By Sue Zeidler

LOS ANGELES, May 7 (Reuters) - Offering some insight to the recording industry as it struggles to boost sales online, a survey released on Wednesday found that Web surfers who download music from song-swap sites are more likely to buy music online, as well as offline at retailers.

The research put rap music as the No. 1 genre purchased by online fans, which may help record companies gain a better understanding of who their online customers are.

The survey was based on 36,000 Internet users and released by Web tracker Nielsen//NetRatings, a unit of NetRatings Inc (NTRT).

It showed that nearly 31 million active Internet users aged 18 or older -- representing 22 percent of the active Internet universe -- downloaded music in the past 30 days, and 71 percent bought music in the past three months.

Nielsen//NetRatings said the research indicated that in the past three months, online music enthusiasts were 111 percent more likely to buy rap music than average Internet users.

Nielsen//NetRatings classified online music enthusiasts as users who had downloaded music in the past 30 days, whereas the average Internet users are people logging onto the Internet for surfing and other purposes.

Dance and club music ranked No. 2, with downloaders 106 percent more likely to have purchased dance and club music than the average Internet users during the last three months and 77 percent more likely to buy alternative rock.

R&B, soul music and rock rounded out the top five.

Greg Bloom, senior Internet analyst at Nielsen//NetRatings, said that understanding the preferences of online music enthusiasts may help recording executives in their attempts to successfully woo fans from the free swap, or peer-to-peer services, which let people get songs without authorization.

The major record labels, including AOL Time Warner Inc. (AOL), EMI Group Plc (EMI), Bertelsmann AG (BERT), Vivendi Universal's (EAUG)(V) Universal Music and Sony Corp. (6758), blame the popularity of such free services as Kazaa and Morpheus for sharp declines in CD sales.

But other industry watchers argue that declining sales are the result of fewer hit albums being released and a weak economy.

"The de facto standard may be a few years away, but understanding the genres of music that sell well online and offline will be crucial to generating revenue along the way," Bloom said.

What is this? It appears to be independent research from a respected authority and not actually commissioned by the RIAA.

Wow. Actual empirical data that would indicate the decline in music sales is NOT due to file-sharing. It would mean that the whole piracy theory is false.

Or a lie.

To all of us. And Congress.

A deception and fraud.

One might say that the RIAA, through its conduct averred herein, is guilty of oppression, fraud, and/or malice and anyone who has been damaged by this conduct, in addition to their actual damages are, by reason thereof, entitled to recover exemplary and punitive damages.

Like an independent artist. How would we describe our class? Let's see, how about this?

"Plaintiffs are engaged in the business of producing sound recordings, and manufacturing, distributing, selling, and/or licensing the distribution and sale of their sound recordings in phonorecords (as defined in 17 U.S.C. § 101, and including, without limitation, compact discs) or arranging to do so in the United States. Plaintiffs are collectively the overwhelming majority of copyright owners in the United States. The names and reputations of plaintiffs as manufacturers of phonorecords of high artistic and technical quality are widely and favorably known throughout the United States and the world."

Plaintiffs are the copyright owners or owners of exclusive rights under copyright with respect to certain copyrighted sound recordings embodied in their phonorecords, including but not limited to those listed [elsewhere] hereto and incorporated by reference herein (the “Copyrighted Recordings”). Each plaintiff has applied for and/or received Certificates of Copyright Registration from the Register of Copyrights for its Copyrighted Recordings. Each plaintiff has the exclusive rights, among other things, to “reproduce the [Copyrighted Recordings] in copies or phonorecords” and to “distribute copies [of the Copyrighted Recordings] in phonorecords . . . to the public.”

Now that part could be a problem. But if you have a recording, you can prove the copyright. We'll get around that one. Easy.

As a direct and proximate result of RIAA members' unfair competition, plaintiffs, and each of them, have been damaged, and RIAA has been unjustly enriched, in an amount that shall be proved at trial for which damages and/or restitution and disgorgement is appropriate.

RIAA’s conduct, as hereinabove averred, is causing and, unless enjoined and restrained by the Court, will continue to cause plaintiffs great and irreparable injury that cannot fully be compensated or measured in money. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. Plaintiffs are entitled to preliminary and permanent injunctions prohibiting further acts of unfair competition.

Of course, that's just a rough draft.
I'm not a lawyer, don't forget.

Back when Napster was still around, sales were actually increasing. Right up to the point, that Napster had to start filtering the search results. The next quarter sales dropped and and it has continued since. A lot of users look at fiesharing as a way to discover if Mariah's new cd is worth buying, if it's not getting much airplay or just on e song or so. I did with SAntana's Supernatural a few years back, I listened and then I bought it. Deleted the tracks off of my hard drive after I bought it.

77 percent of 31 million users bought music within 3 months that would be

23,870,000 bought music after downloading music
one CD at 15 dolllars
358,050,000 dollars made from people downloading music in three months and 1.4 billion dollars in a year

i thought they didnt make any money from people downloading music on the internet.

Curiouser and curiouser...

If the music ‘industry’ were really loosing money (sales) to P2P file sharing, wouldn’t they have had to say so in filings (under SEC regulations)?

The fact that they didn’t (or are / would be in violation), plus this new survey is just one more prick in the Bubble of Lies the RIAA/MPAA have spread.

The crass immorality of these organizations is unbearable – and must be stopped.

(IANAL – duh!)

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission: http://www.sec.gov/

The Laws That Govern the Securities Industry can be found at: http://www.law.uc.edu/CCL/sldtoc.html

This was a good article to read and I agree with it 100%. Now, having no credit card, I can't purchase my music online, only at the retailers, but I have started buying many of the CDs that I've downloaded or copied in the past, it's just taking a while since I have no money. I'll still download a song or CD now, but I do plan on buying it in the future and I'll have a backup in case something bad happens (which is my right, afterall).

