping anyway? That sounds very self-serving, if you know what I mean. For instance, since I discovered the splendors of free music on my computer, I've go to my local record store twice as often as before to pick up blank CD's. What a service. It's about time we get something free here in America.

CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET A SONG

Parece que la guerra se desata. Porqué? El capital intenta reconducir una herramienta que parece se le ha ido de madre. Millones de hombres y mujeres de todo el mundo lo estan usando para DISFRUTAR de la música, con libre critério, sin intereses creados i -eso si- a cambio de ninguna creación DIRECTA de riqueza.
¿De verdad se cree alguien que AG o qualquier otro filesharing puede acabar con la MÚSICA?
¿Acaso no habían músicos antes de que existieran los sellos discogràficos?
Todas las culturas han tenido su música sin discos, pero nunca tan POCOS se havían hecho TAN RICOS con ella ( y no estoy hablando de los piratas).
Tenemos una oportunidad de universalizar la música, de hundir a los especuladores del arte.
¿Que pierden billones? !QUE SEAN TRILLONES!
Tenemos la oportunidad de que los músicos distribuyan su arte SIN INTERMEDIARIOS...
NO SE PUEDE DEJAR PASAR ESTA OPORTUNIDAD...
AUDIOGALAXY HA MUERTO...VIVA EL INTERCAMBIO DE INFORMACIÓN!!!

Why oh why are they doing that!!!!!

Why why why!!!!!

It seems to me that the record industry is just being lazy and anachronistic. Eventually most distribution of music and any media will be done through gnutella-like P2P networks. I'm sure that the vision of the creators of this network was actually to ensure that this media distribution remains free and democratic with no ties or dependancies to big corporations, and that every voice of expression will have an equal opportunity to be heard.
The copyright industry will eventually find a way to get its money under the assumption that the data is easily and quickly distributed throughout the Internet in a matter of hours after it is released (examples might include public key encryption etc).
I think that our duty is to keep copying, sharing, and pirating software and music until they realise that their money shouldn't go to sleezy lawyers, but into research in making P2P networks work for them as well.
While this unproductive lawsuit trend continues, I'm sure that a new "napster" will emerge every few months, and then brought down for the next one to emerge...

Hey folks, consider these facts from a working musician who is oh so pissed off at the RIAA right now.
1. Most musicians have never made much money on cd sales. Unless you're Celine Dion you make your money by going on tour, selling out small clubs then bigger clubs and selling some t-shirts on the way. Most bands don't sell enough records to pay back the initial investment for recording and marketing made by the record company so they go into their next recording session with the knowledge that they owe money.
2.Thanks to the proliferation of cheap, high quality digital hard drive recording technology, it costs a fraction of the amount of money to make a slick sounding record than it did even ten years ago, and it keeps going down every year.
3. Most of the money spent by record companies is on marketing and promotion. The talent sees very little of it until they become a million-plus seller, which very few of them do. It's been pointed out that you'll make more money working at a 7-11 in six months than you would if you went on a national tour as a new signed artist for the same amount of time.
3. cd sales have not gone down, they've gone up.
4. Even if every music consumer in the world never bought a record again and downloaded all of their music for free, the end result would be that the profit motive for record companies to promote manufactured, flashy, image based shit music like N'Sync would dissappear, therefore, we would hopefully see less of them. The substantial, musician, who relies on talent, passion and quality performance instead of cute dimples and fancy dance steps, would keep doing what musicians have been doing for milennia, touring, entertaining, refining their art, and hopefully, making a living in the process.
5. Ever heard of Arovane, Pole, Dub Tractor, Galactic, Stewart Walker, Pierre Henry, David Axelrod, Suba or Mice Parade? Neither had I until I discovered them on AudioGalaxy, now, if any of them (or dozens of others), came to town, they would sell one more ticket to their show and maybe a t-shirt too, and given their relative obscurity, that would mean more to them than buying a cd that I wouldn't have even bought cuz' I didn't know they existed.
6. A few years ago, during the height of Napster, I had a band that recorded some music. Just out of curiosity, I put one of the songs onto the net and later forgot all about it. In two months, that song started showing up on MP3 rock charts. Imagine what would have happened if I put some actual effort into it!
7. Take it from a musician, folks like RobtRosigliano don't know what they are talking about. The internet music sharing phenomenon is the best thing that could happen to music and musicians, a few of them are just too spoiled to realize it yet.

i rarely find what im looking for in the fucking record stores and when i do the cd costs almost 30 dollars (canadian)the most expensive cd was 33 dollars.fuck you RIAA!

