Yes, you're not the first one as I can see. I believe is a trick question, as the thread title is "Should downloading music really be free for everyone?", but the poll question is "Should downloading music be illegal?"

Ivan
"In the dark we make a brighter light"

__________________
Gnutella Forums en Español!

I think this (Denis Battista) spam was from a RIAA mouthpiece. I think that it was deliberately done that why, so people like some of us (like myself) who didn’t read it properly would vote wrong. Let start an other poll with the question asked right….
Down with RIAA… Boycott RIAA artist in the month of August… Long live p2p

I really haven't been following it too closely, since I don't use P2P to download music (well, maybe 3 copyrighted pieces a year) - but aren't they already adding a surcharge to CDs now (maybe only Audio, not sure about data)? Is this money going to the RIAA? If so, shouldn't garage bands recording their own music be perturbed at having to pay this surcharge?

And only three choices. Perhaps we should invite the Palm Beach voters up here so they can call us idiots for a while.

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

I just wanted to bring up some other issues/thoughts. Why are CD's priced so high? Its outrageous! The consumer is getting robbed blind, and nobody seems to care. Have been for years.

Think about cassette tapes. You can get music on cassette cheap these days. $6? $7? pretty darn cheap compared to CD's.

A CD new is anywhere from $13 to $20 or more, depending on where you buy them. This is crazy. I understood CDs being priced higher when the technology was new, but its NOT new anymore. they have been around a long time now.

A new CD should cost NO MORE than $10. tax included.

I know lots of work goes into making the music on a CD. Lots of people have to get paid.

But still, the prices are too high. their is a difference between making a profit and making a killing!

perhaps if the artists want to insure that more people buy their music and THEY, the artist gets paid, they should lower the CD prices!

How many times have you paid $15 for that cd you wanted and only ONE song is good, the rest suck?

my .02 worth.

To give you an idea. In the studio I collaborate with, we often order 1000 copies of the demos we record - professionally printed with a 4 page , full-colour inlay - for around $1000 (ie. $1 per unit). The bands usually sell these for $5-6 which makes them a healthy profit if they sell most of them. Obviously, for more copies, the cost-per-unit will be even less.

In this case, we don't spend much on promotion. We place a couple of mp3s on the studio's and the band's web-sites and maybe have the odd poster printed. The rest is through word-of-mouth, concerts and some local TV or radio appearances. On this basis we've managed to move several thousand copies (at local and regional level). We don't even consider the possibility of air-time on national TV or Radio as this market is almost completely controlled by the big labels.

Here, mainstream CDs (not necessarily new releases) are selling for about 21 euros - and the euro has recently been at parity with the dollar. I won't bother writing what I think about this price as most of it will be turned into asterisks by vBulletin.

The only problem with this thread is that (apart from the thread-starter) we're preaching to the converted. Almost everyone who frequents this forum is a P2P user - and we all know what the main use of P2P is. Perhaps we should find an RIAA thug forum, post the same things and see what kind of reaction we get there.

Im sure they are taking plenty of time to read what's here, but you may have a point. Remember though...these guys are well perpared to take it on.

-d

It is such a shame when the self righteous critics of mp3 downloading can't even find the time to follow up on their beliefs but also don't have the intelligence to put it in their own words and truly express the reasonings behind their beliefs.

The fact of the matter is the the RIAA has made the bed that it lays in a reaps the harvest of the seeds they have planted. Enough is enough, they have no compassion for the artist whatsoever and their highest priority is their bottom line. I can't blame them completely, since businesses are in business to make money but it is how you choose to do so that is most important.

I am hoping we can hear from the original poser er.. poster in his OWN words...........

Should we really hold our breath ?

Sorry but I have to breed, NOW.... hehehehe