Do you share files online?

Total Responses: 1,080 Yes   69.1%  (746) No   30.9%  (334)

Have the RIAA sue 'em all lawsuits persuaded you to stop sharing?

Total Responses: 1,077 Yes   5.9%  (64) No   94.1%  (1,013)

How do you rate your chances of you becoming an RIAA victim?

Total Responses: 1,078 Guaranteed, if I keep on sharing   1.9%  (20) High   2.5%  (27) Medium   10.5%  (113) Low   50.4%  (543) Zero, even if I keep on sharing   34.8%  (375)

It's been said the likelihood of any on person becoming an RIAA victim is like becoming a Lotto millionaire, or being struck by lightning.

Total Responses: 1,081 Agree   69.3%  (749) Disagree   30.7%  (332)

The RIAA claims file sharing is "devastating" the music industry.

Total Responses: 1,081 Agree   9.3%  (100) Disagree   90.7%  (981)

The RIAA claims file sharing is causing tremendous hardship to music industry workers, and huge losses to contracted artists.

Total Responses: 1,082 Agree   7.4%  (80) Disagree   92.6%  (1,002)

Does your school give you instruction on IP (Intellectual Property) law?

Total Responses: 1,036 Yes   18.2%  (189) No   81.8%  (847)

If it doesn't, do you think it should?

Total Responses: 1,016 Yes   39.7%  (403) No   60.3%  (613)

Do you know anyone who's received an RIAA subpoena?

Total Responses: 1,078 Yes   8.3%  (90) No   91.7%  (988)

Says the RIAA: Though it would appear that record companies are still making their money and that artists are still getting rich, these impressions are mere fallacies.

Total Responses: 1,076 True   11.4%  (123) False   88.6%  (953)

If you've answered False to the question above, how do you see things?