I don't agree with them getting data on who listens to what. Since it listed rap as the #1 purchased genre online, if the labels go by this data, we'll eventually see the market flooded with rap music. I find this bad since obscene poetry isn't something I'd want my kids listening to (if I had kids). As it is, I have three neices who think Eminem is the only artist out there and all three are the most disrespectful (well, all but the middle one) teenagers in the world. One has even become a pathalogical liar.

But I digress. What needs to happen is the labels need to be disbanded and each artist/group either going independent or signing with an online label. Now, if I had the money, the time and the equipment, I'd start up my own label. Ha, such dreams that come out of my head.

You should hear my ideas for saving the movie industry.

People will be willing to buy songs, but for many its as much about convenience as price. Yesterday I decided I felt like watching every planet of the apes film, and by tomorrow the first one should have downloaded. Things dont get much more convenient than that. A pay-download music site isn't convenient. I would need to sort out payment, which means borrowing a parents credit card. I could get my own now, but ive never needed one. Then I would only be able to listen on my laptop because of the DRM, and I would have to listen to it in WMP9. If I had digital speakers I would have to rewire them for an analog connection because WMDRM disables all digital sound outputs while playing protected files. Its much easier to get it from a p2p system, even through there are fakes to get in my way and the transfer speed is nowhere near as good as it would be if I was downloading from a central high-bandwidth server or, better yet, a CDN.

Kind of off-topic (a little) but Yahoo had an interesting article in today's entertainment section about how the "new" recording industry trend of re-releasing albums within just a few short months of the initial release.

It was interesting that a record store owner calls it disrespectful to the fans, the recording industry person said it was a tribute of sorts to fans who want as much information as possible.

Which part of that sounds like the biggest lie?

The Inqurer just ran an article calling for independent parties verification of the RIAA's claims. From Clearstatic http://clearstatic.org:2396/node/view/91

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usatoday/20030506/cm_usatoday/5131419

Appears to be the story you're talking about.

warlock, could we have a link to that yahoo story?

Thanks

never mind warlock. Didn't refresh my browser enough

Thanks theerm

The Yahoo story is very vague and, while along the right direction, the Inquirer's story has empirical data. It is direct, in depth and to the point.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=9380

George -

I agree, the story was vague and I was actually looking for something with more substance to it. Gotta check this Inquirer story out. Though please tell me it's not the National Inquirer..

No, it's London, I think.

They are rather like an IT-themed tabloid, but I've been writing to Euromole and his cohorts. They questioned the logic of my antitrust charge at the DMCA. Until I explained that I wasn't going to even attempt to prove an antitrust case, just introduce the charges.

I believe this is evidence for me.

And here's another thing.
Yesterday, I warned Yahoo and eBay about the potential to become co-defendants in the anti-trust case if they didn't make it very clear that they are changing their stance on CD-Rs and the RIAA, oh, before next Wednesday.

Yahoo's legal dept. called back in an hour.

And today, Yahoo prints a story with both sides of the issue. It actually looks like they are running a story (which came from the USA Today) that questions the motives of the record labels.

A month ago, I would have called this a coincidence. And the Inquirer story. And the Columbia House letter (see "About those Unaccounted For Units"). And the Dept. of Justice's unwillingness to discuss copyright infringement charges.

And the Copyright Office's refusal to discuss whether payola in webcasting is illegal.

And the entire government's unwillingness to accept a criminal complaint against Vivendi.

This is no coincidence.

And I got an e-mail from a professor named Lessig at Stanford last night. Seems his junk mail filter tried to hide my e-mail.

He found it. Didn't think it was junk at all. He does some kind of legal research or something. Copyright laws, first amendment rights, excessive government restrictions, stuff like that.

Six days left.

Be vewy, vewy qwiet. I'm hunting Hiwawies.

I think its safe to say its official now,

FILESHARING MAKES THE MUSIC INDUSTRY MORE MONEY NOT LESS

1.4 billion dollars a year is made from files shared from purchased cds

the files were paid for and the files sold more

about copyright there are no copyrights on MUSIC FILES, only cds

There is a copyright on the music. If it's put in the form of a file, it might have certain restrictions because of the copyright.

So everyone who posted here has chosen to believe this one survey and totally ignore dozens (or more) of other studies that show the exact opposite? To be fair, not everyone who is surveyed is going to admit that they prefer to steal music. At least a couple of people noticed how vague the story (not news article) was.

No, record labels don't have to report losses from filesharing because it is impossible to calculate loss when you are dealing with mp3 files. Duh! It's not like they can look at the shelf in the wharehouse and say, whoah, we're missing ten thousand copies of this song, 2 million copies of this song, and 7 copies of this song.

Honestly, how many songs have you EVER downloaded? How many were stuff you had already purchased? How much did you go out and purchase after downloading? In almost every case the numbers won't add up. Downloading 30 gigabytes of mp3 files and then going out and buying 50 albums doesn't support the claim that downloading promotes music sales. You stole 500 albums worth of music and bought only 50. That does not prove that downloading promotes music sales. You were already interested in it before you even downloaded it. Please give us all a break. You aren't fooling anyone but yourself, and you make the filesharing community look bad when you say such stupid things.

You can go to many stores and listen to a song before buying. There are many ways to preview before buying while still respecting the intellectual property owner. You have to respect intellectual property in the first place, and many of you will never create anything so you don't understand why there should even by copyright laws.

It's funny how people can quote all kinds of statistics that support the fraud and stealing, but somehow they forget all about the other statistics that don't support their claims and beliefs. "Sales were increasing when Napster was up"? Even worse, "sales were increasing BECAUSE of Napster"? Are you smoking crack? Get real.

Why is it that every post you can find on the internet regarding filesharing is full of people who download ridiculous amounts of mp3 files, share information on how to bypass copy protection schemes, complain about attempts to prevent piracy, want to fight back by boycotting labels, organizations, artists, etc. The truth is these people don't want to pay for music and they aren't going to. How can the industry come up with a distribution method that can compete with free downloads? It can't!