Yeah- remember when cassettes were gonna put the record companies out of business?? The RIAA cries wolf- but what they're really crying is GREED!!!!!

..i liked the online feature, what other client has it?
and ..once you selected the sub menue, all crap was out of sight

internetionale@yahoo.de

sony needs a denial of service attack!

lets all click'em
@ time

@time zero

..what time they sell the most? when kids come out of school and parents are still at work. 3pm !
lets click them every day that time
http://usa.sonymusic.com/shop/index.html

Civil War!! American Tribal Culture vs. All.... Keep the music movin'

shoshidge!!! yes!!

I am a musician as well and it isnt about the money. If you want to make money be a lawyer and help the RIAA sue audiogalaxy. My favorite things are playing for a small crowd, or just having a cool jam session with a few friends. Artistic expression is everywhere and if you are an atuned individual you really dont have to pay for it. There are thousands of small time musicians and bands everywhere who are as good or better than the big name stars. So what if the record industry charges $20 bucks for a CD, I can always walk down the street and buy some underground artist's CD's for $5 and see thier show later that night for $8. I think this whole situation with the RIAA is rather hillarious right now. So for comic relief do your part to hurt them every way possible. Dont every buy CDs, offer to download and burn CDs for your friends who dont have computer access, Sabotage CDs at record stores, hack websites, distribute propaganda, SHARE MP3s, support programmers who break protection schemes, buy an audiogalaxy shirt, carry felt marker all the time, and SUPPORT YOUR LOCAL ARTISTS.

==PHONG==

Good news for recording artists. for the story go here. Maybe the prices will lower and you are all right about the RIAA. They are full of it, greedy and treat artists like slaves.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20020619/music_nm/leisure_artists_dc_2


They didn't mention Courtney Love much or Don Henley but those are the two ones who have been there from beginning to end fighting this battle so props to them!

Well I think that audiogalaxy being shut down is for the birds.Someone had to but the music for it to be on there.Personally I really only wanted stuff you cannot find in stores anywhere around here.Like "Drugs are Bad"-Southpark Remix. I ask you where are you going to find anything like that?Maybe somewhere overseas, for an arm and a leg.Then pay almost the same price as the cd for shipping and handling.Sorry to say to but with bullshit hip hop,rap,and alternative music out now a days.Who in there right mind wants to pay that much money for a compilation of shit.That has way more foul language in it then I am using here now.Which I think personally the next future audiogalaxy, should open up somewhere in a little unknown european country. That does not give a shit what America, and all they layers think or have to say.You know a country where american layers and the so called guess it called RIAA.WIll have no say,or control in what they do.I also think that if I DO DECIDE to buy a cd.It should be my choice as to weather i want to share it with others or not.It's my cd,and my money that bought it.Fuck Madonna,Celine,and Cher.They are good artists.But personally do not think there cd's are worth $15-$17 each.Christ I can get DVD's cheaper than that at the wholesale store I belong to(SAM's CLUB).Ok what maybe a dollar more.I agree with what someone else said.Everyone of the song on there had to have been bought at one time or another.Or for that matter have downlaoded many song that i could tell were recorded straight from vinyll into someones computer.Well that person had to have bought the album at one point or the other.I have 4 albums by Gino soccio.I do not like all the songs on the albums.If i were to buy them it would have cost me$20.99+shipping and handling for each cd.I was able to download the songs i Liked off of all 4 albums.That saved me $98.So take that you Idiots.first there was napster,then audiogalaxy.What makes you think another site will not pop up soon? Like the old saying goes....."where there is a will,there is a way"It will happen! Just a matter of time before it does.So put that in your pipe and smoke you corporate assholes.

I simply love Audiogalaxy!
It is the only site that has let me find songs which I have been
searching for years and years (including Neil Sedaka's 'All you
need is the music', Marie Osmond's 'This is the way that I feel'
and Dr. Hook's The turn on'). I have 400+ cd's (original, not pirated)
in my collection and , I keep buying every month. Yet, there are
hundreds, perhaps thousands of songs which are totally out of print,
and none of the record companies ever expressed any desire to
re-release them. So, how are people like me supposed to listen (and
perhaps record too) to those 'lost gems' if it were not for those kind
people who take the trouble of converting their own collection into MP3's
so that the rest of the world can listen in as well? For example, I am
a big fan of Giorgio (and Munich Machine) - and I think he would rather
bless me (not curse) because I have now downloaded many of his old
hits which would be otherwise difficult to obtain (I am in Japan, and the
cd stores here, HMV, Tower Records, Virgin, you name it stores larger
collection than those in most parts of the world, yet I could not find a
single album of his with those songs). Same goes for Dee D Jackson,
La Bionda, D. D. Sound, and even Tantra (Hills of Katmandu) - the list
is almost endless. So, I am saddened beyond measure at this sudden
and heinous attack at Audiogalaxy. Couldn't RIAA just say that any album
that is not currently in the market can be encoded and distributed over
Audiogalaxy instead of kist shutting it down?
whole collection