Total Responses: 817 1. smaller artists may not make it rich, but the labels peddling them will 2. BS 3. While the rest of the industries have commensurately reduced costs when their resources and materials have dropped costs, MPAA and RIAA affiliated companies are still out there raping the public trust and manipulating the numbers and judiciary to match their Orwellian version of what happens when Johnny doesn't buy an Nsync cd. Listen, maybe the reason why we don't give a crap about the loss of sales, is that all too often, we know how the recorded artists were screwed over by manipulative and power-hungry recording Companies. I have friends in bands. I have had friends in bands. I buy their cd's when they make them. I recommend them to friends. The days of doing that are becoming slimmer. The new venue is and should be, live performance. I will pay 5x more for talent and showmanship.. and be glad I did. 4. I don't see how private jets, excessive bling, and Ferraris are fallacious (note: MTV Cribs). But more importantly, artists cannot be rich because that is a violation aesthetic principles. 5. There is still a shit-ton of money being spent on CDs. If artists aren't getting rich, it's because their labels are ripping them off. 6. Very few artists made, or make, money due to very one-sided contracts. COmpanies used to make lots of money but are now suffering due a changing market. 7. the labels still overcharge for goods and take way too higher cut from sales, the artists earn the money on tour and with merchandise 8. Its bullshit because the RIAA has been raping artists since the beginning. No shit artists arent getting rich off their albums. They get rich off merch and touring because the RIAA has their hands down deep in the artists pockets. WTF does it cost to produce a cd? Maybe 75 cents? At a time I purchased 2-3 cds, albums, cassettes a week. At $18+ for a cd they are out of their minds. Why is it after 20 years of the compact disc prices are going up and not down? 9. big 4 doing less well (i.e., profitable, just less than they want); artists doing fine -- smart ones doing better 10. If I like the music I download, I'll buy the CD. If they would put out better music, I might buy more CD's.... so once they stop putting out utter shit, I'll fork over some cash. 11. Two words... MTV. Cribs. 12. Most artists don't seem to be making a whole lot of money from their records. The music industry can afford to put Tommy Lee and Co. on TV to find a lead singer for a band of has beens, but still claim the sky is falling. Bunk. 13. Bands make the most of their money from concerts, tv performances and the like. They are still getting rich regardless of music sales. 14. The Record Company is Obsolete, the internet is the new distributor, and if artists were distributing on the internet they would receive 100% of the profit from the music they sell. at this rate, an artist could have 9 pirated albums for every legitimate one, and still make more money than they do now. 15. False 16. Sales have declined for CDs while digital sales have skyrocketed. The change is a natural state of the technological progression towards a digital medium. Further, the "Napster Age" showed the highest music sales the RIAA has ever seen, before Napster and also after their destruction. 17. The record industry is making money. I always see articles reporting "record profits". What they want is a "pay-per-listen" business model and that is being soundly rejected by their customers. While they aspire to absolute control, their actions are just causing customers to look for alternatives (both legal, ie Indy music or"illegal", ie file sharing. 18. The record companies are making more than the amount of money they deserve. Frankly at this point they deserve to be bankrupt and dumped in a sewer being raped by cockroaches. 19. The Record companies are continuing to steal from the artistis, forcing them to give away rights to their original works for next to nothing. Now they have turned this same abusive attitude on their own customers. They deserve to be put out of bussiness. 20. They don't pay their artists anything and rip them off. They have been ripping off artists and consumers for years and are still doing very well. 21. The artists aren't being hurt. I's just the record companies whining about their lost profits. 22. The industry puts out shit and its artists get rich , the smaller labels with bands with an ounce of integrity get poor but because of financial muscle from the likes of emi - it isnt lost on people that many of these companies can be tracked back to other bastardopolist industries. 23. P2P does not make a large enough dent in the industry. Besides, I like to "preview" an album before I purchase it. 24. That music shared over the internet is just serving as a means to further popularize an artist and that people will still shell out cash for an album if they really like the artist 25. They system is biased to the record companies, not the artists. The new system could benefit the artists more, and ideally, could reduce or eliminate the need for the big record companies. 26. Recording companies seem to scam artists for the majority of the profit. Apparently most artists only make minimum wage. 27. The RIAA and member corporations are making strong profits at the expense of their customers and the artists that provide the content. 28. They're still making millions are they not? If they weren't they wouldn't be able to afford all the luxuries us normal people can't afford. All they're trying to do is get more and more while the rest of us have less and less. 29. Downloading a digital copy of anything in itself causes no financial hardship to the recording industry. It duplication and transmission of digital content by file sharers costs the recording industry nothing. The only loss you might be able to attribute to file sharing is the loss of potential sales, which is minimal. Personally (and I know I'm among the majority here) my music collection wouldn't be so much as a tenth of the size it currently is if it weren't for file sharing; I wouldn't have purchased the vast majority of the music I have regardless of whether I file shared; I simply don't have the money. Therefore, the industry has not lost any potential sales, and is no worse off than if I, and most others, didn't file share. 30. If all the money the RIAA has spent trying to terrorize had gone into the creation of a progressive, modern digital music store, I wonder where they would be now... 31. I think the RIAA is missing the plot. They have an opportunity to embrace but instead have their head in the sand. Just look at what's happening to net radio - I have bought so many CDs from listening to pandora and now that is being killed. Oh the stupidity... 32. Recording artists and record companies are still some of the richest people out there. 33. Adapt or die, if your financial model isn't working, change it.- 34. The RIAA is into Rackateering and should be shutdown by the government... Also there should be a campaign on the WEB to get the word out to everyone to stop purchasing all of Sony's products not just there BMG stuff... And all the other companies involved with the RIAA If everyone stopped purchasing all sony products for 1 week that would send a huge message to them.... If they do not stop the RIAA BS then people should stop for 1 month and so on.... I gaurantee Sony would stop the RIAA BS then... So lets do it 35. Truth: The record companies are still making tons of money. They just fire people to insure their profit margins. When the company is too small to 'cut', they sell to a larger record company that merges the 'value' into their model, and dumps the 'spare parts'. Then they do the same thing. On and on, until the industry dies. ARTISTS BE DAMBED. 36. Partly true in that plenty of money is still being made however there is less revenue now and probably the weaker artists are the ones who will be affected the most. 37. The record companies are still getting ridiculous amounts of money, and they artists are getting enough millions to comfortably support themselves for life. If these millions aren't enough for them, then they clearly are more obsessed with money than making music, and i don't want to buy anything from them. 38. Executives may be seeing a hit, but artists have never been paid what their handlers are. To say that the artists in the industry are suffering is ludicrous. The concept of ownership of music by a company is anew concept, developed in the 20s with the advent of recorded music. Prior to that no company owned the artist. I believe we are just naturally returning to that golden, and better age. 39. I think that they make enough money. 40. Music artists make next to no money from album distributions anyway, if anyone is losing money, it's simply the people who've been cheating the artists all along, and the people who should - and will - be phased out. Online distribution is a godsend to independent artists. 41. Quality music earns money. If they want to earn more money, they need to stop the blame game and make a quality product. 42. they still make money 43. The artists make money by playing live shows. 44. The RIAA is merely trying to control a major technological shift in the market. Their traditional revenue-generating activitiesare becoming outdated, and rather than embrace a new model, they are applying protectionist tactics to preserve the old one. 45. I think that although there has been a decline in recording industry profits, much of that is due to the industries refusal to take make digital media freely available at reasonable price and quality. 46. Fuck the RIAA 47. I still think the record companies are bloody rich and the artists are hardly struggling given the lives they lead 48. Record sales are at all time highs... Artists are still getting paid for their work. File sharing has increased popularity of the product. 49. RIAA made DRM! I can't even put the music I bought on my Zune or Cell phone! I have to buy it 2 more times. That makes no sense... I'd rather just download it.. so now I do. 50. The money stays in the Recoding Industry and is not transferred to artists like it should. 51. The record companies have been charging consumers high prices and cheating the artists for a long time now. Even artists have spoke out and agreed with this. 52. Whether artist are getting rich or not has nothing to do with file sharing, the recording companies take all the money from them. They are greedy corps thats what they do. 53. Record companies are still turning a profit. People are sick of paying for a CD that's contains a single "good" track and a bunch of filler tracks. And popular music really hasn't done anything new or interesting in 15 years. 54. It's not the artists who are getting rich, rather the companies themselves . 55. RIAA is killing music and themselves..won't be long now...has more to do with their consumer-hostile business model rather than file sharing (symptom) 56. plenty of people are making money off their top 40 songs but the real artists are touring. 57. The record company is filled with suits who don't do anything. They rape the artists and attempt to keep everything for themselves and cut out the musician as much as possible. I'm blown away that artists even sign with major record labels, but than again we definitely have a society that's domininated by morons. 58. The RIAA has failed to adapt and instead has tried to rot the justice system from the inside by making threats of legal action. The RIAA has less chance of surviving as Jack Thompson has of making any sense. 59. The record companies are making money, if its not as much as they want perhaps they should have embraced technology in the Napster days instead of trying to sue it into oblivion. The music artists are also getting screwed but not by the "downloader" but instead by the RIAA who shares $0 from the lawsuits they are persuing. FUCK THE RIAA! I would rather mail the artist a check since it would actually go to them. 60. are musicians making music to get rich? or to get fans? 61. Record companies make too much money, artists make more than they should for the amount of work they put into it but at least they are working compared to the RIAA leeches. 62. People are being exposed to the mass amounts of music out there and developing massively eclectic tastes which only fuels the music industry. Personally, in the last three years or so I've opened my music taste to a broad array of different genres. Before I was into mostly mid 80's to mid 90's west coast rap, now I'm more into punk, reggae and hardcore. You don't hear those genres on the radio and you don't just buy random CD's but with file sharing you can download everything and listen to everything. If you don't like it, you're not out anything and you just delete it, most people who sample music and enjoy it will probably go out and buy the CD. Bands are gaining fans because of file sharing, pure and simple. 63. Seems they are all still bling, blingin'. They have plenty of money for lawsuits. If the record companies wouldn't put out so much crap they wouldn't have to cover the costs of all the crap they are producing. 64. - If these "artists" can't make any money, even though the music industry is billions, then perhaps there's a problem with all the middle-men. Besides, I don't believe it. Struggling musicians are nothing new. Ones that make it big get big money. Nothing there is different now then it ever was. 65. If sales are falling, maybe it's because they produce crappy music. 66. The royalties paid to artists themselves are abysmal; most of the money from incredibly over-priced garbage discs sold these days go to the media conglomerates that publish them. 67. theys makin ass loads of moola 68. These guys know that they cannot uphold an antiquated system of property rights if the people have the technology to subvert their extortion. But they're either unsure of what to do, or they are squeezing the last minutes out of their old ways. 69. I mean, BLOODY HELL i dont see Eminem or Linkin Park complaining about living in poverty 70. RIAA is in it for their cut. They are pushing a failed business model and instead of shifting, have decided to build a moat and etrench. 71. RIAA is the one taking money away from the artists. The big companies have to pay RIAA so that is money out of the artists pockets. 72. Record companies need a new distribution model: downloads like iTunes 73. Most artists are starving, because they're not famous. Those same artists are also the ones that wouldn't mind being shared just to gain the exposure they need to be famous. The big artists are the ones that people share, and they are filthy rich. The day I see artists like Britney Spears and Metallica driving around in beat up old vans, and eating top ramen is the day that I will stop sharing music. The record executives are still making huge salaries, and I haven't heard anything about Sony BMG , or any of the other major labels, filing for bankruptcy. 74. If they are getting rich the why are their houses on TV and why do they keep making music? because they love it? no because they get rich 75. The record companies are still making their money, the artists are getting screwed. 76. the artists make more money with concerts and merchindise 77. Everyone is getting richer!!! Artists and Companies. 78. Music is something very worthful. Perhaps the way of earning money with it is not the way the RIAA tries it with. 79. there are many other ways artists make their money, merchandise and concerts for example 80. A few of the top artists are making it rich .. the others are not; thats the recording industries issue and has nothing to do with Music Sharing. 81. that they get paid wayyyy too much 82. If record companies were in fact being "devastated", as they claim, then perhaps their business model might have changed in response to it. 83. Question is too complicated for me to answer I don't know what you mean. 84. Record companies are having no problem paying rent and raping artists. File sharing has done nothing to discourage the rich big wigs in charge of Columbia and Virgin. 85. total fabrication record companies are still getting rich, the artists are just getting ripped off 86. lying so they can get their way 87. If it was $8 a cd, and not $18, maybe I would think about buying few. If it was $15 a video game instead of $60 a video game maybe I would think about buying a few. 88. I see the record companies still pulling huge profits. 89. RIAA = Whores 90. The RIAA is lying 91. lies 92. The artists get little to no money from album sales anyway. The RIAA is the only group losing money at this juncture. 93. If they weren't making money the suits would be gone and the Big 4 after them. 94. Failed model that is a monoply 95. I believe the artists who are making the songs are still getting paid fine. the middlemen may be receiving a little less. but a loss of business revenue should not be blamed solely on illegal mp3 downloading. Look at the market conditions, look at the quality and restrictions on what is available. 96. The musicians are still becoming millionaires on an almost daily basis. I think the RIAA is using this as platform to line it's own pockets with money. What is the salary of the president of the RIAA? 97. artists live on a shoe-string, and the sound engineers, band managers and label workers life filthy rich. 98. The record companies are still making money -- it's just that they cling to supporting a business model that is increasingly obsolete, thus wasting much of that revenue. As for the artists: yes, some are still getting rich... but the REAL money lies in going on tour, NOT in album sales -- and that's the way it has ALWAYS been, for the entire history of recorded music. 99. I see that the artists still aren't getting money; the RIAA and the labels are taking 98% of profits. 100. Ugh how? Are you fucking serious? 101. It's the RIAA ASSHOLES who are ripping EVERYONE including consumers, record companies, and artists. FUCK THE RIAA!!!! DIE MOTHERFUCKERS!!! 102. The record companies may be losing some money, but it isn't due to file sharing, and the artists are still getting rich and pampered. 103. They are still making a lot. For labels, I'd say a lot more than they deserve. Labels don't contribute any value on the internet and they want to keep outdated system where they do in place using lawyers. 104. Record companies are making their money, and the artists and the RIAA are still getting rich. 105. I do not believe that their current financial situation would be any different if all music sharing were suddenly ended. Possibly it would become worse since they have seriously alienated their potential customers. 106. Just as they've always been, and many of these artists are filthy rich anyway. 107. The RIAA was ripping them off to begin with, and they've never gotten what they deserve, now they just get a tad less 108. Their earnings may be marginally less, but the industry profits are bloated to begin with. 109. I know numerous people who work in both the film and music industry on different levels. Talking to all of them, they say that there is very minimal change in their industries. Instead, the change really happens with people trying to break into the industry. Labels are taking less risk in signing bands, so the only one who is really hurt are those that are not signed, and since they were not making money before, there is no damage done. 110. The recording industry is all about packaging and marketing, not about true talent. Sharing files is actually in the interest of artists, since it gives them exposure. Artists make their living by performing (a product they can control), not recording (a product that greedy businessmen control). 111. They still make money off of advertising endorsements, t-shirts and other products, concert ticket sales, etc. 112. The "middle men" are losing money because they are no longer necessary. Bands can promote themselves online and no longer need the infrastructure of the major labels to suceed. 113. We all know that recording artists still only make cents on the dollar for every CD sold. Where does the rest of the money go? Right into the record companies' pockets--where it's always gone. 114. well you watch vh1 all you see is all this artist with big house big jewlery big cars I dont see them starving just alot of greed 115. They are dinosaurs rampaging on an old business model which assumes lower consumption, harder information movement and an ability to prosecute against the exceptions. In stead, they obvliviously exist in a high consumption (desire), easy information movement environment and are only creating enemies in their failure to adapt. They could be providing mechanisms to improve music, its publication, its exposure and findability. Instead, its SPAPP suits. Old companies, old men, old minds, old ways. Dying dinosaurs. 116. They're still raking it in - just smaller margins than they were used to. 117. Dude, if Brittney Spears can afford a 30k rehab, the record industry is doing just fine. 118. Executives and artists both are making insane amounts of money. It's been known for years that the companies were involved in price fixing on CD's and were never brought to justice because of it. 119. They are still making money by altering the law to enforce a flawed business model as well as taking advantage of the new business models. 120. artists and record co.'s have made there money off alot of older songs long ago and should sell catalouge music for reasonable prices like allofmp3 does. as for new music when you download there is no transportation costs or retailors taking there cut so record co.'s should be able to sell music at reasonable prices like allofmp3. if prices are reasonable people will purchase more music.and everyone is happy! 121. most the money goes to the excutives 122. They are the real bastards doing the robbing. There was a nice article written by Courtney Love on this subject. 123. They make way too much money to start. 124. If I were to download music, that does not mean I would buy less music. I buy the same as I always have- very little. I find prices of music from big labels in shops extortionate. I tend to stick to buying from small indie labels now. No thank you BPI and RIAA! You aren't getting my business with the way you treat consumers. 125. RIAA lying as usual. 126. They're still rich, getting richer, selling overpriced products, and sueing harmless file sharers. 127. There have been countless studies that found that file sharing's effect is statistically close to zero. Record companies and artists are still getting their money with or without "piracy" in similar quantities. Which, by the way, I don't care how many people you sue, there will always be some piracy going on because of new technology. Plus, this isn't capitalism! Capitalism is competing with other businesses to get the most profit and ending up with the best deal possible for BOTH the consumer and business through creating quality and ingenuity from competition pressure. NOT FROM SUING THE ASS OFF OF ANYONE YOU DISAGREE WITH. 128. they get money just for shitting in a certain toilet. 129. The Record companies are making too much of the money and screwing the talent over! 130. Artists get rich off of concerts. That will always remain. Money is still being made and I think that the industry needs to adapt to the changing market. 131. They are still making enough money. 132. The market is flooded with music. There are so many more independent labels than there ever was...and these indie labels are making bigger and bigger waves every year. The wealth is being distributed more, and the RIAA doesn't like that. Basically, they're still making their money and still screwing the artists. It's just now they have someone to blame and excuse their poor business practices. 133. That the people are getting rich. But there is nothing wrong with getting rich, I don't see why they have to claim that they don't get rich if that is indeed what they are claming. 