By Stephen Hinkle

As widely reported, hundreds of consumers were sued by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), and their member labels for music sharing, and the RIAA claims that there are more lawsuits on the way. The RIAA targeted pre-teens, parents of teenagers, college professors, construction workers, among many other people for file sharing of music files, which has become an American accepted culture, and a popular function of the internet.

The RIAA claims that downloading an MP3 from an internet file sharing network such as KaZaa or Morpheus, is the same as stealing a CD.

However, according to a recent AOL poll more that 85% of the people polled disagree. It seems as if the RIAA is now out of touch with American culture. In fact, many who got sued, claim that they will not buy any more music because of what RIAA, and companies like BMG, EMI, Sony, Universal, Warner Bros, and others did to them. Many of them will have to pay a big debt, and are angry and mad as the result, too.

Now, with people believing that sharing and downloading MP3 and other music files should not be a crime, the question is, how can artists still make a living from the music business. The answer is: the music industry will have to adapt to the times, and find new revenue models.

One such revenue model would be a compulsory license, in which users could pay for the tracks they download. If 75% of the P2P users paid $5.00 per month in royalties, which many I have talked to think would be reasonable, it would generate hundreds of millions in income for the music industry at a near zero cost of distribution. If the user does not pay, they could be warned or sued. The advantages to this proposal would be that only users that download have to pay, people that just use the internet for the web and e-mail do not have to pay at all. The drawbacks to this model, are enforcement, and knowing what gets traded, in the case of decentralized networks, and firewalls.

Another revenue model the industry could explore is granting companies like Grokster, KaZaa, BearShare, and others licenses for a high catalog volume, and the services could pay artists through subscription fees, and ad revenue sharing. Grokster, Morpheus, Song Spy, Napster, and other P2P networks tried to get licenses in the past, and the labels would not even license to them. This model would allow P2P to be ad based and subscription based, and allow them to have a large catalog using their own distribution technology, and track what gets traded.

Still another model is to charge users based on their bandwidth usage of common P2P traffic. For example, the more traffic on ports 1214, 6346, 6347, 6996, and other common P2P ports, the higher the ISP fee is. The idea being, the more content you download and share, the more royalties you must pay. The advantages to this, is people get charged based on their usage. The drawbacks are that some P2P developers will simply use non-surcharged ports till the ISPs pass on the charges.

A non-commercial use levy tax, has been proposed by some people. In this scheme, people would pay for their music through taxes on computer hard disks, blank CD and DVD media, internet service, MP3 players, and other music devices. This would allow consumers to trade music for free online, and make up for the costs in the supplies that go along with it. The hard part to this scheme would be tracking what royalties go to whom.

Thoughts of deciding "Who Gets What?"

One way to accomplish this would be to use the "spy bots". Well, if they can find the IP addresses of infringes sharing certain songs, they can certainly use that info to distribute royalties, too! They could search for different names or phrases, and identify new occurrences of a certain song title, or artist.

Another one is surveys. Seeing what is popular by consumers, might be a good example. However, this approach might not reveal as many lesser known artists as the P2P spy search method. This could be done through web polls, and the like.

Copyright Registration based equality. This would give each artist the same share of the pie. It would not be based on popularity, but instead on pure fairness. Not everyone would consider it fair, but it would treat evolving artists and well known artists the same.

Conclusion:

These lawsuits will not stop all P2P. We need to license P2P sharing, and get artists and songwriters paid for it. The time to do it is now.

The RIAA is not about change or even good ideas, they are like every other monopoly and only want to hold on to their easy massive profits of the past. I would only expect to see a change from them after the current sue-age has backlashed and by then it may be too late.

Another good deed ... and it's not from the sue-happy RIAA

http://www.vnunet.com/News/1143514

Let's see,
1) the internet is one of the most pervasive advertising and distribution networks ever devised.
2) Musicians have enough money to hire web designers which could offer a sample (not the full song, and maybe not at highest bitartrate) of all songs on an album for people to see if they like the songs or not.
3) These sites could easily employ an eCommerce check out system.
4) Fans could go right to the website, order a physical CD, or download all cuts as MP3s or whatever format.

