By Common (209.2.55.172) on Wednesday, June 25, 2003 - 01:39 pm:

This post will probably sink to the bottom but I thought it was worth posting for those who use file-sharing sites to download music from the net.

http://channels.netscape.com/ns/news/story.jsp?idq=/ff/story/0001/20030625/132090535.htm

Peace!

By KevGo (64.115.26.80) on Wednesday, June 25, 2003 - 02:01 pm:

Common:
I just got an email regarding this. I'm not surprised the RIAA is going in this direction after they successfully busted a ring of four people who had a big file-sharing scam going on.
Kevin Goins - KevGo

By Common (209.2.55.172) on Wednesday, June 25, 2003 - 02:08 pm:

Hey KevGo:

Do you think what the RIAA is doing is just alot of smoke & mirrors? Or do they really have a legitimate case? It seems to me that they plan on spending millions of dollars to find & persecute these file-share users. I quite confused by the industry's zeal to sue people considering the fact that music industry has been a slump for the past couple of years.

Peace!

By KevGo (64.115.26.80) on Wednesday, June 25, 2003 - 02:32 pm:

Common:
The RIAA represents the big record labels. Anything that is not within their control is considered a threat.

While I understand why they are doing this - which is to protect copyrights and royalties - this doesn't address the problem as to WHY folks are compelled to download & share without paying in the first place.

I've said it before on this forum and I'll say it again -

1) Drop the prices of CDs. When CDs went up to $17.98 a pop in 1997, this was before downloading became an issue. They gotta make it affordable for folks whose incomes are limited.

2) Reissue older music that is not available. I should not have to rely on a "file-sharer" to obtain the full-length version of a song that isn't available for whatever reason.

3) If the majors aren't gonna make it available but their overseas partner will, make the import available.

I find it interesting that the RIAA's outgoing CEO Hillary Rosen has made #1 an issue in her last term as leader. Makes me wonder whether she & the rest really give a damn, given that she has now stepped down and is working as a consultant.

Kevin Goins - KevGo

By Stephanie (64.63.221.208) on Wednesday, June 25, 2003 - 02:33 pm:

What is wrong with the RIAA? Its not like there are millions of people doing this and a lot of shared files is music that you dont hear on the radio anymore. I think the BIG artists are still selling if Im wrong someone please feel free to correct me. A lot of the CD's that are selling now are older artists and of course the hip hop community and the youngbucks!!! Most of the people I know who share files especially in the rock community are getting things by Kiss and Jethro Tull and Kansas and people like that ....
Stephanie PS It takes a hell of a lot of time to download files I think the RIAA is nuts there are NOT that many people who have the time to do this except teenagers. It cant be taking that much money out of the industry's pockets. I remember when Garth Brooks and Metallica were moaning and complaining about shared files and they are super rich you dont hear the obscure artists complaining. What happens is someone will get a file on an old group and like them so much they wind up buying their old stuff from their catalog and places like Rhino and Collectables do well. If I had the money Garth Brooks and Mettallica did I could give a hoot if someone was sharing my files. I remember when I saw Paul Anka on TV complaining about people buying used CDS!!!! Come on how many people are buying used Paul Anka CD's he gets his money from royalties and performing. NO disrespect to him but that statement and these artists are getting bent out of shape over nothing...the stuff is just too expensive now.

By Common (209.2.55.171) on Wednesday, June 25, 2003 - 03:08 pm:

KevGo & Stephanie:

I agree with both of you that the price & the unavailability of certain CDs have driven some people to download off the net. Not to mention that to in order to get access to alot of oldies, you have either seek out record shops that sell oldies or bid for them on ebay(both which I have done & ebay, can be quite costly if the record you're looking for, is rarity). Personally, I don't do the file-sharing thing, since I've heard about people getting virus' & the use of spyware on some of the sites. But as Stephanie said, this method had introduced another generation to the oldies music prompting them to want to purchase the original recordings. I can understand the copyright & royalties issue but what about folks, like ME for instance, that used to tape songs off the radio(I was too young to buy records & didn't get a big allowance). Some people still do it. Are we going to sue them too?

And there are some artists, as Stephanie pointed out, that have supported file-sharing, so where does this leave them?

I don't know why Paul Anka would complain about people buying used CDs since sometimes, these CDs are hard to find(like Marvin's & The Tempts Lost & Found CDs. I found them in a record shop that sells used CDs & vinyl). I would prefer to buy unused CDs, especially the imports but because of lack of availability, I've had a hard time finding them. Sometimes, you have take what you get. There is one store that I go to in Manhattan that sells some of these imports. That's where I bought Cellarful & couple of other CDs that are from the UK(Brand new! Yeah!). Sorry to digress, but I guess this file-sharing issue is just leaves me scratching my head.

Peace!

By Bob Olhsson (12.93.84.123) on Thursday, June 26, 2003 - 02:09 am:

There's a bit of misinformation here.

The RIAA is only suing individuals who persist in making large numbers of illegal files available after being told to stop. They are not suing people who download files.

By Common (209.2.55.170) on Thursday, June 26, 2003 - 10:04 am:

Ooops! That's what I get for not reading the article carefully. Sorry! Thought it would be of interest since there has been so much controversy regarding this issue.

Peace!

