On music piracy, music piracy, more music piracy... and Jack Russell

Rambus bestrides memory world like an arrogant colossus Jack Snaps

This guy makes us sick , he is judge , Jury, and executioner for RMBS.. You have brought yourself down many notches by dealing with this man . Get rid of him Fast .

Allen Kinchin
Email address supplied

------

RIAA's attempt to hold ISPs to account is risible

I've just about had it hearing from thieves & all their lame excuses for pirating. Please don't use the guise of "caring" about the artists livelihood, or about the music formats, or call it a backlash to mainstream "pop" music. "Pop" is short for popular because it generally sells more than other styles, so one would assume that the majority of the music purchasing population do not have a problem with it.

Pirates apparently don't understand how the "sign-on" bonuses work, how royalties are collected or paid, who pays for studio time, concert travel, producer's fees, nor why the "CD dollars" are split the way they are. I don't have the time or patience to explain it here & won't bother because it is NOT the reason people are downloading songs. If the music business were so unfair then it wouldn't be so heavily sought after to become a musician. If the artists have a problem w/ their contracts, they will work that out amongst their attorneys; not some tight-wallet slacker burning CDs in the basement. Furthermore, if you care so much about the artists then buy their CDs. Do you really believe you're doing them a favor by burning it?

If you want to steal music by downloading & not paying for it, fine. It's your right to do what you want to do. Please stop telling us you are doing it for some noble cause.

Name, email address supplied

------>

SOMEBODY MUST PAY! It seems that consumers and pointy headed computer geeks think they are entitled to a product that takes millions of dollars to make...."music." It's an enormously expensive process to record, manufacture, and distribute quality music to the consumer.

And they do it for a price that is under $20. But, that isn't good enough for some of the young, nose-ringed, jerks out there today who somehow think they have a right to this product for free. As a result of this pirating we are seeing the decline in quality music and an overall "why bother" attitude from the labels.

It's becoming impossible for talent to even get record deals because there is no money...because they are seeing no return on the investment they make. I hear MS is coming up with a plan to take care of this problem and hopefully stop the steeling of other peoples hard work.

The attitude of some of your articles on the subject suggest that you feel it should be free....Well, let's look at that....Real studio time on that level is about $2000 an hour. It takes about, on average, four to eight months of work in the studio...and that's generous. You have atty. fees for the royalty situations-publishing negotiations-you have the manufacturing of one quarter of a million copies at a time at about four to six dollars a piece-depending on the graphic packaging.

You have an enormous promotion budget-which is not recoupable...videos are a total loss right off the top....And let's look at the cost of today's edgy vids. Oh, about $1.2 to 3 million on average.

We have distribution of the product all over the country...and the world...this can be $2 to 5 million depending on the artist.....I think you get the point! All of this, so some snot nosed, brat can just go to a site and take it for free......I DON'T THINK SO...There IS NO justification for the steeling of music on-line at all.....Not to mention the intellectual property of what comes from the brain of a brilliant artist....it's sickening..

Larry Shaw
Email address supplied

------>

With all the roderick one would think that the music industries problems are all due to people copying cd's. The truth is that music itself is to blame.

When you have bands like the rolling stones making headlines and very few new groups coming to the forefront.

No wonder music sales are down.And if they think that by making cd's impossible to copy they are going to fix the problem they've got another thing coming.I for one will not buy music that cannot be copy.I believe that once I buy a cd I have the right to put it in my car, in my house and in my wife's car if she so desires, we did it with cassettes and being doing it with cds.

If the music industries wants to increase sales then they should find new groups with material that is worth buying.

Name, email address supplied

----->

Editor

I agree with H. Rose about holding the ISP providers accountable for pirated downloads and while we're at it, let's charge them some per email tax for every unwanted piece of spam which they say they cannot control which is a lie. I think it would come under control very quickly.

And, of course, they could pass the cost on to the spammers. Let's get real. They can be identified. AFterall, they do it for profit and there is a money trail.

Thank you.

C. Hucks Email address supplied

----->

Do you mean to say that some people actually BUY the crap that is being presented as pop music? If so, they are really being ripped off. Can minors buy some of this stuff? They should not be allowed to...there should be a law.

Sincerely,

Dave Lucas
Email address supplied

------>

Hello,

In his tirade against the RIAA ("RIAA's attempt to hold ISPs to account is risible"), Jack Russell attempts to justify the egregious and massive copright piracy which the RIAA is responding to. But thieves can always justify their activities, even while they are breaking the law. Copyright piracy by burning or downloading is illegal and should be prosecuted.

Mr. Russell states that ISPs should not be held accountable for what their users "might" do. Should they also not be held accountable for what their users are doing, to the tune of some 3 billion illegally downloaded works per month? Back in the old days (about three years ago) when people actually paid for music instead of stealing it, those illegal downloads were not happening. Once the "services" went online and ISPs began aiding and abetting an illegal activity, all of the facilitators should have been held liable.

