RIAA offers file-sharers amnesty!

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Who said anything about free downloads?

Look at the porn industry. Okay, stop looking now. I said stop...

Seriously, porn has seized on the internet revolution and has done exactly what RIAA companies should be doing--using the internet as a medium for selling their product. Porn sites which offer direct downloads of videos and images have boomed and continue to profit, even in the economic malaise. You can still buy DVDs and videos to get more bang for the buck, however. Porn stars aren't going broke.

You're missing the point. These companies could offer downloads for a fee, in fact soem of them do, but who is going to pay the feee when they can get the same for free? If the companies don't managed to stop this revenue hemorrhage it isn't going to matter whether the stuff is available on a disc or a website, people are going to go for the free stuff.

Such distribution WILL reach the audiences, when that is the predominant mode of obtaining music. Who among the consuming public wouldn't rather carry with them an mp3 player full of songs they've downloaded at a reasonable price--the playlist they can change at will at their computer--instead of lugging around a discman and a CD-carrier full of easily-damaged CDs that cost $15+ a pop to replace when they get scratched? That's the way the future will be, and if recording companies don't find a way to adapt to that new reality, they deserve to die. People won't put up with a more inconvenient and costly method of doing something because they've been threatened to be sued otherwise.

The distribution will reach the public, but the funds to pay the artists won't. The issue isn't the format of the medium carrrying the music, but whether or not the producers get paid for their service. I wonder how many of the people here who oppose the RIAA's attempt to quash file-sharing loss of revenues have ever given away a significant portion of their living? (Civilization mods don't count.)

As for such musicians, I can't think of any, but then again, I'm an awful source, considering I know so little about popular and modern music. Regardless, plenty of people in other fields have made their reputation on the internet and have profited from it. Matt Drudge and Howard Dean are two names that spring instantly to mind. Why shouldn't the same hold true for musicians, once the stranglehold of the RIAA is gone?

A medium that reaches millions simultaneously (TV) is vastly superior for advertisement over one that is limited to a few hundred simultaneously(Internet). Surely you can realise that there is a great difference in sales potential between having your song aired to captive audiences of millions (TV) or tens of thousands (radio) compared to a mediium that allows perhaps a few hundred to hear it each day. ]

[mrmitchell]

You're missing the point. These companies could offer downloads for a fee, in fact soem of them do, but who is going to pay the feee when they can get the same for free?

You're assuming everyone is a criminal. When CD costs actually go towards benefiting the artists instead of a few fat balding white males at the RIAA, many many more people will buy it--especially when it's also only the song they want etc.

[Ben Kenobi]

Actually, that looks like what I will be doing.

All of my research that I do for prolife proposes will be given away to benefit everybody interested. In fact, I have several pieces already done making the rounds. I'd make a living off those willing to support me so that I can do the work full-time.

It's an older model of economics for sure, but most artists used to follow this model.

[The Mad Monk]

Dr. S, my brother does exactly that.

http://www.sluggy.com/

He does a webcomic, and his product is available for free all day, every day. He still manages to make a decent living, because in spite of giving away his work for free, fans are willing to buy books, shirts, and subscriptions to an enhanced site for "extras". He's been doing this for SIX YEARS, now. When the recession caused a hit in his revenues to an extent that he wasn't making money (happened earlier this year), he had a donation drive that covered his needs for this year and next over the course of two weeks. He has a family to support, and he's doing it quite well without resorting to the comic syndicates (equivalent, for all intents and puposes, to the RIAA).

Such is the power of an independently cultivated and maintained fan base.

[JohnT]

Such is the power of hard, intelligent work. Props to your brother, TMM.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Or just avoid RIAA sources. Get them used:

www.secondspin.com

Used CDs are still very expensive.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by St Leo
Used CDs are still very expensive.

I don't know about popular music, but the classical CDs are generally good deals compared to retail prices.

For instance, the Kurt Sanderling recording of the Brahms 4th goes for about $22 retail, whereas on that site is $11. Half price.

I noticed a lof of CDs were in the $5-8 range.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by monkspider
Damn it all to hell Borie, it's time that you and I take a greater appreciation of Naxos recordings.

RIAA (or local variants)

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
These companies could offer downloads for a fee, in fact soem of them do, but who is going to pay the feee when they can get the same for free?

Doc, you are assuming people are thieves who won't bat an eyelash to steal when the chance presents itself.

Most are not. TMM used his brother as an example. I will point you to the success of (some of) shareware programs (e.g. WinZip).

[Adagio]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I think we should all stop buying cds.

I haven't bought any CD's in the last 18 months... not because RIAA, but because of lack of music... Ever since the millenium, only few artists have been able to make good albums. Nowadays there's only 3 types of "music" being made: Rock/Metal, techno and copycat, and there's NO WAY I'm going to support any of those... Give me some good Rap or Pop music, and I'll be happy, too bad those music genres have been "dead" since the millenium

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

For instance, the Kurt Sanderling recording of the Brahms 4th goes for about $22 retail, whereas on that site is $11. Half price.

There is a good example of what is wrong with the RI. Why on earth should a classical recording be $22? Did it take a year to record in a studio? Did the company pay for a promo tour by the artist? They cant even claim demand since the used CD is half price. Its just price gouging. Its funny how congress can claim that when its about oil but not when its about music.

[Ned]

Just a thought, but perhaps the RIAA and its members could transform themselves into "internet broadcasters." Instead of selling CDs in stores, they could broadcast the music on the internet and include commercials - or license others to do the same. They could also make the music downloadable, either for a monthly fee or on a per-song basis. MP3 players would unversally replace CDs.

I already subscribe to at least one service that plays classical music. I assume that most people would be willing to pay $10/month or more for such services and be willing to pay a small fee to download a favorite song.

The thing that will attract the average person to the commerical sites rather than to peer-to-peer "sites" will be the vastly superior quality of the commercial sites.

I do not believe the RIAA can win this war against the people. I wonder why they are even trying.

[The Mad Monk]

[SpencerH]

The Recording Industry Association of America said on Monday it has reached out-of-court settlements with 52 people who were sued for sharing online music illegally and 12 others who were targeted for possible legal action.

The RIAA said an additional 861 people had signed affidavits in which they voluntarily admitted they were illegal file sharers and promised to stop. The signings are part of a RIAA amnesty program called "Clean Slate.''

Fools

In other related developments:

The ACLU asked a federal judge in Boston to quash a subpoena the RIAA filed with Boston College seeking the name of an alleged file-sharing senior identified in court documents as "Jane Doe.''

"If the recording industry can uncover your identity simply by claiming that a copyright violation has occurred, then the Chinese government can use the same tool to find out the name of a dissident, and a batterer can use it to find out the address of a domestic violence shelter,'' ACLU attorney Christopher Hansen said in a news release.

So now the legal fun really begins.

[Harry Seldon]

They should change the name of the amnesty program from "Clean Slate" to "We'll Get Back to You Later."