A reader sends in this article on AustralianIT today:

THE owners of the Kazaa file-sharing network are suing the movie and recording industries, claiming that they don't understand the digital age and are monopolising entertainment...Sharman's counterclaim alleges copyright misuse, monopolisation, and deceptive acts and practices.

Another snippet:

In a statement, the Recording Industry Association of America called Sharman's arguments "laughable."

laughable? yes, i don't really care if they win or lose. actually i hope they lose, its fairly stupid i reckon.

kazaa sux

The record companies need to find a way to sell digital media online.

p2p sharing is a great idea and like teen says digital media in general should be available to purchase online, and it should cost a fraction of what it does now.

I wish them the best of luck.

Something really needs to knock the riaa off its moral high horse.
This isnt about protecting the rights of the individual artists anymore, it's about protecting the phat loot that the riaa rakes off the top.

This isnt about protecting the rights of the individual artists anymore, it's about protecting the phat loot that the riaa rakes off the top.

Well, its sort of like the whole netscape vs microsoft thing, in my opinion. They've spent billions upon billions of dollars establishing market supremacy. Why should they just give it up overnight? The whole _point_ of capitalism is to make money. Sure, they might be being dicks about some things, especially how long it is taking them to display adaptability to new technologies, but s*** - if you don't want to buy their CDs, don't buy them. Just don't _illegally_ pirate them and _illegally_ make them available via your p2p application instead. Because, lets face it, its illegal. Without copyright laws, why would anybody bother to do anything?

I personally can't stand the attitude of this Kazaa guy, at least as it is portrayed by this AustralianIT article. He's just pissed off because he has absolutely no grounds for anything, and he knows it, so he's just cluelessly lashing out in response. If he hates the RIAA so much, well, maybe he should just front the money for his own recording label, fork out the cash for a few big name artists, get their OWN corner of the market, and then figure out some way to use their new p2p technology legally to make them money and to allow them to distribute music to screw the RIAA.

All Kazaa and Napster and all those other stupid filesharing applications have done is promote the piracy of music. That's it. They've made themselves into one of the 'killer apps' of the Internet, almost more so than anything else (porn/gaming/education) solely because it allows people to get something they SHOULD BE PAYING FOR, for free.

cheers to kazaa
jeers to riaa

All Kazaa and Napster and all those other stupid filesharing applications have done is promote the piracy of music. That's it. They've made themselves into one of the 'killer apps' of the Internet, almost more so than anything else (porn/gaming/education) solely because it allows people to get something they SHOULD BE PAYING FOR, for free.

Did you ever use audiogalaxy? It was a large p2p service that actually made huge efforts to promote the artists that people were downloading for free.

When searching for files, you were linked to extensive bios and more information about the artists.
Unfortunately they were far too easy for the RIAA to shut down.

I find the tone in this thread quite surprising, compared to the other forums I am reading discussing the same announcment.

it was a sad day when audiogalaxy was shutdown

When searching for files, you were linked to extensive bios and more information about the artists.

If I was an musician, I can pretty say for certain that that would not be enough for me.

I find the tone in this thread quite surprising, compared to the other forums I am reading discussing the same announcment.

I don't understand this; from what I can see this thread seems to be the usual amount of clueless "kazaa rules ok" posting and only me saying "p2p sux" (as usual, I'm alone!) - what are the other threads saying?

i still use audiogalaxy to find info about artist, its a shame i cant download songs from there anymore but i guess thats life

these days i have to use kazaa but it f***ing s***s me, 1/5 songs is not the song your looking for because some idiot has renamed it

on one level i think there stupid for trying to sue, yet on another level i hope they win :|

gooooo kazaa!! kazaa is the best one of them all! for legal mp3's etc etc ;)

gooooo kazaa!! kazaa is the best one of them all! for legal mp3's etc etc ;)

Bulls***, songspy was the best one till the RIAA shut it down, ffs.

songspy must be awesome... never heard of it. Audio galaxy was the winnar along time ago, it set a precedent for today :)