For established artists, they HAVE the name recognition, and the other suggestions are certainly feasible.

Payment would go right to the artist, or whatever corporation they set up or whatever.

I know that a bunch of people will say this won't work or is crazy, but there are LOTS of businesses which exist mainly through an online presence, with few if any brick and mortar stores.

I don't think any of us beleive that musicians who write and perform shouldn't be paid if you like their music and want it. And, that's where the RIAA and their trolls and toadies don't get it.

Who do they think has been buying their crap for the past 40 years anyway, some imaginary army of plastic consumers who exist in some other universe? We are the people who have paid the freight for the last four decades.

~code

The only problem with this is that:

1) The RIAA would have to admit that they were wrong and start backpeddling. That will be a cold day in Hell.

2) They would have to give up a great deal on control over what we hear. That will be nothing less than an arctic day in Hell.

The tide is turning and it's nice to see more media outlets slamming the labels. However, more needs to be made of the fact that at the end of the day this isn't about money for them. It's about control.

I made this comment a while back.....they still have a chance to bail out of this burning sinking ship they are trying to float.

All these above suggestions are very good. Why is it that they will not except any of them? Is it pride?

Why not send these to Mr. Brainwall the new CEO ,I read where he is a cool cat and easy to get along with.

Ok, so the RIAA claims it is losing money because of the p2p programs. One record company says its going to lower the prices of cds to $12.00. I think that is still too much. A teenager isnt going to pay that much. Look how much DVDs have come down. (except for the newer ones) I can buy a movie for a lesser price than a cd. RIAA needs to be more creative then suing. (everybody does that). What would the RIAA think if everyone they sued started receiving money from people who are against the RIAA? What a story that would be. Dont they know that people will always try to find another way to download music now that they know they can. They are just making p2p more popular. They cant stop us completely. They can't stop people from recording movies off of HBO! The movie industries aren't sueing us for that. We grew up recording movies off of the tv, and recoring music off of the radio. Now we have computers to get it. Get with the times RIAA!! You cant stop this.

Yeah, Code.. look at all the ebay business that have popped up. I totally agree that the market is, will, change soon for the better. That is why I am currently struggling to learn Javascript..

Artists should give away the mp3s for free. Promotion requires sacrifice. It's fantasy to expect to gain fans without people hearing your music. Acquiring fans should be priority #1 of all bands. After you have the fans making money from your merchantise is pretty easy. Bands who already got the exposure can release total crap like Metallica and it still sells.
There is no reason to pay for mp3s. They are just bits. For example if someone downloads St Anger and just deletes it because it sucks they shouldn't have to pay anything. Fans with money will spend on concert tickets, merchantise and even CDs. Attacking teenagers with no money is just destroying future sales.

Code--could you imagine if a band with the statue of say the Stones were to dump the RIAA and record companies and sell it's product via the web and showed how easy it could be done, and many others followed suit, that would bankrupt Cary-Sue and his girlfriends quicker than anything else ever could!!! Ah..... dreams!!!!!

P.S. I would buy everything I could afford directly from them.

reading the riaa spin on this makes me laugh. they beleive that iff they allow file sharing to continue soon there will be no more new music in this world. i'm sorry but i think that is just too stupid to even imagine. i better end this cause i'm on a campus computer and i don't want THE MAN

sorry...
to have to go to court and track me down cause i said some not nice about them.