It's laughable that Mr. Russell justifies and seems to gloat in the destruction of an industry by whining that the RIAA hasn't addressed its problems. He seems to say that the industry brought massive copyright infringement on itself. That's it, Jack, just blame the victim. "The rich guy deserved to die because he wouldn't blah, blah, blah". The fact is that nothing can justify the illegal activities that threaten the music, motion picture, and publishing industries.

Until recently, the concept of intellectual property rights was unassailed in this country. (In Third World countries, it's rarely existed). Now that copyright owners are being ripped off wholesale by thieves who often don't even realize they're breaking the law, a basic foundation of our nation's economy is under siege. What future do these industries have in a nation where music, books and films are simply passed around rather than purchased?

This is not hyperbole. And holding ISPs accountable is not in itself the answer to a growing problem. Responsible journalists, public education regarding copyright laws, and new legislation that addresses the digital present and future, would be the first steps toward resolving a growing problem that undermines many peoples' lives.

Stan Bernstein

Email address supplied

---->

I feel I must respond to some of the points made already.

As a 37yr old music fan, who from time to time uses Kazaa etc. to browse music of interest to myself. I.E. search on favourite band and check what other music that user may have. Using this method I have found plenty of bands I would never have been exposed too and yes I do buy numerous CD's. One band I found by this method, Widespread Panic, have benefited by my purchasing 7 CDs, so far.

The problem lies in the simple facts of price, flexibility and good music.

A good example of the first is the high price of CDs, particularly the pound-dollar straight conversion which is widespread amongst most industries.

An example of the second is the so far very poor industry websites, if I download music I want to be able to play it on any player I have and anywhere. If I cannot do this I will not buy, over my dead body will a 'rights managed' machine or software find a space in my home.

As far as the third goes, anybody who has looked at the British charts recently can see the garbage being churned out, if they spent millions producing some of this stuff, yes they are being ripped off but not by the public.

A good recent example of a band able to sell material that is freely available on the internet, legally as well!, is Phish with their www.livephish.com site. This allows the easy download of either mp3 or shn (no loss compression) copies of most/if not all recent live shows, these offer high quality sound, include full printouts for CD covers/labels etc. and most importantly at a fair price. All this and the band removes the costly physical production/distribution of CDs.

Has anyone actually allowed for the money that kids are now spending on Mobile Phones (text, ringtones etc.) that is no longer spent on music?

I think the RIAA needs to have a clearout of staff and get some tech/net savvy staff. Where is this week's RIAA website hacked story anyway?

Yours with a conscience

Rick Carr
Email address supplied

----->

Hi

Read the piece "On music piracy, music piracy and Jack Russel" Someone (second article in the newsletter) was very... eh.. upset with people who pirates music, and I would very much like to comment on that...

How come the artists don't protest against the system he asks... and the simple answer is that they know that if they do, they can say goodbye to any kind of career... Even so, some of them do, but none before they have made themself a name in the industry. Did see a brill documentary on the subject. Missed to tape it so I'm afraid I don't have a name for the program.

Last, regarding thievery... I'm on a real small budget but want to enjoy as much of entertainment as possible anyway. I have one major component in my bookshelf for this purpose, My PC ! No DVD. No CD. The most Hi quality component is my old vinyl turntable. Sounds great but where to buy records is beyond me...

Asked a friend on his way to buy Shakira's new CD. But when I try to play it I find out that somehow the record company has decided what kind of equipment I have to use to listen to it !!! Now that really pisses me off !! How long does it take before they (the label) decides that I have to use a particular brand of player...??

After dishing out $17 for the CD I can honestly say I have no troubles what so ever with downloading the songs to be able to listen to my new investment....

Regards

Kim Larsson
Email address supplied

----->

With Regard to Larry Shaw and his statement 'takes millions of dollars to make...."music."'

Crap.

I know several local bands that have produced albums for under a thousand pounds and never charge for concerts. And they are a much more worth while listen than most of the "pop" produced today.

It CAN take millions to make music, but it doesn't have to.

I am pissed off supporting mega stars & music labels so they can swan around in Limo's, make video's all over the world in exotic locations staying 5* accomodation, get married and then have a divorce settlement that overshadows the capital expenditure of a third world country.

Next they'll be calling it theft you whistle a tune.

Too many $$$

The problem with the music industry is many are dreaming of (or actually have) their hands in the cash pot. If you look at the roots of music, it is supposed to be a social / enjoyable / fun thing. Unfortunately the industry "fat cats" have corrupted it and made it money-money-money. Larry Shaw's letter stating $2000 per hour studio time demonstrates the problem! Just why do you need a promotional video at "$1.2 to 3 million"? Odd how some local bands seem to produce rather good music from back-bedroom studios, and when done well it is indistinguishable from the mythical $2000 an hour studio.

I have no sympathy with big-business music industry whatsoever, they are only in it for the money and if they go, then good riddance. Maybe we could then get back to the more core values of music and start enjoying it again.