134. The music industry as a whole is in pure denial that the internet has change the world. They want to exempt themselves from the inevitable fact that the internet has altered the economics behind every industry on the planet. Do you think stockbrokers ever thought they would see $5-$10 trades? Or that insurance companies on the east coast ever thought they would have to compete with companies on the west coast? There's a lot of fat that can be trimmed from the music industry. They have too many hands in the pot to be able to embrace the efficiencies of the internet. Once that fat is trimmed the industry will embrace the internet as it is inevitable. 135. The recording industry is still making huge profits. 136. lies propogated by the RIAA to allow them to make more money via an easy avenue. Afterall, artists receive very little money from the sale of cd's which are so heavily over-priced. If they offered high quality (lossloess) drm-free downloads, I would stop file sharing, and buy the downloads - but not while the quality is so poor and I am unable to use the downloads as i wish. 137. Though artists are still making money they are making less. Also many people other than the top stars (struggling early musicians, sound engineers, etc) will disproportionately suffer from the loss or revenues caused by online music theft. 138. The RIAA, which adds no value to the actual process of delivering art to the masses, is continuing to profit by guarding its outdated business model. 139. Record companies are still making money. Always will... 140. money grubbing bastards 141. It's a bit hard to tell from the way you have worded the question if you are asking if it is true that RIAA is saying this or if I agree with the statement. Assuming you are asking do I agree with the statement I do not. I think that artists get lots of publicity from more sources than ever and more of the lesser know artists are getting this publicity also. And the result of the publicity is profit to the artists as well as all of the middlemen. 142. They are overpaid. 143. I'm pretty sure if the artists were living in 2 bedroom apartments in the middle of St. Paul Minnesota, we'd all know about it. They are constantly on television, with million dollar jewelry, five thousand dollar dresses, and the RIAA is trying to tell me that a record and a movie take the same amount of effort to produce via the similar pricing. 144. How can they 'appear to make money' and simultaneously not make money? What were they smoking when they said that? 145. the labels arent making thier money, aka the executives, otherwise the sound recording guys, the guys in the booth are still getting paid, the artist still gets paid, still makes most of his money from touring. and instead of making an "estimated" 100 billion they only make about 80 billion and are forced to cut juniors allowance by 20 grand. 146. They are still very rich... 147. RIAA is taking most of the money for their own greedy selves and only giving the artists a mere fraction of each dollar. 148. They are still earning money, why would they otherwise fight so hard... or have the funds to do so! 149. Electronic distribution is the future, and the slump of sales from the record labels is from falling behind the new technology. 150. I don't think the artists were ever getting rich in the first place. All the RIAA and the record industry care about is putting money into their own pockets -- not the artists. 151. the RIAA need to stop sanctioning the ripping off of the music buying public. More people would buy music if the cost was more reasonable...All of MP3 is testament to this theory... they have a duty of care to the music buying public just as much as the artists and industry workers. 152. They must be cooking books if that is true, which is HIGHLY illegal... music piracy, serious business. 153. the RIAA is going after people like the mafia.. and the RICO and HOBS acts both clearly outline repeated attacks on people as violations of those laws and yet the courts want to side with the RIAA.. Lawyers better understand black letter law and follow it to the letter, as corperations do and so does the RIAA, which means lawyers that are defending people better understand black letter law not case law. 154. I only see few starving artists out there. If they have talent, they are found and properly sponsered. Besides the fact, most artists out there I personally listen to are in it for sharing their music, not making a bunch of money. It all comes down to what's more important. 155. Few artists are actually getting rich. Many don't make it, and this probably has always been so. The record companies, however, still make lots of money - maybe slightly less than they used to, that's why they complain. The artists, though, see only a tiny fraction of what the record companies make from their music. 156. they need to change their business model -no up front advances eg robbie williams $80 million -i dont think so, try for a percentage of sales robbie 157. Artists should be getting a bigger cut of their work 158. The record companies AREN'T still making their money. Revenue and profits are falling. Artists signed to major labels ARE making less money because of piracy. Quite simply, people steal music...meaning the people who make music make less money. It IS that simple, and it is true. 159. the music companies are making too much margin, are not prepared to adapt their business practices, and are trying to legislate to maintain the status quo. 160. First, there's no shortage of obscenely wealthy music artists and music company execs - second, web distribution at cost or free DOES NOT HARM BUSINESS IT HELPS IT. See publishing business for examples. 161. Music should be free, they earn enough on Radio broadcasts / concerts. 162. p2p file sharing doesn't hurt artists, if you really like a band you downloaded, you would go and buy their album to support them. p2p makes it easier to find new music and helps you preview an album, because if you buy it at the store you dont know if its good, and returning it is kind of hard once you open it, so downloading it is easier. 163. Money just doesn't go through the RIAA/MPAA anymore... 164. Fat cats still getting fatter, unlike independants, which is why I buy from emusic. And I'd like to pay alofmp3 a bit more, but I'll never buy from I-tunes etc.l 165. sharing benefits the artist driving more traffic to their web page and concerts. 166. Everyone, even downloaders, still buy music. Therefore, the artists are still becoming wealthy. 167. The contracted artists and record companies are still getting rich. It may not seem that way to them because their idea of "getting rich" is so absurdly skewed and out of touch with the incomes of other musicians and with the incomes of most Americans. I believe that there is room for everyone in the music industry, and I think it is fantastic that the money to be made is no longer going to be made a few privilaged sell-outs and their pimps. 168. Record companies make a mint (as always) and artists don't fair too badly either - a LOT of music is still bought and downloaded and a few sharers will not cripple the industry. 169. EVen though CD sales are down, plenty of money still flows into the music industry not just from music sales, but associated revenues. Were the RIAA to cease and decist throwing away money for frivolous law suits, this would surely leave more money for artists. The actions of the RIAA do nothing to suggest that they are in any way fighting for the cause of artists, but more that they are pursuing their own hidden agenda. 170. It's a control issue. 171. Record companies are still making money. Only the biggest, most successful artists have ever really become rich, everyone else just lives in debt to the label. 172. They're still making money. Sure they may have lower sales than a decade ago. But they've got an outdated business model and poor logistics. Customers that used to buy music CDs, now rather spend their money on movie DVDs for more entertainment value for their money. 173. I see both record companies and the artists as being too rich for their own good. And how can you say those impressions are "fallacies" when the artist(s) sing about all their Rolls-Royce's, Bentley's, Ferrari's, Lamborghini's, and so on, and so forth? 174. The companies still make rip-offf money through the CD's they do sell. 175. i am gong to answer anyway, sharing a file one has bought is totally different than hacking into an online music store and taking it, once you buy the product, cd, song, it's yours and you can share it however you want No one is stealing, No one is saying that they made the music, put it together, sung it, etc.. Everyone is just making a copy and giving it to others, however I would Agree that in the end if someone DID steal the CD from the record shop or hacked into an online store, sure I agree they should be arrested, for more questions out of me, email palmonezire31fanatic@yahoo.com. 176. As long as artists want millions of dollars for only a few albums and record companies are able and willing to pay, things can't be so bad as the RIAA claims. Give me some value for my money (not just a cd in a cheap case without anything else) or give me legally downloadable music without that DRM-crap at a reasonable price. 2$ per song is ridiculous. 177. The are a bunch of liars 178. They have plenty to buy cocaine 179. They make huge amounts of money from things other than direct sales. 180. I would say certainb artists are getting rich at the expense of other (perhaps) more talented artists 181. The music industry is still making it's money. It could be doing better by investing in true artists rather than the diva of the week. 182. music industry is changing, the consumer is now in power 183. The publishing company gets most of the money anyway. It is the publishing company that is losing % of their money. Sure if band X would normally see $100 but because of file sharing only sees $70. thats a 30% loss But if the publishing company would normally see $1,000,000 but because of file sharing they lose that same 30% but for the publisher, that 30% is a loss of $300,000 The publishers would hurt WAY more than artists. 184. File sharing is having a mixed effect - reducing CD sales, but also increasing awareness of unusual music, and RIAA has failed to implement business model to take advantage of technology without garbage DRM. 185. The RIAA needs to embrace the changes the digital music and sharing and purchase of it on the internet. Stop crying and get with the program. If they don't they could see the end of their industry as the artists that have the ability to do so start producing and distributing their music themselves, which would probably be better for fans of music. The public knows that the music industry has been ripping off both it's customers and it's clients, the artists, for much too long. 186. the rich like getting richer 187. I don't really care if they are making money or not. I don't want to be treated as a criminal if I take music I purchased and choose how I want to play it or share it. 188. There is a huge disparity between rich successful artists and struggling talented musicians. The music industry needs to examine itself before blaming others for its own failings. 189. The large record companies are still making their obscene profits and the musicians are still receiving their small payments. 190. Record companies and artists ARE STILL getting rich. Sales have come down because everyday because artists and music in general is sucking badly. 191. I buy music that's worth paying for all the time. Most of the shit released today isn't worthy of Muzak in an elevator. 192. if the labels would release good WHOLE cd's at a fair price as well as pay the artist a decent royalty rate? then maybe i'd consider purchasing a cd. Otherwise? i support artists that make good music through concert tickets and concert merchandise (my understanding is the bands make more profit through that method than they do from cd royalties 193. File sharing would affect mainly the hugely popular artists which I do not believe are being hurt financially. Further, the record industry would be better served by recognizing and adapting to changing culture than promoting fear mongering and maintaining ridiculous marketing and pricing structures. 194. They are richer than ever 195. i buy more cds and dvds as a result of downloading. if i could only listen to things i had bought i wouldnt know about lots of new acts and films. 196. The minority of big selling artists are still making lots of money and the rest are still struggling. Hard to see what has changed. 197. Artists and music industries still make more money than the average man. 198. The corporate people are still making their millions no matter what! Do you really think the artist 199. Record companies still want to get rich by vastly overpricing products. They refuse to listen to customers, treat artists poorly and keep bringing out reissues at high prices. 200. Copy righting a sound is absolutely useless. I understand if you want to make it that you can't copy a sound though- I mean, fine, you want money- BUT AT LEAST ALLOW US TO UPLOAD OUR CD'S TO OUR COMPUTERS OR IPODS. GET RID OF STUPID DRM. IT MAKES MUSIC USELESS! Artists are making heaps of money and they would make more if people had access to a wider range of music. No evidence supports that file sharing is hurting them. You, the RIAA, do nothing, absolutely nothing to deter file sharing, so even if it became legal there would be very little extra file sharing thats going on anyway. Through it you learn about new artists and then you SUPPORT them, not just through music but through other means. Artists aren't being hurt by it and the RIAA is only making people (like myself) angry at the music industry as a whole and I am starting to turn my back on it and I'm just stopping listening to music anymore. I'm very bitter that I can't upload my favourite CD to my ipod legally. That sucks. YOU CAN'T EVEN FIND THE CD ON THE INTERNET AND BUY IT OFF ITUNES OR SOMETHING LEGALLY FOR PETES SAKE. 201. Industry and artists still profitable - just less so than before. Also music industry has lacked innovation and has taken head in sand attitude. It fails to deliver what consumers want. 202. Thousands of talented artists always struggled to make a living waiting for their "break" which would never come. Music industry was not interested in them. Their business model is creating a few hundred "idols" and milk them for money. Liberalization of music would level the playing field and give every artist a chance to make a decent living. 203. The music industry is still producing as much music as ever; more so even. 204. these impressions are not fallacies 205. They're all rich. 206. Artists are still making millions. Oh, so they are not making tens of millions...their still raking in the f*cking cash where they don't have to work for the rest of their lives. Besides I don't see how anyone can spend over 4 million on themselves, I know it has happened, but seriously how shit do you need. 207. No, they totally are still getting rich. And maybe it would be better for artists *not* to be so rich- people shouldn't make music for the money, they should make it because they want to and they *love* doing it. They music industry would probably produce much better music overall if artists had more average salaries. 208. I fail to see how these claims can be true, I don't see massive redundancies occuring due to piracy, and it's very rare that an artist speaks out against piracy damaging their income, if they did so in all likely hood they'd be labelled a hypocrite. I mean come on Mariah Carey say complaining that due to piracy she can't buy a new xxxx million dollar mansion, give me a break. 209. For the past 50 years artists and record companies have been getting rich off of mediocre product. They package their one or two decent songs with rather mediocre to poor songs. I have wasted a lot of money on mostly crappy albums just for one or two songs. Let the music industry reap what they have sown. We have found a way around the crap, and artists will have to step up their game, or wither and die. 210. The record companies are losing money, not artists as they get their money well in advance.. and who needs the big labels anyway.. more and more artists are doing download-only affordable services off their own backs and making MORE than what the record companies provide with contracts. 211. Riaa Lies 212. RIAA are a bunch of cunts! 213. "Though it would appear.....but they're not" Theres an ill formed argument if there ever was one. 214. Tons of people are still buying music...wtf is wrong with you people 215. Fuck the RIAA 216. they make money from the free promotion. it increases concert and merch sales. artists make VERY little money from an album. 217. trying to make more money 218. They have their goals backwards -- copyright does not exist to make record companies or authors get rich. It exists to promote arts, which are doing just fine (especially up here in Canada where there's no DMCA). The record companies are still making money, but even if they weren't, there are tons of great independent acts out there. 219. The artists make money by signing contracts with the record companies and giving concerts. Music piracy is in a way marketting the artists. The RIAA just appeared because technology is making record companies obsolete. They are unneeded nonsense, and for an artist, it just means easy, quick money, by the means of contracts. We have a lot of examples of successful bands that use the internet (MySpace for example) to show their works, and work hard to earn their money (giving concerts). 220. OMG some rockstar can't afford a private jet this year! Oh, I feel so sorry for him. Please pass on my sympathy to his family 221. Getting more music stimulates more interest in music. Buying more CDs is one thing, another thing is going to more concerts, buying more books and other related stuff. But more fundamentally, if there are cheaper an better ways to distribute music, why should I care about a stone age music industry that wants to maintain its slow and costly way of promoting its own selection of artists and songs? I do care about artists making money. 222. Even despite the fact that record companies still take huge ammounts (up to 80%) of the profit from each record/mp3 sale, many artists are still reaching huge commercial success. 223. The vast majority of the record companies' revenues is going to people who have no hand in the artistic process, and very little to do with any success a record has. Mostly, this includes executives and multiply-redundant ad agencies. 224. The truth is nowhere near as simple as that. The times they are a changing. 225. They are simply trying to keep and even extend their shares on artist's pieces and on the other side they simply refuse to offer products that the public demands: DRM-free digital music. 226. If people make music to earn money, then people shouldn't buy their records at all. We still show up at their concerts, and I buy most, if not all of my albums myself. 227. I think the only difference is that now people are able to experience more types of music from more bands. People downloading music online are more likely to buy music because they have more access to new music. 228. The law in the 70's said I could make a copy of IP material(namely music) for my personal use. They are controlling what I can do with what I buy. Sounds like "Big Brother" to me. How about the company 321 Studios? They shut down dvd x copy somebody lost a job!! 229. Artists get their money from touring, merch sales and cd sales in cash at concerts. The label gets most of the money from retail cd sales. 230. Record profits year after year, and CD prices keep going up. 231. I buy it if I like it 232. Touring is making the money 233. I see artists that wouldn't be represented by the record companies being able to sell their music through sites like All of MP3 as well as gain "share" of the market through file-sharing. 234. CD sales are up 8% this year 235. ...although this wouldn't be the case and the record companies were to embrace the new technology in a way that works with the way the public want their music, rather than by bullying them 236. labels are losing revenue from music sales but artists never got anything from them anyway. music sales make up only a small proportion of overall label income and they are increasing profits in other areas. 237. While I am sure that there are lost profits, artists are certainly still getting rich 238. There are still a few superstar artist who are making good money and keeping the labels afloat, but there are many mid level bands that suffer because of file sharing 239. The artists have always been screwed by the major labels, and P2P isn't going to change this except possibly help artists. 240. Record Companies are Sharks! Hope music could be soon distributed without them, the sooner the better for both fans and artists...not the lawyers running the current show! 241. RIAA companies are spending too much on advertising, production, etc. Consumers would be happier buying slightly lower-quality, less-advertised music if they felt the profits were going to the artists rather than people in advertising or the labels. 242. The record companies and their artists are still making enormous profits and are as wealthy as ever. 243. MTV Cribs. Bling bling 244. Profit-driven record companies will do anything and say anything to keep their profits high. This includes concentrating on established acts rather than fostering new talent, ripping off artists, spending huge sums on marketing bland crap to the masses and spreading outright lies. 245. file sharing applications are just a way for people to preview music. If they really like the album, they will buy it. This forces the song writers and labels to produce higher quality music. 246. companies are, artists not so much 247. I see artists flaunting money, wearing tons of jewelery, spending ridiculous amounts of money on clothing, getting in trouble with the law because money has corrupted them, driving very expensive cars, and owning enough houses for an entire community to live in. 248. The record companies are still making their money, far too much, and the artists are still not getting paid. 249. I think that the RIAA by not adapting to the latest distribution outlets are engaged in a cutting off their nose to spite their face manuever that will plunge their companies into the sink. 250. Those slow to embrace new delivery models for intellectual property will continue to earn less. 251. They make record profits again and again. Maybe they should stop filling their pockets and put some fo that money back into music. 252. I started buying a LP's, had to buy the same CDs for full price as I cannot copy it fastand legal. Now I have to pay the third time to buy the same music in VMA format. You get three time the money you deserve! 253. the record companies are robbing the artists blind. the artists are suffering, an it is not the file shareing doing it, it is the companys they signed up to be serf's for. 254. music has been selling for years - why are they trying to control things now? 255. The end of the music biz is nigh. Good. 256. file sharing helps get the word out. out of all the people i know that share files, they download songs or cds to determine whether or not they like the music. if they likie the music, they legally purchase them, either electronicly, or in a physical form. 257. The record companies are still making money but they are greedy and want to 'maximise' their profits. File sharing allows artists to be heard and not many people could afford to buy the amount of music they listen too. Remember taping? i am saying this as a proffesional musician. Digital music has allowed smaller music companies too succeed and smaller groups to gain popularity. 258. if artists and record company execs lived "standard" upper-middle-class lifestyles, i might be tempted to believe this rhetoric, but the fact remains that they live opulent lifestyles. this is nothing short of "do as i say, not as i do" 259. RIAA has their head in the sand! It's a new age for music and the consumer is sick of being ripped off for one hit over hyped bands. Cost to sell on-line should give the customers lower prices and no DRM tricks. 