Mark Bjornsgaard, 26, is lead singer and songwriter for the London based Ohm, who've just release their debut single (note - single).

He believes the labels' problem isn't content - it's context, as he says in a Music Dish post here.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Thoughts on File Sharing and Digital Delivery

By Mark Bjornsgaard

A 14-year-old girl, pretending to do her homework, downloads the latest Avril Lavigne album on to the family PC and burns it onto a CD to play to her friends. A middle-aged management consultant hunts down his favourite Hootie & the Blowfish track on his laptop. A bored City receptionist listens dreamily to Justin Timberlake on her Mac between calls. Nearly four million people are sharing 800 million files on the internet.

Kazaa, the most popular peer-to-peer file-sharing software, is the new Napster. Installed from the web by 229,513,316 computer users worldwide since it was launched, making it the most downloaded resource ever, Kazaa provides access to every album ever published, from ABBA "Arrival" through Marvin Gaye's "What's Going On" to "Afterburner" by ZZ Top. And it doesn't cost a penny.

MusicDish Network Advertisement

The music revolution has begun. And if Napster stormed the major labels' Bastille three years ago, Kazaa now reigns terror over BMG, EMI, Sony, Universal and Warner. George Bernhard Shaw said "All great truths start as blasphemies." Well, here's one. Music copyrights no longer have any economic value.

"Peer-to-peer" file-sharing, or connecting two or more computers directly, without the need for a Napster-like central server in which to store the files, means it is almost impossible to hold anyone accountable for copyright infringement. The introduction of ADSL (last month, the number of broadband users exceeded two million, and it is expected to pass three million by the end of the year) has massively increased the scale, rate and quality of files shared. As CD sales continue to plummet worldwide, the Napster era is now considered something of a golden age for record sales. Who could actually be bothered to wait 45 minutes while a track downloaded on a dial-up connection? And yet, yesterday, having enjoyed a review of Dave Gahan's solo album, I downloaded it in 13 minutes, while writing this article.

This two-pronged assault has had a catastrophic effect on the share price of record labels. Sony's last annual report signed off: "The dollar value of its US music operation fell 4% for the year ending March 31, 2002", while ABN-Amro's most recent media research paper stated bluntly, "The outlook for the music industry remains bleak, with the next five years expected to see a compound average decline of almost 1%". Investors, it seems, can smell disaster, even if many in the industry cannot.

For the last three years, at every music industry convention, the number of record label CEO's pronouncing the imminent resumption of normal service was only exceeded by the number of possible solutions they were offering. Many, defying the shareholder stampede south, seem to be living in some sort of alternative reality - according to EMI's latest sales report, "Shareholders can expect a substantial improvement in operating performance in the year ahead... we intend to deliver sustained sales and profit growth." Profit derived from legal actions against the 10 million people who share music online, perhaps? The drastic cost-cutting in the last year, on which much of EMI's good news is based, hasn't even kept up with market shrinkage in real terms.

Vast sums have been spent developing expensive competing digital platforms, which continue to spring up like mushrooms in a murky forest. The latest, a joint venture between the majors and Apple, seems to be the equivalent of Cherokee Jeeps, when faced with "instantaneous car replication," consoling themselves by charging 10p for a fully kitted out SUV, and omitting to tell their shareholders that they still have to shell out £10,000 to throw the machine together.

If a clearer indication of the chaos the industry is in were needed, 2 months ago (June 26), the Recording Industry Association of America announced they intend to sue online file-sharers. But how exactly will they go about prosecuting 10 million people? And do they think that threatening to sue virtually their entire customer base is going to make it more or less likely that it will buy products from them legitimately in the future?

The explanation for this chaos favoured by major labels and articulated using the language of criminality - "theft," "piracy" - is that the business model they adopted 40 years ago - develop talent and sell the music on physical media (LPs, cassettes and CDs) has been trumped so successfully and so quickly by file-sharing, that the music industry simply hasn't been able to react fast enough.

However, this explanation excuses them from taking a much harder look at the nature of the business they now preside over. The real reason why labels are so exposed to the file-sharing storm is the culture of manufacturing music, as opposed to artist development. Although creating bands and music synthetically is appealing, as the production process is streamlined and costs can be managed, it is impossible to give such contrived products intrinsic values. It's hard to make the band a brand. And that, as Nike, Gap and the rest of the corporate world discovered 10 years ago, is the key to success.