sorry for the typos (kist --> just)
- but what I said, stands!! Long live Audiogalaxy

On AG I've found out about many new bands that are much better than the bands popular on tv/radio. AG is a great opportunity for people to find out about new artists and support their work by buying their CD's. Just because an artist has the money to get tons of advertisements and monopolize the profits and the entire media doesn't mean at all that they are popular due to their artistic value. I never buy music which I have never heard before. On AG I had a chance to listen to even international singers and bought their CD's, such as Ayumi Hamasaki, Hitomi, Luna Sea, Rob D, Romantic Mode, Ambra Angiolini and others. Also I have met many friends and AG became a very important element in my life. If AG is closed it will be not because "copyright infringements", but to maintain this monopoly, where real artists remain in the shadow of the commercial artists which can afford to publicize their mediocre work and become famous, and the only alternative.

Big corporation throwing it's weight around again. Knew it would happen when Bush dropped the Microsoft monopoly suit. Little man has no freedom of speech so to speak.

hey guys, do u have an audiogalaxy ending alternative????? other sites???

AG alternatives? Unfortunately, AG's demise has reminded me of how all of the other p2p networks suck ass, Limewire is slow and unreliable, so is Kazaa, Winmx is ugly but has potential and no spyware but still sucks compared to AG, I've heard some talk about www.soulseek.org but it hasn't let me download it yet. Something will come up, I hope, one of the best features of AG was the 'other listeners liked' aspect, it led me to music I never would have discovered otherwise.
The RIAA can't keep a good idea down for long.

http://mediaseek.pl/ ------an audiogalaxy clone with servers not based in the US---this means the RIAA is "thumbs up their asses" if you use it. It does everything AG does (web-based browser, file resume, queuing of offline files). GET IT! It needs USERS!!!!!

I BESEECH THEE! GET THIS PROGRAM! http://mediaseek.pl/

I seem to remeber a time (I might be dating myself here) when a band got popular by people passing around "Pirate" tapes. People would trade tapes of their favorite bands and in turn, this would increse the fan base of the bands being traded. Isn't Napster/AudioGalaxy just a modern day version of this?? I don't know whay bands would be up in arms about it. More people are hearing your music! Isn't that what its all about??

Let us fight Big Brother for the right to download what we like when we like

Man its a civil war!!!! well we could get our music from gnutella i guesse but man audiogalaxy was so great!!!! Well ill switch to gnutella now haha. Well the companies should let use download what we like as welike em!

I feel sorry for the people that were totally ripped off buying Audiogalaxy's "Gold Version". The site offers no donloadable songs, but yet still has the damn page up that you can order the Gold Version from them. The people that purchased the Gold Version got totally ripped with their "no refund" policy too.

I will buy no cd's-- This crap sucks!

Listen to all of us just rolling over and playing dead. We have a voice in this country if we stick together. Write, call, e-mail your senators, congressmen let them know that to us this is a freedom of speech and that we will not stand for them or others to take it away from us. That whom ever we decide to share our bought and paid for music is our business and not the RIAA. Boycott Sony and RIAA!!! That means no more Wheel Of Fortune or any of it's affiliates. Please let's stick together on this matter or they will just keep closing us down no matter where we run. And let them know if not for site's such as audiogalaxy then how would you know which music to go bye.

SHIT WE MUST GO INTO STRIKE DAMN IT AND BUY NO CD TO SEE HOW THEIR PROFITS GO DOWN.
I'M GONNA MAKE A VOODOO TO THE RIAA THEY'LL END EATING SHIT.
STRIKE STRIKE, AUDIO GALAXI FOREVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I was quite pleased to see so many ppl up in arms (so to speak) against RIAA and their ilk. The outlook in the posts was hopeful, in that it appears it will be quite difficult for RIAA to successfully sue and shut down distributed networks. Unfortunately, I fear this is a false hope. Have you heard of DRM (Digital Rights Management)? The current push is to pass laws requiring DRM in all digital devices. Bottom line if this happens: you will be able to download and share all the mp3's you want. You just won't be able to play them on your computer, or in a CD player using a CD you burned yourself. It will make network sharing irrelevant.