260. Most Peopel I know that downlaod Music Go Out and Buy teh CD i fthe Like it so that they can get a Higher Quality of Audio. 261. Most Artists never made much money due to unfair conditions in record contracts. The Record Companies make most of the money. The Record Companies are still making money today. The sales of music online is even more profitable for the Record Companies than selling CD's. 262. Major labels are doing worse, but independent artists and labels are growing in success. Artists who have decided to go that route, are having much less overhead, and they don't owe their labels exhorbitant amounts, but they're still finding success. 263. RIAA should allow the on line sale of non DRM songs, at a fair price. That's all. I buy from regular juke box and after I make a CD, since I want to hear what I bought on any reader, and I own two ipods. If I buy something it's mine, not allowed to use until the pc crash and I must be free to give it away for free or to sell. The price of some old records is to high on line. Open the doors and the market will open! 264. good people pay for music 265. Like any industry over time, the music industry is changing. They make more money than ever via touring. People are still willing to spend their money on the musicians. Instead of buying 10,000,000 copies from one artist there is now the opportunity to be exposed to hundreds more artists, purchase their paraphenalia, and watch them tour. The money simply goes to a wider base of musicians (not all on major labels) and success is now based on the music more than the marketing. 266. I never got the impression that the companies involved in the RIAA gave 'their' artists much of a cut to start with, so perhaps certain artists are losing their money, but as far as I can see the record companies are still filthy rich. 267. They are still making plenty money, but it's their duty to maximise revenue and that's what this is all about. 268. Being an artist is not about getting rich but getting their art known, and being able to live thanks to our art too, and the first one leads to the second. As for the record companies, they should be there to help artists, not to get richer than them. Finally, it's anyway the most popular, most of the time most "manufactured", hence those "artists" concidering their art as mere products, that are complaining the most about 'file sharing'. 269. The RIAA hogs all the money for themselves, giving little back to the artists. 270. They work a few weeks a year and are millionnaires, only getting richer. I work darn hard for my money and I deserve every penny. 271. Just don't believe it. Record companies are "COMPANIES". No profit, no company. 272. Record companies have a proven record of not paying royalties and dreaming up ever increaseing ways to increase the lengh of ip laws to help them selves to more money. IP was formed for the person who made the item not for corporations to exploit years after that persons death. 273. The RIAA exists and has the resources to sue people. If it was hurting them, they'd be complaining from paper bags, not cushy offices. 274. They're making boatloads of money. 275. The RIAA member companies are still making obscene amounts of money, piracy or no, and the artists are making next to nothing in comparison. 276. When I stop seeing rappers I've never heard of on MTV Cribs with 18 cars and houses with rooms they don't even remember what is in, then I will feel sorry for them. As long as untalented horrible artists are still coating everything they own in chrome and 24karat gold, I'll keep sharing. Besides, the record execs get too much of the money. It's not fair to the artists that some rich clown in an ivory tower gets 1/4 or more of the money they make. 277. The labels are taking all the money,NOT the artists. 278. The labels represented by the RIAA are misguided and blind to the changes in the market place. They haven't figured out how to capitalize on p2p so they think they have to crush it. King Midas comes to mind, how much is enough? 279. Music companies making millions, artists making small percentage!!! 280. everyone is still getting rich. 281. The RIAA is clinging to an old system that cannot survive and they know it. Eventually the old system will become something new, but the more kicking and screaming there is from the RIAA, the worse of a transition it will be, and the lesser role the RIAA will play in the future. They are causing their own downfall in their arrogance. 282. Nobody is suffering. 283. I don't know about record companies, but I can see it for the artists...they have to make their money from tours and merchandising. 284. I think some artists are hurt; some aren't or aren't hurt much and some might actually benefit. I don't see solid evidence that the fall in music sales is due to illegal file sharing. What about competition with other media, such as DVD, video games, web surfing, youtube, etc.? 285. Check out their bottom line profit figures and you'll still see the large money they make. If the modernise and lower prices they'd make more. 286. They are just crying "poor" 287. Why is it that most of the record companies still make lots of money, still take most of the artists hard earned money.. and so on.. I buy merchandise straight from the artists and go to their concerts. I support the artist (if we talk dollars and cents) much more than people who buy the cd and essentially give the record company a 90+% cut. The RIAA's big four already make enough money as it is. 288. A bunch of fat cat salespersons out to rip off everyone they can, including their artists and employees. Their track record of corruption is legendary. Now the've bought politicians. 289. Record compamies make their money of record sales, artists make their money off of tours 290. The artists make a ton of money, the record companies just want more so they can widen the gap between the upper and lower classes. 291. too many parasites 292. The record companies are still making good profits, just a lot less profit than before. Also, from what I can see, artists are still quite well off. Especially the more popular ones. 293. Record companies just want more money and the artists have been getting screwed out of money for so long. P2P cuts out the middle man (record companies) and gives the artist more control. 294. RIAA sucks and as an artist we need to get with the digtal world. I might not make as much selling my to expensive cd but I can see good sells from itunes, allof mp3 etc 295. CDs are much too expensive. It's theft. 296. the riaa is nothing more than a lobbying group for corporate greed, the artists are making no more or less than they were before file sharing. 297. The Album is no longer the primary format and the record companies have squandered the goodwill of the public by trying to force a price point for digital music that many no longer accept. Sharing is return does benefit artists as it allows people to have access to and experience music they otherwise would never here (primarily due to the monopolization of media outlets by a few corporations). 298. They could all stay alive and be big in bussiness 299. nobody know how much exactly is bein lost on file shading and how many people downloading these filles will ever buy the record in case it will not be possible to download it. its all only a theory on how to present "their truth" (of the record companies, artist, organisations "protecting" artist's rights etc...) 300. People are still buying CDs, and piratism doesn't make them more poor. 301. i think music sharing via internet allows groups a venue to gain exposure and be discovered. 302. The companies and the artists still make money. The only reason that artists might make less money, is because any lost revenue is taken from the artist rather than the company. The RIAA and several of the companies it represents, has been sued, and lost for price fixing on CDs. The companies the RIAA represents has been sued for payola and lost. Perhaps loss in revenue may also be due to the amount the companies pay the lawyers. But either way, any "loss" is exaggerated and probably a lie. 303. The RIAA and record labels are just greedy and they want to have control over what you listen to. Money breeds greed. 304. none of the top CEOs in this industry have taken a pay cut. 305. I think these artists are more then well enough for themselves. The average income is something like $40,000 a year and I know most of them are getting more than that. If they aren't, take it up with the producers and everyone else that gets the money. Think about it, if a cd costs roughly $15 and they sell even 100,000 cds, that's 1.5 million dollars that is being made by someone. I could do a lot with 1.5 million... 306. It is not a matter of how I personally see the RIAA's business, but rather that the numbers indicate that they are doing fine, despite (or perhaps because of) being an illegal ogopily. 307. The RIAA cannot accept that the public are starting to realise the real value of music and are wanting to pay the fair price for unrestricted music - especially in this digital age where overheads are a fraction of providing hard-copies of music. The RIAA could be cashing in on this digital age if they catered for the audience, but instead they have left the audience to cater for themselves. 308. The economy is changing, and the RIAA is trying to hold onto an outdated and bloated business model. 309. They seem to be bursting with profit 310. too many no talents make way too much money for the tripe they purvey. 311. The music industry spend huge amounts of money in marketing etc, they are by no means poor! If they can pay Robbie Williams £80m ........ 312. if you download a song and like it. it encourages you to buy the CD 313. The live industry is booming, the majors are still spending colossal amounts trying to market average acts and bands that have avoided the major route (e.g. Enter Shikari) are selling CDs and tickets without them. 314. Complete Bullshit. If they weren't getting rich, where did they get the money to go after everyone & run all this propaganda bullshit. 315. Record companies make money by selling music (records, Cds, tapes, ect.). Artists made their money by touring. 316. Spin 317. In my opinion, the RIAA is greatly exaggerating the effect of filesharing on artists. 318. RIAA is extorting money from both customers and artists for their own profit. 319. $$$$ 320. This claim makes me laugh. I think record companies are still making their money, but they're scared to death because their stellar income is decreasing. Instead of following the market, they want to maintain us in ignorance simply because doing so they can continue to lazily amass money. Artists may be in real danger, but not because of us: it's because of the greedy nature of their own recording companies. 321. Using a pre-internet business model which cannot work. 322. RIAA is making the money not the artist. RIAA should fold up and get with technolgy 323. These companies are fat and lazy and unwilling to move forward with the rest of the World into the online age. If they sell a CD, even an online version, it's 1 box or download they can notch up on a spreadsheet, 10 bucks in the bank to show the shareholders. Anything that requires an ounce of thought beyond that is equally beyond *them*. Grass roots free dispersal of new acts on Web 2.0 systems? 'Piracy'. Sharing a beloved track/album with close friends to spread the word about the band you love? 'Piracy'. Downloading a copy of a new album from a bit torrent site, listen to it and think it's Great and go out and buy it? 'Piracy'. It makes you sick it really does. 324. Anything the RIAA says is BS 325. My main problem with the whole situation is not the fact of intellectual property theft, which I feel is heinous. But, the stubbornness of the RIAA to adapt to the changing times. Virtual media should be embraced. The record company has never allowed the artist to make the deserved money for their intellectual property. 7-10 percent is abhorrent. 326. I know many people who still buy albums because they like having the box art, etc. and like to support the artists. I also know many people that buy music on iTunes because it's the "right thing to do". Most (but not all) people that download music will do so to listen to it for a short amount of time. If they couldn't download they would probably just wait and hope to hear it on the radio. There are still people who download large collections of music which they would have otherwise bought, but they are a minority. 327. The labels take tons of money away from the artist. 328. I don't think any artists are going hungry 329. I see that people are more apt to listen to a certain album/genre that they may not have if they had to pay 13-20 dollars for the album in a record store. I see people around me still buying records that they would have bought if file sharing was not around. 330. Things haven't changed much.... 331. the business model of riaa/mpaa is dead with the demise of the distribution chain. 332. it's a fantasy industy with record companies adding little value in the chain between artist and buyer. 333. Music indusry is no more a high margin industry. It has evolved from a lean and costly music offer with high concurrence barrier to a massive offer industry with low concurrence barrier. For decades, music industry profited from inflated cartels price ; now, music industry refuses to admit that the time for high margin is gone, refuses to lower its prices, refuses to break its cartel anticoncurrential illegal agreements, refuses to build a large cheap efficient modern non DRM offer including music from the past for which there is no more registering available, causing the whole industry a severe depression because of its incapacity to adapt to XXI century reality. 334. untrue 335. Record companies, artists, and every else involved are still making money. Artists are still selling record-breaking numbers of albums. 336. Artists do not make their money from recordings but from live appearances. The more famous the more they can charge. 337. If they by fact are getting rich, how can it be a fallacy? 338. No lifestyles are changing. Britney is still a millionaire, Execs are still buying boats, and even the less successful artists like Dan "Automator" Nakumara are still doing very well. 339. just offer your songs for a fair price, i wont pay money for copysecured shit i cant burn for playin in my car! 340. Anyone who thinks artists on major labels have to endure any real financial hardships is a moron. 341. The artists are so rich, it seems like all the can author is songs about money, expensive items and being rich. 342. I've seen musicians wearing several pounds of gold, surrounded by body guards, also gold encrusted, arrive at casinos in luxury liners. Thier distain for other people and the help were obvious. They think they're getting over on us. 343. The money is still there to be made just in different ways. 344. The music industry is just as successful from pay-to-download services like iTunes and even free sharing as it is from purchased CDs. 345. RIAA collects for itself and the corporations and gives nothing to the artists. 346. A monopoly is being threatened; this is an attempt to prevent further damage to the monopoly that the media associations currently enjoy. 347. Artists do make money, and probably are in the top 5% of any the countries richest. I do not see any fallacies in owning jets, castles, holiday villas and resort islands. 348. I see any suffering on the indusrty part as self induce due to overpriced cds and no talent artists. 349. Artists make their money when they are on tour. Artists do not get anywhere near their fair share of record sales too. Listening to freely available music inspires people to buy music anyway. 350. Everyone has to work harder and provide more value for the money. 351. If anyone's been robbing artists, it's the recording industry itself. 352. they are still getting rich. hundreds of sales won't affect the artists or the record companies but the stores that sell them as the stores buy the cds of artists from the record company. 353. record companies and artists are richer than ever. 354. Heard of the rust belt Times are a changing RIAA does not get it 355. The real money never went to the artists. The record industry is an industry of blood sucking parasites 356. They still keep getting money from live concerts, which have not suffered and are usually what gives them more money than the CD sales as per se. And record companies still get the money even if the CD's aren't sold, as they sell them to the music stores. 357. Artists would sell more records if their Product offerings were better..Also the reason they are not selling, is why buy a album when only 2 or 3 songs are worth listening to. Indepent artists on the other hand have more consistant quality with their CD's therefore taking away sales from boring homogenized mainstream artists..Lets the RIAA give money by incentives of quality,not by gambling like they have been on potential sales. It is not the consumers fault.. 358. Any decline in their earnings is far more to do with the fact that they have competition from computer games, cell phones, DVDs and any number of other ways for me to spend my money. This competition was negligible 10 years ago but now it's a major factor. 359. Music is bigger than ever 360. they can afford the lawyers to sue people. they still have a lot more than the average person they are suing. it looks like artists are really struggling on MTV cribs, doesn't it? 361. Most bands are getting more screwed by Record Companies than anything else. What royalty rates do most bands get? 362. The rIAA is getting rich off of the lawsuits, and using them to gain more funds to sue more people. they won't even let artists themselves distribute music online, even if the artist themselves want to do so! The RIAA has way too much money, and they're a bunch of greedy crooks that need to be put out of business! 363. How can it be a fallacy if they are making money and getting rich? How many record company executives and artists have lost their houses and lives due to a lack of money? 364. The music industry is doing just fine and is doing just fine. It seems more like exceptional greed to me, going after college students? They don't have any money, but you can scare them and get a bit. Do that to several thousand and you make quite a tidy sum. 365. The artists are still getting rich. 366. They are still making more than enough money it's just less than before, mostly because people are tired of them peddling the same old crap more so than file sharing. 367. Screwed 368. Of course the record compainies are still making money! Look at all the CD sales, and the majority of people that download music use iTunes anyway! 369. RIAA is adhering to an outdated business model, and using fear, uncertainty and doubt to avoid dealing with reality. 370. Record companies do get a lot of money, i.e. through ringtones. However, artists are still getting a ridiculously low cut of the price of an album or track. Even when the middle-man (think CD manufactures) is dropped, like with iTunes, artists don't earn more than a few cents per track. 371. File Sharing can make people wanting to buy the original CD 372. The RIAA is a racketeering agency akin to any of the mobs in America. They're victimizing people based solely on greed. If it wasn't so why would they go after sites like allofmp3 who pay high percentages of royalties to artists? They fear change and so like any troglodyte they tried to simply kill competition. They are luddites who fail to understand that the old days of forcing music on people in the only structure they understand is over. If I were in political power I would bring the RIAA under congressional review and treat them like any other organized crime entity. 373. The RIAA is inherently dishonest, and have proven themselves to be liars so many times in the past - why should I EVER believe ANYTHING they have to say? 374. Artists ARE still getting rich. Record companies ARE still making money. Maybe less than before, but who cries when out-moded businesses go the way of the dinosaur? Who is clamoring for subsidies for the Pony Express? Should Western Union sue people for not sending telegrams? The record industry should get its act together and stop relying on outdated business practices, alienating their customers, and price-gouging. 375. If the record companies are not making as money as they used to, it's because they insist on clinging to an outdated business model. 376. Only a select few artist ever get much royalties anyway. Most artists, even ones with hits, get the shaft. File sharing has little affect on the artists. I understand that the record companies are losing a Cash Cow on CD sales. CDs are WAY overpriced, and I-Tunes, etc, is as expensive and more restrictive. The record companies have failed to prepare for the technological changes, and it is their own fault. They need to come up with a business model that fits current trends. If not, they deserve to go the way of the doe-doe. 377. Appear? If you get rich you get rich, how can one appear? 378. They are making money, lot of money .. 379. Fat Cats 380. Record companies need to change w/ the times, the current state of buying is not working anymore. Regardless, artists and companies are still making a fortune, file sharing has little effect on record sales. 381. artist are still making enough money and would make a lot of more if the record companies got their act together and give the customers what they want: DRM free music at low prices. At low prices people won't bother looking for illegal downloads but would purchase them legally. Just look at the success of AllOfMp3.com 382. Pop artists still make exceptional amounts of money and the RIAA execs don't seem to be suffering. 383. The RIAA are parasites on legitimately talented artists. They take too much money from the hands of those artists and spend the rest of the time flooding the market with overproduced clones of overproduced mediocrity. 384. Any time an artist DOESN'T make any money, they need to re-evaluate their marketing decision and take another look at their recording contract. 385. Record companies are getting rich on the backs of a majority of their artists. The only "artists" getting rich are majors like Metallica, et al. 386. The RIAA refuses to evolve and would rather return to the days when they just sat back and raked in the dough instead of adapting to a shrinking global village. File sharing is not hurting the music industry... its the RIAA and it's stranglehold on the music industry. 387. Most artiists I'm aware of still get a pittance from record companies. Royalties tend to go to the composers. 388. I have read statistics that for every $1 USD that the is paid for a CD, the "industry" (i.e., NOT the artists) get $0.89. That is the definition of obscene profits, and is gouging consumers AND artists. The RIAA and their corporate pirates should take less profit. 389. The recording industry is making huge sums of money still and would make more if they embraced the new ways of listening to music instaed of fighting every new thing that changes the way people enjoy music. 390. Publicity, through music sharring always benefits the artists in the end -- many artists I am huge fans of (and purchase their CDs), I discovered through file-sharring. 391. Not everyone will pay for the songs, IE: Cassette & VCR tapes. They tried this with them too AND LOST. Now they are upset that they cannot control a technology that they let loose before securing it. Your problem. 