I can see you point trog, but you have to remember that there were several artists who did put their weight behind napster, as strongly as others artists opposed it. So saying that artist would have no motivation to produce music is farely laughable, when you consider that most bands are not rich or famous, they produce music, at least at first for self gratification, to produce somethign which other people like and more importantly that they like. I know that they also shouldn't be denied the money that they then deserve if we do like their music, but I believe the amount of money which is ending up in there pockets from cd sales, is really quite small when compared to the amount that the record industry makes. The one point I can see as to why the record industry would need to make the cd sales is because obviously without these studios the quality, ie mastering/producing of music would not be at the standard that individual bands could afford.

What do you think of the principle of p2p sharing though, which is a side issue? I think that p2p has a great potential, I can imagine hosting sites could save huge amounts of money by reducing there bandwidth costs if p2p could be integrated into say a webpage, for example instead of loading the qgl forums from ausgamers I'd download a bit from every user who was viewing/loading the page at that moment. I think its an interesting idea because the amount of "wasted" bandwidth in the world at any one moment must be huge. Much like the amount of wasted cpu cycles which people are already working on utilising.

The record companies need to find a way to sell digital media online.

with the current state broadband is in at the moment, that isnt going to happen very soon... well in Australia at least.

If I was an musician, I can pretty say for certain that that would not be enough for me.

If you were a musician, you would want to be heard. The more people that hear you, the more fans that are going to come to your shows, the more fans that are going to buy your merch.
The money isnt only about the sales of the initial music, it's about the ongoing support that your fans are going to provide you once you are established.
You're forgetting that audiogalaxy didnt just provide a means to distribute popular music, but more importantly promoted many independant artists.
Their system was much better than kazaa's but they were shutdown, only to be replaced by someone that cannot be legally touched.
All because of the ignorance and short term money grubbing ideals of the RIAA.

I don't understand this; from what I can see this thread seems to be the usual amount of clueless "kazaa rules ok" posting and only me saying "p2p sux" (as usual, I'm alone!) - what are the other threads saying?

There is a couple of "kazaa rules ok" posts in this thread that I would rather not associate with, I personally do not use kazaa due largely to the quality of media that is distributed by one-touch-ripping retards without a clue..

The other thread I am reading on this topic have minimal pro-riaa sentiment, more discussing the victory that a case like this winning would accomplish.

meh kazaa promotes piracy plain and simple, but hey i still buy plenty of cd's, same with games if something is good i think the author deserves recognition, if not then he deserves to be kicked up the arse

I can see you point trog, but you have to remember that there were several artists who did put their weight behind napster, as strongly as others artists opposed it.

Really? Who were they? Are they still making music?

So saying that artist would have no motivation to produce music is farely laughable, when you consider that most bands are not rich or famous, they produce music, at least at first for self gratification, to produce somethign which other people like and more importantly that they like.

If artists can not get paid for doing what they like doing, they stop doing it and do something else. Case in point, the lead singer of Custard now works at my local post office.

I know that they also shouldn't be denied the money that they then deserve if we do like their music, but I believe the amount of money which is ending up in there pockets from cd sales, is really quite small when compared to the amount that the record industry makes.

I'm sure it is - you have to remember there are a lot, lot, lot of associated costs. Printing of CDs, moving of CDs to other places, making of music videos, all that other s***. It costs money. Stop watching music videos, they're stupid and they suck and make everything cost more!

The one point I can see as to why the record industry would need to make the cd sales is because obviously without these studios the quality, ie mastering/producing of music would not be at the standard that individual bands could afford.

True - professional recording is not cheap. Even "amateur" recording gear isn't cheap. And most musicians are weirdo audiophiles that demand the best quality.

What do you think of the principle of p2p sharing though, which is a side issue?

I think it has a lot of potential for commercial application, but it has not yet been realised, largely because not everyone has the sort of connection to make it really worthwhile. Maybe when everyone is on 100mbit straight into a backbone link...

The other thread I am reading on this topic have minimal pro-riaa sentiment, more discussing the victory that a case like this winning would accomplish.