Ironically, from time to time, the music industry has dabbled in the concept with, for example, Bob Dylan, The Sex Pistols, U2, The Manic Street Preachers and The Spice Girls. Did people love the Pistols just because they made great music, or because they confronted the establishment in troubled times, too? Were the Spice Girls played on every stereo because their songs were better than those of Bewitched, or because they cleverly hijacked post-feminism?

The problem for labels isn't content - it's context. Fans who are provided with a context in which to enjoy the content have proved time and again that they can be loyal, patient and generous. Radiohead's Kid A was hardly Pet Sounds, but the album went straight to number one in the States and the band's US tour sold out in four minutes.

Tinkering with the business structure is futile. The horse and cart owners of the 1920's bemoaned the advance of technology. The clever ones bought motorised vehicles. A new industry, artist lead, based on different core values and competencies must emerge.

Artist development and the live arena are crucial. Fans made live, will disseminate your message to a wider audience. Pay per view, as has happened in the football industry in the last 10 years, will assume a dominant position on the balance sheet. Fledgling bands will become adept at exploiting their merchandising capacity on the road - as the Rolling Stones and Kiss have done, with dramatic effect - Kiss fans are already driving Kiss-branded cars and planning to be buried in Kiss coffins.

Distribution costs disappear, marketing spends plummet, recording costs - helped by new technology - are slashed. A global promotional services market will evolve, which bands will use on a country by country basis, depending on budget and genre - with the world viewed as one market, exploited simultaneously. Instead of taking ten pounds from 100,000 people, the industry must aim to be taking one pound from a million.

To ensure that the music industry has any sort of future, label bigwigs must realise that albums are no longer their main breadwinner and file-sharing is not a threat, but the best chance they have to survive.

The labels are too stupid and greedy to
realize this and are failing to stop file sharing through suing people.

Too true, too true. File sharing is the way of the future, no doubt about it. Anybody who can't understand that will simply be lef† in the dark. It's like what the theory of evolution says - those who adapt survive, those who can't become extinct. Survival of the fittest. And right now companies relying on albums only and scorning file-sharing are not adapting. So either they need to get with the program or they'll just die off with little or no remorse from us.

[side comment]
The major problem I see today in the online sales market is the employment of LOSSY codecs such as mp3 or ogg vorbis. They should consider moving to FLAC, as it's the most adequate LOSSLESS (bit-identical) compressor that the industry should employ, as it doesn't need the payment of patents and it requires quite low processing power to decode, which is a major factor for the hardware manufactures to make portable players or firmware upgrades for the existing ones.

MP3's are too standardized already in already player manufacturered..no one is really going to trash their players for a new format.

Plus mp3's suffice for most people in terms of quality. Personally, I dont think mp3's are worth monetary value but to be fair in terms of the artist..mp3's should be around 30 cents a song..no more. Hey..thats me being fair considering the lossy formats of mp3s

LordSyl - MP3 dominates now because all the hardware supports it. We need enough HW available supporting another codec. But that won't happen until consumers are using another codec - which won't happen until the HW is available... round and round. We need more leaders & fewer followers. [Whoops, terribly OT...]

well... i picked up a copy of the new a perfect circle cd, "thirteenth step," and lo and behold, there is a message from those bastards at EMI. "Thank you for buying this music and supoorting the artists, songwriters, musicians and others who have created it and made it possible. Please remember that this recording and artwork are protected by copyright law. Since you don't own the copyright, it's not yours to distribute. Please don't use Internet services that promote the illegal distribution of copyrighted music, give away illegal copies of dics or lend discs to others for copying. It's hurting the artists who created the music. It has the same effect as stealing a disc from a store without paying for it.Applicable laws provide severe civil and criminal penalties for the unauthorised reproduction, distribution and digital transmission of copyrighted sound recordings. To find legal downloads visit wwww.musicfromemi.com."

i don't know about you guys, but when i plunk down my ten to 15 dollars for a cd, i don't pay for them to ruin my liner notes by sticking some RIAA propaganda in there.