LET'S SEE YOU GUYS WANT the 5 major labels to offer downloads of their music online at a cheaper rate than buying CD's just one problem THE RECORD STORES????? I don't think the record outlet will survive!!!! It's a lose /lose situtation RIAA sues and people won't buy RIAA MUSACK so stores suffer on the other hand sell RIAA musack on line and cheaper and again stores will suffer lost of biz. Does anyone have a solution to this problem??? Don't get me wrong I'm all for the boycott but to get these Riaa clowns to back off and to get them to move forward with the times, some how the middle men which are the RECORD STORES need to be assured that they will survive or the stores will never let the RIAA drop their suits because distuburtion is vital to both business. ANYONE HAVE AN ANSWER????? Don't get me wrong I'm for a boycott but one snake in the grass won't betray another snake in the grass unless one can assure the other that it will survive!!!!!

I found this site today and haven't been able to stop reading about this issue. I hope this is a time of change; maybe the RIAA can learn something that I have learned working in sales. "All things being equal, customers are going to take the cheapest option” Who wouldn't?? The solution to their problem is to make CD's worth the money they charge for them, or to drop the prices... I have spent money on 1 hit wonders enough times to figure out, why not just download it. I was worried about the quality being poor from downloading, but the cds are not much better quality. I worked in stereo sales; music was and still is huge in my life. Many cds out there are poorly (cheaply) recorded, proving yet again the greed of the music industry. If the RIAA wants people to purchase cds, give us a reason to! That is, other then suing children. RIAA its back to the basics, QUALITY > QUANTITY.

I agree that the individual artists need to break away from the RIAA and adapt to thier new world. They should be embracing the new technology that they have today to sell their music. The biggest problem for them will be breaking away from their corupted contracts. Somehow they have to trust their fans on this issue. They have to be informed that if they do embrace the technology, that they will probably end up making more money in the end. Selling through their websites is what they'll have to do. I also agree that MP3's are not worth paying for, but I feel they should be allowed to be downloaded for free. Janis Ian, a professional musician that's been around a long time, experimented by putting songs on her website that you could download for free. Her CD sales went up by 300%. You can't stop MP3's, but you can embrace the MP3 technology to boost your physical media sales.

~goingnova

You have to remember that the artist first must have QUALITY songs to download for free. Heck, my kids go buy a CD of one of these rotten new people the RIAA passes off as "artists" and even they listen to one or two songs and after two weeks they basically throw the thing away. This is what the labels and the RIAA want. Disposable heroes, quick fixes and then on to the next (as quickly as possible). If they had quality wares to peddle they'd have no problem putting them on display for you to sample. Good music from an RIAA affilited label is hard to come by these days.

Some problems...

The record store for the largest part is already gone. They are drying up in huge numbers, other than those that are learning to stock and sell other merchandise. Do a search for this info. It was here a month or so ago.

The thing the major labels can not do is turn off the middle man. It is what keeps the prices high on the contracts that the artists have to pay up on. (Which incidently keeps the artist at starving wages) The major labels are about one thing, no change.

Distribution by internet means not much in the line of middle men. Far less artists to make cover art, less people to press the discs, less people to warehouse and haul that same merchandise.

It was always about more money now, not later. It was always about control. You having to buy the album again because to get it portable you had to go from record to tape. Now that you the consumer can determine what media you want it on, the majors don't have a leg to stand on. Is it any wonder they are in financal trouble?

stilltrying:
Okay, you're half right. Brick and Mortar stores (outlets) will suffer. I believe it would grossly affect stores that sell a majority of RIAA label releases. However, I think you're making a blanket statement that's not quite right. I know of four stores in my area that sell used stuff. Vinyl, cassettes, 8tracks AND cds. These guys make HUGE money (more now than a little while ago, gee wonder why?). The market for used stuff has been going on ever since Eve said "Adam, the cave is a bit cluttered, let's sell it all". I listen to a lot of stuff that's out of print or just hard to find on cd. Believe it or not, even with the stuff I CAN find on cd, I'd rather listen to it on vinyl. It's got a warmer, richer sound than any cd can ever produce.
So.. you wanted an answer.. here's one. How about the current outlets move from the sale of "new" stuff to a combined offering of "new" and "used". I bet they make more money, or at the very least stay afloat.
ttmmm