Your boycotts won't work because you weren't buying much (if anything) in the first place. It is sort of this pervasive hippie mentality that perpetuates the belief that "I should be able to get everything for free".

Music is free. Go guy a guitar and make your own. If you enjoy someone else's art so much, can't you at least pay for it?

"So everyone who posted here has chosen to believe this one survey and totally ignore dozens (or more) of other studies that show the exact opposite? To be fair, not everyone who is surveyed is going to admit that they prefer to steal music. At least a couple of people noticed how vague the story (not news article) was."

Ever notice how those studies are funded by the RIAA or some other group/company that is in their pockets?

"Honestly, how many songs have you EVER downloaded? How many were stuff you had already purchased? How much did you go out and purchase after downloading?"

I've downloaded probably a few hundred songs. I didn't like most of them, so off my hard drive they went. Some of them I kept and went out and bought the CD when I had the money. There's still some CD's that I want to get when I get the cash.

"It's funny how people can quote all kinds of statistics that support the fraud and stealing, but somehow they forget all about the other statistics that don't support their claims and beliefs. "Sales were increasing when Napster was up"? Even worse, "sales were increasing BECAUSE of Napster"? Are you smoking crack? Get real."

You must be smoking crack. Sales did go up when Napster was around. Sales are down for many more reasons besides file sharing, bucko.

In fact, I wouldn't say that file sharing is the most significant reason. You seem to be forgetting to factor in bad economy, the fact that the music scene (mainstream sucks), CD's are costly, people hate the RIAA and the labels, and I'm sure there's more I missed. Downloading alone isn't going to cause the huge slump that they're always talking about.

You speculate way too much in your posts dude.



"You can go to many stores and listen to a song before buying. There are many ways to preview before buying while still respecting the intellectual property owner."

You sure can, it's about a minute or so sample. Not nearly enough.

Hmm, I wondered how that got out of order. Oh well.

Musicfann -

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with the majority of your post. The users here are not promoting theft of intellectual properties by filesharing networks/users. We ARE promoting the dismantling of the RIAA who is already doing what you just accused the downloaders of doing.

"Sales were increasing when Napster was up" - very accurate. Look at the year-end statistics and it proves that statement. Napster provided for file sharing...true. Is this illegal activity? Yes. Did it also introduce people to bands/artists that they may never have listened to before? Absolutely! In my own case, at least 40 in a year's time.

Your comment about downloading and then buying CDs not being justification is true...to a point. Say you download 100 CDs and then purchased 50. What about the notion that the other 50 were just filled with crap and got purged from your drive? No harm, no foul. You sampled the music, it didn't work for you, you wiped it. Artist is not ripped off (as you no longer have the files) and you are not ripped off (you didn't waste the money buying something that was not worth it).

People who download are not of the mentality that "I should be able to get everything for free" and just out for themselves. Not everyone. I was a member of emusic.com for a while and paid for everything that was downloaded from them. Very good deal. I have no problem with paying for the music. What I do have a problem with is the record companies and the RIAA trying to repeatedly RAPE ME for enjoying an album. I love Queensryche's "Operation: mindcrime" CD. I've already worn out 3 copies of the CD before I ripped it onto my PC. So basically, the CD cost me nearly $60! Is that fair in your mind? Sure isn't to me. What happens next time when a product that I buy from them wears out? Are they going to replace it for me? Hell no. They couldn't care less about me.

Here's another thought for ya. My musical tastes have nothing to do with hip-hop and rap. Can't stand 'em. Where are the CDs that I enjoy? Out Of Print with the labels. So I CAN'T buy what I like in some cases. In others, I have to IMPORT at double the cost?

The boycott is about the artists' rights and the consumers' rights. We're all for a fair system that benefits everyone.

Also, your comment "How can the industry come up with a distribution that can compete with free downloads?" Guess what? Someone already did...emusic. The Big Guys aren't part of it simply because it does not allow them to blatantly GOUGE the consumer for more and more money based on crap.

"But other industry watchers argue that declining sales are the result of fewer hit albums being released and a weak economy."

Of course the RIAA wouldn't admit this sad fact.

I would buy out of print songs that I'd be able to burn to a CD. If they offered a wide range from the 50's, 60's and 70's I might consider it but I would NOT buy from any MS/RIAA website offering the downloads.

Musicfann is a troll, nothing more. Read the article on helping pay the settlement. He was caught red handed.

also as a side note, SOMEONE HAS TO BUY THE CD first before the songs are made available for P2P downloading correct?? So, tell me again how the RIAA loses money on P2P?

musicfann -- I hope you're not one of my fans.

Have you looked at the RIAA's data, the very data that every major media has used to support the other side of the argument?

It is the most misleading set of information I have ever seen presented in one place as an excuse for an industry analysis.

I can take a pile of raw data and turn it into a financial statement that will survive an audit by CPAs and the Arizona Corporation Commission. I did it for five years.

I can say authoritatively and without reservation that the RIAA data not only proves that the sales decline WAS engineered, but why and how.

And it contains absolutely no data to support the "downloading is theft" lie. Furthermore, the majority of the world's copyright owners have demonstrated that we denounce this foolishness by offering our music for free download.

If you bought my CD, I'll pay you twice the cost to buy it back. If you're a music fan, go help someone else's career, okay?

Like Madonna. She's going to need your support a lot more than me in the next few months.

My fans want to hear my music. I'm trying to give it to them. You're trying to stop me.

I don't need you, either.

musicfann IS A TROLL as someone said on here he/she/it just keeps repeating the same posts over and over again on different articles. Ignore it

MADONNA tanked on the charts lol.

