I have to agree with the MacTerminator.

In fact, thanks to organizations like Naptser, Gnutella, etc...THE RECORD INDUSTRY SAVES FAR MORE MONEY IN MARKETING, PROMOTION AND DISTRIBUTION COSTS THAN THEY WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE.

During that height of the Napster contraversy I worked for internet radio where I produced many interviews with artists like, BT, Shuvel, Toni Iomme, Matt Johnson of 'THE, THE', Linikin' Park, Ice-T, Slash, Christopher Lawrence, Scott Thompson of 'Kids in the Hall' and many others...

All of the afforementioned artists expressed support for the digital future of music and most importantly, many of them expressed that a record contract is not with the listener, but with the record company. Also in almost all cases, each artist stated that more of their money was earned by something other than record sales, like touring, and merchandising; and this was before Napster.

This whole thread is just a BOT message to get statistics on how numb we are to this issue so that the record execs and all the lobbyists in their pockets can pass new legislation or create a means tax the user for this freedom.

As if these ego driven, fascist geeks weren't greedy enough already...

In fact, thanks to organizations like Naptser, Gnutella, etc...THE RECORD INDUSTRY SAVES FAR MORE MONEY IN MARKETING, PROMOTION AND DISTRIBUTION COSTS THAN THEY WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE.

They are so, so NOT losing any money; and if they are it's because they are not forward thinking enough to change their infrastructure around this new digital age. And by the way...Since when was downloading a degraded ***, mp3 at a bitrate of 128k - 324k so great anyway...It's nowhere near as good as the sound of a actual CD. But this point is moot because unlike the record exec, we are moving forward and the quality is getting better.

And, although I forgot to copy and paste the quote; the first answer to the first question that started this thread about sharing MP3's being 'DISTRIBUTION, NOT PROMOTION' is innacurate, when seen from a marketing perspective.

I would venture to say 'distribution AND promotion', but not the kind of distribution that they profit from.

I don't think I need to go into the obvious senario of what it means for the artist if 10 thousand users download an MP3 of their music and how well it will promote them...Even if the music does suck, someone out there will like it, because lets face it; we all have an achilles heel in our soul that likes to be tickled.

The cost of this promotion...FREE for the Artist and the Record Company Exec...A savings of maybe 250k in marketing/promotion and a loss of 200k in CD sales (only if you include downloading the whole CD at $20 a unit). Sounds like you just made 50k. Tweek on it some more and I'm sure you can find away to cut more costs and make even more. Oh, but you're already doing that by trying to squeeze us, aren't you?

And as far as 'DISTRIBUTION'; the record industry will always tell the artist that they will have to pay back the cost of distribution in a record deal and that 'distibrution' costs money...blablabla. But look what happens to the record exec when we freely share MP3's at no cost or profit to the user except for a CPU and an ISP.

The record exec wants to find a way to tax us for it, not because he's too stupid to see that this is a grand marketing oppurtunity, but because he now sees a way to screw us in both holes by saying that we are 'unauthorized distibutors' and stealing from the artist. Excuse me, but You've been stealing from the artist since there was an artist. Can you say 'PRINCE', George Michael...


Side Note:

George Michael paid 40 million to get OUT of his contract with Sony, because they were screwing him (There's a joke there, somewhere).



At the risk of speaking for all file sharers out there, I believe we are also the greedy ones feeding our melodic achelles heel, not to PROFIT, from so-called 'DISTRIBUTION', but really to SAVE our hard earned greenbacks. So, it comes as no surprise that the finger is pointed this way and also to no surprise that we all may suffer some consequence as a result of how easily we can let our conscience be steered be fingerpointing record geeks who make us out to be the bad guys who are 'STEALING' from the artist.

Dear God, save us all from the MUSIC BUISINESS.

A record exec will go to any length to keep us from realizing that, by sharing MP3's, we are doing them a great service.

During that height of the Napster contraversy I work for an internet radio company where I produced many interviews with artists like, BT, Shuvel, Toni Iomme, Matt Johnson of 'THE, THE', Linikin' Park, Ice-T, Slash, Christopher Lawrence, Scott Thompson of 'Kids in the Hall' and many others...

All of the afforementioned artists expressed support for the digital future of music and most importantly, most of them expressed that the contract is not with the listener, but with the record company. Also in almost all cases, each artist stated that most of their money was earned by something other than record sales, like touring, and merchandising; and this was before Napster.


Dj Dan Busch