392. The RIAA is loseing money they are trying to protect there jobs... the real rip off is the 10 songs on an album for $20.00 and only 2 are good songs 393. As long as they still exist it means they get enough money. Otherwise they would do something else. 394. the recording industry is making money, but it isn't generating the number of multi-million selling albums that it's grown used to. 395. The artists are getting ripped off by their record companies. The few high up in the pecking order in the record companies want more. 396. The big four simply aren't concerned about the smaller artists they claim are the real victims. 397. Record companies are still making their money and they are still screwing the artists as much as they can. Very few artists have ever gotten rich. 398. I think the record companies are afraid the artists won't need them anymore, and they are doing whatever is possible, even if illegal and unethical, to maintain control. 399. They just refused to join the technology race. 400. There is still always the core of people who buy music, go to concerts, and even decide to download before they buy. The labels and artists are still getting their fair share of money. 401. I believe they are overstating the supposed 'impact' file-swappers are having on the industry in the vain hope of gaining sympathy in Congress. The simple fact is, the money the record companies and artists make from tours alone will be more than I will ever see in my lifetime. 402. The music industry continues to push manufactured music that reproduces a number of basic forms, raising up and disposing of an endless series of one hit wonder artists. Buyers of the chart hits have become disenfranchised with artists who only produce one song worth listening to, and as a result they turn to file-sharing to get some kind of value for money. Meanwhile the internet has allowed smaller indie artists to proliferate, and to continue to break out at an almost unprecedented rate. The music industry is not dying, it's just becoming decentralised, with fringe artists and small sub-genres benefitting from the "long tail" effect. The big five publishers need to justify their failings in front of their share-holders and choose to do so by blaming their poor sales on the straw-man villain; piracy. The practical reality is that most people use file-sharing as a means of sampling music, and continue to buy what they like. 403. If record companies weren't making profits (or looking forward to making profits in the medium-run) they would stop operating. They clearly aren't even thinking about this. Many major recording stars make wages that an economist might classify as 'supernormal'. This keeps prices artificially high. Add to this the fairly sizeable profit made by major recording companies, and the price of music is, in the minds of many consumers, artificially high so they look for a way of circumventing this. If music fans were able to pay musicians (and technical people) directly for their music, we would see lower prices, a more honest system and less piracy. 404. RIAA are greedy crybabys, with their own agenda. There have always been people who wouldn't buy an album even if it was free -- and there always will be. This current situation is nothing new. Lets go back to 1976 and home taping.... Instead of suing KIDS, maybe they should force artists to work harder to give people their money's worth for that $18 for a single CD. And maybe they should figure out that if AOL can afford to give away FREE a cd with artwork, CDs shouldn't cost $18 to a kid who doesn't even have a job yet. Finally, lay off the myriad of foreign country sites that also sell music. If they're illegal as the RIAA claims, how did they get the music to sell in the first place, and, how come Apple hasn't complained yet that they're sales are down? Enough! 405. Compare the price of DVD's with CD's, any new DVD will drop to about £5 in a very short time, not so with music. Yet music does not require the same level of production costs as movies, so why the high continued high prices? Is it not Greed and salary comfort of industry leaders and the artists themselves, most of which display no real talent genuine originality, especialy amoungst the chart topping morons of recent times. The real victims are the customers, and have been for a long while now, and will probably continue to be if good reliable web sites like allofmp3 are bullied and crippled using underhand methods. 406. I have bought MORE CDs from shops than I EVER used to buy soince I started sharing and downloading . You simply find MORE groups to love !! 407. I see that file sharing has no impact on a reduction of sales, the record labels have been very slow to listen to what the customer wants and insist on putting DRM on music that has been leigtimatley bought, if you had the choice between paying for something restricted or getting it free in better quality and not restricted, what would you choose? 408. money in money out 409. record companies and artists would make more through increased exposure of worthwhile titles whereas dross would get more efficiently weeded out 410. most musicians make their money from other things such as live performances and selling merchandise. It's record companies who make money from actual record sales, unless the band is absolutely massive. The record companies need to evolve to suit what their customers wants. 411. The recording industry is getting richer, same as always. They're using online file sharing as another means to garner more cash and make sure everyone feels bad for the poor, hard done by millionaire RIAA moguls and musicians. 412. IF THEY EARN 5 ZILLIONS INSTEAD OF 10 ZILLIONS THEY SAY THEY ARE LOSING 5 ZILLIONS. I WOULD SAY THEY ARE STILL EARNING 5 ZILLIONS. OR THAT THEY DID NOT EARN AS MUCH AS THEY EXPECTED. BUT YET, THEY ARE EARNING AN AWFUL AND DISGUSTING LOT. 413. Bears are Catholic. and the Pope dislikes indoor plumbing 414. Too many inbetweeners making profit of artists work. 415. Artists are still earn millions. There is more than enough money to go around, giving everyone in the industry a fair wage. 416. tHOSE ARE TOTAL LIES!!! 417. They can make a fair profit - their prices are too high. 418. The record companies are greedy bastards who produce drivel. Prices are dictated only because of monopolistic collusion between said companies. Artists are getting rich, but are still overpaid for their value to society. 419. Music sales are up. Loss from P2P is perceived and simply cannot be quantified. 420. Record companies never helped anyone why should anyone give them money? 421. they profit from over-marketing and selling largely crap music wrapped around one half-decent song per album. they hold back the arts, not advance them. 422. The music industry are screwing everyone over especially potential talented artists who are ignored in the face of maufactured groups, simply because for these, profits and controllability are maximal. 423. The RIAA has enough backing to pick and chose it's own fights, and unfortunately for it's own sake hasn't taken to read into the future of music distributiona and those artists' that rely on the RIAA may be paying the price for it. 424. I think the music industry is changing. So artists aren't going to get as much money. They're still getting a whole lot more than the rest of us. 425. Utter Bulls**t 426. Record companies are still making money and (some) artists are still getting rich. 427. Artists don't make the money...RECORD companies do. For every Madonna or Rolling Stones, there are a million smaller acts that have to tour incessantly to make ends meet. 428. Music companies artificially raise the price of CDs in order to increase their profits. They then drop the price back to a reasonable level if there is a public backlash, but quickly re-raise it once the story is forgotten. The companies will lease or lend an artist the trappings of an extravagant lifestyle while their albums are selling, but use shady accounting practices to avoid actually paying royalties to the artists. 429. 1.) Record companies are still making money, including from sales of artist-related merchandise and concert venue income. You can't download a T-shirt. 2.) The wiser artists, recognizing that it's useless to rant against a tsunami, have caught the wave instead and are cutting out middleman by offering their music directly to the consumers (i.e. "direct-to-download" distribution). It's the wave of the future, you're either riding it or are drowned by it. 430. The record companies & artists will always get richer, that is a fact 431. The record companies are still making money and artists are still getting rich because the music is being sampled by more people than ever before. The people that like the music will INDEED BUY IT. 432. The music industry and the artist that provide songs for us are making a "Boat" load of money off of its fans. I feel once I buy that song, I can share it with any one I want. It not as if the artist or the music monkey's "RIAA" is going to come to my house and take back the song I bought. I entered into no agreement with them that I sould not share said song. With that said, If I buy a song or two and I want to share it with friends I am going to do just that. Will I lose sleep over the fact that the artist is not going to get his money from my friends, I think not. 433. Record companies inability and refusal to come to terms with the changing attitudes towards them and the versatility of the digital format and restrictions of DRM to end users are the real causes. 434. The record companies and the artists will always be making their money regardless of how much filesharing goes on. 435. I think the RIAA are nothing but a bunch of extortionists. Charge what the music is worth and I'll start buying from them. Until then, never will I buy another CD. 436. They just aren't making as much money as they think they should, but they are still making more than they deserve. 437. Artists aren't getting the money anyway, RIAA is. Thats why artists have to tour so much. 438. In my view, it's the record companies that lose, NOT the artist. The artists only get a sliver of the profits from record sales...that is why you see groups touring until they're senior citizens... =) 439. the riaa uses the media to spin the facts to their advantage. their traditional business model ( 1 super album to support all the less sucessful ones) no longer works we are buying only the individual songs that we like. The record companies are making money as well as the artists but it is no longer able to support their prehistoric overhead. 440. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. 441. Though it would appear that record companies are still making their money and that artists are still getting rich, these impressions are...actually true. 442. The RIAA only exists for money, and money alone. 443. They are still making money just not as much. It has brought a normalization to an industry that otherwise inflated prices and thought only of itself. 444. The artists do not make a fair share compared to the rest of the music industry. With online distribution sites like iTunes, Apple makes more money than it should due to the DRM process. The whole way the music industry is set up is backwards. If labels want to continue making money, do not set up an economic model where it costs $1 a song, this is unreasonable. Have fair prices and have 90% go to the label and artist and the rest to the distribution agent. 445. They're making millions, if they weren't they wouldn't continue making CDs. Have you ever seen MTV Cribs? Every musical artist on the show is living in mansions with bathrooms bigger than my house! Not only do they have huge homes, they're driving around in cars that cost more than my yearly income. 446. These impressions are accurate. 447. Artists are still getting rich, and the music industry is still making money. Filesharing has broadened consumers buying habits and made them more unpredictable (and pursuadable), which is something the RIAA doesn't want. Most good artists would still do what they do if they made nothing at all anyways, becuase they like to create music. 448. All about money. They are making money. They just want more. 449. The world market for artists now numbers multiple millions, therefore music sales produce much higher returns than ever before in history. Record companies can earn the same amount as they did before, even if they reduce prices significantly. 450. The record industry has failed to adapt to the environment and instead tries to force everyone to keep doing it the way it has always been done. If they started offering Albums online in the way that allofmp3 does for REASONABLE PRICES and without DRM then I would probably use these services. I don't think I spend less money on music than if I bought CDs... I just try more! 451. the greedy record companies hire the over-zealous RIAA people to make as much money as possible. 452. Record labels are earning about the same amount of money they always have, while artists are still getting screwed. Labels earn massively higher amounts of money than artists for any type of sale. Note: this only applies to the Big Four labels and their subs. 453. people wouldn't be in the industry if they weren't making money 454. This industry has consistently feared and opposed every new technology while always reaping greater profits once forced into adoption. They have no credibility and, apparently, are incapable of ever learning from their mistakes and procrastinations. 455. The record company's are the only ones that ever made money off albums. 456. the RIAA is a mafia cartel making all the money while the musicians are screwed. 457. Record companies are making recoed profits and artists are earning more than I can. 458. DRM's suck!!! 459. they all get paid too much anyway 460. The record companies are still making good money from back catalogue sales, but the recent artists who they are largely promoting are rubbish and not what the larger proportion of the buying public want to buy. Hence there are many artists/bands doing their thing via independents and/or the web who are doing very nicely. e.g. Marillion. 461. It's stupid to think the record company owners aren't sleeping on a pile of money every night. 462. The recording industry has been gouging its artists for years. Few artists trying to "break-in" to the business see any financial gain from the sale of their music. The RIAA members screw the artists out of any royalties claiming they have to charge the production and promotion costs back to the artists against any royalties. The industry has everything structured so that there's no risk to the companies, only the artists. Fuck the "industry." 463. The business model is failing, not the artists or record companies. The artists will always be paid in one way or another...it's the level to which the RIAA and recording companies are needed that might change. 464. If the weren't making money and getting richer, they would either be in bankruptcy or stop producing the crap the call music. 465. I think that consumers are now more empowered to choose how to purchase desired media. Companies are supposed to serve people that is how capitalism works. If a company does not serve properly it will do poorly. Actually the money is merely being distributed more to the people that deserve it, and the companies that serve the best products. 466. If I and 10,000 other people were to download music illegally, oh no, the Artist won't be able to afford their umpteenth Ferrari until next year. How devastating.... 467. the fact that bands can still make bajillions of dollars proves the music industry has nothiing to bitch about. if "american idols" can be come millionares from selling their crap then big business music still has a market. What they need to do is go back to economy 101 and study a supply demand graph and analize elasticicy of demand and surplus and shortages 468. The rich are getting richer. 469. they're signing bad artists and wasting money 470. As I understand it, artists make most of their money through ticket sales. The internet and file-sharing in particular provides far greater exposure for most artists than they would otherwise receive. Record companies are still making money through physical media sales, but they should shift their focus to promoting artists online and distributing music electronically. They should also allow for the distribution of music through file-sharing. This would be of the greatest benefit to all involved, including the fans. 471. they're still getting rich! 472. labels gets most of the money 473. There is more music than ever now. How do you explain this of things are financially so bad for the industry. 474. Nil 475. The fat cat's are getting fatter 476. Music artists needs to adapt to the new world, NPR had a piece on a musician that recorded his own instrument at home, and bought the other instruments on the internet (in the piece, the drums) for approximately $120 per song and instrument. It is then released through stores like e-music. This basically cutting out the middle man. The artist sells fewer songs/albums, but makes more money per song, and does not have to float a ridiculous studio bill from the record company, making it hard for a small artist to survive. This way more artists can live off their music, and we get more music to listen to. Its a win-win for everyone except the record inustry. Tough luck for them, but same thing happened to the button makers, and horse carriage makers and so on. It is called evolution... 477. i buy the stuff i like. 478. N/A 479. Record companies still making money = True. It is getting harder for them but it is more to do with their bad marketing than piracy. Artists still getting rich = False. By their own admission less than 1 in 10 signed artists ever make it. A level playing field will allow more artists to make a living at the expense of a few becoming insanely wealthy. 480. no loss of revenue, just additional exposure 481. first part yes, second part no. artists just aren't getting a sweet enough deal 482. record industry getting rich and the talent not getting much, never has from record Co. 483. The record companies steal from the public and artist alike, and have been for since before the birth of Rock 'n' Roll. 484. bad music = low sales 485. they own the artists 486. I think the record companies should put out good music rather than the junk they put out now days. If you look at a lot of independent labels that put out quality music you will find they are making a nice profit and growing. That's what is causing the RIAA grief and big labels, not file sharing. 487. I started buying CDs because of Napster! And I mean the old-good-free-Napster... 488. As U2 said: "What's ruining the music industry is just BAD music" 489. Well I'm certain that the record companies are still making money and some artists are still getting rich. I mean they report their quarterly profits. The fact that the RIAA lies and spins facts is not surprising to me. 490. It's a same, scholars like the "Ying Yang Twins" who have trouble stringing a sentence together are making in the /low/ millions... I have a couple degrees and I'm not doing badly... but not making the kind of money the poor RIAA artists are scrpaing by with 491. They are rich as hell and still screwing artists. 492. 50 cent doesnt need any more money. 493. record profits 494. The record companies continue to get richer by exploiting the artists. 495. I see that people still buy the cds and music from the artist and they are making ass loads of money but they still want more. 496. If they still have money to pay for subpoena - I guess they are not broke yet ;) 497. They have all the money they want in the world 498. ... 499. Grocery & furniture stores dropped so many flyers in my local newspaper I had to cancel it - (the trees - the waste). they were forcing me to see their products. I view these files being shared as the artists' flyers. I bet the ones who download songs they actually LIKE end up sending some cash to their fav artist thru other means - purchasing a momento from them like a cd at a show for which they paid a cover charge. 500. The only people this affects is the RIAA and the labels. The RIAA has always poorly represented the artist except for a very few elite artists that also have a huge cadre of lawyers and advisors. 501. Because of the way the label system works, the big five are screwing artists much, much more than file sharing ever could. I'm much less interested in supporting the label's bureaucrats and lawyers than I am in supporting artists. 502. The rich get richer and the poor stay poor. Also if the bands would create good music instead of a good song and 12 crappy songs on one disc they wouldnt have to worry. 503. Artists and labels are making a ton of money....CDs are still marked up to no end compared to cost. 504. I feel that if an artist makes a good record, people are going to purchase it even if they have previously downloaded it. 505. both have money coming out of their ears 506. The way I see it, it's just about 50/50. The big stars are not the ones hurting, and those alt. bands don't mind filesharing. What gives then? Perhaps the ones really affected may be those in the backline, those people that we cannot see. Until they stand up and out, we wouldn't be able to tell. 507. this is a confusing question. they are both making money. 508. The problem is that the Labels are failing to develop artists. They want the quick buck, so if they bring out prepackaged acts and drop them like a hot potato if they fail. The artists and groups they promote are designed to look good, but have no substance behind them. 509. Record companies get richer, everyone else gets poorer. 510. FIRST !!!!! They scary I going for free ,new, not nown musician and artists.They like controll whot I gona be liked. 511. The industry and medium of commercial music is changing due to technological advances. While artists are not making money the way that they used to (selling 8-tracks, vinyl, cassette tapes, and now to a large extent cds), there is still more than ample opportunity for artists to reap the benefits of their creative endeavors in new contexts. 512. just a big exageration by the RIAA to blame the poor profits from mediocre artists or works on ppl instead of improving the industry's products 513. It only affects the record industry itself and not the artists. once the artists sign over their music to a record label, its all in the hands of the record label, therefore, the artists still get their deserved money, but the filthy rich record labels are the ones who get to suffer with only a mediocre "couple million" dollars. 514. Big artists are getting filthy rich, while indie artists can barely make a living. 515. they all still make their money since its in a contract, but the execs just dont get as crazy of a bonus 516. Companies got used to the income generated by people moving from vinyl to cd (like vhs to dvd). Now people have already paid out to update their collections, companies want more. 517. Most signed artists have never really made much money. The record companies, on the other hand, make far too much - at the expense of their artists, no less. Record companies are no doubt making less money these days, but that's because their business models are antiquated. The companies, like any other business, need to stay updated. 518. I run an independent record label and file sharing seems to only have effected our promotion tactics. file sharing does wonders for promotion. our sales have not been effected. 519. Loss of money is caused by retarded songs. 520. Because of online file sharing, non-mainstream artists are now able to more effectively promote their material and generate revenue from touring, publishing, licensing and merchandise--and with less reliance on the financial assistance of large corporations. 521. Greed Sharing is free advertising. Played a song for a friend once. "who is that?" he asked. I told him and he went out and bought every album that the artist had ever done. The radio stations play the same song over and over. p2p allows exposure to new work. 522. The people who are losing jobs and money are the people working for the major record companies, who have largley played out their roles. For the vast majority of people, the demise of the major record labels is a good thing. 