Warlock -- "emusic. The Big Guys aren't part of it simply because it does not allow them to blatantly GOUGE the consumer for more and more money based on crap."

eMusic is owned by Vivendi. You have to have an mp3.com page to have your music included on eMusic.

The big guys are part of that one, too.
They own it all.

musicfann sounds like an RIAA bootlick.

musicfann is missing also missing one point of this website, which is to promote and share independent files on filesharing networks and get the word out about indies.
This site is not built to facilitate illegal downloading!
Thanks

musicfann is also missing one point of this website, which is to promote and
share independent files on filesharing networks and get the word out about indies.
This site is not built to facilitate illegal downloading!
Thanks

musicfann is missing an important part of their brain.

@ musicfann (Date: May 8, 2003 @ 2:20 PM): Dougie, may I call you Dougie? (You seem like a ‘Dougie’ to me.)

“So everyone who posted here has chosen to believe this one survey and totally ignore dozens (or more) of other studies that show the exact opposite?”
Dougie: RIAA/MPAA = **AA (– nice!), **AA surveys? Obviously you’re familiar with: "Tell a big enough lie often enough and people will believe you" -- Dr Paul Josef Goebbels, Nazi Minister for Propaganda!

“No, record labels don't have to report losses from file sharing because it is impossible to calculate loss when you are dealing with mp3 files.”
Dougie: SEC Form 10-K, “Risk Factors” – or is P2P file sharing (a.k.a. “piracy”) not the risk factor the companies hiding behind the **AA umbrella keep proclaiming?
ANYONE: Possibly of interest to; New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, SEC Chairman William Donaldson, Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance - Office of Chief Counsel.

“Honestly, how many songs… stole 500 albums worth of music and bought only 50. That does not prove that downloading promotes music sales… you make the file sharing community look bad when you say such stupid things.”
Dougie: So… “bought 50”… that is 50 MORE than WITHOUT downloading. (Dougie: “you say such stupid things” – duh!)

“You can go to many stores and listen to a song… many ways to preview…”
Dougie: Yeah, like closed-list “programmed” Clear Channel? (Dougie: “you say such stupid things” – duh!)
“You have to respect intellectual property in the first place… you don't understand why there should even by copyright laws.”
Dougie: Get the “message”, EXISTING copyright laws DO NOT serve the creator, EXISTING copyright laws DO NOT serve humanity. (Dougie: you don't understand why there should even by copyright laws.)

“It's funny how people can quote all kinds of statistics… "Sales were increasing when Napster was up"? Even worse, "sales were increasing BECAUSE of Napster"?”
Dougie: Peter S Fader of the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania provides an interesting rebuff, (Expert Report of Peter S. Fader, Ph.D.) http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/napster/napster/fader_070300.pdf

“Why is it that every post you can find on the internet regarding file sharing is full of people… want to fight back by boycotting labels, organizations, artists, etc… industry come up with a distribution method that can compete with free downloads? It can't!”
Dougie: “They that plow iniquity, and sow wickedness, reap the same” (Job 4:8, KJV). You may recognize it as: "as ye sow, so shall ye reap" AND it has nothing to do with religion! (Dougie: “you say such stupid things” – duh!)

“Your boycotts won't work… It is sort of this pervasive hippie mentality…”
Dougie: Then why all the fuss about lost sales, lost money? Hippies? Pirates? Dougie, make up your mind! (Dougie: “you say such stupid things” – duh!)

”Music is free… can't you at least pay for it?”
Dougie: “Are you smoking crack? Get real.”

justed -- If I have to argue my case by myself, would you consider being co-counsel?

Agreed. P2P is definitely not the cause of a little slump in sales- maybe crummy albums being released, though. The talent pool is as big as ever. But only a center core of artists are promoted by the RIAA.

@ gdZiemann Date: May 8, 2003 @ 7:26 PM
”justed -- If I have to argue my case by myself, would you consider being co-counsel?”

LOL… LMAO… IANAL !!!

(They said: ‘anal’ - snicker, snicker.)

I am a penniless human being concerned by the legacy the resolution of this issue (human freedom) will leave.

“They make everyone swear to tell the Truth, EXCEPT the lawyers.”

Me, too. IANAL either.

But I can argue this case. I know the facts. And every fact which appears that I DIDN'T know has only served to support my original assertion.

Wow, I really struck a nerve didn't I? Nothing is as fun as a hot debate.

Let me clarify a few things:

1. I'm not against anybody searching for or trading out of print or music that is now unavailable. That is one possibly illegal use that might sort of be justified.

2. I don't oppose searching for an example of music for previewing, provided that if you don't like it you simply delete it and don't share it with others. A whole lot of people don't remove stuff they don't like. I don't know why so many people claim that what they do is what everyone else does. Many people sharing files have gigabytes of songs that they share.

3. I didn't forget to factor in bad economy, mainstream music scene sucks (amen to that brother), CD's are costly, and the most obvious fact that many people hate the RIAA and major labels. And I never said that downloading caused all of the problems in the music industry. I did say that copying material that doesn't belong to you (and is not public domain) without permission is stealing, and it doesn't help the problem it only makes it worse. That makes it part of the problem, but only part.

4. Emusic doesn't compete with free downloads. Paying (even a little) is not as enticing as free.

5. There are lots of ways to preview music without infringing on someone else's rights. If you are so concerned about YOUR rights, try respecting the rights of others. It's known as the Golden Rule.

6. I don't work for the RIAA, I don't approve of their tactics to prevent people from releasing music (parodies are legally acceptable despite what the RIAA says). I just don't blame them for EVERY problem in the music industry. The mainstream listening public, the commercial radio industry, major labels, and naive artists who sign bad contracts are all part of the problem. People who actively seek out new non mainstream music are not part of the problem.

7. The boycotts may be about what is fair to artists to some people, but reading many posts on this site and others, most sound like they would prefer to screw everyone else and get what they can for free while they still can. If you don't act or feel this way then I'm not talking about you.