this problem is similar to that of when the MPAA decided to start placing clips at the beginning of movies that talked about how "the little guy" was hurt. this is worse, however, because (a) you don't have to see the stupid ad once you buy the movie (at least at the moment, and (b)the ad before the movie has no effect (other than pissing me off) on the movie that follows it's value, quality, cinematography, or acting. by them placing this statement in my liner notes, they are not only defacing them, but also forcing their propaganda on me in a place that i certainly am justified to feel that i shouldn't be subjected to it. whatever happened to just having the little disclaimer that said "reproduction of this disc is illegal without consent from the copyright holder."?

not to mention the fact that they state that by copying this cd, "it has the same effect as stealing a disc from a store without paying for it." let me tell you something... if i want to buy a cd, then i will buy it. if i don't buy a cd, it won't be because i copied it, it will be because it isn't worth whatever rediculous amount they are charging for it, not because i copied it.

i love music, and i just want to be able to pay a fair price for it, while getting quality recording and songs, and supporting the musicians i love.

Sen. Sam Brownback , R-Kan., said he planned to introduce a bill Tuesday to protect Internet providers from such subpoenas. His proposal would block subpoenas except in pending civil lawsuits or in cases where pirated data files were stored on computers such as Web sites.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1212&e=7&u=/ap/20030916/ap_en_mu/downloading_music&sid=95573501

Every one email Senator Brownback and give him your support!!! We need to let him know we support him protecting us from the RIAA's gattling gun approach to supenas and make it impossible for them to get them!

"We look forward to the court of appeals' affirmation of those well reasoned decisions," said RIAA President Cary Sherman, whose handheld digital recorder was quietly confiscated by courthouse security before the hearing. Recording devices aren't permitted in federal courtrooms.

Sneaky little bastard. All he does is whine about nobody respecting the rules of copyright. Hippolips... I mean Hippocrite.

Of course the labels value themsleves more highly than anything else.

Well, IT'S ABOUT TIME!!!! And I SHOUT "PRAISE THE LORD"!!! I for one WANT to buy music but I have QUIT because I feel like it is SUPPORTING MORE TERRORISM!!!!!!!!
GO ALL THE WAY!!!
I'm not gonna only e-mail him but I'm going to TELEPHONE him too!!!
THERE'S NO PLACE LIKE HOME!!!!
YAY!!!!! KANSAS!!!!!

There's a book out titled something like the Secrets From the Producer or to that effect.

Anyway..this producer gave out explicit details on how the record companies are actually violating copyright laws using certain artists sampled voices for their own products without their own permission. Ill try to find the exact title. But the film/record industry DOES illegally use material without permission from the copyright holder.

How surprisingly hypocritical.

Tsk

TALK ABOUT HYPOCRITICAL!!!
Check this out!!!
"We look forward to the court of appeals' affirmation of those well reasoned decisions," said RIAA President Cary Sherman, whose handheld digital recorder was quietly confiscated by courthouse security before the hearing. Recording devices aren't permitted in federal courtrooms.
The WORST thing CAREY SUE SHERMAN should EVER do IS PISS OFF A FEDERAL JUDGE!!!!!!
GO

NO PLACE LIKE HOME! NO PLACE LIKE HOME!!!!!

dantesinfernal...This site is "boycott-riaa". That means that we boycott the RIAA's products. If you're buying CDs, you might want to consider who you are supporting. Consider joining the boycott.

Mark, just read the article. Very well put. I hope the labels are reading this and get the picture. Otherwise, as you said so eloquently, they will hit rock bottom thinking they will still have sea to ride on.

I e-mailed him, everybody should. I find this surprising that this law came from a republican, look what Georgie has done in the white house... maybe I shouldn't confuse a president-republican with a congressman-republican.

I e-mailed him, everybody should. I find this surprising that this law came from a republican, look what Georgie has done in the white house... maybe I shouldn't confuse a president-republican with a congressman-republican.

woops, double post
sorry

The RIAA will never accept file sharing, they will only act against it. This will be their end, their fall, and when they are gone, we will all laugh.

Great article, darkened03. The backlash and repercussions are starting to get out.

The looking forward of a reasoned appeals decision is welcomed only because the terrorists know it is coming and they can not stop it. Either they hope the judge is in their pocket or they hope to continue with what they have already paid for. Should that scenario crater, it will be a different story sung then.