523. Skewed system - few artists get major spoils...most artists don't get what they deserve...the fat labels get fatter 524. The record company executives and RIAA's wallets are getting fatter by the day from the bullshit they keep spinning. 525. The real money for artists is in live performance. Fuck the companies, it's about people and the music, not big business. 526. Look at the tax records of companies and artists 527. The RIAA and Rocordcompanies are still making lots of money, but the artists get as little as they can possibly give them. The artist would be better of without the RIAA 528. sales seem ok. 529. i didn't see any artist become homeless since the awakening of file sharers (like when i used to swap cassettes whith mates) 530. The record industry will try to get their fangs into a big chunk of the concert earnings - which have exploded in recent years, enormously benefitting from the free publicity that the P2P community provides. 531. The artists are making tons of money they drive bentlys buy homes for 2-5 million dollars and you say they are loosing money? 532. ...Share What I Know, Learn What I Don't... ...then travel the world for free from networking through universal language : music. ...send large money sum direct to artists' independent labels address/etc, they send it back!?! 533. The Industry is getting rich and screwing the artists out of the money. 534. They'll always recieve money for their music other ways, the record companies are just bitching cause they are losing money 535. They're greedy and they never paid artists to begin with. 536. the only folks getting rich are music exec and their shareholders.... musicians get s*it..the work force gets paid s*hit... 537. The record companies & artists have other income streams that pay more than the recordings do. The recordings are just a vehicle to sell the other merchandising & to get people out to see the artists live. 538. I see the RIAA racking in cash, and giving a minor % to everybody else associated. 539. asdf 540. The only fallacy is in the latter half of the above statement. 541. The rich music companies are not getting as rich any more. The poor artists are still getting screwed same as before. Of course both are making more money than I am, so screw them both! At least I can still pay for the cost of my music... FREE! 542. So your telling me its a there just pretending to be rich. The artisist are still very well off. TO well off they are to spoiled. They need to lose some money, 543. The paradigm is changing, you can't compare things that way. Cultural Industry's profit was determined by overall historical conditions that aren't true anymore. 544. No label has folded. No studio has closed its doors. Fair use for all. 545. More money 546. They are still making money, probably more than before file-sharing 547. record companies are still making their money and that artists are still getting rich 548. The RIAA is not making profits that were based around over-charging for CD's that costs pennies to make - even cheaper than vinyl! They were even investigated for price fixing! 549. There is more diversity. Every band out is not able to make money like the Beatles did and the age of everyone knowing the huge albums are gone. They should invest in better artists and work on prolonging their careers so that they can more money on lower sales from more bands. 550. Record companies still getting rich and the artists sure aren't getting poor 551. Sharing Helps Independent Artist or the small artist by getting there name out. and for big artist, if a album is leaked it can give them positive buzz, and sell more cd's on release. all file sharing helps everyone when viewed positively..and utilized to it's full potential. it's the marketers fault when he can't make money, he needs to find another avenue of revenue. now when a person is making profit off of reselling someone else's work, that is bad sales tactic and should be stopped. 552. The fallacy is ... "the RIAA is good for the recording industry and the artists". The reality is the record labels syphon off more money then the artists ever get to see. 553. They're just not getting as rich as they did before. 554. are you dumb? 555. RIAA is evil, and therefore liars. 556. File sharing is the best thing to happen to the RIAA since air play on the radio. 557. Record companies are stealing the money from the artists and the artists are getting shit. 558. Well, it is a fallacy that artists are getting rich; the record companies are getting rich--the artists for the most part, would be better off working almost anywhere for minimum wage. The same sentiments have been echoed by too many artists in the music business: Courtney Love, Dick Dale, Joni Mitchell. Toni Braxton was stuck with such an onerous contract that the only way she could get out of it was to declare bankruptcy. Later on, apparently the RIAA used some of its political influence to help change the American bankruptcy laws to ensure that doesn't ever happen again. 559. Record companies are still making their money and artists are still getting rich. 560. That is the exact same thing people were saying about cassette tapes when they were first introduced and the VHS- beta-tapes. If people really like music, they will pay for it - as I see it, this 'piracy' will only force companies to make more really good musicians. 561. they make more than me. 562. they're still making money 563. The RIAA has shot themselves in the foot they need to provide competitive online music offerings 564. Record company losses are due to their own short-sighted actions. 565. There is plenty of money for the labels and artistsl 566. Record companies are still making their money and artist are being kept dirt poor other than a few token people meant to hog the spotlight and divert attention from the majority of artists. 567. the **AA is analogous to a union of salesmen reaping more profit than the manufacturers, the design team, the board of executives, the labourers and the store owners all combined. 568. Most of the money goes to advertising and other "bureaucratic" elements. Hell they make money off of the songs played on radio. That means they have topay someone to keep up with that. The artist aren't losing money, its the big guys on top who are worried that their stockpiles of cash won't grow as fast as they'd like. 569. I see record labels spinning numbers and statistics to keep their monopoly because they're unable or unwilling to adapt. 570. They are fool of shit. If they are losing money, it's because their business model is outdated and they refuse to get with the time. I say let them die. Most commercially available music sucks anyway. 571. THE RIAA'S TACTICS EXACERBATE THE PROBLEM MORE THAN IT ACTUALLY IS. FILE SHARING IS ONE COMPONENT OF THE PROBLEM BUT THE PROBLEM AS A WHOLE CONSISTS OF OTHER CONSTITUENTS THAT THE RIAA FAILS TO MENTION BECAUSE IT DOESN'T FIT INTO THE AGENDA THEY HAVE IN MIND. FILE SHARING IS NOT THE DIRECT CAUSATION OF THE DECLINE IN MUSIC SALES IT IS A CORRELATION. 572. Record Companies failed to see where the market was going (namely online) and have been playing catchup ever since. 573. record companies are still making their money and that artists are still getting rich. 574. I don't feel that artists are compensated fairly regardless of how many albums are sold or pirated. Instead of purchasing a CD at a big box retailer and having the artist receive ~10 cents per track, I would rather download the album and support them by purchasing a concert ticket and buying merchandise at the show. By purchasing a CD at a concert, the artist receives a much larger profit because the artist buys those CDs from the label at wholesale cost and puts their own markup on them. I really don't care how much the labels are making, because they profit much more than the artist anyway. 575. Record companies have sold non-drmed music for a very long time in the form of CDs without losing huge profits. Artists have never gotten rich, discounting the tiny handful of pop-artists that the companies promote. Record companies need to adapt their business strategies to avoid becoming irrelevant in the digital age (ie. to avoid being skipped by new artists, who can make more money promoting themselves online without a middle man, or through excellent drm-free distribution networks such as eMusic) 576. the artists are still making loads of money due to concerts and appearances and such. 577. Plantation owners are always afraid of the great slave rebellion. 578. riaa goes extinct music thrives with monkey off its back. musicians PERFORM like any other person and get paid for PERFORMANCE. Carpenters give up royalties on stairs and follow the performance model. The word ROYALTY comes under scrutiny, revealing the nature and origin of the monopoly of copyright 579. record companies are keeping almost all profits. they are suffering because of the decline in quality and the hassle of DRMed music sites and encrypted CDs. I myself have "pirated" CDs that I own just to put them on an mp3 player 580. MTV. They still make shit music that no sane person would buy. They only advertise 'commercial' bands. So when i want to buy any songs, i have to pay the obscene ad cost to push the shit music. Bastards. 581. They appear to refuse changing their business model, and will use whatever extra-legal or questionably legal practices they can to forestall any change. If anything, the recording industry's shortsighted and blatantly money-grubbing tactics have persuaded me to share more... 582. Artists were never getting that rich except in the absolute top tier of record sales, and I have a hard time believing that the loss to the Record Companies themselves has become that great at this stage. 583. lots of money is still being made 584. Some are getting rich, but most are being hurt. 585. Bleak. 586. Prepared media is dying and RIAA doesn't want to see this. 587. They obviously make a lot of money, if the can't handle spending and investing it's their problem. 588. Artist should focus on live performaces or concerts. Cds or music files should be merely promotional or they can sell them. But if i do buy a cd or music file it is mine. I can throw it away or let my friends have it or share it. The record companys are just taking money from other's work. I really don't see a place for them anyway. 589. errr.... they're still making money... still selling millions of records.... 590. SHaring has become the new radio, but instead it is a bottom-up, grassroots version. I do feel bad sometime for the artists, but I try to see them live or buy their CD. 591. Artists are still making money. 592. They aren't losing, they just aren't gaining. 593. Maybe they say so, but they don't really provide any tangible facts to prove it. 594. The reason the record companies are not making money is the product is less appealing than it used to be. It is over-priced cookie cutter pap. And drm is just killing them! I use file sharing to test-drive indie music, which I then purchase directly from the artists or from emusic, which has no DRM. Also, it has been proven time and again that people WILL pay a fair price for content they value. See: Jane Siberry, who offered all of her music on-line under a 'pay what you think is fair' scheme. She found that less than 20% chose to pay nothing, and of those who did choose to pay, nearly half paid MORE THAN the suggested minimum. 595. music making more money because of file sharing 596. bands and srtists still get get their revenue where they always have- on tour and on merchandising- its the mr 10%'s (more like mr 75%) that suffer- fuck em. The corporations been screwing musos for years they are just pissed we continue to cut THEM out of the equation 597. the record companies mismanged the new technology 598. Artists make nothing on CD's, its around $1 per CD. Even a platnium record is only 1000000 for the entire band. The vast majority goes to the RIAA. 599. more people are being exposed to more genre of music 600. RIAA has put out nothing but garbage for the last 10 years, where are the NEW Led Zeppelins, The Who, Rolling Stones. There are none, our generation is a generation of copy cats, nothing original, so we might as well copy to our hardrives the crap that's out there. The RIAA rapes the artists anyway, does it matter what the RIAA says, no it does not. 601. Problem is that the RIAA is the middle man. It doesn't want money going directly to the artists without getting its own sizeable cut. 602. Hell, they're right: The artists aren't getting rich -- they only get royalties until their massive contract fees are paid off by sales. 603. The artists are who matter, and they make more money from venues and merchandise than they do from their albums. 604. No comment. 605. MTV, and laws allowing Corporations to eat up Record Labels have produced a music industry hell bent on the hit single. My generationg, sadly, is one of the "single," or "track," my parents were of the "album." Why buy a 15 dollar cd for one song? At the absolute most, piracy has just revealed to the masses absurdity that is the music industry. They forget to mention that quality bands still have high cd-sales...good music=$... 606. Record companies and the RIAA as we know them today will eventually disappear. Artists will have a much more direct contact with their fans and will get the bulk of any money. I think that technology is still at a "toy" phase. When it gets more advanced several years from now, music will be availabe anywhere 24/7. It will be seemlessly available and no more clunky devices, but you will have to pay for it. The big difference is the amount you pay. In the future it will be millicents to listen to a song whenever you want but you will pay everytime you listen. Good artists will make a lot of money. Poor artists will fall by the wayside as it should be. No more musice industry created celebrity artists. Nueral net tech to learn what you like and create customized playlists without any time consuming decision making. People will likely pay some small subcription fee to music gurus that they choose to recomend new artists. 607. it's all about the money. 608. Can you say "MTV CRIBS"!! 609. Record companies still ripping off artists in order to maintain profit margins. 610. Record companies are not having an accountant-led inquisition on expenses(the first sign of not making money) 611. The record industry is releasing less quality, and even less quantity - OF COURSE THEY WILL SEE LOWER SALES! Filesharing has nothing to do with their loss of sales! 612. record companies are still making their money and artists are still getting rich 613. The artists are making just as much as they were before downloading was popular. If any are suffering it is more likely because of releasing cut-rate music. 614. The talent pool is nonexistant. Most bands make their money from tours and mechandizing not CD or single sales. radio stations play the same old boring music day after day. Can't tell you the last time I heard something new that excited me enough to run out and buy the album. 615. Free publicity for artists, songs, albums, and when those are more popular and purchased or concerts are gone to... record companies get more money. The RIAA needs to be put out of business and a NEW organization will arise that knows how to conduct proper and competent business in cooperation with todays filesharing technology. When 9 year olds are regularly able to use it... clearly the RIAA is a fool to focus their efforts and money on an unwinable fight. They might as well save that money and pay themselves. If the RIAA complains they have less money, its because they are squandering it on pointless lawyers and feeble attacks against their own customers. If the RIAA continues to start a war, then the RIAA will lose big time. (They better think before destroying their industry - Best Option: Redesign how they do business and make money, or even better... just keep doing business and put out some decent songs and groups! I haven't heard many quality records, and if they are losing money, THIS is why!) 616. cd sales are down, because people have many different options for their entertainment dollars riaa are making huge somes of money from more than just cd's 617. rich artists companies stillmake money 618. As long as artists keep charging $17 for a cd and not allowing you to choose which songs you want to buy, they will continue to get rich. 619. After listening to Pandora, I downloaded the following CDs: Anberlin, Amber Pacific, Flickerstick, Fireflight, The Veronicas. Out of those five, the only one I have not bought YET is The Veronicas. How file sharing would damage, if I bought the CDs of four of five artists I downloaded to try out? 620. I doubt very much that the actual artists are seeing any of the money generated by RIAA/MPAA lawsuits. It appears to only be funding future lawsuits and enabling the content cartel to further streamline their extortion methods. 621. Most record companies shares are going up, thus they are making good money. 622. Record companies aren't adjusting to new market conditions by adjusting their business plan. 623. Well, maybe they're fallacies in the sense that most artists do not "get rich" and never have, but the so-called record companies are still rolling in dough because their money comes from government-enforced monopolistic distribution channels. They get paid even though they don't do any real work. 624. P2P for free, like it or not, is a competitor with CD sales. By the RIAA's reasoning, CD sales should have dropped to 0 by now. They haven't because CDs still provide a better product and service than online sharing. People like to feel a sense of ownership when they buy a CD - you just don't get that when you download an MP3. Artists and record companies are still making plenty of money. The fact is that online sharing has done as much to contribute to music sales as it could have possibly done to harm them. I routinely buy music that I have downloaded to try out. I think what gets them concerns them is that sucky artists don't get up-front sucker sales anymore. 625. File sharing only increases music sales by allowing one to sample music from artists one would not normally not consider buying an entire CD from. 626. How can it be false to appear that they are still making money, when they CLEARLY are making more than damn near anyone with an honest job? 627. It may not be as much, but RIAA members are still making money. Same for the artists. 628. The music business is not dying, it's changing. 629. There business model is broken, and needs to adjust to changing technologies. The cost of producing and marketing an album has become much lower, and they no longer have the monopoly they've enjoyed for decades. 630. their rich 631. It has been covered before... The industry is NOT LOOSING money because of P2P, it is not even loosing any money, only making it more and more... The bastards are greedy and try to get even more money - not by stopping P2P (they know that would make only +0.5% or so of the total annual profit), but rather forcing people to settle and pay big money for something they are not even accused of (no evidence...) Dumb, dumber, RIAA! 632. How can impressions based on reported profits be fallacies unless the reports themselves are false? What other source are they suggesting the public cite? 633. Prices are too high. 20 bucks for a CD is insane, especially with hundreds of much better underground artists around who sell their stuff at half that prize. If the prices of CD's drop, the sales go up. Additionally, a lot of (commercial) music is crap. Usually there are just a very few good songs on an album. It's simply not worth spending the amount of money it's sold for. Sums up: lack of quality and too high prices. Music is a form of art, less a business. 634. The RIAA is just another excuse to control everything. Sharing files is a positive for the music industry. 635. Artists are still getting rich, but possibly fewer are getting rich. Major record companies can probably persist for years. In the long term, a record company that can nurture artists and build a fanbase should be fine. Hit and run pop stars probably fare the worst. 636. CD sales are falling, but artists are still making money. Legal music downloads are making up the difference as well. The fact is that artists make more money by touring; the labels don't pay all that much after their "expenses". 637. That they are? 638. Arctic Monkeys, Lily Allen and many others started by having their music downloaded for free, now they and the record companies are making money. 639. Many of the files shared would never be purchased. As such they can not be claimed as 'lost sales'... as they would never have been purchased. If anything, it's a method to expand their potential market with new listeners. 640. I'll start believing such crap when we start seeing artists begging on the street, not on "The fabulous life of..." on VH1 641. I don't care. 642. Most of the money made on boughten media goes to the RIAA or MPAA. Most of the artsits frankly don't give a shit about online file sharing. File sharing is only a minor factor in the loss of media sales. 643. I forsse a change in structure of the culture "industry". Artist will be more selected by merits and sponsored by advertissement and donations. Large record company and commercials "artist" will disappear. 644. The record companies don't care about the artists, they just care about their own money. 645. filesharing has always been there. A southpark episode describes it best about the celebs loosing money as a result of which they might have to wait another week to buy a new ferrari 360. 646. Same as always 647. They are still getting richer (record companies at least). 648. Sharing music HELPS the artists get their music heard by a new audience 649. I will give them credit that music sales are down due to free music sharing, but I still buy CDs. (Then Rip and share them.) The only profit I make from sharing files is the media I put them on(burning a CD.) If these artists can't put bread on the table because they can't sell thier music, they are in the wrong industry. 650. The RIAA are adying horse, ready to kick at anyone who mwants to eat their food, rather than look for other sources of food 651. I see it that way - I don't buy b/c I can't afford to buy. If I could afford paying for all the music I like, I would, since I see this as support for the artist. Since I can't afford to pay anyway, I'm not really "stealing" anything. By downloading and sharing, I'm actually showing my support, that I like what the artists in question do, and if some day I'm able to buy all the music/movies/books I love, then I'll have no need to "steal", though I still intend to share. But you can't say I'm robbing anyone, since otherwise I wouldn't be able to buy, so I don't think record companies make less money due to people like me. 652. wtf? producing bad stuff is damaging their companies, suing their customers and preventing them from using their products with respect. 653. Is it me or do they still have 7 houses in beverly hills.... Unless it's an small unknown band, who usually don't care about piracy, they are not worthy of my money as they produce crap... (in large ammounts) 654. Not even the RIAA really thinks anyone is losing money. It's not about losing money. It's about losing control 655. The record companies are ignoring the fact that the demand has changed. They deserve to fail and die. 656. -no answer- 657. I'd like to support artists by purchasing digital music if it's good quality and without DRM. 658. record companies are still making their money 659. Let me know when Britney goes backrupt 660. Try it before you buy it, if your like me or my friends then you like to know what your getting into when you get your next cd, music is a passion and thus its important to know that you getting a quality item, 30 second demos are nice, and sure its also nice to use services like napster or whatever but the problem is lack of controll, its what everyone wants (not excluding the RIAA). 