I don't think it would accomplish anything except the pseudo-legalisation of pirating music and movies.

What someone needs to do is invest some fat bucks, get a few artists that people want to listen to, figure out a way to make people pay for their music over the Internet, and take it from there. I think it is the old battle between price vs numbers - do you make s*** expensive and let only a few people afford it, or do you make it really cheap and try and flog it to everyone?

The problem is, noone wants to do this, because it requires s***loads of capital up-front - the sort of capital that only, say, the big labels can afford.

Anyway, whatever. If this is what it takes to get the RIAA to wake the f*** up and realise that they're in the year 2000, then so be it. They have to learn, I just don't think this is the best way for it to happen.

Case in point, the lead singer of Custard now works at my local post office.

not according to his website he doesnt!

http://www.davidmccormack.com.au/

looks to me like he's still releasing music and playing gigs . .. . .

the lead singer of Custard now works at my local post office.

HAHA, I guess the aliens were right, Music is crap.

you cant stop the geek!

if it is digital, its ours for free!

not according to his website he doesnt!

I should have clarified, this is what my brother told me, who is more of a music afficionado than I am.

do you make s*** expensive and let only a few people afford it, or do you make it really cheap and try and flog it to everyone?

Exactly the ethos of Target. Thier mission statement is "Half the profits, twice the turnover."

Instead of fighting a losing battle, the RIAA should've jumped on the file-sharing bandwagon and released a pay system to download music over the net.

Kazaa Sucks with all its spyware and s***, the BIG one they need to worry about is mIRC 2000 + people channels all over the place getting moves and warez off T3 Uni connections !

Kazaa Sucks with all its spyware and s***

1 word

kazaalite

I wonder... when a certain OS supports DRM in such a way that the only may to copy music you dowload off the internet would be to connect line out analog to line in analog, would RIAA and co invest in a proper internet distribution system. Ro would they waste a lot of money on current OS technology only to have someone write an out-to-disk fake soundcard driver.

I think some OS company has their eyes on the bling blings

NO dong spook but the Majority ! Of peeps who use Kazza have NFI what that is

I can see you point trog, but you have to remember that there were several artists who did put their weight behind napster, as strongly as others artists opposed it.
Really? Who were they? Are they still making music?

I think one of them was Limp bizkit.

One of the big bands that got all s***ty about it was metallica i remember, i can recall seeing a flash about them going around to kids homes and bashing them up for using it to dl there songs :P

the music and movie industries needs to evolve to combat digital piracy.. their current structure of album release is becoming outdated which shows in record sales.

why not cut the price of distribution, packaging, and pressing the CD's and release music over the internet for a small fee.. say 50c a song, or 5$ for the whole album.

record sales would go up alot i'm sure, and the artists would easily make the same profits.

dvds too.. 10$ per movie sounds good.

Really? Who were they? Are they still making music?

Another one was the Offspring, they were actually selling Napster T-Shirts on their website depsite their being signed with Sony.

Sure it was a publicity stunt, but unlike silly Metallica they recognised that peer to peer sharing could only serve to boost their market penetration, not cost them the end dollar.

Again, it hurts the riaa, not so much the artist. More fans means more people hearing your music, coming to your shows and buying your merch, it's not all about the blunt album sale.

Kazaa Sucks with all its spyware and s***, the BIG one they need to worry about is mIRC 2000 + people channels all over the place getting moves and warez off T3 Uni connections !

If you don't like the spyware, there are alternatives.

IRC is not being cracked down because it's not overly popular, you have to have some idea of what you're doing to find what you're looking for.
You're average AOL reject cannot comprehend this, they can comprehend kazaa.

When you pointed out that not many newbs know about kazaalite, you destroyed your own argument.

The record companies need to find a way to sell digital media online.

It'd be better if the artists could just do it themselves. Eliminate the middle-man! :p

Anyway...this lawsuit is pretty stupid, and I doubt it'll get anywhere.

What we actually need are mp3s that self-destruct after 5 listens or something, so that I can listen to an album and decide if I like it...after 5 listens I'd either buy it or never listen to it again anyway.