By KevGo (64.115.26.80) on Thursday, June 26, 2003 - 11:10 am:

Bob:
I must disagree with you (here we go,...load up the cannons..). With all due respect, I'm quite informed as to who the RIAA are going after. It still does not change my position whatsoever.

I've been raising hell over CD pricing and lack of strong catalog items since mid 1990s (my years as a record store supervisor/buyer) when I saw CDs going from $14.98 retail to $16.98, then $17.98 and $18.99. I questioned then where the hell was this money going especially since I haven't heard of an overall raise in royalty rates for artists. The RIAA was mighty quiet when this was going on and the consumers were getting more & more angry, especially younger kids who were spending that much on a CD and not having enough change to take the subway home.

Also, the lack of good catalog reissues have kept folks away from stores. How many times have we on the Forum raised hell over what the labels should reissue? How many times have folks like Harry Weinger at UMG (a king among men as far as reissues are concerned) have had to read our posts and sword-fight with the clueless within his own company to get even a two-for-one reissued? Hell, when a certain file-sharing company (who I will not mention!)had a certain song available I had been seeking for ages that was not on ANY reissued CD, I asked God to forgive me and downloaded the sucker.

Before the RIAA can go after any filesharer they should be telling the industry to get their act together and not gauge the consumer. Hillary Rosen, the outgoing CEO of the RIAA, said she was going to make this her priority before she left office. Well, she's out and it seems that all she was offering was lip service.

And Bob - you can tell Hillary Rosen and her cronies exactly what I said.

Kevin Goins - KevGo

By stephanie (64.63.221.20) on Thursday, June 26, 2003 - 02:30 pm:

In respect to everyone on the forum I do agree that what Bob said is true when it comes to the big file sharing companies but Bob (and I would like for you Bob and anyone else reading this to respond) How do you feel about these companies large and small getting obscure stuff. I have a 22 year old friend who lives in TX Who found George Kerr's Three Minutes To Hey Girl on the net on a file sharing site and you cant find the sucker anywhere except on EBAY!!! I still say some of these sites are great for obscure stuff. Im not talking things like Baby Love by the Supremes I mean stuff like "I hurt on the other side"by Sid Barnes and Northern Soul Stuff.

I will say some of these things are being released NOW on CD but most people dont even know about them unless they are Collectables or Rhino Junkies like myself. What do you all think I say lets keep the Naapsters and people like that.
Stephanie

By douglasm (68.113.13.31) on Thursday, June 26, 2003 - 02:52 pm:

Does ASCAP and BMI have a position on this? I mean, it's their (sorta) royalties on the line here.

By Scratcher (65.238.127.161) on Thursday, June 26, 2003 - 05:22 pm:

ASCAP, BMI and SESAC only deal with performance royalties.

By Common (209.2.55.172) on Thursday, June 26, 2003 - 05:58 pm:

I have heard/read that you can find just about anything on these filesharing sites, especially when it comes to rarities. I saw a David Ruffin (pre-Tempts) track that I wanted to download but decided against it & figured I'd try ebay or do some footwork. So instead of the RIAA complaining & suing these companies, why wouldn't they just put out the rarities & reissues instead of spending untold sums of money suing people? Beat these guys at their own game. Or maybe I'm oversimplifying things?

Peace!

By motownboy (64.170.50.18) on Friday, June 27, 2003 - 03:19 pm:

Unfortunately, the music biz is MOSTLY a sleaze fest centered around money. The big labels have been taking advantage of their artists and employees in varying degrees since it all began. While the labels weren't paying attention to technology, those with that kind of savvy & foresight have slipped in and gotten them panicked. Not to mention how the RIAA and record labels have grossly underestimated the intelligence of the public, which I find insulting. Even after Napster, they have yet to really embrace the technology and power of file sharing into a proper and prfitable way to market music on line. THEY STILL DON'T GET THAT WHAT THE PUBLIC WANTS IS VARIETY -THAT MEANS NEW, OLD, UNAVAILABLE ON CD, and that most folks would pay a fair price to download the music they want............

Five years from now, the RIAA & labels still won't get it!!

By Greg C. (207.103.134.118) on Friday, June 27, 2003 - 05:50 pm:

This sounds like a bluff. Can you imagine how much money and legal manpower would be required to go after everyone who downloads and shares music files? The last thing the music industry needs right now is to spend more money on some pie-in-the-sky scheme!

The music industry has to be realistic and understand that the dynamics of the music business have changed and they're going to have to come up with new ways to sell it. Let's face it, a lot of what's being put out right now is pure CRAP!

We have a whole generation of young people who have never spent a DIME on music and have no intention to start!

By acooolcat (61.58.180.143) on Saturday, June 28, 2003 - 08:32 am:

I recently read that a US senator - or someone - wanted the computers of music file-sharers to be made to self-distruct if they swapped files. Freaky!
Graham

By soulboy (213.105.242.41) on Saturday, June 28, 2003 - 09:48 am:

If the RIAA persue this course of action then they will be shooting themselves in the foot!
How many people of this forum and others have bought legitimate CD's as the result of file sharing??
I know many people who use the file sharing just to try out records before they buy,i think if this isn't open to people then there will be no records of reissues in a few years time, and our music in particular will suffer due to the fact that they have shut down the file sharing option.

By Common (209.2.55.169) on Tuesday, July 22, 2003 - 11:17 am:

This is getting more & more interesting....

http://www.eurweb.com/articles/headlines/07222003/headlines1065207222003.cfm