Comments on: Musicians, songwriters: P2P ruling rocks

Downloaders may cringe about the Grokster ruling, but it resonates with artists, many of whom say swappers have hurt their business.

[Fray9]

Strange

Here they go again thinking that 1 download = 1 lost sale.

Have they ever stopped to consider that perhaps they are losing sales because of the influx of competing entertainment technologies like console gaming and TiVo? Of course not.

Have they ever considered that perhaps the reason they are selling the number of albums they are now is because they are getting free publicity and exposure on the trading networks and people are buying the albums? Of course not.

I dont condone file swapping.. I think if you enjoy an artists music you should compensate them accordingly (preferably by mailing a check directly to the artist so he gets more than 1% of the profits off his work). But the music industry needs to stop seeing everything in black and white. The world doesnt work that way, the subject is infinitely more complex than they are taking into account, and if they're not careful they may end up shooting themselves in the foot yet again.

[ThatAdamGuy]

This writer needs to go back to journalism school

> illegal downloads have hurt their bottom lines by depressing sales.

That's a fine statement if you're quoting the (evil) recording industry flacks, but as a factual assertion, it falls flat.

Non-industry-paid studies researching "industry harm" from P2P have been mostly been inconclusive or demonstrated that P2P hasn't measurably affected CD sales.

So to the journalist of this story... be a bit more careful, please. "Alleged harm" and "Harm claimed by recording studio executives..." -- that's more appropriate.

"making a living"...

I have been a musician and songwriter for almost 30 years. In that time, between thousands of live gigs, radio shows, airplay and recordings, I have yet to see more than $1,000.00 as a result. There are many of us who play for LOVE, because we cannot help but create. The people who stand to gain from this ruling, and the R.I.A.A.-holes who are behind it, have NOTHING TO DO with music. Artist royalties are now, and have always been, second to the record companies' profit/loss numbers. Mr. Dozier said it well, he is in it for the money. Maybe he's never heard of groups like Radiohead, who, after releasing "Hail to the Thief" online and live, went on to enter the charts at #1. And last week, their album "o.k. computer" was chosen album of the century. They GIVE the music to fans, and the fans reward their efforts by buying the package and supporting the band. This decision will not hold. We are in a position to take back control of our work, and this is the last gasp of the old dinosaur that eats money. If they make it illegal to swap files, then e-mail will be next. Keep trading the tapes, keep SHARING, because that is really the word they hate. I play for love, not money. And you cannot stop the free trade of ideas and information.

music art money

i'm an artist. i agree with sharing what i create. i don't create because there's money involved. i create because it is in me and must come out. however, when someone asks to buy something of mine, i balk at suggesting a price. what price is there on me? how can i charge you for something that is a piece of me? here, take it, it's yours if you like it that much. true music is art, it comes from within and MUST come out in one way or another. if it's such a bad thing to share it online to the risk of a million free downloads that hurt your monetary situation -- don't make it available online. don't make it available to anybody to do anything with, because somewhere down the line, somebody isn't going to pay for it, and you're out a quarter. keep it all for yourself so that when you die, you have everything. but just think of that-- a million people listening to your music! they may not have paid for it directly to you, but hey-they're listening to it! putting anything online is not sacred. it is easily copied and pasted, or dowloaded, or images copied. even if they have a copyright on them, it is easy to remove with the right software. when i was a child, my parents taught me to share my toys with my friends. i thought that was a general lesson that all children should learn. i guess when you grew up, that's when you got selfish and greedy and you didn't want to share because somebody else will then have what you have!!! good god, people. leave the damned money out of it and do it "...for duty and humanity!"

[skeptik]

So one sided

So what about all the musicians who approve or encourage online swapping... This story only addressed the author's agenda and ignored all else.
And let's face it, if anyone really cares about the artists, why aren't we seeing many lawsuits, court rulings and legislation to force the entertainment industry to pay the artists the money they are contractually bound to pay? It's a very well documented fact that labels use all sorts of tricks to avoid paying even the fraction of a percent of profits they make to the ones who actually created something. And the industry is on record opposing legislation to force compliance. Their stance: "we don't need legislation to address this isssue." (and that's a nearly perfect quote from another story posted here months back)
I guess the industry feels their marketing efforts represent the whole value of the product sold and that consumers and creators should be happy they even let us exist. And it's even more obvious that the courts and legislature cares only for the rights of those who have money to fund their next campaign and retirement fund.

Remember the lawsuit over monopolistic practices on the part of the industry that artificially inflated the prices of CDs for many many years? Know how much I got in settlement? $13. Not even enough to buy 1 single new CD. And that lawsuit covered the years before P2P when I actually bought CDs.
So who's wack now be-atch?