This is 'kind of' on topic with this thread (not to do with Kazaa, but to do with the digital music revolution)

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.02/sony.html

Talks about Sony in particular, and the problems that the music industry faces right now, and companies like Sony face (given that their hardware team wants to allow things to be copied in any way the user wants, while their music team wants copy protection in everything). Also talks about DRM and other things...

As for Kazaa... well... who knows. It'll probably end up shut down, and another file sharing network will spring up in its place.

The record companies need to stop bickering and realise that the future of music distribution is *now*, and that the way to regain their market is to give people what they want: *high quality* music downloads in *common file formats* that are *not restricted*, for a *reasonable price*, given that there hardly any duplication cost when compared to CD and DVD manufacturing.

Until they realise this, their market will continue to crumble away, and people will continue to pirate music. They created this situation for themselves by intoxicating everyone with advertising and music constantly, to the point where people no longer view most music as having monetary value. Now, they have to wake up to themselves.

Interestingly, the last 5 CDs that I've bought are because I heard the music online first... go figure.

Interestingly, the last 5 CDs that I've bought are because I heard the music online first... go figure.

The last 50 cds i bought are because I heard the music online first.

If I was an musician, I can pretty say for certain that that would not be enough for me.

Lots of bands get free pimpage through Napster-esque programs, though i admit Napster or Audiogalaxy were much better than Kazaa is. The deftones were one band who claim that napster made them what they are today. And its true, i didn't hear a deftones song on JJJ until probably 6 months after i heard them via mp3s. Sure Metallica might not need that, due to the fact that they have been around forever, but to deny the masses to sample something other than whats getting airplay is stupid. And in america they don't have a JJJ or ZZZ so they are probably forced to listen to the equivalent of MMM or B105 or whatever.

Ok, its illegal, but the vast majority of people out there aren't collecting millions of mp3s and refusing to buy the albums. They download a few songs, they like them, then they go out and buy the albums (and then maybe rip them to mp3s).

As i see it mp3 sharing is just another form of media (like a radio on demand), perhaps Kazaa and the like should pay some royalties. Or better yet donate some money to independant record companies who actually need the money, and are signing people with real talent not just the ones who will make the phat loot because they wear a tea towel and some double sided tape in a film clip.

Ok, its illegal, but the vast majority of people out there aren't collecting millions of mp3s and refusing to buy the albums. They download a few songs, they like them, then they go out and buy the albums (and then maybe rip them to mp3s).

I would argue that the majority of people do not, in fact, do this at all.

"I would argue that the majority of people do not, in fact, do this at all."

In which case, what did the artist lose in terms of money? Would these people have bought the albums anyway?

If anything, they've gained exposure (at the 'cost' of losing strict control of their desired distribution schemes).

The sort of people who just download the mp3s (and the people who also download movies), were probably never going to buy the albums anyway (and by the same token probably have no real friends to see movies with). I know people who just collect mp3s for the sake of having them, they don't appreciate the music, and so the fact that they downloaded them makes no difference to the scheme of things at all. It only makes a difference on paper, because the record companies see it as lost revenue.

These people in turn probably help the mp3s get distributed. So if you accept what me and dan and others have been saying, the help the artists get the exposure that they are craving for.

I see a single mp3 as a trailer for the rest of the album, you don't get charged to see trailers for movies, but a lot of the time they are the best bits of the movies (*cough* adam sandler movies *cough*). Same principle with mp3s. The record companies could use these systems as free advertising. Get a few sample mp3s out there, stamp them with the artists website, bam.

Same principle with mp3s. The record companies could use these systems as free advertising. Get a few sample mp3s out there, stamp them with the artists website, bam.

Both www.epitaph.com and www.fatwreck.com do this, generally posting one of the better tracks from new release albums on their label as a free download.

It's been a great way for me to listen to artists I wouldnt have originally given a second glance in a record store.

The deftones were one band who claim that napster made them what they are today. And its true, i didn't hear a deftones song on JJJ until probably 6 months after i heard them via mp3s.

