RIAA sue 'em war results in sales losses The RIAA's sue 'em all campaign has resulted in a 22% drop in file sharing, but at the same time, CD sales have plummeted by 9.4% and, "Specifically, curtailing file trading may not improve CD sales, but instead may accelerate their decline," US financial analyst Phil Leigh says. The prepackaged CD format has "seen its best days," he states. "The transformation of recorded music sales from physical distribution to Internet distribution is inevitable." Leigh, a Raymond James and Associates vp, is quoted in Britain's Macworld. The magazine doesn't say where Leigh's figures come from, and at the time of writing, there was nothing on the RJA site breaking it down. But, "The initial data is [sic] not encouraging for the labels as it suggests that the fundamental premise underlying their deterrence strategy is flawed," Leigh says. What to do? The labels should, "continue their steps in the direction of friendly consumer-use licensing terms for their content to the legitimate Internet music distributors," he says and, adds Macworld, he, "predicts that once the labels enjoy profits from the new medium, then movie studios will be 'right behind them', predicting a second wave of legal distribution services." http://www.p2pnet.net/article/7543
Just like I have been saying. This campaign by the RIAA will only hurt them in the long run if they do not face facts and embrace technology. If they do not utilize the newest distribution method, they will be destroyed by it.
no surprise here. If you you sue people your only going to piss them off and turn them off to buying cd's even more.
Why was the industry so slow to embrace digital music? I mean I've been downloading mp3's since oh like 1995...here we are 8 years later and the industry still hasnt come up with a good alternative.. they kinda waited til the cat was out of the bag before getting all pissy... and once the cat was out of the bag...it will be impossible for them to get it back in
They are fighting it because this is a format that they cannot control or sell upgrades (8 track to cassette, LP to CD, etc.) for. They want us to buy our libraries fresh every time there is a new format, even though we have already paid for the content at least once. They are fighting it because of greed, pure and simple.
oh well duh what I was asking, is why were they so SLOW in addressing this isssue... seems like they were asleep at the wheel, that the higher management of the labels had no vision to see what these new mp3 files would mean for the industry... I guess since music sales were still growing each year, they didn't feel like there was a threat...but now that sales are declining, they are blaming sharing. (which i think a faulty conclusion, crappy music, lot more one-hit wonders are more likely the cause)
Amen to that! I remember having to scour the internet for sites that had mp3s. 98% didn't work, or were links to other sites, but when you were able to download an mp3 at 3.5 kb/sec, man, that was great! I remembered thinking, wow, someone could make a lot of money by charging $1 or $2 per song and selling them over the internet at one easy website that worked. If the RIAA had been on the ball, they would have set up a fast, efficient service online back in the mid to late 90s, thereby preventing Napster from even arising. (Yes I realize people would still "share" songs, but I don't think it would have been quite as many if you had a faster, more efficient service for relatively cheap and free of legal concerns.) Now it is f'ing 2003 and they're peeing in their pants without a clue. Going around trying to get money from people is not a long term solution.....
there was a nice organized place to d/l from back then..and it has been around since the 80's at least.. Internet Relay Chat I still use IRC to d/l music....RIAA aint gonna trace me there
Because they have a business model that doesn't mold well to the online world so they will do anything they can, including getting legislation passed, to prop that model up so that they can continue to rape consumers and artists for as long as possible. Big corporations do not have vision as a rule, they are reactionary. The exception on this issue is Apple, who has produced a viable download service. The 9% drop in CD sales corresponded with a 9% drop in the number of new albums being produced.
Don't be so sure... http://news.com.com/2100-1027-5066894.html The U.S. Department of Justice said Thursday that it accepted a guilty plea in a criminal copyright case involving the former leader of a Net music piracy group called the Apocalypse Crew. The defendant in the case, 21-year-old Mark Shumaker, faces a maximum prison sentence of five years and a maximum fine of $250,000. Shumaker helped coordinate the supply and release of albums online before they hit retail stores and ran the Apocalypse Crew's Internet Relay Chat (IRC) channel, federal investigators charged. "This plea shows that those who steal copyrighted music from artists and believe they are doing so anonymously on the Internet are sadly mistaken," U.S. attorney Paul McNulty said in a statement. "We can find you, we will find you, and we will prosecute you." Shumaker's case, part of the long-running Operation Buccaneer federal antipiracy investigations, is believed to be the first involving criminal penalties specifically for online music trading, a Department of Justice spokeswoman said. Buccaneer has targeted many other individuals, however, and has resulted in more than 22 convictions of felony copyright infringement involving software piracy groups such as Drink or Die, prosecutors said. Raymond Griffiths, an Australian computer user alleged to be a leader of Drink or Die, is the subject of extradition requests from the U.S. government. He faces up to 10 years in prison if convicted on all the charges against him. The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), which is in the process of issuing subpoenas for the identities of individual file swappers as a prelude to filing civil copyright infringement suits, welcomed news of the guilty plea. "The theft of music on the Internet is a serious crime, and this action shows that the Justice Department means business," RIAA President Cary Sherman said in a statement. "Those who egregiously distribute music on the Internet should take note--federal prosecution and jail time are real possibilities." Shumaker will be sentenced in federal court on Nov. 7.
so far i've really only heard about Kazaa users being issued supoenas. And that's only if you are still sharing files. Has anyone heard of a WINMX, Imesh, or Bearshare, or any other music swapping site that is having it's users sued.
They are not limiting themselves to a single P2P network. Eventually, anyone could be at risk. The key is to minimize your shared copyrighted files as much as possible.
I've always had my shared files protected. I've got my own personal music folder. Most of the time after i burn a song onto a cd i'll delete it. Then if i want to put it back on i'll just record it back using MusicMatch.
there are over 10,000 gun related murders in this country every year but we're using tax payer money to protect a bunch of rich guys brillant I don't ever host a fserver on IRC, so there is no way for RIAA to claim i am offering illegal music for download..
there are over 10,000 gun related murders in this country every year but we're using tax payer money to protect a bunch of rich guys By this standard, we should allow all white-collar crime to go unpunished. We should also not prosecute stock fraud, or someone who robs Bill Gates. After all, we have 10,000 gun murders, so why use taxpayer money to protect rich guys? Rich guys deserve no less protection than anyone else in our society ... that's just plain fairness. If you commit copyright infringement, you should be punished - no matter if you're rich or poor, or if the victim is rich or poor. That's the cost of our ideals of equality.
The difference is that these rich guys are paying politicians to have laws made up specifically to protect their failed business model. The government is not responsible for making sure that companies have a sound business model, that is for the companies to insure. Rich guys deserve protection but who protects and looks out for the consumer when the RIAA goes to Washington and spends a few million to get legislation passed?