Time to start worrying again...

You're all regurgitating the point that the little known artist benefits from the Napsters and AG's, and how unfair and greedy it is to shut them down because they were losing profits. First of all, the only reason they were shut down was because they were trading the already popular artists. It, of course, had nothing to do with the little guy or gal who wanted to get his/her music out there. But when a "service" such as Napster is breaking laws, the "legitimate" part of the business necessarily is part of it too. They were knowingly trading copyrighted materials and profiting from it, and while they were also trading the lesser-known stuff, their business was still not legal. And I would venture to say that most of the downloads were probably popular artists. And once again, the artists weren't given the CHOICE of whether to trade their music for free. It was just "taken" from them. They shouldn't have done it, they know it, and though the service was really nice and easy and all that, they shouldn't have offered it in the first place. Unfortunately, you guys are blaming the wrong people. If you really loved AG for all the little known bands out there, you should be mad at AG for screwing it up by letting people trade the copyrighted stuff, because that's why you don't have your service any more. If you really loved it for the free popular stuff, you should have expected that you wouldn't be getting free music for long, and you shouldn't think it's your right because it's not. For those musicians who've posted and said it's not about money and that it was a benefit to spread your sounds around, in the words of Morrissey, "you're only half right". It's not about money for YOU, but don't presume to represent other artists. Many many many artists are "in it for the money" in both the sense that they'd like to get wealthy from it or they'd be happy just to be able to make a living by doing what they love, and there's nothing wrong with any of the above. Of course you like to have your music shared for free if you're not a popular band, anyone would. But but that doesn't mean all the popular bands would like that. They should have the choice. It's their music. They made it. If they made it to give freely to the world, that's great. If they made it to express themselves and make a living from it and you want it for free, too bad. Don't buy it, but don't get irate when you can't have it for free. Quit blaming the artists. It's not their fault, and not all of them want us to have their music for free. And if you're mad at the distributors for gouging us with $20 cd's, then take it up with them. Organize and boycott cd buying for a few months or something. That would send a clear message. Not dowloading free shit then, when it's taken away, justifying it all by jumping the "man, fuck corporate america" bandwagon. If you want to fuck them, do it right. If you're really passionate about this, you wouldn't sit and post all this bs, you'd be up off your asses and organizing. That's how labor does it, and it works, but it takes work and real dedication, not posting a little dig on the old boycott website of the day. As for the unknown artist trying to get his/her music out there, if you liked AG, then start your own and ban any of the popular stuff. That was simple. Oh, and I love free music. I used AG for a couple of years at least and I loved it. But I also knew that it's time was limited and that I wasn't going to complain when the free music stopped.