8. If you bought a coffee mug and it wore out would you expect the manufacturer to replace it? If your favorite jeans get a hole would you expect Levis to replace them? Sometimes things wear out, and sometimes people don't treat their CD's very well. If you have a defective CD that is one thing. I agree that it sucks to have paid $60 to buy a CD three times. Nobody guarantees their CD to last a lifetime. Sorry, life isn't always fair, but I agree that it sucks to pay over and over for a CD. A backup copy is fair use.

9. I have no idea who "Dougie" is but your gratuitous use of it surely amuses me.

10. It isn't hard to tell that extremely large numbers of people aren't being fair with their downloading and filesharing habits. I know that some of you are fairly responsible, but way more of you are NOT. I'm concerned with the actions of the "unfair" people not the responsible ones.

11. Stealing thousands but buying 50 doesn't justify anything. Ripping off a bunch of people, then supporting 50 different people sounds fair to you? You think that promotes sales? C'mon now, you don't really believe that do you?

12. "Downloading is a theft" lie? Artist deserve to be paid for their music. You as a listener don't get to decide how their music is distributed. If you share copyrighted material without permission that IS illegal. "Downloading" isn't illegal.

13. "Risk Factors" aside, reporting loss due to piracy of mp3's is not required because it is impossible to account for. That doesn't mean that some companies don't try to report a loss, I'm only saying that it isn't required when it isn't tangible. Geez.

14. Existing copyright laws do attempt to serve the creator, but they may not do it very well if the creator signs a contract agreeing to be ripped off by a label or publisher. Copyright law can't change that or protect them after the fact. The laws indeed do serve humanity, but it is rather difficult to protect both the creators and serve public interest at the same time. Copyright laws are implemented because the arts suffered a HUGE decline without them. Before napster, before internet, before AMERICA even. Research it and you'll see that copyrights do indeed attempt to serve everyone. It's not always possible to have a perfect balance.

15. I am not fussing about lost sales, but rather the lack of respect for intellectual property that so many people have. I don't feel sorry for major labels or mega superstars any more than you do.

16. I am in fact a big supporter of independent music, as well as an independent recording artist myself. I am concerned that there might be no reason for me to continue working so hard on my music when most people don't want to pay for music anymore anyway. I advocate boycotting Clear Channel and pretty much ALL commercial radio. I do not advocate "give to me what I want, exactly the way I want it, now, free or very cheap, and in every media format I can think of, or else I will just steal it and share it with everyone. That doesn't promote independents at all, it only propogates disrespect of intellectual property.

17. I recognize the REAL reason why the music industry has declined. Commercial radio extorts from major (and independent) labels via independent promoters. Record labels waste a lot of money at their artist's expense. Recording costs are ridiculouse. Video shoots are way over priced. Big dinners and schmoozing clients wastes tons of money. The biggest expense is radio promotion. If you want to know why record labels spend so much money you should read this series of articles. It might change your outlook on what is really causing the problem. I suggest that this is WAY more of a problem than filesharing is.
http://www.salon.com/ent/clear_channel/index.html

18. I still believe that these boycotts aren't going to work because the people involved with the boycotts aren't buying significant amounts of music in the first place, so how can they stop what they aren't doing?

19. Gnutellanews.com isn't about illegal downloading? Have you read some of the posts on this site in other articles? There are lots of posts from people who flat out state that they don't care about anyone else's rights and they will keep filesharing no matter what.

20. No, I don't look at RIAA data or other industry propoganda. I don't believe that crap any more than I believe that most people using morpheus, gnutella, kaaza, xolox, etc. are really just previewing before they buy. Some are, most aren't. I work as an IT consultant (day job) and I work at dozens of client's site each year. I have seen gigantic libraries of pirated material and when I speak to the people who have downloaded it they tell me that they don't plan to buy the CD's and neither do their friends. Occasionally I run across someone who tries to go out and at least buy some of the CD's but they admit that they aren't doing it because they downloaded it first and then discoverd they liked it. They already liked it before they downloaded it. I believe that many people fall into one of those categories, but I'm sure that some don't. I've come across hundreds that do freely admit that they are stealing and they'll do it as long as they can get away with it.

21 I don't keep repeating the same posts, but like many of you some of the same words appear in some of my other postings. Can you imagine that. Look at your own postings and see if they aren't similar to your other postings.

22. All I'm doing is trying to show another point of view. But all of you so called "Free Speach" advocates don't like it if I have a different point of view than yours. Excuse me if I am disgusted by such large scale disrespect of others rights while at the same time complaining about your own rights being infringed upon.

22. Good luck to everyone and I hope you are able to help make music more attainable and keep artists from getting ripped off by record labels and publishers. I would try a different approach, but you clearly have made up your collective minds and don't want to hear what I have to say anyway. An open mind might allow you to help fix the problem instead of just complaining about it or making it worse.

GDieman: "Furthermore, the majority of the world's copyright owners have demonstrated that we denounce this foolishness by offering our music for free download."

I wasn't aware that you knew the majority of the world's copyright owners. Tell them I said hi.

If you chose to offer your music for free, great, that is your choice. Good for you. Perhaps you are selling yourself short in thinking that your music isn't worth paying for. But you don't get to make that decision for everyone else. That doesn't benefit anybody but the freeloaders.

"My fans want to hear my music. I'm trying to give it to them. You're trying to stop me."

How am I trying to stop you? I would never try to stop an artist from sharing his work with the world. Just to clarify, I'M NOT TRYING TO STOP YOU. Go right ahead and give your music away for free.

You guys can't even agree on the facts. Warlock writes "Guess what? Someone already did...emusic. The Big Guys aren't part of it simply because it does not allow them to blatantly GOUGE the consumer for more and more money based on crap."

GDZieman writes "eMusic is owned by Vivendi"

Some surveys and research are done through RIAA funding, some are not.