661. 'Artist' get payd too much at the expense of others. 662. The record companies are making money because of p2p 663. the artists r doin just fine 664. they're still getting paid 665. lies 666. Music sales went up during the peak of online filesharing - fact. Music sales falling in the last year or so are more due to the RIAA et all failing to remain competitive by exploiting new technologies, and by the generic piss-poor selection of "music" they distribute. To suggest otherwise proves that they are either blatantly lying, or utterly totally clueless...take your pick which. 667. i see the riaa wanting more money so they go out and sue random people and claim that the artists and record companies are losing money. 668. The artists are still getitng paid either way - they're still arrogant, they're still selling merchandise, they're still selling out shows. That's where the money is - NOT in the album sales. 669. Music costs more than movies, how can that be? The price of music has forced me to stop buying. If I download, I download only music I had no intentions of buying anyway. It's not like I stole a CD from a store. It's a victimless act. 670. BS 671. The record companies shot themselves in the foot in the mid nneties. Their recent tactics of 'poll, demography, sign, sell and conquer' are beginning to fail. For over fifty years these people controlled and funded the largest vectors of investment in and info about music. The creating a machine designed to make them buttloads of money. They deserve every bit of this. The artists that are signed and don't hate the machine for what its done to art and their less successful comrades are lucky fools. 672. The execs. are making it big. Unfortunately not all of the artist are getting they're fair share. The record co.s are at fault not P2P users. 673. File sharing gets more people listening to music and enjoying it, because many people wouldn't go out and buy their CD anyway. That should really be what artist's focus on, people listening to their music, not becoming rich and famous. 674. Some artists are still getting rich, ALL the record companies are still getting rich 675. Record companies have it such that innovation is stifled, and to make it into the big time artists have to sign extortionary contracts and conform their music to fit music industry tastes. 676. The market is shifting, with the value of music dropping. Their is still money to be made however with concerts and merchandise. Their is also no longer a need for the record labels as artist can distribute their music very easily with the internet, the new market just means that the RIAA and the labels they represent are no longer needed. 677. they are crazy and charge way too much for cd's, etc. 678. They may not be receiving as much money, but I'm sure they have enough to keep the lifestyle they have become accustomed to. 679. The RIAA missed the boat starting with Napster. 680. Business people sometimes get rich. Most artists are on welfare unless they have a day-gig. 681. Money is still coming, just not as much as potentially possible if all the pirated users are converted. 682. Artist are gaining more visibility through free sharing. Thus fans are buying more legal stuff and people who just want to get an impression can download an trash if they dont like. 683. I see the RIAA as still gaining profits, and now adding up more profits by suing the people that would otherwise support them. 684. Most artists are still getting paid, and most record companies are quite well off, even more so than the artists. The RIAA is leeching off the "cost of doing business" piracy, during a time when the causual comsumer is marred by an abundance of economic problems. Besides if the record companies the RIAA is formed from weren't that rich, they wouldn't be able to fund this idiotic campagn of thiers. 685. listeners are still supporting artists through record sales in festival and live concert ticket sales 686. Sharing is advertising. It increases profits by giving artists exposure. 687. Greedy corporations trying to keep change from happening which will cause them to lose control if change did happen. 688. Record companies need to change their business plans. 689. They're making money, we're getting what we want, what's the problem? 690. Internet downloads can, in fact, be used to turn the industry around. It is obvious that the industry is changing from a disk format to digital file format. Just look at the rate of iPod sales, etc. The industry needs to recognize this, stop bitching about a defunct medium, and embrace the new way. Many artists have already realized this, and offer free downloads of certain songs, which often entice users to either pay for a CD or to download more. Concert tickets and merchandise make up the biggest portion of an artist's income. Look it up, it's a fact. Then stop whining and make some changes! God. 691. I see a huge greedy industry willing to run over poor people for amounts of money insignificant to them...... 692. They are making way too much money. Musicians should make music because they love to, not so they can buy their 16th car and goldplate their faucets in each of their bathrooms in each of their houses. Record companies charge way too much for a CD and take nearly all of the money earned and give little to the artist. 693. Ask the artists and industry workers if they're actually losing money. I'm sure they're NOT. 694. i still see the artists and riaa management living in big houses 695. The riaa is exploiting the artists 696. Online distribution opens up new possibilities for listeners who would otherwise not buy the CD. It spreads the word about upcoming artists. 697. The artists and RIAA are the ones living in mansions. Not me. 698. They've had a monopoly for far to long, easy money for far to long. They dont invest or develop new talent unless the it's some copycat me too band that fits into an easily marketed genre. The whole industry is stagnant just like the pharmaceutical industry. It needs opening up to new competition, monopoly's need to be broken. 699. they make enough the way it is 700. The RIAA is a criminal organization that should be completely and utterly destroyed along with their members. 701. In Canada, stats shows the opposite. Its shows Canada as being a leader in online purchases regardless of made-up RIAA hype. So yes, they are full of it, and its false. 702. Bay City Rollers v Arista Records. This is proof that the RIAA isn't even paying artists, even after 25 years. If the RIAA isn't paying back then, who knows how little they are paying artists now. 703. they have more money than god so why care?? I don't feel sorry for them 704. Thise with talent can get rich, those the record industry promote as flavor of the week will die off. 705. they are getting extremly rich.... 706. bull, make more than one song thats worthy of buying the full cd then i'll buy it 707. CAN't trust anything said by the RIAA... 708. File Sharing Dosent Hurt Artist, All It Does Is Promote Their Songs. Record Companies ARE Still Making Their Money. 709. The statistic's don't lie. 710. "artists are still getting rich" - only the top .5 percent or so make money; most are in thrall to the RIAA: unable to sell their music themselves or to others while under an unconscionable contract. 711. as new technolgies come along so does change, as we see a new media takeover the world we see change, its happened before and it will continue to happen. they are all about profit, so they are at the bottom of the list when it comes to caring or about support the people that actually make the music or do somthing significant. the sharing of music has happened since music was created its what makes music music, the ability to learn and share it freely is what is called exploitation of music, this is what the RIAA is fighthing for, to continue the exploitation of music. 712. riaa is still making money they just want more and more of it 713. lies 714. I see without the "riaa-dollar-eyes" meaning i still know that the music industri still make bucket loads of money on record sales and concerts and merchandise sales and licensing sales, and let's not forget the royalties from radio which taking the whole world into account sums up into quite alot. 715. there reet as cheese 716. Fundamental change in the way music is promoted, distributed and consumed. 717. They should make good music, and make enough money from concerts and selling more music without copy protection online. 718. The RIAA is still getting rich out of the artist's pockets, and lying about the effects of "theft." 719. How many songs have been sold through ITMS??? And they are just one of many online outlets to sell music. 720. Artists make money from concerts and merchandising, the record companies screw then on royalties from cd sales. 721. It's their own fault for not providing the means to purchase music online at a reasonable price. 722. They are losing money, because people hate them. And many buy the downloaded cds they actually like, after listening them time after time. 723. Look at the big picture - Technology is changing, and the RIAA's problem is that they're still relying on an unstable business model. It's nothing that hasn't been said before, but that doesn't make it any less true. 724. File sharing promotes bands, think about the Bootleg Tape trading days of the 80s that helped spread the word about up and coming metal bands creating interest and audiences at concerts. With-out free music swapping, Metallica would have never been heard of. 725. The records companies and artists have earnings up their asses. 726. Most artists make their money from touring or royalties from radio play, neither of which is affected by filesharing. Record companies have their own royalty system for radio play, at least in the UK. 727. It's fucking obvious the artists are making plenty of money. The RIAA knows it, they just don't want to admit they're wrong. 728. File sharing is threatening the labels' control of music, threatening their imposed artificial scarcity. This is immensely good for music and artists, but requires a new business model, probably one centered around music as a service, where there is currently a strong increase in willingness to spend. Independent surveys show that file sharing does not affect CD sales. But if it were true that CD sales _were_ hurt by file sharing, then nothing could be better. Record labels are hurting music and artists and need to die. They do not add value any longer and their monopoly is hurting the value chain. 729. People are still buying and helping to make millions for the RIAA's artists. 730. They are still selling their crappy music with crappy audio quality, still the artists is rich like shit. 731. the reccord companies have been ripping the artists off for years. they only exist on the profilts from tours. the whole industry is a huge ripoff of the artists 732. They are making money, but copyright infringement is reducing that. 733. There are still artists getting rich and the record companies aren't exactly filing for chapter eleven... 734. What makes them fallacies? The industry still sells. 735. They are filthy rich. 736. See statistics on record company and artist intakes. The RIAA refuses to acknowledge the rise of indy record labels and the internet's ability to spread unsigned bands as part of the equation that (marginally) drops their sales. 737. Join the Kopyright Liberation Front 738. The RIAA is a middle-man taking all the money. If artists aren't being paid like the RIAA says, then the RIAA is. 739. music industry needs to come up with the times.. make good music and people will buy... make a cd with 1 good song and the rest crap.. it will be downloaded 740. From what I understand what the RIAA says to the public and what the labels say in their financial statements to the government are two different things. 741. They are greedy bastards, not all artists are greedy bastards, though. 742. the companies are still getting rich, less so the artists. 743. Artists make a good bit of their money from selling merchandise (t-shirts, mugs, pens etc) as well as ticket sales from concerts and other musical and public appearances 744. Artists ARE still getting rich, and they make too much money 745. record companies want to squeeze as much money out of anything they can to get money. its all money money money to corporate America 746. The music industry is rife with people making tons of money off of the public. Everyone from the artists and the criminal middlemen of the RIAA. 747. They are continiuing to make money even though fewer CDs are sold. The RIAA essentially, "count it's chickens before they hatch" to make their claim of not making money due to file sharing 748. if J LO can afford a 6 million dollar ring i really DONT think the record industry is poor!! 749. The record companies are raking in money, but the artists are still getting shafted. 750. the total music or file sharing only account for 1% of the total Profit these guys get out of selling the music Legally, so that shouldn't worry anybody. 751. they're still making money and artisits getting rich 752. The artists are getting rich MEH 753. Total bullshit if one bothers to take a look at their (big 4) income statement and balance sheet 754. record companies are spending too much money on attorneys, artists are still getting screwed 755. RIAA will get richer.... The artist are getting screwed more by RIAA then from "pirates." The RIAA comes in the mafia and demands a cut for "Artist Protection." If the artist tries to go inde to avoid the big labels and the RIAA ridiculous fees they get bullied by there tatics including no air time from radio stations, TV, and other media except the internet. out of a $17 CD $1 is the actual item, the $15 goes to both the RIAA and the label $1 goes to the artist. Out of the $15 $5 goes to RIAA $5 for promotion $5 to the label's pocket book. The RIAA takes that money and throws it away to go on legal crusades that have no legal merit and to line there own pocket books. 756. just a front, greedy bastards, they need to leave individuals alone, 757. The only artists who get rich are those who fulfill their lengthy contracts and manage to remain popular. The record companies get rich at the expense of artists. 758. Deindustralisation of music. Nobody need these industrial parasites. Age of industrial revolution ended. Somebody plz kill these dinosaurs finaly. 759. The record company takes most of the money from album sales. All the artists see is less than five percent of the total income from cd sales, even if that. 760. I'm still doing the same thing I was doing in the 60's when it was said to be alright. That is getting a song or songs for free. The methods have changed. Instead of getting them from the radio with tape, I now get them from the internet as a digital file. Times and technology changed is the only difference. (This is the first comment section for those questions below 10.) 761. Fancy cars and big houses? THey are still making money. 762. 0 changed product is bad 763. The RIAA can't have it both ways. Either they are falsifying their continued success or they are falsifying their devastation. Because there is no apparent evidence that the latter is occurring (apart from their own statistics), then it is this that they are falsifying this. 764. They are makeing a bundle. 765. RIAA seems to be gradually increasing sales but the number of people accessing there content has boomed and they want to milk these new listeners. 766. Music companies are unhappy that they can no longer keep scamming customers with such high prices, and cheat artists with restrictive contracts 767. LMFAO .. that is why the rappers can afford 7 sets of teeth for each day of the week ,,, all with different jewlry ... yeah .... suffering .... they may only be able to but 6 sets of platinum "grills" ``Night_raid 768. I see artists as hard up as ever, with the record companies still making a proffit, though not as large as it once was. 769. P2P, in my opinion, only hurts the labels. I have been told that musicians make money only from the concerts. If that's true, then P2P is not hurting the musician, it can only help by getting the music in more peoples hands and driving up demand to see the good groups in concert. As far as I am concerned, the musicians are getting screwed by the label, and have been long before P2P was around in it's current form. 770. The artists wouldn't get any of the money anyway. I pay a tax to the music industry every time I purchase a CD or a DVD for computer backups and I've never, ever burned music onto a CD or a DVD, so I'm paying for nothing, for no reason except our politicians are either stupid or crooked. 771. The RIAA takes the largest part of the money, it doesn't go to the artist. The artists are better off selling their music online by themselves. 772. that record companies are still making their money and that artists are still getting rich 773. As the companies still making money. 774. Sharing music is the best way to discover new artists. Much of this talent would not be discovered any other way. 775. they make money form merchedise, gigs, tv interviews etc not just from selling songs. 776. I believe that the recording industry as a whole is definitely making money. This belief is cemented bt the fact that they can afford to sell their music cheaper in China, where I live (as low as $3 for most CD singles and on average $5-$7 for albums) to compete with commercial piracy. 777. The shareholders of the record companies are still getting rich. Most artists still aren't. If they are, it's mostly from live performances, rather than the pathetically small proportion of the profits from records that they get, as it always has been. Also, going back to questions 7 and 8, there's no such thing as "intellectual property" or "intellectual property law". You should never use that term, as it's very misleading and biased. Please see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.xhtml. 778. Record companies are really about marketing rather than music. They should have no rights to fence off music, which is based on common creative cultural expressions. 779. It dosent "appear" to me that artists are getting rich anyways, their main sorce of income comes from concerts and merchandising. As far as record sales, RIAA if they are in a good mood might give a penny to the artist. 780. They still make money, A LOT that is! 781. They are just greedy pigs 782. When Ludacris can't afford to have every TV station ON EARTH transmitted to his house, afford $250,000 cars, and to have a barber on staff at all times, then you can say that artists aren't making money. 783. i see it as people get to explore more music and other media, and when they find something they really like they will likely go buy the cd/dvd 784. they still make ludicris amounts of money while i make 3 bucks an hour. So it hink i should be the one complaining not them. 785. Artists are doing it tough. Industry fat cats are still fat. 786. Some guy with a facefull of gold teeth and HumVee Limos is not suffering in the least 787. The retail and file sharing markets greatly overlap, filesharers also buy music. The music industry is alive and well. 788. Greed has made them change their bussines model: From art to racketeering and extortion, in the hope of becoming billionaires instead of just millionaires. Livig la vida mafiosa... 789. just plain old lies-record companies almost print their own cash 790. Plenty of income coming in from concerts... any decently managed company could profit in their situation. 791. Most of the profit from record sales goes to the record companies. The artists are not hurt as much by file sharing as the record companies. Meanwhile, artists who perform their music live at all venues are doing all right. 792. Since Discovering File sharing have bought more product than I was before. File Sharing has increased not decreased my cash product spend. 793. The price gouging on music continues, the record companies continue to make money while their artists suffer as they always have. The best solution for artists is direct-selling their music on the Internet and at concerts and avoiding the recording industry whenever possible. 794. The RIAA is producing a bad product. When a company produces bad products they tend to lose money. File sharing has nothing to do with it. 795. The record companies are still making their money, but the artists are certainly not getting rich. 796. They should do what every other business does when sales go down: DECREASE THE PRICES OF THEIR PRODUCTS!!! I would buy CDs again, but they are more expensive than DVDs now, and I want to stretch the value of my dollar. 797. I believe music sharing leads to increased exposure of artists. There are so many groups I would have never encountered had I not been exposed to the tastes of people from all over the world. RIAA must adapt to a changing market. If they are truly losing profits so drastically, then they should make changes within the way they do business to ensure continued profits and success of signed artists. Work with online solutions instead of filing suits against families without computers and internet access. 798. just because THEIR artists arn't making money dosn't mean artists in general aint making money. I've recently been to a couple of bands gigs that weren't signed to a label, paied money directly to the band for purchase of their cd as did many others... 799. The record companies make far more money than I (probably) ever will. 800. Companies rich, artists not so. 801. Artists make money not only through selling albums and songs, but through live performances and concerts as well. If in fact P2P networks are slowly suffocating album sales, it's not to say that's the artist's (or record company's) only source of income. 802. Earnings Statements don't lie, but if they did the IRS would be very interested. 803. P2P is free advertising. For example, look on limewire for morrissey, and you will find a few singles, no full albums. 804. Bottom line; they're still making huge profits, sharing doesn't mean squat. The supposed loss of profit seem to be based off 2 main fallacies; 1; someone who downloads the product would have bought it if it wasn't available online. And 2; Someone who downloads the product won't buy it afterward. Plus, file sharing has done NOTHING to concert sales which is where most of the real money for artists comes from anyway. 805. all the reports that I hear about they are making plenty of money 806. The biggest stars getting richer and the medium to low star is getting porer. And the record companys take most of the money. 807. The RRIA is wasting the money they get from the settlements and the artists get nothing. 808. Exact opposite... 809. They lie to suit their purpose, which is to end the threat of COMPETITION through a new method of distribution .. they lose absolutely nothing through sharing. 810. Most artists receive little or no royalties from the recording industry and receive most of their income from performing. 811. Greedy f**ks who can't move with the market, and sue anyone who disagrees. 812. The RIAA is still profiting but, as a musician, I know from personal experience that royalties paid are minimal or none. 813. The record companies add NOTHING to the music that is worthy of the monetary penalty they heap on consumers. I believe, and the facts DO appear to bear this out, that artists themselves would be MUCH BETTER served financially by marketing directly to consumers over the web. The Record Companies are simply middle-men who act to PREVENT the free and easy exchange of artistic product. The RIAA is a dinosaur who apparently didn't receive his own copy of the memo -- the dinosaurs died out 65 Million years ago when an asteroid or comet struck what is now part of the Gulf of Mexico. WAKE UP -- YOU'RE DEAD ALREADY! 814. Record companies are still making money and still screwing the arists. 815. The record companies are still making mind boggling profits. The artists are primarily starved by the record companies.