Hey RR, one of the main points was that most musicians DON'T make any real money on CD sales, most of the 20 bucks that you spend on a cd goes to advertising, lawyers and more lawyers, the band and/or composer gets a pittance. Musicians make money by performing live, period.
Until recording technology came along, live performance was the only way that a musician made a living,(obviously). The original purpose of record singles was promotional, the artistic message of the musician was never meant to be understood through the recording,(especially since early recordings sounded like shit), the record single was meant to entice the music consumer to go to the show.
The troubador culture of musicaians always on the road eroded as radio, jukeboxes, and better recording technology made live music less in demand, (incidentally, many jazz musicians during the swing era took to stuffing peanut butter in the coin slots of jukeboxes where ever they went because they hated them so much).
By the end of the 1960's, improvements in recording technology led to the LP record, and the formation of the record industry as it exists today. It baecame possible for musicians to expand their artistic concepts through the use of "studio magic", enabling them to do things on record that they could never pull off in a live setting.
Almost overnight, the whole thing got turned upside down, suddenly, records didn't exist to sell bands, no, bands existed to sell records. Lack of talent could be compensated for, what really mattered was marketability.
The Monkees and their successors,(N' Sync, NKOTB, Spice Girls, ad nauseum), were the inevitable result. (Studio acts were another interesting development,many of which I like, but for the first time, a musician could make a living without ever playing in public).
As for a musician getting wealthy through his of her music, that was never as big of an expectation as it is now thanks to images of coked up rock stars living in mansions, eyebrow deep in pussy, flying around in private jets and living a fantasy life of privilage and wealth, an image perpetuated by the record industry in order to sell records.
Historically, a musician had about the same expectation of wealth as a poet or an actor in a travelling theatre troupe, and I want those days back!!! Fuck the Rolls Royce, maybe if the profit motive was lessened, we wouldn't have so many mediocre tone deaf poseurs floating around and there would be more room for the real guys(and girls).
Here's the main effect of the recording industry on music as we know it today.
North America gave birth to two world renowned musical styles, jazz and rock.
Both of those styles of music started as simplistic, repetitive forms of low-class dance music.
But what happened over time is that the musicians playing that music night after night began to alter the music in various ways to keep themselves interested, bigger chords, faster tempos, more complicated arrangements.
The engine that drove the rapid evoloution of jazz, rock, R&B, and even, to a certain extent, progressive electronic dance music, was relentless, full time, touring.
Touring, touring, touring!!
Touring is how musicians refine their craft, not fucking royalty cheques.
Free, unrestricted access to recorded music is the best thing that could ever happen to musicians and music itself. It will make image based music totally unprofitable and it will exand the potential audience of an artist or band exponentially.
How many times have you been browsing the cd's on the rack and found something that looked like it might be cool but you didn't want to risk the 20 bucks in case it sucked? The impulsivity allowed by the freeness of P2P downloading is its greatest aspect.
And don't worry, there will always be a "recording" industry. Mp3's are great but they are not cd quality, and cd's aren't as good as quality analog(vinyl).
Also, the development of 5.1 surround sound and DVD audio will ensure that people will be buying little plastic discs of some sort or another for years to come.
The recording industry will be forced to evovle itself in order to justify its existance.
Shutting down AG is a nuisance and nothing else, I just liked that particular site, I'll find another one, so will all of you guys eventually and the RIAA will continue pissing in the wind until they come to their senses and dig which way the wind is blowing, at which point they'll find a way to profit from it and evrybody will be friends again...(sigh)...

One more thing, before I got a computer, my main way of collecting music was through used record shops/garage sales. Like file sharing, this method allowed me to trial run an artist or band that I was unsure about without dropping the 20 bucks, also, it allowed me to discover music that was so obscure it was and never will be released on cd. Because I was only paying between 25 cents and five dollars per record, my record collection quickly multiplied just like my mp3's have.
I still bought new cd's from artists I really dug and was loyal to, many of which I wouldn't have known about if I hadn't found their old material gathering dust in a thrift store someplace.
The point is that the artists and their labels did not make any money directly from me this way either,(although I was practically putting the record store guy's kids through college).
Now that vinyl is trendy again and every punk with a turntable is dreaming of becoming the next Danny Tenaglia, good vinyl at low prices is becoming harder to find,( unless you happen to dig old, scratchy Christmas records and K-tel compilations from the 80's).
I've never been anti-corporate and I have never succumbed to the fallacy that wanting to make a profit makes you evil, but the simple fact is that I like to collect music as a hobby and I don't have the money to sustain that hobby the way the RIAA would like me to. I'm always looking for a way to find good, interesting music for free or cheap and I have no guilt about that because I've got shelves full of store bought cd's and new vinyl, I've paid my dues to the dickheads at the RIAA.

I find it interesting that RobtRosigliano says "They were knowingly trading copyrighted materials and profiting from it, and while they were also trading the lesser-known stuff, their business was still not legal." There's two points you seem to be missing here Robt.

First point: AG was not "knowingly trading" copyrighted materials. The AG USERS were knowingly trading copyrighted materials. AG was doing their best to cut off the flow of material that wasn't supposed to go through their system. Unfortunately, it was pretty much an impossible task for them to catch every misspelling and permutation of a file name that was designed to fly below the file blocking radar. All you had to do was type in a couple words, for instance I was looking for Motley Crue "Smokin' In The Boys Room", I typed in "boys room" and found the first couple pages of the returned results were blocked, but there on the 3rd or 4th page in I found it, listed as "Montley Crue". The most likely reason I can come up with why AG hadn't plugged that hole yet is because only 5 or 6 people had the file under this particular misspelling. It would have eventually popped up on AG's radar and been added to the blocked list as I've seen happen to so many other misspellings intended to slip through the cracks. Saying that AG was operating illegally because of that is like saying, for instance, a car manufacturer is operating illegally because somebody bypasses a legally mandated emissions control system in order to get better gas milage from the car. This brings me to the second point.