I got into the deftones via mp3s as well. Never heard any of their songs on the radio, nor have I seen any of their videos. However, I have seen them live twice, and did buy all their cds. Same goes for pretty much every cd I have.

As for using a single mp3 as a 'trailer' for a cd...I usually need more than one song to decide whether or not to buy an album. Way too many cds have only one decent song on them...and one song isn't worth $30. :\

Really? Who were they? Are they still making music?

A quick search on google turned up these artists who put their support behind the napster movement; Prince, Limp Bizkit, Offspring, Chuck D, Alanis Morissette, The Eagles, Radiohead, not to mention all the bands listed here which were bands part of the napster buy cott in which napster encouraged its supporters to purchase the albums of the bands that supported napster.

Some quotes I picked up from some of the artists listed above includ Alanis Morissette's view of napster "this so-called 'piracy' may have actually been working in their(artists) favor". Or from Fred Durst "the only people worried about [Napster] are really worried about their bank accounts".

I think part of this debate is to remember that not every musician fears this new world of digital music and MP3 trading. I believe the RIAA are thinking solely for them selves with regards to p2p sharing of mp3s and generally acceptance of digital media sharing and distribution using the internet.

Case in point, the lead singer of Custard now works at my local post office.

Robby Buck just had him on triple j's Aus Music Show last week and he said he really never made much money from being in custard, because it cost so much money producing the album, that they never saw anything back from the record company. He also added that the band always tryed to create music they liked. He's also still writing and performing music.

As an Internet user I expect everything to be at my fingertips, that largely includes movies and music. Now if the only option I have to download Christina Aguillera's latest song is to do it illegally, than that's the route I'm going to take. If I instead had the option to pay 3 bucks using paypal or a credit card to Christina's producer so I could legally download the song from her site, then I may indeed do that.
Of course the physical media distributers will suffer - but hey.... welcome to the online age where everyone is wired. Why should I even leave my house to buy something I can have sent to me?

if it wasnt for music online, alot pof people wouldnt have heard what they listen to today and actually bought the cd if they liked it... like me. So the piracy is good and bad.. id like to think of it as good way of publisising your music to a broader range.

There's a thread floting around here or on OCAU about how ARIA have said the recent sales slump in Oz (a whole three precent or so) probably wasn't P2P's fauly. Mostly at least. This pretty much puts it at odds with RIAA, who think you're downloading communism whenever you download Britney Spears latest whine.

The simple fact is there has been nothing I consider worth buying for the last few years, except QOTSO and Foo Fighters, and one day I plan to buy their albums. I havn't downloaded their songs though.

Personally, I am both for and against file-sharing. Against, because companies want to make money from things they create or distribute, and I have no problem with that (I do have a problem with the exhorbitant prices they charge, but that's another story).
For, because there are some things that simply can't be bought. Anywhere. Many of the docos on ABC and SBS for example (yes, the BBC releases many docos through the ABC, but not everything is made by the BBC), and the comedy shows like CNNNN and the now sadly defunct BackBerner. Things which are broadcast but are not commercially available are a bit of a grey area. If they do become commerically available, I still think you have an obligation to buy them if you intend keeping them.

a lot of the music i listen to (download) i couldnt buy anyway
even if i tried (ie dj live sets)

i dont want to miss out

Yeh, record companies or whoever need to get off their asses and put some kind of on-line distribution in place.

I probably wouldn't mind paying a few cents/dollars for a single over the net.

Am I really going to go down all the way to a shop and spend $5-8 on a single, or am I going to click a few buttons and have the song in a minute or two?

Legalities aside, it _JUST_MAKES_SENSE_ to download of the net.

As for the Kazaa guy sueing, I think he's silly. kazaa's main use is to download illegla content, which is illegal no matter how you put it. Though it's popularity buy now I would have thought the industry would have something in place to counter-act it, instead of just sueing everyone, which in the end will accomplish nothing.