You don't want the truth, you can't handle the truth.

Ok, you're right. Stealing is good for music and promoting independent artists. Nobody would dare download files and not go buy the album. People who fileshare are very concerned with the artist's rights. The RIAA is to blame for everything: bubonic plague, Vietnam war, President Bush, violence in the inner city, pestilence and famine, racial tensions, financial inequality, and that itchy rash on your ass. Those damn RIAA bastards, I hope you all teach them a good lesson.

@ justsomeguy Date: May 8, 2003 @ 9:13 PM
”Wow, I really struck a nerve didn't I? Nothing is as fun as a hot debate.”

Let me clarify a few things: justsomeguy, musicfann, or, as I prefer: Dougie.

The RIAA is a ‘front’ organization for a group of companies who through clever use of existing law have:
a) taken advantage of their source of supply – musicians
b) taken advantage of the political system – legislation
c) taken advantage of their customer base - consumers

They have corrupted the principles of law, and decency. This has raised the ire of a number of people for a long time. But it is now, with the Internet culture, that people are finally “getting the word out”, getting organized.

There is a lot of pent-up anger focused on the RIAA.

The RIAA position (it seems) can be summed up as: If you listen to it (by whatever means), you pay us (RIAA). All else stems from that – and ‘that’ equals money.

The public’s position (it seems) is: This is unacceptably restrictive.

The Internet (filesharing) has nothing to do with it (other than exacerbating the dichotomy).

You ‘Dougie’ seem to be trying to raise the consideration: The creator of content that exists to be copyrighted must not be overlooked in this ‘war’. You also seem to be suggesting that there are a body of individuals who have no wish to see the creator of the content protected.

Dougie, I think you raise a very good point: Should the creator of content be protected (copyright) – and if so how? I would add: And should any protection (copyright) be transferable? And, what length should any time limit (copyright) be?

Dougie, I don’t mean to rain-on-your-parade, I mean I know you think: “Nothing is as fun as a hot debate.” But this is just one of the many issues not being articulated well by the anti-RIAA stance. Thanks for reminding us all.

And, it seems you have a better understanding of the unfortunately sick ethos of the music ‘industry’ – better than the “media” - my compliments to you.


(Cut & Pasted – spellchecked too.)

Furthermore, the majority of the world's copyright owners have demonstrated that we denounce this foolishness by offering our music for free download.

There are 64,000 acts offering music at www.garageband.com. There are 4,000 acts at dMusic.com. The major labels have less than 8,000 acts, I believe.

We ARE the majority and we ARE offering our music for free. Just look around. The proof is everywhere. I don't have to taslk to Eric Clapton or Bon Jovi, either. They've got songs for download at mp3.com.

To some extent, they agree with me. We all agree that, yes, there is a control issue over WHAT gets shared, but until people stop calling our promotional campaign immoral, we can't even begin to discuss that issue.

As for eMusic and Vivendi. My statement is a fact. I can say this without reservation because emusic wrote to me and told me so.

And I didn't see anyone argue with me after I presented the facts. Except you. You brought no contradictary evidence, yet you still criticize my position.

And now, turnabout is fair play...
"Stealing is good for music and promoting independent artists. Nobody would dare download files and not go buy the album."

http://www.azoz.com/audio/CriminalMind.mp3

What kind of business are you in? How do you attract customers?

http://www.azoz.com/audio/Bingo.mp3

Were you aware that people PAY to put music on the radio?

http://www.azoz.com/audio/BlackSky.mp3

Have you considered how much money a recording artist could save if there was a global free promotional tool available?

http://www.azoz.com/audio/Running.mp3

Kind of like the radio, but people can stop by and hear your songs any time they like. For free.

http://www.azoz.com/audio/tired.mp3

You don't have to buy commercials. You can create seasonal specials.

http://www.azoz.com/audio/Valentine.mp3

You know, some studies say a person needs to hear a song more than once in order to consider buying it.

http://www.azoz.com/audio/DontWait.mp3

How are we going to do that if we can't get on the radio?

http://www.azoz.com/audio/IAdmit.mp3

Hmmm. What a conundrum...

http://www.azoz.com/audio/LoveWill.mp3

I only need to reach 1/1000 of one percent of the global population to make a comfortable living...

http://www.azoz.com/audio/hw/BigCity.mp3

The RIAA does nothing for independent musicians. Says so right on their site.

http://www.azoz.com/audio/TooDumb.mp3

So how do we compete?

http://www.azoz.com/audio/hw/Dance.mp3

It's such a difficult question. How can we possibly get our music in front of the entire world for the price of a web site?

http://www.azoz.com/audio/hw/BelieveIn.mp3

Because if we can figure out a way to do that...

http://www.azoz.com/audio/QElizPark.mp3

...then we never need a record label. And they never get to steal our copyrights.

http://www.azoz.com/audio/SeniorBoogie.mp3
If we could figure out this free promotion angle...

http://www.primemm.com/audio/Demons.mp3

... then the RIAA wouldn't really matter any longer, now, would it?

http://www.primemm.com/audio/RunForCover.mp3

If only we could just figure out that one simple problem...

http://www.primemm.com/audio/Their Loss.mp3

.. and figure out how to get people to listen to our music without having to pay someone to provide the service.

http://www.azoz.com/audio/hw/Road2Nowhere.mp3

Or charge the customer for the privilege.

http://www.azoz.com/audio/hw/Hello.mp3

I don't bother spell checking. You never know when your spell checker is going to miss something important. Like if you happened to replace "piracy" with "privacy," for instance. The spell checker wouldn't notice that, would it?

Just because I make a typing error doesn't make me ignorant.

And in case anyone cares, I am completely authorized to post all of those songs for free download.

I either AM the copyright owner or have a direct license from the artists to distribute these works in this format on their behalf as promotion.

You are not stealing from anyone. Save your morals for something that deserves it.