It has long been understood that when a person uses a product or service that it's the user's responsibility to use it in a legal manner for it's legally intended purpose. In the case of AG, the legally intended purpose was to trade files that the copyright owners allowed to be traded. It is the users responsibility to not trade files that the copyright owner(s) do not give permission to trade. Following your line of reasoning, should General Motors be dragged into court because they make cars capable of doing in excess of 85 mph, even though the fastest speed limits I know of in the US are 70 mph? It doesn't happen because it is the product user's responsibility to use the car in a legal manner. Let's face it, almost every product made has the potential for being used illegally. Is it Bic's responsibility if I use one of their pens to illegally forge somebody else's name to a document for my personal gain? Is it Craftsman's responsibility if I use one of their screwdrivers to pop a lock on a window to break into somebody's house? No, it's not. If anybody tried to take GM, Bic, or Craftsman to court for any of the scenarios I just laid out the case would be laughed right out of the courtroom. Unfortunately, when the courts ruled against Napster they essentially said, for all intents and purposes, that the provider of the product/service is now responsible for what the end user does with it. What scares me is that with the Napster ruling, the door is open for those things I made up to potentially happen for real. Here's a scenario for you, let's say somebody's driving 45 mph in a 25 mph zone and because of their speed they can't stop in time to avoid hitting the child who just rode his bike out into the roadway and the child gets severely injured or killed. A tragedy for sure, but the car manufacturer isn't responsible for it, the driver is. That's just common sense. Now let's say that the same logic that was applied to Napster is applied to the car manufacturer. The family of that child argues that the manufacturer should have made the car able to know that it was driving at an illegal speed and prohibit the driver from doing so. They drag the manufacturer into court and the judge rules against the manufacturer. Now the manufacturer is bogged down with fines and ordered to stop manufacturing their product until it can perform the impossible task of reading the legal speed limit on each and every road it can possibly be driven down, which is going to drive manufacturing and payroll costs through the roof. Forget the astronomical cost of the new "legal" model of the car, most likely there will be no "legal" model to buy because there's no way the manufacturer could possibly meet the requirement set by the court to legally do business again. Now I'll be the first to admit that scenario sounds pretty far out there, but before anybody laughs too hard at the notion, just remember, that's exactly what happened to Napster over "intellectual property". If the courts can throw common sense out the window and destroy a company like they did over "intellectual property" then what's to stop the courts from doing the same to any other company for any type of damage, intellectual or physical, now that the precedent has been set?

shoshidge,

Musicians can make money by playing live, but not "period". They do make money off of Cd's. Not only from initial sales, but from royalties. They just do. Now, how much and as what percentage of profit and all that business depends on the deals struck, but those are decisions made by the artists. You take away their ability to decide their business when you trade their product at your will. It's just very simple that it should be their decision, not ours. We can decide if we want to listen to them, but not that they should give us their music for free.
Though the single may have originally been intended to spawn interest in seeing said bands live, they have for a long time been a vehicle to bring music to people so they can listen to said albums ad nauseum....just like we do those MP3's. People like record, cd's, tapes, files, whatever. So what's so bad about them? People still go see their bands live. As for the monkees, I still get their songs stuck in my head. nsync, Ive got to side with you on that one. but, if it makes people happy, then it does. It's not like people don't see through the manufacture, and if they don't, they don't care too much or know too much about music anyway and it doesn't matter to them,no? And to those of us who do know, we know, and we can tell if there's talent there for the most part and we'll either like it or not. I would dare say most people know that nsync is full of shit, but let the kids have their boy idols or whatever. Not any worse that sports idols, right? Now about getting wealthy, i would dare say there unfortunately is a fairly common expectation among artist, but maybe not as much from, say, a classical musician as a rocker. Maybe not "expectation" but the possibility of getting wealthy does drive many musicians. the problem is the dissillusion involved when 95% don't get wealthy, but it's there. I'm not saying that's what made them want to write music, but it's in their minds and part of the equation. that's not bad.
I don't feel any guilt about getting the free stuff either, but I'm not getting angry when they're catching on. I like cd's too, but I haven't bought one cd in 6 mons because I can get everything free on the net, or I have a friend burn this or that. If you're not happy with the $20 price, which none of us our, then take the action to the people who make them. write the artists, boycott cd's, whatever, but don't expect the "right" of free music. if they thought we'd buy more albums by having access to them for free on the net, they wouldn't be spending millions trying to get this free shit taken care of. obviously it doesn't work that way or theyd've done it themselves by now. it certainly would justify the free stuff we like, but it's not reality.
And folk was the precursor to the blues, jazz, rock, all that.