It's like if they decriminalised marijuana, and shops sold it. Who do you think would make money, the shops or the dodgy dealer? The shops ofcourse. As there would be no need for a dodgy dealer anymore.

kazaa's main use is to download illegla content, which is illegal no matter how you put it.

Unless you put it illegla ;)

All you are doing when you buy a music CD is supporting some muscian's drug and/or alcohol habit.

hahaha fpot, yeh thats why I never bought the vines album, I heard he was a disgrace up on stage at BDO

hmm looks like trogs is being the law.

they should have a reason to why each post was nuked, for the benefit of knowing not to write in the future.

Couple comments here...

Afroman (Because I got High) said in a radio interview that his popularity and subsequent CD sales were solely sparked by P2P sharing of his songs on the internet. He was also right behind it (P2P).

Why haven't the music industry setup their own pay per use Napster clone? There are a few reasons, I suspect hardware manufacturers are lobbying them not to - how many CD pressing companies and CD Player manufacturers are going to lose money if music goes electronic?

More realistically though, they haven't got into electronic distribution because they haven't got a truly solid edistribution method yet that GUARANTEES that they get paid. MP3 can be copied and redistributed too easy, WMA has some rights management but can also be converted into another format (MP3) and redistributed.

Until the Palladium concept takes off (evil farking bastiches) they can't really stop people redistributing music. Once it takes off they will have control over things like - how many times you can play a song, whether you can copy it from one PC to another, whether you can convert it from one format to another, etc.

What they SHOULD be doing is making it available in a simple standard format (MP3/OGG/WMA) at affordable prices. If they make the price more attractive many people will stop pirating the songs and buy them instead. They can use some of the extended features of formats like WMA - include some album art, lyrics, links to their website etc. Even if the track gets distributed on a "free" basis people will check out the extra stuff and end up at the official website and potentially buy the track anyway.

Most of the people who won't fork out a small amount of cash to buy a cheap MP3 are the sort of people who won't buy CDs anyway - either because they have no money or are just too tightarsed to do it. So the music industry isn't really going to lose out anyway.

how many CD pressing companies and CD Player manufacturers are going to lose money if music goes electronic?

Not many more than when we shifted from tapes to cds.
Electronics companies are pretty good like that, alot of cd player manufacturers already provide mp3 hardware solutions.
CD pressing becomes largley less required, but then thats what happens when technology advances. How many factories out there do you think are producing vhs and cassette tapes now compared to 5 years ago.

can't remember who said it, but they are right. the songs i download are songs that i wouldn't buy.. if i really like an artist then i buy the album simple as that.

if they are ok to listen to now and then, i download 'em

so they are not really loosing and money, cause if i couldn't download it - i wouldn't listen.

p2p is like a 24/7 interactive radio station. (or tv for u divx whores)

Unless you put it illegla ;)

lol, ya dick ;)
You made me laugh, so the typo is going to stay.

Really? Who were they? Are they still making music?

Yes as Thrax said, Limp Bizkit (well Fred Durst - lead singer of Limp Bizkit). No they aren't still producing music, but I heard that's because another band member was unhappy with the style of music they had got into, not that they went bust from giving out free music.

What we actually need are mp3s that self-destruct after 5 listens or something.

It is way too easy to "copy and paste" an mp3, so to speak (I don't mean copy the file per se, but do a loopback recording). And then the technology to have a file self-destruct after a specified time. Think of the wider implications - untraceable viruses, and for the anti-Microsoft, how about an Operating System that "self-destructed" after a period of time... 12 months? 24 months? I'm sure we could fill a whole thread about such theoretical technology, but let's not. ;)

Ro would they waste a lot of money on current OS technology only to have someone write an out-to-disk fake soundcard driver.

Winamp's Disk Writer plugin, anyone?

One of the big bands that got all s***ty about it was metallica i remember, i can recall seeing a flash about them going around to kids homes and bashing them up for using it to dl there songs

Yeah, I got busted by that. It stopped me for maybe a week (at most), but then I found Gnutella. At that stage BPA usage wasn't capped, so I could go pretty wild there (although I only ended up running it for maybe a few hours per day on average). As many have said, the recording industry is going about this the wong way. I haven't heard news of any big labels trying a pay-for-download system. Even if they tried and failed, I'm sure they'd learn from it and maybe a year or two later could come back with something that would work.