Like deception, fraud, antitrust and contractural rape.

BTW -- take the space out of TheirLoss and it will work.

And the truth is EXACTLY what I'm looking for. I can handle it just fine.

All we ask is that you spell our name right.

And you couldn't even do that.

gdZiemann,
you are my new hero...some of your links are broken, but that's the coolest thing I've ever seen on this site...

Cool.

As soon as I finish off the RIAA, I'll teach you guys about marketing...

justsomeguy,
You make a lot of blanket statements in your posts, would you mind providing data to back it up.
That is the difference between you and George, he has data, you provide little if any.
Read your posts, they contain tons of generalities.
I can make posts like yours too, but i choose not too, because theres no data behind them.
I have gotten specific data from RIAA about there enforcement on P2P networks, they have done 100 subpeanas in 4 1/2 Years.
Though i do not share there music on kazaa, People need to know that the RIAA is trying to SCARE people into uninstalling Kazaa and other programs because they could send unauthorized files. They arn't going after anybody, and i see no reason why anybody should be scared of them.
That is what my research has shown, i leave it up to everyone to share legal files, i only show that the RIAA is lieing to us by saying that they are going after A LOT of people that are filesharing. That is a lie.
Thanks

you go, George. Another example- my band makes 90% of its money playing live shows. Why? Because people come to them. If people wouldn't have heard our music, they wouldn't have come. How did people hear our music?
http://www.freewebs.com/bluecollarcrime/Today.mp3
Well, I'm not really sure...
http://www.freewebs.com/bluecollarcrime/Anywhere.mp3
We sure didn't sell too many CDs (although we've give away hundreds)...
http://www.freewebs.com/bluecollarcrime/PastLives.mp3
I bet the answer's right in front of me.

Sorry, dead links there, too, but they'll work if you take the spaces out.

Re: spellchecker

@ gdZiemann Date: May 8, 2003 @ 11:20 PM
”I don't bother spell checking. You never know when your spell checker is going to miss something important. Like if you happened to replace "piracy" with "privacy," for instance. The spell checker wouldn't notice that, would it?”

Me all sew – icon cur. (Note: Spell checked to ensure accuracy! LOL)

Do you want to know what I can't understand? Someone who would actually stick up for the RIAA. That blows my mind everytime I read these posts. Unless you work for a label or an artist I just can't see why anyone in their right mind would stickup for them.

Unless of course musicfann or whatever it calls themselves works for the RIAA in that case I can see it.

*shrugs*

Another thing you obviously can't understand is THAT I DON'T SUPPORT THE RIAA and I DON'T WORK FOR THEM (whoever "they" are). Looking through this post I see that I have explicitly stated this fact.

I'm not sure how my gnutellanews.com sign on (justsomeguy) got assigned to my posting on boycott-riaa.com I am not intentionally trying to deceive anyone. I am both, and they are me. One in the same. My posting under "justsomeguy Date: May 8, 2003 @ 9:13 PM" states that I don't support the RIAA, and none of my posts here state that I DO. Is it just that you think if I don't share your viewpoint than I must support the RIAA? For the last time, I DON'T SUPPORT THE RIAA.

I'm certainly not the only here making blanket or generalized statements, nor am I the only one calling names.

Sorry I didn't spell your name right George, but I suppose it proves I didn't copy and paste it

George, btw, thanks for coming around (in one of the other posts here). You seem like an intelligent truth seeker and obviosly you realize that I do not support the RIAA, major labels, commercial radio, or any other part of the cancers that are killing music. We may speak differently, but I think we both have a fairly healthy respect for intellectual property, but sadly many don't. Many doesn't mean most, it just means a lot of people. Whether it is the majority or a minority doesn't matter anyway, what matters is the large volume of piracy that SOME people conduct while complaining about their own rights. I don't believe that you support that at all. I certainly do not.

Justed: please get over the whole "dougie" thing. It isn't as funny as it was before, in fact it is starting to seem a bit childish if not completely sophomoric. How about I start calling you "dumbass" or "fuckface"? I'm not the kind of person who does that, but I'm just asking if that is what you want. But really what I'm asking is that you just stop acting like one.
*smiles*

"How about I start calling you "dumbass" or "fuckface"? I'm not the kind of person who does that, but I'm just asking if that is what you want."

Sure you are. You've called me "stupid ass" before on the boycott-riaa forums. It's time you take a step down from the perch.

@ musicfann Date: May 9, 2003 @ 6:48 PM
”Another thing you obviously can't understand is THAT… and obviosly you realize that I… what matters is… piracy that SOME people conduct while complaining about their own rights.”

@ musicfann Date: May 8, 2003 @ 9:13 PM
Wow, I really struck a nerve didn't I?
Nothing is as fun as a hot debate.

Let me clarify a few things:

1. I'm not against anybody searching for or trading out of print or music that is now unavailable. That is one possibly illegal use that might sort of be justified.

2. I don't oppose searching for an example of music for previewing, provided that… don't share it with others… Many people sharing files have gigabytes of songs that they share.

8… A backup copy is fair use. 12. …If you share… that IS illegal. "Downloading" isn't illegal.

22. All I'm doing is trying to show another point of view... Excuse me if I am disgusted by such large scale disrespect… complaining about your own rights being infringed upon.

22. …you clearly have made up your collective minds…

@ musicfann Date: May 8, 2003 @ 2:20 PM
So everyone who posted here has chosen to believe… and totally ignore…
not everyone… is going to admit that they prefer to steal music.

…Honestly, how many songs have you EVER downloaded?
How many were stuff you had already purchased?
How much did you go out and purchase after downloading?

In almost every case the numbers won't add up… You were already interested in it before you even downloaded it… and you make the filesharing community look bad…

Why is it that every post you can find on the internet regarding filesharing is full of people… The truth is these people don't want to pay for music and they aren't going to.