Timothy B
Full name, email address supplied

----->

As some of the letters stated "music production is expensive". I'm not going to argue that, but so is making a 100' tall statue of Garth Brooks out of butter. That doesn't mean anyone's gonna buy it.

Is a music CD worth $20 to me?

What else could I get for $20, entertainment wise:

A PS2 game.
An older DVD, or one on sale.
A test and tune session at the local drag strip.
Two showings at the local theatre, three if I go to matinees.
About 40 games at the local arcade.
Five to ten video rentals.
A good meal out.
A pizza with some friends.
A minor league sporting event.
A book or two.

Now here's my situation, I listen to music:

In my MP3-CD player in my car.
On my computer at home.
In my PC based homemade MP3 player at work.

If I can't even LISTEN to that $20 CD, why do I want it? I don't. There is music out there that I'd like to listen to, but rather than buying CDs for $20 (instead of $15) that probably don't work, I simply listen to the radio. And what about the money that I would've spent on CDs? Well, someone else got it. $20 is too much for the risk, especially given the alternatives.

Email name, address supplied

-----> When I first read your article "RIAA's attempt to hold ISPs to account is risible" I agreed whole heartily with its conclusions, now I am just appalled at the number of people who have responded that ISPs should be held accountable for the stealing of music online. It is true that music theft is a problem but the cause should be attacked, not the effect. The music industry is shooting its self in the foot by its archaic distribution system, poor value on CDs and the lack of really interesting and ingenious music. People want to buy more then just the same old 10 CDs with the same recycled synth.

The idea of accountability by the ISPs especially irks me, should we begin making car manufacturers liable for people who speed or drive drunk or kill people? How about firearm manufacturers, should they be held liable when someone shoots somebody? I believe the vast majority of people that responded would have trouble with making these more "established" industries liable. It is a personal choice that determines if an individual downloads music, the ISP cannot be held accountable for someone's personal choice.

Remember ISPs don't steal music, "some" people with ISPs steal music.

I believe what really scares the RIAA is the idea that songs could be recorded in smaller independent studios and distributed online in a per song format. This would completely eliminate the need for the large conglomerates that currently control the vast majority of modern music. They are fighting hard to keep control of the distribution method. Why did they not jump on the Napster band wagon when they decided to require payment for music download? And why shouldn't we have per song distribution. If I purchase a song I should have the right to put it on mix CDs, MP3 CDs, play it in my car and at home, etc. Even (and I know this is shocking) lend it to a friend. Currently in Canada I have that right, and I will fight vigorously to defend that right.

Peter Ksiazek
Email address supplied

----->

hi mike, hi all,

when I read about all the people arguing against music sharing online I want to question their arguments once again, and put a little bit more oil to the fire ...

how many cds do you own folks? are you really listening only to the cds you bought? never tv? never radio? the future of media distribution, face it, is IP. In 15 years or so we will have most media IP and all media digital based. what we fight now is how it is paid for content in the future.

Once established there will be no way around a RIAA tax on all music media, including the music you produced yourself in your computer is distributed over the net. You already pay to music industry organisations to have empty tapes and cds (yes, since the tape reel ages ....).

In the last 20 years, since the digital equipment sneaked the backdoor in the recording studios to overtake them mostly, production of music is getting cheaper and cheaper. Even 24 track systems are now to have for less then half of a small car. So what you pay is not the production, what you pay is what they call PR, but it is mostly the extension of their influence in your life.

RIAA does not represent a club of small labels, it is the media mass production. And mass production doesn't like distributed machines which are able to do their job independently. Music enjoyed again and again by every generation shouldn't be covered by copyright. Aren't there enough songs we all listen to sometimes in our lives? did your younger brother, your friend, your boss, your kids listen to them too? Should we pay more then the production and a copyright fee to the band, the song writer?

I don't get it why goods of society (the society we have presently today, compared to the ended industrial communism (no, not cuba), the century before and so on) should be owned by a company, which isn't interested in more then their own win/loss situation.

They don't preserve concerts everywhere, just where is money, they don't sponsor music education, microsoft is spending more on humanity then the record labels compared by their income. And microsoft isn't a big one in this. P2P isn't theft, and shouldn't be treated as such by new laws, better we define how the record labels can get "some" dollars for further living/working, and we get our culture back without giving away that what apparently replaced the "i sing a song that I heared to others". and yes, tell me why most small artists have to pay for their distribution, have to play every night for their money, and others get money for stuff that was RECORDED 70, 80 or more years ago. (mr. disney is dead, and I would pay to his team, not to the people they own the name now).

and no, I don't think anybody should be rich like the french king, including golden bath tub and so on just because he/she "owns" something what makes me pay to them every time MY "soontobecdplayerreplacement" is producing it (maybe very loud). I pay for good songs, no discussion, but when we talk about music as a bodily need, there can't be a pay-by-use principle here, and I won't play for other people extending their ways of getting my money without giving some back to all of us.

enough for now

matthias
Email address supplied