Here's my letter (for what it's worth)!
Gotta head to that schoolhouse now! Later!
GO
09-16-03
In The Year of Our Lord
Dear Sir:
Please PUT A STOP TO THE RIAA TERRORIST ATTACKS ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE! I urge you to hear my song "I'm Going To Stop You" to get a real feel of what a "FATAL RAID" is like! I'm sorry but it scares me that this is the future AMERICANS are facing if this "issue" isn't NIPPED IN THE BUD, QUICK!
GOD SPEED and GOD BLESS!!!!
Frances Plante-Scott
Malibu, California
P.S. Go to DMUSIC.COM (CURRENT NEWS AND COMMENTS TOO!)Type my name in as artist, then scroll to my name and click. or go to www.greatscottpresents.com where you may read all about it and listen too.

dantesinfernal:

Ditto what IFeelFree stated. Buying their products only perpetuates what you are complaining about. I love Perfect Circle as well, but I'll just wait a bit and buy it used - it's cheaper and the RIAA gets nothing from me.

Also consider that the artists get next to nothing from CD sales. If you love an artist and want to support them go to their shows or buy a t-shirt off their website.

Here's a good link that shows how artists get altogether screwed by the RIAA. I strongly urge you to read it then buy used.

http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html

If the link doesn't work just delete any characters off the end to match the link above.

ifeelfree and urethra901: while i agree with you guys about the whole boycott thing, it's really tough for a few reasons:
1. while i would much rather buy a cd at a show, where the artist gets all of the profits, i live in west tennessee, and tours don't come through here that often.
2. it's really tough for me to justify buying cds used for 7 or 8 dollars when i can get most fairly underground stuff for that or a few bucks more.

i support the boycott, and everything that it stands for, but i don't have any other means to get music (especially file sharing, since my school has shut off all the ports that are required to do so.)

if this stance makes me a traitor, then i guess i am, but i am as much against the current system as anyone.

dantesinfernal:

At the very least, if you or any friends have a CD burner, you might consider burning copies of popular CDs to share with friends (yes, I know, it's copyright infringement. *head hung in shame*). That would save you some money and keep the profits from going to the RIAA.

we have a school network where cds get heavy rotation. someone has to buy them initially though.

dantesinfernal:

In response to your reasons-
1: Can't really help you there unfortunately.

2: This site has a link called "Who To Boycott" where you will find a list of all the record labels affiliated with RIAA - these are the ones to boycott and buy used if you really want them. The 'fairly underground' music you mention for only a few bucks more stands a good chance of being indie and its great to support them. Are you able to purchase over the net? If you can, then secondspin.com has a huge inventory of used CDs. I've used them for four years now.

You are not a traitor. You just need to take a definite stand - one way or the other.

If you continue to buy new CDs (support RIAA) you may SYMPATHIZE with the boycott, but to actually SUPPORT the boycott means no new RIAA CDs.

This boycott means more than looking at the short-term gain of new music. We need as many people as we can to stop supporting RIAA in any way, shape or form. This is the quickest and best way we can get our point across. Hit them in the pocketbook where it counts - thats all they care about.

dantesinfernal

Sometimes we must give up the things we want now, so that we can get something better in the future. I totally support the boycott. No RIAA CDs or downloads.

No RIAA in the future is better.

dantesinfernal- no one really is here to brand you a traitor or anything.
I agree with everything my brothers
demon--3012,IFeelFree, and Urethra901 said. The only way for us to win is solidarity one with the other...it's like "I'd like to lose weight, but, I really like cake and ice cream too much to do without it."
There is an old saying, "Temptation denied, is temptation defeated."
This is really a war against the forces of enslavement.
Ultimately, your participation in the boycott is not just about filesharing now, but is about freedoms for the next generation too.
~code

you guys have convinced me. it's time to boycott those bastards!

yay! another convert.

Judging by the number of posts/news I do believe this site is becoming a little small for the number of people who are on it...

OT but still, I didn't see the Boycott-Riaa.com founder on the Tech TV special. Was he there?

You see, this anti-RIAA boycott reminds me of 1977. But punk was led mostly by musicians, bored with shitty corporate sponsored music. This boycott has been started by music consumers. We are the core, and we can't be manipulated.