You know, it just amazes me how large companies can always circumvent the law and JUSTIFY IT!
Anyone ever hear of the Fair Use Act? In summary it allows for the making of a personal copy (backup) of what you have for archival purposes. To the best of my knowledge, this law hasn't been revoked, however, steps have already been taken to violate this law by music and software manufacturers (CD anti copy protection attempts, MacroVision, CSS, to name a few).
How come no one has sued these people for violation of a law geared to protect the CONSUMER? The RIAA pisses and moans about how all of this file sharing has cut into their profits. Anyone remember when the CD first came out way back in the early 80's? They were around $11 US, which was a lot of money. The argument that they had back then for the high price was cost of manufacturing. Here we are 20 years later where anyone can buy a blank CD for around 10 cents, a jewel case for about the same, yet CD's range anywhere from $17 to $20 US. WHY?
Bottom line here is control. The RIAA has lost control and are suing any and everyone to try and get it back. That's what multimillion dollar corporations and their government backers are all about - control.
Alright - enough of my soapbox ranting.

But I need to leave with just one more comment - I heard of a proposal up in the air to attempt to make audio CD's incompatible with computer burners. Hmmm. They put that little Compact Disc label on the media and on the hardware to show compatibility. Doesn't that violate the CD patent? Wait I forgot. The patent is partially owned by Sony - stooges in the RIAA's back pocket. Well so much for that.

Thanks for the forum in which to say my piece.

Robt, you seem to be missing something here. I agree with you on the point that it should be up to the artist as to whether their music is given out for free or not, but the sad fact of the matter is there are many artists who are more than willing to let their music be freely traded who are being shot down by the major labels. For instance, when the Offspring recorded their Conspiracy of One album, they had planned to distribute the entire album one month before it's CD release for free in mp3 format through their website. Sony threatened to sue them over this. They had a contest associated with the album and a tour already booked at the time Sony threatened the lawsuit. This lawsuit would have cancelled the contest, cancelled a tour for which tickets had already been sold, delayed the release of the album for what could have been years pending the outcome of the lawsuit, and prevented the Offspring from playing anywhere or releasing any new music. Essentially, the Offspring's career would have been slaughtered by Sony, simply because the band wanted to do something with the music they created that Sony didn't like. The Offspring pointed all these things out when explaining their decision to give in and settle for releasing only the first single of the album on their website. What else could they do being bullied by Sony like that? Take a look at AudioGalaxy right now, there are files being traded with the blessing of the performers that are no longer available thanks to the RIAA. Dave Matthews Band has given their fans a public blessing to trade bootleg live recordings of their concerts, yet all of those recordings are now unavailable thanks to the RIAA. Prince has publicly stated that he has no problem with file sharing because he feels that the fans will in some form or another compensate the artists they are downloading if they enjoy those artists work. Can't get any Prince tracks on AudioGalaxy either. When you say that we shouldn't expect the artists to give us free music, you're right, but we should expect that if an artist voluntarily offers us free music that we are able to get it without RIAA interference. We should also expect that the RIAA quit trampling all over our legal rights as Ramamageesh pointed out in his post. Instead of wasting time chastising us for wanting our Napsters and AudioGalaxys, people should be chastising the RIAA for publicly lying to everybody when they say they're working to protect the artists rights while they're really stomping all over them every step of the way.

A note on Ramamageesh's post, I heard in a news report when the CD encryption technology was being developed that one of the higher ups at a major record label commented that the law says we have the right to make back up copies of CDs we buy for our own personal use, "but it doesn't say that we have to give them the means to do it". Maybe I'm off the mark here, but it seems to me that we never asked them for the means to do it. We go out and buy our own computers and burners or whatever other hardware we might use to make our back up copies. It's not the record labels, not the RIAA buying our hardware for us, so we are supplying our own means of making our back up copies. There are also no special methods needed to be used in the production of a CD in order for us to be able to use our hardware to make back up copies. What the record labels are doing, is going out of their way to take away the means of making back up copies, means which they never gave us to begin with, and then tried to put a spin on it by wording it in such a way that makes most people think they were giving us something they really weren't. Yet, even as they attempt to violate our legal rights, they continue to piss and moan about their legal rights being violated. And yes, I have often wondered myself why somebody hasn't sued their asses off yet for violating our legal rights.