@ justed Date: May 8, 2003 @ 11:01 PM

Let me clarify a few things: justsomeguy, musicfann, or…

The RIAA is a ‘front’ organization for…

The RIAA position… can be summed up as…

The public’s position… is…

The Internet (filesharing) has nothing to do with it (other than exacerbating the dichotomy).

You… seem to be trying to raise the consideration: The creator of content that exists to be copyrighted must not be overlooked in this ‘war’.
You… suggesting… there are a body of individuals who have no wish to see the creator of the content protected.

I think you raise a… point: Should the creator of content be protected (copyright) – and if so how?
I… add: And should any protection (copyright) be transferable?
And, what length should any time limit (copyright) be?

…reminding us all… of the… sick ethos of the music ‘industry’

@ musicfann Date: May 9, 2003 @ 6:48 PM
How about I start calling you "dumbass" or "fuckface"? …stop acting like one.

Fact: Almost 85% of convicted criminals caught at the sence of the crime were under the influance of drugs at the time.
Now some will say that statistc proves that drugs cause crime, I disagree. I say drugs cause slower thinking causing the criminal to get caught easier. And what about drunk drivers in that stat? In those cases being under the influance IS the crime, its not fair to include them when trying to prove that drugs cause crime. Anyways point is, its easy to take a real statisic and bend it to meet your cause.
I'm somewhat against file sharing, I believe the artist is due some money (not the label, you didnt get what the label provided) but illegal file sharing of copyrighted material is more like doing 65mph in a 55mph zone then the horrible crime the RIAA makes it out to be. Having 3800+ mp3s to share is like doing donuts in a cop's driveway. A $150,000 fine seems ignorant of the fact that the labels pay artists from 20¢ to $1 per CD.
MusicFann seems to think all file sharers have thousands of mp3s, so far today Ive used the "Find more files from user" on 55 people and havent found anyone with more then 20 ( theres a shitload of porn everywhere tho'!)
If one were to check my PC they would find 2000+ mp3s, one may assume they're all from the net and illegal but none are posted and the CDs are hidden from my children. Were all those mp3s in the share folder musicfann? Mp3s dont "come from the net" anymore then hamburger comes from the store.
The frist time I heard Marilyn Manson, Kittie, Godsmack, CoF, and many other new bands was when I downloaded them after a chat friend recomended them. Ive played their CDs I bought once, to rip them to 320kb mp3s that aren't set to share. I still owe CoF and NIN some money 'til I buy their CD (its a 100 mile drive to the nearest CD shoppe with uncenored CDs) Ive shown a few cool people here in redneckville that NIN is NOT a one-hit wonder with Closer (their only song that gets played at the local bar) Thats promotion, word of mouth and hearing someone else enjoying it.

(QUOTE)
@ musicfann Date: May 9, 2003 @ 6:48 PM
”Another thing you obviously can't understand is THAT… and obviosly you realize that I… what matters is… piracy that SOME people conduct while complaining about their own rights.”
(UNQUOTE)

(QUOTE)
@ musicfann Date: May 8, 2003 @ 9:13 PM
Wow, I really struck a nerve didn't I?
Nothing is as fun as a hot debate.

Let me clarify a few things:

1. I'm not against anybody searching for or trading out of print or music that is now unavailable. That is one possibly illegal use that might sort of be justified.

2. I don't oppose searching for an example of music for previewing, provided that… don't share it with others… Many people sharing files have gigabytes of songs that they share.

8… A backup copy is fair use. 12. …If you share… that IS illegal. "Downloading" isn't illegal.

22. All I'm doing is trying to show another point of view... Excuse me if I am disgusted by such large scale disrespect… complaining about your own rights being infringed upon.

22. …you clearly have made up your collective minds…
(UNQUOTE)

(QUOTE)
@ musicfann Date: May 8, 2003 @ 2:20 PM
So everyone who posted here has chosen to believe… and totally ignore…
not everyone… is going to admit that they prefer to steal music.

…Honestly, how many songs have you EVER downloaded?
How many were stuff you had already purchased?
How much did you go out and purchase after downloading?

In almost every case the numbers won't add up… You were already interested in it before you even downloaded it… and you make the filesharing community look bad…

Why is it that every post you can find on the internet regarding filesharing is full of people… The truth is these people don't want to pay for music and they aren't going to.
(UNQUOTE)

(QUOTE)
@ justed Date: May 8, 2003 @ 11:01 PM

Let me clarify a few things: justsomeguy, musicfann, or…

The RIAA is a ‘front’ organization for…

The RIAA position… can be summed up as…

The public’s position… is…

The Internet (filesharing) has nothing to do with it (other than exacerbating the dichotomy).

You… seem to be trying to raise the consideration: The creator of content that exists to be copyrighted must not be overlooked in this ‘war’.
You… suggesting… there are a body of individuals who have no wish to see the creator of the content protected.

I think you raise a… point: Should the creator of content be protected (copyright) – and if so how?
I… add: And should any protection (copyright) be transferable?
And, what length should any time limit (copyright) be?

…reminding us all… of the… sick ethos of the music ‘industry’
(UNQUOTE)

(QUOTE)
@ musicfann Date: May 9, 2003 @ 6:48 PM
How about I start calling you "dumbass" or "fuckface"? …stop acting like one.
(UNQUOTE)

(Perhaps this is clearer.)

Justed, I just find it easier to put in quotes what one person said, then comment on it in another paragraph below. I think it makes things easier to read, but that's just me.

@ kneo24 Date: May 10, 2003 @ 11:55 AM
”Justed, I just find it easier to put in quotes what one person said, then comment on it in another paragraph below. I think it makes things easier to read, but that's just me.”


Thanks for your advice (though in the specific instance it didn’t serve my purpose).

I’ll add it to my ‘repertoire’ because I always try to communicate clearly and legibly.

Again, thanx.