Death to RIAA

dantesinfernal- welcome to the fight for the right...you're doing the right thing~!

dantesinfernal:
Great to have you aboard my friend!! Each and every one of us counts.

tasadar24 -Bill Evans was on the Open Mike segment which was like an hour and a half after the Music Wars...They are reshowing Music Wars, and TechTV said they plan on reshowing the Open Mike show, but are going to condense it down.

I hate to be the bad apple here but if you look at things realisticly I thgink the RIAA in a way is going to win this thing.

NOT stop file sharing per-say but seriously. I think most weveryone thought people would fight this and the cost for legal fights EVEN for a big group like the RIAA would put them out of business.

Well if you look so far NOT ONE person beingf sued is fighting this so lets take some simple figures just for debate.

1- 261 people (SO FAR) sued
2- ALL the early ones have settled for variour amounts lets just take an averge number for now since there have been 15,000, 12,000 several 5,000 about ten 3,000 and atleast one 2,000 dollar settlements.

So lets just take the figure of average $7,000 dollar settlement times that by just the 261 we have the RIAA making $1,827,000 dollars. OVERNIGHT!!! now they claim to be willing to sue in the thousnads so again lets take the 7,000 figure and times it by 1000 people they now have SEVEN MILLION DOLLARS for doing what??? Paying a few hundred bucks in filing fees IF they even had to pay any.

And with these figures in the greedy hands of the RIAA they'll see it does work since no one will stand up to them and they will sue anyone and everyone from that point on so again you figure SEVEN MILLION DOLLARS per one thousand people sued so hows that loosing??

Lets just take a crazy number and say they succeed in sueing 5,000 people (or rather settling with) thats THIRTY FIVE MILLION DOLLARS for they can make more this way that peddling thier crappy music, heck they may even see this as a plus sence they know file sharing won't go away they may even open up thier own Kazaa filesharing xcomputer and then catch people and sue them that way. OF COARSE making sure the computer can't be tracked to them. Thsi way even if people boycott buying thier CD's they have a cash cow coming in.

Now I know that last part is far fetched but the rest is a possible reality.

Also WHERE'S THE EFF some help they are, they have Lawyers there yet I've yet to see any of them offer any help other than to tell people to get lawyers WELL FRICKEN DUH GEE EFF thanks for that bit of brilliant info couldn't have figured out that one without your help.

You know EFF TALK IS CHEAP put up or shutup!!!! I can offer my sympathy and support for those being sued but in the long run it don't mean SH@T if I can't help them financially.

So again if no one fights them (and I'm not judging anyone who does not fight I totally understand the problems like UMMM NO MONEY to do so)how does the RIAA loose this one in settling they have to be making more than it cost them to file.

Lets hope Verizon wins today in Federal Court. Today was their day in court to argue privacy issues.

You'll be happy to know that I have emailed my Senators (from Iowa) and have asked them to lend their support to Sen. Brownback's proposed bill.

For the record...

I NEVER thought I would EVER find myself supporting something being sponsored by Senator Sam Brownback. He's not exactly been a "friend" of music and free expression.

But in this case, I'm willing to make a HUGE exception!!

GO SENATOR BROWNBACK!!! REIGN IN THE RIAA!!!

DeanSB2000

Slydder41 You are wrong...I have talked to a guy who is fighting. And I myself am willing to fight it all the way to jail if I get hauled...and no I don't have a lot of money but if I believe in something strongly enough...I will go to jail for my beliefs. It happened once in my life, I fought went to jail, for 4-5 hours....the only difference is...this time if jailed...I will be kicking and screaming from my jail cell

Slydder41 -- They give away $4 billion a year in free physical goods. $35 million won't even cover their court costs and attorney fees and don't come close to making a dent in their financial bleeding.

Other things -- Just because you buy a RIAA CD at a concert does NOT mean the record label doesn't get their same cut. Where the hell do you think the band got the CD? They don't own their copyrights and so they cannot print their own.

The boycott was started by music consumers? Uninformed statement.

bands "typically" get all the profits from their merch sales and shows.

Slydder:

RIAA will eventually get to a point where public opinion will reduce their sales of actual music to near zero. They will start to look awful silly making a living solely from suing [former] customers. This will force voters to pressure lawmakers to stop this nonsense, and this lawsuit madness will go the way of the McCarthy hearings in the 50's. Hang in there and don't get discouraged. This is an elephant, that we have to dispatch one bite at a time.
The concept of record company compiled albums, distributed mechanically is as dead as the buggy whip industry.
Patience is essential.