And now me. I'm sad to say I don't buy music CDs. The main reason is price, $30 a pop on my current income is a big blow, and I know there are pressing and production costs, but I'm sure they can reduce the price a bit. "Half the profits, twice the turnover." sounds like a good method for the short term. Another reason is that I'm too lazy. I don't want to have to walk 20 minutes up to the shops to buy a CD and bring it home, I know its a great feeling to have a shiny new unscratched legit CD (I still remember the days) with band photos and lyrics inside the cover, but why wait when I can have it on my computer in a matter of minutes.

On that note, if there were to be some pay-per-download system, I'm sure people would miss having the cold, hard CD. Maybe that would be a drawback of the cheaper music. Hey I'm just writing my thoughts here, not the entire complex workings of Sony's upcoming online music sales system. (That bit in quotes - I made it up OK ;) )

mraltz said some good things on page 2.

There are my thoughts on the first two pages, time to move on...

Yes as Thrax said, Limp Bizkit (well Fred Durst - lead singer of Limp Bizkit). No they aren't still producing music

bzzt, they have a new album coming out in a month or two (sans their old guitarist Wes Borland), god help us all.

i'm not gonna pay $30 for 15 songs, but i'd consider $12 or so for 6-7 songs

Ro would they waste a lot of money on current OS technology only to have someone write an out-to-disk fake soundcard driver.

Also digital out on soundcards/stereos whatever, there are always far too many variables to consider if you want to prevent piracy. There will always be a link in the chain that can be broken.

The best thing for the record companies to do is the try and embrace the idea, not demonise the whole thing. The record companies obviously know they are sitting on a nice little earner and don't wish to change it. Hence the number of britney clones out there, or previously, boy bands. Maybe the unsigned and low profile artirts out there should get together and form a royalty based p2p program, that doesn't suck balls, and show up the record companies who give them dick all anyway.

OK Dan you win, I haven't been keeping up with the Limp Bizkit news ;)

Part two of my spam...

I wish only some of the typical movie/music downloaders would create somthing they call their own and sell it, So i can just steal it and give it to m friends, make them feel a lack of income.

I distribute my scripts freely. Sure they are in much lower demand than a lot of music is, but that's the way the coin lands, isn't it? I write them because I enjoy it, same goes for artists.

teen says it all:

As an Internet user I expect everything to be at my fingertips, that largely includes movies and music. Now if the only option I have to download Christina Aguillera's latest song is to do it illegally, than that's the route I'm going to take. If I instead had the option to pay 3 bucks using paypal or a credit card to Christina's producer so I could legally download the song from her site, then I may indeed do that.
Of course the physical media distributers will suffer - but hey.... welcome to the online age where everyone is wired. Why should I even leave my house to buy something I can have sent to me?

Actually I'm not farmiliar with Christina Aguilera, so I wouldn't buy her CD. It would be like placing a $30 bet that I would like the music. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't become an avid listener, thus a lost bet. On the other hand, if I'd had the chance to listen to a few of the songs on the album, I'd be much more likely to purchase her music.

Now for my point of view again. I was never a big music listener, just the morning/afternoon radio occasionally and an album every 6-12 months. A few years ago being an avid internet user I came across MP3s, and Napster. I love music now, I often feel bored or alone without it. It gives me a lot. This gives me reason to buy music, but there are so many obstacles in the way that I just don't do it. Why isn't it easy for me to have legitimate copies of this music. It should be. (See the quote of teen above).

Personally, I am both for and against file-sharing. Against, because companies want to make money from things they create or distribute, and I have no problem with that (I do have a problem with the exhorbitant prices they charge, but that's another story). ...

... and the rest of what Draffa said.

Sorry for re-iterating what everyone has already said, but I threw in a few things of my own.

