The RIAA is chasing rainbows or, should I say shadows very much like the CIA.File sharing put money in their pockets.In order to share you must first buy the album or song or file legally. Considering the music wateland available individuals will stop buying or will buy and share it with their friends. I believe this called networking or in economics "the barter system" I give you a pound of potatoes for two pounds of beets. For the RIAA to blame their declining sales on P2P is a chimera, not based on fact. Another American Conspiracy Theory. The rest of the world is laughing at your naive concept of free trade . In Taiwan you aqre able to buy a workable copy of Vista fo less than 10 dollars!!!!!!!

you logic is flawed

With P2P I give you a pound of potatoes and still have the potatoes to give to another person.

So if(!) I buy something I could(!) give it to 100s of people and still have the original.

Of those people I gave a copy to - some may(!) have gone out and bought it, this means that the company that sells it has made a lose.

It's not about copyright - its about loss of earnings. Or at least what they think they are looseing.

I agree that I may find something that I wouldnt of come across. Just like I look on peoples shelves at thier books, CDs, DVDs etc when I visit them. Which often leads to "Oh! that looks good can I borrow it"

I was just thinking about that potato "thing"...

Is't really loosing if that person who you give that copy isn't even buying that product?

hmm... So They aren't loosing anything. it's just basic mind illusion. They should think first before acting...

A simple IP blocker with updated blocklists from trusted sources nullifies the effectiveness of this method of curbing p2p, as well as adding addional levels of protection from the NON - RIAA / MPAA sponsored web nasties out there. If this kind of thing worries you, try looking into it.

Remember that there is always bad in good & Good in Bad. That's life people!

"SteveJohnSteele" Idea is kinda good. I like it.

"I think RIAA starts making their own file-sharing. Or they don't wanna stop illegal file-sharing... Have you people ever think about it?"

Umm... of course they want to stop illegal file-sharing. It costs them money. Why the heck would they make their own file-sharing network?

"Some good websites offers free music "legally" from non-famous artists."

Yes, such as http://www.download.com and http://www.purevolume.com (sorry mods if I'm not supposed to post those links).

"Umm... of course they want to stop illegal file-sharing. It costs them money. Why the heck would they make their own file-sharing network?"

Sounds odd but there something fishy about RIAA. I have heard stories. And as i said "there's always good and evil"... I think RIAA is killing music. Oh well, but this is just our own opinions. How can one human make difference in this awful world?

Think about all the money they are gaining off these law suits....hmmm! Twisting the brain! ahh!!

Ah!!! You are right btw... Never came to my mind. That's very good point...

They really aren't making money on the lawsuits. On the contrary, they are losing tons.

Simple. The music industry is doomed.

The RIAA claim they are protecting artists. Bulls***.

Are you really sure? Where the money goes then? Music company's? It's almost same as RIAA...

Legal costs.

'nuf said.

P2P is seen by the big companys (music, film, software etc) as a problem.

What's the solution?

Well the big companys think it is to protect their 'product' so that it cant be copied. But any form of protection will be broken. Not to mention the pain protection systems cause customers (Sony).

Here is a possible solution...

What if I could buy a licence from a company which allowed me to copy (from any source) any item from that company.

This licence would allow me to go into the local shop, take a CD of the shelf, put it in my PC, copy it and then leave the shop. All completely legally.

With this system the world would save on plastics (for the CDs, DVD, packaging), petrol (for the distribution) and so on.

Why isnt the shop supplying 'copys', I could go to a shop with a CD-RW/DVD-RW (or other portable reuseable storage). They could then just 'stock' digital 'copys' on a server. They would be able to stock millions of disks.

How much should the licence cost?

Concider this - a Sky satelite subcription costs £20-£40 a month, or £250-£500 a year. I can video all the tv, films and record all the music.

And the companys would save a bundle on distribution costs and advertising.

RIAA is making money because artists can't get to listeners directly. As soon as all digital distribution becomes a reality many artists will find out they don't need RIAA anymore (some already did). The high initial cost of release in physical world becomes negligible in digital world. That is why RIAA fights against any change in current business model, they know they are obsolete in the new digital world.

true true, unfortunately, they will still be powerful as far as radio play, tv ads...

Some ridiculuous comments are made here about all the money artists supposedly make. A lot people don't seem know what they are talking about. Not only do most artists _not_ make a lot of money on record sales, less-known artists make anywhere from next-to-nothing to actually _being in the hole_ to their record company.

You have to understand that record companies are mostly sleezebag in nature, and their lawyers are the worst. They don't want to give _any_ money to the artist if they can contract a way not to. And they do that, as they know new artists and lesser-known ones will sign just about anything to have their chance at success.