The Kid.

Bands signed to a label have to buy their CDs from the label. Prices are in the $7 per copy range.

A CD costs a buck to manufacture.

Who gets the profit?

dantesinfernal, I can understand a bit of what you go thur, I live in Redneckville MI. The thing that blows me away is how "popular" stars like Brittney get promoted to no end with their CDs shoved down my throat at every store I go to while I can not find APC's new CD yet and Im right next to the town that Maynard grew up in! I went to school with the musical genius and cant buy his CD?!? This is another problem with RIAA backed labels (APC was formed while Tool was "having problems" with their label) avilablity in rural areas.
It'd be easier to hunt down Maynard's 'rents (both former teachers of mine) and hand 'em some cash after downloading and the musicians would prob'ly get more profit.
btw, Im against filesharing but the labels rip off both the musician AND their fans more then KaZaA ever could

SUE GENERAL MOTORS, FORD, DAMLIERCHRYSLER, TOYOTA, NISSAN, KIA, BMW, AMC, EDSEL, NASH, CORD.....THEY ARE KILLING MY BUGGY WHIP BUSINESS.

If you really need that song, don't buy it, it will probally be on the radio.

I watched the open mike code, I didn't see him... how brief was his talk?
TIA

Bill was the reddish haired guide with the white boycott-riaa t-shirt on.
he was in the audience, and asked the question about music catalogs not being made available, and made some other comments. It was brief, because Leo LaPorte would get a question or comment and go right back to Ted Cohen on the riser.

lol..not "guide", I meant guy

some companies charge the artist upto $11 per cd they buy to sell at their show, anything over that is theirs, but the company is already getting about $10 in profits from it. alot of artists don't make a dime off of CD sales, they make their money on the road, so if you want to support your artists of choice, find a way to see them live...

also, as for all the "ports blocked" thing, there are many websites that would allow you to d/l the music, and some FTP sites also, so you can't use P2P apps, but there are always ways around that also
FIGHT ON MY FRIENDS!

United WE Stand

Date: September 16, 2003 @ 9:30 PM
Slydder41 -- They give away $4 billion a year in free physical goods. $35 million won't even cover their court costs and attorney fees and don't come close to making a dent in their financial bleeding.


First off I assume you responded to several posts since half of what you said had nothing to do with anything I said.

Now to your point What does giving away FREEBEEs hadve to do with anything I said? Common sense tells you THEY WRITE THAT STUFF OFF DUH!!

How many times have you gone to the Doctors office and he's given free samples of a drug? The company who gave this to him writes if off they need to do this to offset taxes wouldn't you say? Secondly as you AGAIN apparently didn't comprehend what I said THEY AREN'T PAYING COURT COSTS (minimal filing fees are about it) since THEY AREN'T GOING TO COURT now are they? They are settling with most of these people. And you can bet on some of those they are even charging the person thier lawyers fees as with a big amount of these type cases do regularly.

THIRD they pay thier lawyers whether they are doing this or sitting in thier offices sleeping so might as well have them doing something for getting paid.

FOURTH NOWHERE have I EVER heard them say they aren't making a profit what I AM hearing is that they aren't making as much as they think they should be BIG DIFFERENCE wouldn't you say?

Talk about uninformed statement. Which by the way NO ONE says that what I said they might do makes sense but I think we've already seen that, that point doesn't matter since THEY ARE DOING what makes no sense now, now aren't they?

No one seemed to want to address the EFF's lack of action here too. OH and I stand corrected on one point they have backed someone up A COMPANY (gockster(spelling??) I believe??) or what ever filesharing software but NO regular type people and if they have please state who.

bravo bravo.

That's all I've got to say, and I think that's all we're really saying here. The business plan is crap, has been for several years. The RIAA has fought technology every step of the way.....I wonder if they even think about this:

Advancements in digital technology have made making music easier. I can remember back 10 years, when I had to have a good amp, a bevy of guitars, and a 30 space rack to play in a successful cover band. Now, all I need is a couple of guitars, and a digital modeling amp, with built in effects. This same technology is used in computers, personal media devices, and even home stereos. If you kill the technology, I'll be back to lugging around a Marshall half-stack and a Boogie combo, plus my rack full of vintage gear. No thanks, guys.