I'm enjoying the back and forth RR, here are some responses to your points.
In order to make money as a signed artist in the music bidness, you have to acheive sales that exceed the initial investment made by the record company on your behalf. The usual contract for a new artist is around 250,000 dollars for 3 records,(approx.).
Sounds like a lot of money right? The trouble is that most of that money gets swallowed up in the vast, complicated record industry machine. Lawyers, marketing people, image consultants, blah blah. The actual cost of going into the studio and recording your masterpiece has shrunk to a fraction of what it was in the seventies, you don't even need a studio, Radiohead recorded a kickass record in an old farmhouse, Beck did it with a 4 track in his bedroom. The cost of quality recording has gone down so much that even shmucks like me can do it in their basement. All you need is about 5,000 bucks in gear, some technical knowledge and some talent.
Most of that money goes to people who don't give a shit about you, could not whistle one of your tunes if you payed them, and don't know if your're the next Mozart of just another dime-a-dozen pretty boy. They do not directly contribute to the actual artistic product,(i.e. recording), in any way.
If you, as the new artist, do not acheive the big numbers sales wise, and 99% of them don't, you are left with NO leverage in dealing with the label. New artists do not negotiate a contract, believe me, they take what they can get, sign on the dotted line quickly before the A&R guy changes his mind, and strut around like a watered down rock star for a few months before they realize its all a sham and they were happier before when they were playing coffee houses. Some friends of mine have gone through this very situation.
Those folks I know who are still lusting after the major label daydream have corrupted their original artistic vision for the sake of sounding hip or commercial. These guys aren't artists, their egotists. They want to be adored, they want to be rich and music is their only marketable skill.

Comparing sports idols to pop stars is a flawed analogy. A popstar does not require musical talent in order to succeed whereas a sports star needs to display excellence.
I think the thing that burns most music lovers about the music industry is the lack of merit based recognition.
Why does Brittany Spears make more money than Tom Waits or Lewis Taylor or any obscure but brilliant artist who can play/write/sing circles around her?
That doesn't happen in sports. You get rich and famous by being the best and as soon as you're not the best anymore your salary goes down.
That aspect of pop music,(and Hollywood for that matter), will probably never change but the record industry thrives on it and perpetuates it.
I'd say more but I'm putting off what I really came down here to do.

AudioGalaxy shoudn't be sued becuase some artist are mad because their cd's aren't selling in stores. Since the break of cd burning there really no way to stop the illegal sharing of music files becuase if no one can download it there's always going to bootlegging it Baby! Now take that to court!

Thanks for the comment.
There seems to be a lot of intelligence in this room. What does everybody think about this for a headline:
"Audio/Video sections of libraries across America were shut down. The RIAA has brought a lawsuit against the American library system alleging copyright infringement and is now going after anyone who has checked out a large number of CD's in the past."

I know, it sounds a little ridiculous, but if you really break down what the RIAA is trying to accomplish, it doesn't seem that far fetched.

Once again, thanks for listening.

Has anyone ar the RIAA even thought about the fact that when the songs are played on the radio people can just as easily copy the music they are listening to, this can be put on cd/tape/dat if you wanted too, plus with the changeover to digital radios(just so the damned armed forces can control the air waves) the RIAA can no longer hide behind the excuse "taping off the radio is of poor quality where as mp3 is cd quality" then they turn around and say "downloading mp3's is ruining peoples listening pleasure because the mp3's are of low quality" It sounds to me like they are just chasing their own tail and just have to give up the bone, next thing you know they will ban tv's because it is possible to record films off them and then whats next ban photocopiers because you can copy newspaper articles then what (september 1st 1939 anyone)

The RIAA can say whatever they want but the fact of the matter is ever since the beginning of boom in mp3 sharing, record sales have been up. And as far as I know, they have never been so high.

It is true that a lot of artists have given consent for their music to be downloaded, but, sadly, they do not have a say in the matter. Although they create the music, it, according to the record labels, is not their property.

I get a kick out of this "Like Napster, Audiogalaxy seeks to profit from its pirate system by building an extensive user base to attract advertisers and investment dollars."

To end this I will say one thing on that quote. When you people listen to the radio, do you not hear advertisements?

Whenever there is progress, there have always been folks who stand to be negatively affected by said progress that vigorously defend the status quo rather than adapt.
When cars started to become widely available, I'm sure the "horse and buggy" lobby freaked out but they didn't get anywhere either. The ones who come out on top are the ones who sense the change and adapt themselves to it rather than fight it.
Ahhh, the enternal conflict between static and dynamic forces rages on...geez, this scotch is getting to me, I'll shut up now.