Artists, for the most part, make their money on performances. You can make more money on one tour than all you might get from a record company through your career put together. In fact some contracts have the record company getting a piece of that performance revenue too!
They are greedy sleezebags, they know their artist wants to be a star, and they take complete advantage of it.

sad, but true :-(

Its evolution. If anything they're helping to improve P2P tech. As Darwin had said,"Survival of the fittest isn't survival of the strongest, nor of the most intelligent, but of the most responsive to change..."

is it music or money there love ?

P2P go on
All-in-one P2P sharing
http://www.aimini.com/

In the 1700's, musical artists had to struggle to make a living. Sometimes, they barely had enough money to eat. But now, even the least popular musical artist makes thousands upon thousands of dollars, not to mention the popular ones. This is why I refuse to feel sorry for them, and the few dollars they lose to file sharing. If they were REAL artists, then they would keep making music just for the sake of art, regardless of money.
On the other hand, things like movies and software... the studios actually SPEND money to make movies, and if a movie doesn't rake in enough money, then the studio could go under, and a lot of people suffer. It's actually a tough business, just working with huge sums of money. As for software companies... those blink in and out like christmas lights, so who cares when one goes under? Another will pop up in a week.

"If they were REAL artists, then they would keep making music just for the sake of art, regardless of money."

LOL...oh, so musicians should just make music and live on the streets? I got news for you...making music is a musicians job, and if they weren't getting payed for it, guess what...they wouldn't do it.

"the studios actually SPEND money to make movies"

Ohhh...and recording music is FREE?? Wow we have a real genius on our hands here...making movies costs money but recording music is free...you can tell this guy is a business man.

just a little FYI...recording a CD costs MILLIONS...unless you're doing it with a tape recorder in your basement ofcourse.

You'd really be surprised at the amount of money less popular artists make. When a artist goes to a studio to record, the record company pays for it. The artist is then required to pay the record label back. An artist usually makes well less than a dollar per album sold. A studio bill can easily reach $500,000+ so you can imagine how many records it takes before the artist makes money.

On the other hand, they do make a lot of money from concerts. The bands that have huge global tours are the ones really bringing in the cash. I do download music, but I buy as much as I can. If you really want to support an artist, go to one of their concerts.

"LOL...oh, so musicians should just make music and live on the streets? I got news for you...making music is a musicians job, and if they weren't getting payed for it, guess what...they wouldn't do it."

I can tell you arent a musician, I am not either, however, I know quite a few REAL musicians. They live for the music, they perform not for the money or for the crowds, but to openly illustrate on the outside the music they feel in their soul. They have regular jobs to make their money and the money they make off their music - if any - is an added bonus.

Musicians arent about commericalism, nor about huge crowds in overpriced concerts, those are performers or showpersons. musicians would be happy making their music with or without the few gold baubles thrown their way.

Spot on eunichman, it's good to know that someone else out there other then me has not been consumed by money and that their whole life hasn't been based around it, I for one believe money is the root of all evil and I hope one day we rid our selves of it’s existence, so bravo.

Music should be free, music is emotion, music can guide souls, music is communication, music is one of the best past times in this world & a very healthy addiction to a lot of people including myself.

Apart for charging for concerts, i believe all music should be free & be played freely by any real artist out there who lives for his work, and not his wallet.

But i would give up on trying to convince this particular user/type of user of the value of music above money (or anything over money for that matter), it is quite clear from his attitude/language that he is no where near the mental thinking level acquired to understand your point.

There's every change this guy is actually 13 years old, in that case, he certainly does have years to learn! ;)

Um, if your worried about artists not getting money, ask the RIAA, they get most of the profit from cds sold, so yeah...

Oh great they mentioned p2p now it's going to be the same arguements as every other time this is brought up like it's to expencive for those on a tight budget and RIAA and MPAA are crooks that deserve to be ripped off and thats theses only 2-3 good songs to a disk with the anti p2p people going stealing is stealing support the artist and of course you know someone is going to say i can't afford some fancy car i should just steal one.

Lets add a little twist to this like here in Canada when you pick up cds,blank tapes ect you pay a couple bucks to the music companies(hidden tax) now if you a were to download 2 songs off p2p would it realy be considered stealing since as mentioned you already gave them a couple bucks via the hidden tax and places like itunes only charege a buck.

You're still paying a new technology markup fee on your CD's.. you know that right?

This is the same war the media conglomorates fought against casette trading, VCR's, damn.. you name it.. best free advertising these aholes ever had and theyre still not happy

They rallied against the radio when it was invented..

Excellent points.

This is the best statement I can think of for RIAA and MPAA...

http://images.despair.co...otivators/stupidity.jpg

It's time for a new strategy for both organizations.

What the RIAA and MPAA still haven't managed to stop the big bad pirates. I don't know which is worse, the music, movie, and software pirates, or the music and movie industry systematically raping my wallet.

Ummm...

Nobody's raping your wallet.