Distribution is easier as well. Used to be, cd recorders were expensive, hard to find, and generally reserved for the pro bunch. Now they're cheap, better than ever, and readily available. Product based companies like Sony rely on a large part of their income to come from sales of that technology, including CD and DVD burners, blank media, and the equipment used to play burned CD's. What kind of business plan allows you to simultaneously create and market a product as well as try to make that product illegal? Hm.....

The music industry has been shooting themselves in the foot for years now, along similar lines. You all DO realize that the MP3 format was created by the media industry, don't you? MP3 is simply an MPEG Layer 2 format, without the video. MPEG stands for Motion Picture Entertainment Group.......the group that created the format.

Now, given the fact that the common public LOVES the format, and the advancements and impending domination of broadband, WHY would you take a product you created, and rather than try to push it to its limits, try to make it illegal? For myself, I believe in the typical business plan. Create a product, sell in a test market. If it flies, increase production to a larger audience. If it goes through the roof, then take whatever means necessary to PROVIDE that product to the buying public!

Let's take MS as an example. Windows is the most pirated OS in the world......not surprising, as it's not exactly the most stable, and used to be very overpriced. MS did two things to combat the piracy. One, create an anti-piracy registration (no matter that it was cracked before XP was even publicly released, they tried), and LOWER THE PRICE. They got sued for doing so, but what the hell, you want to sell 10,000,000 copies, go cheap. It's a sound retail plan....either sell high, and sell a few, or sell low, at lesser profits, and sell a ton. The music store I work at follows that line. Yeah, we don't see a huge profit margin on a guitar, singly, but when we sell 1,000 of them compared to another store who charges more, but only sells 100, we're ahead of the game in a big way.

But, above all, be fluid. The hardware end of the music world has always realized that technology drives creativity, and has found ways to make peace with that.

For example, I sell guitars, basses, drums, and keyboards. The digital music production industry just had a huge boom, with Cubase, Reason, FruityLoops, etc. All these use pre-built samples......you don't even need to own a guitar, or even know how to play! So, do I go about suing people for using Reason, rather than a guitar they bought from me? Um.......no, I learned about digital music, and our store does a booming business with it.

Anyway, it's not the whole of the music community that's acting like morons, its only the final end stages....the distributor. And it's sad that one small part, really, of an industry as huge as the music biz can try to throw the entire community out the door, with a big "hit the road jack, and dontcha come back no mo' ", and that seems to be ok.

I applaud the recent articles from the media, showing that not only judges, but the movers and shakers outside of the RIAA are finally saying "hold on, boys......what are we doing here?". My regret is that it wasn't done sooner.

Heh....cary-sue getting caught with a digital camera. Isn't that like taking a digital recorder to a concert, and pirating the show? What was he planning on doing, offering it on KaZaa? Maybe he was planning on using his resources to produce it and sell it as his first solo debut.......what a freakin' moron. And the RIAA follows this idiot.

I figure his lips look so swollen from all the oral favors he has to perform each day to keep his job. Expect them to get bigger as the days go by.

Dear Boycott Staff and associates

I am utterly disgusted with the RIAA and their Abuse of Power, and rapist techniques. I am boycotting them 100%. I am part of a group on a P2P network that consists of 80 members. We have all decided that we would like to send out an email to everyone we know to forward on to everyone they know etc....to educate America what is really goin on.

Unfortunately, the news and media makes it look like the RIAA look like wonderful people, and that the 60 million people that actively use P2P networks are thieves, and their message is getting through to people. I find myself educating people otherwise. However, E-Mail can be a powerful tool. I just fired off an email that unfortunately was a mile long, with the subject line "THE RIAA IS TRYING TO HURT YOU AND YOUR CHILDREN" to get the attention of parents with children. I don't think I got the response from it that I was looking for, because the email was a mile long. I would like for you to write me up a form email that I can send, maybe several form emails I can send to everyone I know, including my online group on the P2P network, that I could distribute.