While writing these responses, I listened to Hoobastank which I found via a rented movie (Resident Evil) and music piracy. I recommend you go about hearing some of their stuff, particularly "Crawling in the Dark" (from Resident Evil S/T) and "Remember Me".

haha

stupid laywers

first post .. is reviving a 4day old thread with nothing to say?

good job, and welcome

Yes as Thrax said, Limp Bizkit (well Fred Durst - lead singer of Limp Bizkit). No they aren't still producing music

bzzt, they have a new album coming out in a month or two (sans their old guitarist Wes Borland), god help us all.

Yeah, they have an album coming out. Would you class anything Limp Bizkit produces as music? :P

I DID IT ALL FOR THE NOOOOOOKIE!

Would you class anything Limp Bizkit produces as music? :P

yer........ why not

i'm not gonna pay $30 for 15 songs, but i'd consider $12 or so for 6-7 songs

I dont know if you did maths at school but you have said the same thing twice. 30 songs for 15 dollars is 2 dollars each, also 12 songs for 6 dollars is also 2 dollars each... Explain ? :P

i think he was basically saying that you only ever get half a CD of good songs u like

so if u could choose, u pay for what u want

What do you think of the principle of p2p sharing though, which is a side issue? I think that p2p has a great potential, I can imagine hosting sites could save huge amounts of money by reducing there bandwidth costs if p2p could be integrated into say a webpage, for example instead of loading the qgl forums from ausgamers I'd download a bit from every user who was viewing/loading the page at that moment. I think its an interesting idea because the amount of "wasted" bandwidth in the world at any one moment must be huge. Much like the amount of wasted cpu cycles which people are already working on utilising.

It doesn't save on hosting realy ... it just migrates that cost from hosting to the normal network traffic.

That bandwidth is still going to be used, but instead of being organised, and paid for in a professional mannor, it (bandwidth) is currently being exploited by P2P sharing.

Currently with the prices of broadband from most countries (even the states) P2P is totaly making the ISP market hard to live with. Some ISPs have 40% of there average dataflow consists of P2P traffic of one sort or another. Can you imagine how much bandwidth that is for a major broadband supplier?

This is one of the reasons why broadband in australia is so expensive, and why the download limit is going to move to places like America and Europe. Because people increase the network traffic to such a degree that they are a burden on the network.

Now it sounds like I am a big P2P poopy head. I am not, P2P totaly f***ing owns, just not at the moment.

In essence p2p has some good design points, but it needs more sketches. With a bit of work, and a bit of time I think p2p will be a standard of looking for files on the internet. Just like WWW, FTP, and email are today.

In the particular case of music, and putting such a huge blame onto the piracy flow. I think it is mostly there own fault.

Firstly they always say that music cds have droped by 6% for the third year in a row. However they never tell you that Music DVDs are up 150% this year.

Also Teen mentioned something about finding files (such as music), and not being able to unless it is illegal.

While I don't support just going out and juarezing something. I do understand it in cases like this. I also think that Music companies and film/tv entertainment companies have completly missed the start of a new medium of entertainment.

The last time I bought a cd I got around 12 or something songs, and paid $25s (or there abouts). I don't buy many cds before because I only want 1 or 2 songs on that CD... I don't want the rest of those s***ty songs, so I don't purchase it, and I don't download it.

However if I could spend 2 dollers and download a 256kbs version of the song I want from the publisher or from a music store ... well I f***ing would. Namly because it would be no hassle and it would be high quality.

Personaly I think people who make TV shows like Star trek, and SG1 should also release there movies to download and keep. None of this stream and watch once s***.

The only counter that the entertainment companies have is that it would be easier for the pirates to get there s***. Which of course the answer is "easier than my video capture card?".

If i could buy mp3's that i wanted online, i would. Especially if it was something that i really wanted and couldnt find locally.

Kazaa = Spam and Spyware. I am ISP support person and I gotta say I realy hate Newnet Domains or Newnet and the chumps who use it. I hate you Kazaa.

Kazaa Lite.. Works like a treat.