It's a free country and nobody's forcing you to buy *any* product that you feel is overpriced. You are perfectly free to keep your virgin dollars inside your sweet virgin wallet.

OTOH...Perhaps if everybody actually *paid* for the good & services they desire, then the manufacturer's would not have to pass along their losses in the form of higher prices.

Do ya think...??

"then the manufacturer's would not have to pass along their losses in the form of higher prices."

Oh please, do you really think that is why the prices are so high?

You're both right.
I wonder why some 'have to have "music 'n movies-- & in such copious quantities" as if the stuff was food or sex;
why they have to have their jeans, athletic shoes, etc. each worth hundreds of dollars-- nobody's up in arms over a piece of cotton or rubber that costs a few cents marked up 10,000 times? Where's that outcry?

why people would allow someone else to prominently stamp their name all over their body-- & to boot pay money(so much too)for this, instead of the other way around?
Someone please tell these combination sheep & cows that so enjoy being simultaneously fleeced & branded that normally it's advertisers who pay for the privilege of displaying, NOT the other way around. And while you're at it ask them why they willingly fork over a $25 cover & $10 for a Heineken, $15 for a Cosmo at their favorite trendy spot?
At least when/if you overpay $18 for a disc you can reuse it, & have something tangible to show in exchange for your lighter wallet-- not so with that beverage once it's drunk, except maybe for that little extra girth... that will likely force additional spending of larger-sized rags.

Technicaly if you wanna look at it from the stand point that you're still living, you do have something to chow for the beverage or burger that you bought.

"OTOH...Perhaps if everybody actually *paid* for the good & services they desire, then the manufacturer's would not have to pass along their losses in the form of higher prices."

The industry makes money any way they can. It's naive to believe that prices would be lower if not for piracy. The industry pushes prices right to the edge of what people will pay as a financial strategy to maximize profits. It's all about padding the music industry's wallet.

I don't know if we're on the same page, but last I checked food and clothes were necessities, since after all public nudity will get you put in jail (here in the U.S. anyway...). There is a TOTAL outcry for the cost of living. It is becoming outrageous. Just because you dont see it in a thread about P2P networks doesn't mean there isn't one. However, have you ever heard of stores like Ross and Marshall's, or buying groceries? Cheaper alternatives. Do we have that option for monopolies like the music/movie industries have? Granted, there is something to be said for people being frivolous, but there is a HUGE difference between manufacturing costs and bloated corporate overhead.

The RIAA and MPAA will not now or never will stop file sharing. I think every one knows that by now but them. So let them spend the big bucks that is the best way to teach then a lesson.

"So let them spend the big bucks that is the best way to teach then a lesson."
that isnt acurate sure they will pay out of pocket but they also get to right it off at tax time so we pay for it in the long run...

Wow. This kind of thing makes it very clear that the P2P problem is nowhere near a resolution.

IMO, all P2P networks need to be shut down until a very specific legal model is designed to stop this madness. Sure it would stink. I use bittorrent all the time for OSS, but this is just crazy.

> IMO, all P2P networks need to be shut down...

They can't be shut down (without shutting down the Internet) because they are fully decentralized. And they shouldn't be shut down because sharing is good. Want to compensate the artist? Make a donation. But don't sponsor parasites like RIAA.

"IMO, all P2P networks need to be shut down"

Not a good idea. P2P can also serve good purposes. For example, BitTorrent is used to distribute Linux releases. This is good because the maintainers don't have to have as many servers to handle the load, thus decreasing cost and frustration.

Thanks for reading the rest of my comment.

And if you actually read the sentence RIGHT after that, you would see I actually agree with you. You said almost EXACTLY the same thing I did.

I love it when people read so thoroughly.

Are you suggesting I didn't read some part of your comment? Which one? Did you say somewhere it was physically impossible to shut down p2p networks without shutting down Internet as a whole? Or did you say somewhere that sharing is a good thing and therefore p2p networks are good?

P2P networks are not illegal, what these guys are doing is. Yet they don't get in trouble for it. Must be nice for them to have enough money to be above the law.

From my understanding they arent DDoS'ing anyone, they are merely putting fake files onto p2p networks. How is this illegal? People put up false crap all the time, so please explain it to me. The article said SOME COMPANIES resort to DoS attacks, but no where in this article did it make mention of THIS COMPANY doing so.

I'm talking about the companies mentioned:

"Using massive numbers of servers, these content protection firms attempt to clog up file sharing networks by flooding them with fake files and stalling out users' computers."

It's pathetic, what the RIAA and MPAA are doing to stop file sharing. So it's one thing for a hacker to DoS someone, but it's okay for the industries to HIRE companies to DoS networks? That really says something about these groups. That fact alone should put the RIAA and MPAA in hot water, but it won't. Go figure. Even the individual artists are starting to say that their respective industry groups are being way too jumpy.