I think the key to its success is the subject line. The subject line has to catch one's attention. So several emails can be written, but I need your help. Issues such as Internet Invasion of Privacy, Common use laws, Suing 12 year children for d/l mp3's, and so on and so forth. Since I am not the person to rally in the street, I feel this is one way I can contribute, as well as spamming chat rooms to boycott the RIAA.

I also am hoping to get ahold of some email lists, so I can forward these emails to 100's of thousands of email addresses using a spam type program. I think a lot of people don't know the other side of this story, and knowledge is power.

Your help is most appreciated.

Thank you, and continue Boycotting the evil RIAA.

Sincerely,

Files Reloaded

Well there is another way the labels might have a really small chance to survive. They could just drop making cds altogether. Close all the studios, offices, pressing plants and just open a small law-firm. Their costs of oppeating would be minimal and they could just go around suing everyone. Trust me they would do this way before they did _*_anything_*_ else.

Mark Bjornsgaard, doo work on the article. I agree with the business discussion. I just don't think that this is the real issue. I believe the RIAA stink over copyright is not about lost profits, but about lost control.
If you look back to where all of this started, the RIAA (and the MPAA) were suing to prevent the technology. They don't want mp3 or any other type of file being available for distribution. Believe me, they could very easily work out a business model and make a healthy profit selling mp3s if that was what they wanted to do.
They want to control the music we listen to by controlling what artists we listen to (when was the last time talent was involved in getting a hit record), what gets played on the radio (totally under their control), and what you can buy (through media sales).
While they complain about the poor thieves downloading music and stealing from the artists, they have already stolen the rights from the artist (point being that the artist gets virtually nothing from the CD sales, so how can copying CDs hurt the artist?).
The RIAA and their ilk (don't forget the Harry Fox Agency) have worked hard grabbing control of the music industry, and they don't want to let it go without a fight. It's about more than money. It's about controlling the music that people listen, because they know the effects music has on a population. Arnold Perris and Hellmut Lehmann-Haupt have described hoe Hitler, Mao and other dictators have understood and used music to affect behavior. Roger Sessions said "Bach and Mozart and Beethoven did not reflect Germany, they helped to create it."
The point is, they don't care about your bucks, they want your hearts and minds.

OK, for those of you who think we won't win this one because no one will fight the lawsuits:

Let's say the figures from one of the above posts are accurate, and they make over one billion from present suits, and more from future suits.

There is an easy way to prevent all of this from happening: stop sharing copyrighted material. Who will they sue if there is no one to go after? Dry up their pool of victims, and they won't make any money on lawsuits. It's very simple, really.

What will they do when no one is buying their product, and they can't find anyone to sue?

Hey, whatever, people are still sharing RIAA music like there's no tomorrow. Who are we kidding? The only reason some people are mad at the the RIAA is because they want free music.

IMO, if you continue to share RIAA music, then come here to crow about the boycott, you're not even half serious about boycotting the RIAA.

Can't we get people to stop sharing RIAA music for even one damn month? Just send the bastards the message we don't need them. Boycott ALL of it.

AMEN AVERAGECONSUMER !!

good points heffie....although i think Cary-Sue looks more like a duckbilled platypus than anything else

Read what Vince Neil said.. basically the entire purpose of a copyrigt is to PROECT THE ARTIST! And by sharing mp3 files, you ARE NOT HURTING THE ARTIST!

Hey AverageConsumer,
You asked who will the RIAA sue if no one shares copyrighted data. Do you want a list? They don't care about the copyrights. Their motive is the distribution of music. Period. They have sued the developers of MP3 players (hardware and software)as well as anyone who thinks about sharing (including non-copyrighted material).
This is just one step in the process. They are not interested in legal fights or protection. They come with overwhelming force so that it is cheaper to settle than fight. Look at who they picked to sue. I guarantee they could have deeper pockets in their lists of users.
This is the same tactic that the Harry Fox Agency pulled with many guitar tablature sites. Copyright doesn't protect tablature that doesn't include lyrics (lyrics are protected). The HFA issued C&D letters with huge dollar amounts to ISPs and others who hosted the files. Most sites dropped the files rather than go through the hassle. This is the modus operandi.
This post is merely opinion and is not to be construed as legal advice. In all legal matters, you should consult an attourney. With courts like the 9th Circus (Circuit), the law has become pretty flexible anyway.

You're hurting the RIAA. And isn't that what we want to do?