Says the RIAA: Each sale by a pirate [or file shared] represents a lost legitimate sale, thereby depriving not only the record company of profits, but also the artist, producer, songwriter, publisher, retailer, … and the list goes on.

Total Responses: 1,078 True   11.0%  (119) False   89.0%  (959)

If you've answered False to the question above, how do you see things?

Total Responses: 827 1. pre my RIAA boycott I used to buy more CDs from artists I got to know through p2p than media/marketing. (Now I buy indie only) 2. Licensed services? Idiots. Like they need so much. 3. [true] Sure it does. So what. 4. Downloading something does not imply that it would have been purchased if the download was not available, and there is no way to prove that the person would have. Maybe they could force confessions like in the witch trials? I think that would parallel the RIAA's activity pretty well. 5. I never would have bought 99.5% of the crap I downloaded. I only downloaded it because it was free. I deleted most of it after I realized it was crap. 6. Sometimes this is true but sharing is also a way to preview music before buying a legitimate and usually better quality copy. 7. i would never dream of buying most the stuff i download, or example if i only want one song off an album, or i need to learn to play a song 8. I would not buy this much music, ever. If I would stop file sharing they would not get my money anyways... 9. Good, drop the prices on cd's and I will care. I will support my very most favorite artists by seeing them tour and buying their merchandise so the RIAA doesnt see a dime of that money. 10. 1 file transfer != 1 lost sale, If I had to pay for every song i've transferred then I wouldn't pay. its that simple. 11. consumption falls as price rises. price the stuff as the big 4 do and consumption is necessarily low. but at near-zero cost consumption is very high -- people otherwise unable or unwilling to listen to a musician's work will do so; but raise the price, and no sale 12. I download one song at a time, and without p2p I would listen to the radio. 13. The economy is till going and now everyone is happy. The Music Industry has no clue, the "pirate" is richer for his work (yes he/she did make an effort to do this, it's not a lay back and watch it happen business), and the final consumer enjoys a cheaper product. 14. Most of the stuff I download, I would never actually pay money for. I downloaded A Flock of Seagulls the other day. I wouldn't pay more than a couple bucks for the entire CD and its currently priced at 17.99 at my local Sam Goody. WTF? 15. Your more likely to download and listen to something you would never have heard of before and possibly buy it if you like it. However if you can't download it, there is little to no chance you would have bought it anyway. Therefore it's stupid to assume that every file shared is a sale lost because they wouldn't have bought the shit in the first place! 16. Most of the people i know who have downloaded music, have downloaded music they would never have bought, mostly because they have never heard it. It is really expensive to dish out 15 dollars for something you have never heard and can not take back if you don't like it. These same people have bought complete albums of artists they would have never heard before if it was not for peer to peer. One friend of mine is a huge Van Halen fan, all because he downloaded the song "jump" a few years ago. because of this he has purchased about 5 Van Halen albums, and from hearing his music, I have purchased 7. Thats 12 albums sold because of one downloaded track. 17. False 18. Because if i had to pay for it I wouldn't partake at all. At least I'm listening to your music and watching your movies. Would you rather I listen to your music and not pay, or not listen to it at all? 19. each sale would not have been a sale in the first place, at least with file sharing people are exposed to music ( new music also in fact) and if they truly enjoy it they will go out and by the cd. 20. Artists make most of their money from concerts. Yes, they are losing a sale but they gain free marketing. 21. just another way to inflate the numbers to support their jihad. 22. Not everyone who downloads an album would pay for that album. In fact downloading albums allows peopleto open themselves up to buying music they otherwise wouldn't have bothered buying. If anything downloading is adding to the amount of money the RIAA makes. 23. 99% of all downloads would NEVER of been purchases. and in Many cases could never of been purchases as the record companies only select a very small portion of content to actually produce and promote in stores. In many cases a downloard is far more equivilant to listening to a song on the radio or at a listening station in a record store. Music is something people have to try before they will buy it. 24. Many shared files encourage the person who received it to buy that album or movie or whatever. The problem for them is that they make albums with one hit song and charge $18 for an album that has that one song and the rest is awful. If the whole album is good people will buy it. 25. A very small percentage of the money goes to anyone involved. The record company is the one making all of the money. 26. If there was an option to be able to give an album 1 play before it becomes "piracy" it would affect cd sales as 99% of the major label output is crap. 27. If someone were to steal a pie from a bakery, per se, the only person that would get impacted in the short run would be the bakery owners; it's unlikely that the cashier, baker, or janitor are going to get a pay cut. Even if, say, Marie Callendar's were to get stolen from about once every day at different stores, the company would not lose enough money to cause a severe pay cut for it's employees. 28. That a person who downloaded a file would not have necessarily bought the album/song 29. a) the person might not by the song if he had the choice - so no money lost. 30. If I like the artist, I will buy something from them or contribute money in some way, regardless of my access to their music. 31. File sharing gives a consumer the opportunity to trial their product and then choose or not choose to purchase it, which is a far cry from being forced to purchase an entire album for the 1 or 2 songs that an artist has had the time to craft amidst the pap that the label forces them to put in as filler. 32. 1 song shared does not mean 1 CD lost. There are still people who buy CDs. The only thing is, the 'industry' has to work harder and provide better content in order to get people to buy their stuff. Better, longer albums will prompt people to buy more. 33. Bullshit. See above. 34. File sharing means I've discovered music I never would have otherwise, and I buy their CDs 35. Listening to music via the web is no different than listening to it via the radio. The recording industry has failed to embrace technology and new talent, and has failed to come up with a business model-so their complaints are sour grapes, they are the cause of the own failings. 36. A downloaded file does not = a lost sale. That is obvious. 37. Many people will download songs to "test drive" a band if they like the band, then they will in turn purchase their albums. 38. 99% of the files i have I would _never_ have bought.... 39. Some sales yes do that but if a person really likes the product they will go purchase a legitimate copy.... Sales have not dropped off because of piracy. They dropped because The music industry was charging extortion rates for a CD and because they did not want to change with the times.... If sony had opened up an online music store back when napster started then people would go direct to buy a song with them.... MAybe they need new management to tell them where the future is heading ... 40. A vast majority of filesharing downloads are by those who would never have bought a given album/song. I would sugest that 80% of the downloads would not be sales 20 years ago. Internet radio actually compensates, by reaching non-techie's who just buy the songs. 41. All of those employees are paid, though if the record companies lose enough money they may have to downsize. 42. Bullshit. The record companies already take so much of the money that should be going to the artist that the losses to the band's roadie crew are cents per year. 43. Record companies do not have true artists working fro them, with notable exceptions. A true artist does nto require any of the other things listed to be successful. Let alone a record company. 44. They make nough money on selling stuff as it is and concerts, etc. 45. Each file download represents attention gained for the artist, by people who may not have otherwise been willing to shell out exorbitant amounts of money for a CD. This bolsters sale of concert tickets, where the artists really make their money. Publisher and the retailer were only ever there for the convenience of the artist, and do not have an inherent right to continue business against the interest of the public and musicians. 46. Completely false. We can rent movies, not CDs. As a result, I have no way to use the product without paying for it first. This has often led to the purchase of crappy CDs. So I download them to decide if I want to pay for them. Even if people don't buy any CDs after this, it doesn't represent a lost profit. I know people that never have, and never will pay for CDs. 47. F the riaa 48. I've bought many cds, games, etc. after trying them out from downloading. 49. Artists receive very little from their record companies as a result of record sales. Artists make money from increasing their brand value for promotions and concerts... a condition that is enhanced when more people hear their music, whether paid-for or otherwise. 50. I wouldn't even listen to half the shit i do now if it wasnt for the internet, id listen to the radio, but pretty soon the RIAA will make you pay to listen to that too? 51. sometimes its just people testing the music before purchasing. 52. Same as above, the increase in file sharing has increased popularity of the product, and allowed lesser known artists to be heard when they normally wouldn't have benn. 53. RIAA made me stop buying songs/videos. If they didn't do all that stuff... I might never had heard of Napster or Limewire! 54. Previewing media led to over $1200 in purchases. Roughly 85% purchase rate for media I wouldn't consider otherwise. 55. If I were to download a song I liked I would go buy it. If I didn't like it I would delete it. 56. most people that share instead of buy whould not be buying even if they weren't sharing. 57. I don't share music online because none of the RIAA labels have produced anything worth listening to. I doubt that people would pay for it if it wasn't freely available. To equate a copied song to a lost sale is pure B.S. Most of the time people end up chucking the copied content the first time the listen to it. 58. a file shared does not equal a lost sale. 59. The only people who are losing profits here are the record companies. The artists still get their sales through live shows; which is where there major money is made. The suits are just upset that they're being excluded from the massive profits they're used to making. 60. Without file sharing most people would just have less music. At the prices of music it is worth the free trial to see if i actually want to support the artists by going to the artist's site and buying it directly. 61. The people who are pirating songs would find other ways to get it without paying (radio, rip a friends cd, etc) just like the old days. 62. I still buy cd from my favorite bands. 63. An illegal download does not necessarily mean lost profit. Many people restrict themselves to music they know they like when they must pay for it. When there are no or reasonable costs people can try out new musical genres without worrying about the red ink. 64. In most cases people who 'pirate' music wouldn't have purchased the CD anyway. 'Pirates' download music because they aren't sure they are going to like the CD or band so they sample it first and in most cases buy what they like. 65. Arrgh!! I still buy music all the time. 66. Online music sharing enables people to listen to new music, that they might never have been exposed to. Why take a chance and waste $20 on a CD you might hate? You don't. But this way, you can download it. Next album that comes out, you might buy it. There will always be people that leech, but contrary to what the RIAA believes, people DO want to support their favorite musicians. Give us a way to do it online without screwing us with DRM and crappy quality sound. 67. Many people, including myself, download music to test it out only to buy the albums later. 68. Firstly, most of the profit of the sale goes to the music distributor. Secondly, filesharing allows people to discover new music which they would subsequently purchase. Thirdly, songs are often downloaded when purchasing the entire CD is undesirable (possibly due to the low quality of music being manufactured now). The sale of singles from online music stores remedies this issue to some extent. 69. they have gained a future sale if the file sharer likes the music; if said sharer hates the music they have lost nothing 70. I wouldn't buy half the crap I download. I don't have money. Period. But I like music so I share it with friends that I make anonymously over the internet. So sue me. 71. E.g. I downloaded Shrek, and PAYED and WILL PAY to watch Shrek 2 and Shrek 3 (cinema) 72. Alot of the media I buy I would not of purchased or even knew it was out there had I not downloaded it first. 73. People download music that they want to check out, especially music that they probably wouldn't spend $20 on a CD for. If they really like what they hear from the download, they would probably legitimately purchase a CD once they know it's worth the cost. Also, they might go to concerts, which allows them to make more money. 74. if you have the ability to find something and you know someone who doesn't but wants it? what is the problem with making a little personal gain from taking your time to get it for them? the artists aren't going to notice... that five dollars may be your lunch tomorrow... that artist isn't really thinking about where their lunch is coming from. 75. prove that they would have bought it to begin with. 76. Concerning me: I never bought as much CDs since P2P gave me the opportunity to get to know real great music. 77. RIAA continues to use the artists as an appeal to guilt. If the money a consumer paid for an overpriced CD went more to the artists they hold up and less to the executives and agencies, then perhaps the guilt of depriving the artist of a legitimate sale might override the guilt of putting more money into the pockets of the already rich. 78. I am 30 years old and have never spent money on any CD, Tape or record in my entire life. I have listened to the radio, borrowed tapes from friends and downloaded music when it's free. Every file I download is therefore not a lost sale, because I would never pay money for something as non-important to my life as music. Instead I pay for my food, rent and transportation. 79. The record company gets ridiculous profits anyway (see Raping the Artists). The artist (et al) receives payment via the contract and concerts and only gets more recognition from people who would have otherwise never heard of the artist without filesharing. 80. just want to set the rates for pay music so everyone will have to pay for every song played 81. I have downloaded albums that I would never have bought. THe albums I truly love, I buy, the album I listen to once, realize it sucks, and then delete it from my hard drive, I don't buy. 82. RIAA = Whores 83. I buy DRM free music that I would never buy on CD due to the cost of the CD. With DRM free downloads I tryt differant music. Therfore each purchase I make does not equate to a lost CD sale. 84. lies 85. File Sharing can quite capably encourage record sales by allowing a person to sample a song befor they buy it. While its true that some people would never buy and merely steal, the vast majority of people do not and are more than willing to buy an album that they have enjoyed, even if they enjoyed it for free. The fact that records are not selling does not suggest a rise in piracy, then, but rather a rise in music that simply isn't worth buying. 86. Legit studies conclude the contrary - If anything deprives the artist and songwriter of monies it is the record company - failure to pay royalties - reducing the royalty percentages 87. Not everyone would go out and buy all of those cds. the more exposure of the product you are selling(the artist) the more likley you will find a buyer. They are actually attacking the very people that they are trying to cater to. Now with the increase in internet radio fees to put the small radio stations out of business is only hurting the exposure to their consumers since the artists will be heard less. 88. mostly it's used to sample music that you may like and then wish to purchase later on. Sometimes I use it to back-up older albums and cd's that I purchased and wish to preserve longer 89. It is not true, if it weren't for downloading, that I would have paid for the tens of thousands of dollars' worth of music, games, movies, and programs that I have downloaded. I have discovered many bands and genres through downloading. 90. I have no sympathy for true commercial "pirates" that attempt to SELL illegal copies as though they were legitimate. However, merely SHARING (for free) a file does not necessarily reduce legitimate sales. IMO the majority of people downloading shared files WOULD NOT HAVE PURCHASED the songs anyway. (Nobody i know has enough money to buy everything they want!) If file-sharing had never been invented, would CD sales really be all that much greater today? Or would they still be down from years past, because maybe, just maybe, there's less truly GOOD music worth buying? 91. Same as 11 92. Why should I pay 15-20 for a CD that sucks when I can download a song or two and download the album off iTunes. MP3 quality sucks. 93. It's only the RIAA money the RIAA is concerned about. They pay artists a measly pittance. 94. Each sale by a pirate could allow that to be true. But the majority of shared files either don't represent a lost sale. They are someone that wouldn't have bought. Or they will buy more due to more exposure to new artists. 95. I dl a lot of music (100s of albums), but if I were to purchase I'd probably buy 3-5 CDs a year, resorting instead to indie and freely available (indie etc) music. 96. I wouldn't have purchased the file anyway. It's a form of price discrimination. 97. Some people view the prices as too high for the product offered. If it was cheap enough, people would buy it. If it was expensive, the music would die out. 98. This is a fiction. I would never have purchased (at RIAA prices) 95% of the music I have obtained by other means (never by filesharing, in my case). The music simply is not worth the RIAA price under any circumstances. I would simply do without it. There is no lost sale. Further, at this point, I would not even buy the remaining 5% that I otherwise might have bought for their prices, such is my dislike for the RIAA. 99. The Artists can distribute their profits more evenly if those contributing to the music are suffering financially. 100. I wouldn't buy most of the crap i download anyhow. i delete 99% of it as soon as i hear it 101. legitimate purchasers still purchase. "Pirates are people accessing music they might not otherwise ever acquire. 102. It is common knowledge that bands, the people who I personally believe matter, not the execs, get a very small cut from record sales. To really support them one should go to concerts or buy T shirts from their websites. I 103. Few people who share recordings would acquire the same item if they had to pay for it. Conversely, if people had no opportunity to share, most of the sales would go to the few lucky artists that the recording industry choses to promote and exploit since those are the ones that receive all the publicity. The cost of sampling other artists and talent would become prohibitive, as it once was before the Internet. 104. Many people will download a song for free that they would never pay a dollar per song for. So if a teenager downloads 1000 free songs, it is unlikely he'd would've spent $1000 on Itunes if he didn't have access to free MP3s. 105. Every-one mentioned above still gets paid ,all file sharing does is allows us the consumer to get the same product at a great price.If file sharing is robbing the artist and every-one of money why are they still recording? 106. See response to #11 107. there was so much music that i found on filesharing that I have never herd of and went out and purchased the cds 108. Pure unadulterated idiocy. Im exposed to far more music and thereby far more likely to buy CDs (if it werent for a self imposed ban) and go to more gigs than ever before. You cant sample a CD in a store like you can at home. 109. The labels rip off everyone down the food chain. It's the label and only the label that would feel any major pain. 110. Many songs will only ever be listened to once or twice. It is not feasible for most people to pay the $1 charge for all songs they listen to. 111. I use file sharing to find new artist. If you depend on the radio for this purpose you will only hear what the stations get paid to play. 112. most songs people share they wouldn't buy anyways they figure its free why not listen to it. 113. if someone gave me there dvd collection doesn't mean i was gonna buy it 114. Sames as previous textbox 115. I see it more of a previewing of the song and if I like enough songs by an artist then I will go buy a hard copy, the quality of shared files is so bad how can it be considered a fair representation of the original ? 116. Surely people are buying pirate copies because they are cheap? That does not mean to say that they would buy the legitimate release if the pirate sources dried up! 117. Who knows if they would have bought the music in the first place? 118. There are files people get that they would not ever have paid for in the store because they were just trying them out. Hey! It turns out they like the musician so they go to concerts. 119. I have downloaded things, liked them, and then bought them legally. Downloading = increased sales. 120. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Most file downloads are from someone who either doesn't have the money to buy the cd or who wouldn't buy the music anyway if given the chance, or someone just surfing around finding new artists. Most of the people who download things in specific end up buying it or more from that or related artists if they find a good deal. 121. You wouldn't necessarily have bought it or ever listened to the artist. You also may never have gone to a concert of theirs or bought other merchandise. 122. If they put their mind together for something better than this, I am sure they will come up with a plan to make money by other mean. 123. Perhaps a sale by a pirate if money is transferred, but if the file is only shared this would be like me using a friend's CD I didn't purchase the music and perhaps will never. If anything it may help sales. I tend to purchase music if I know I want to keep it. I have bought more CDs since I have been able to listen to it first. 124. Some music I just would not buy, but after listening to it I am more inclined to purchase. 125. Each and every sale? Yeah right. 126. Many of the files I download I would never purchase. 127. Not everyone that downloads a song would buy the song if they couldn't get it for free. 128. artsits and the rest of the list get very little from the sale of albums in stores - and again the offered downloads are poor quality and encrypted. 129. Although not EACH theft does not equal a loss of sale, theft does lead to many loss of sales. What the exact proportion is is unsure but maybe 25%? 130. Not every file sampled represents a lost sale. Some music being traded isn't even *available* for sale. 131. Most music downloaded via a file share would not have been purchased otherwise. Must music I have downloaded in the past I would never have bought anyway. There the so called losses are actually minute and made up by the music industry. 132. Smart artists know, if we download a song, it's going to increase the likelihood of a cd purchase. 133. If it were impossible to share music files it might result in a few more sales but in most cases people who are copying or trading files have time but not money and they would not actually end up buying the songs anyway so it does not follow that EACH file shared represents A lost legitimate sale. 134. I wouldn't have bought the album unless the price was realistic, 135. There are many songs that I casually enjoy, and I wouldn't go out and buy the record over them, because chances are I wouldn't like the crap most "musicians" put out nowadays. Two good songs and 11 fillers is not an album. On the other hand, I've found numerous small bands via file sharing and then went out and bought that artists' CD and gone to their concerts, making it a extra legitimate sale that they would not have gotten otherwise. 136. Most people download music because it's easy and free, not because they definitely want it. A lot of the downloaded music is only listened to once (if at all) and then deleted. Even if that music would have costed only a few cents, most people wouldn't even consider buying it. The idea that every download would have been a purchase if the download were impossible, is complete nonsense. Many people still buy songs they downloaded if they like them, to have a better quality copy and to support the artist. 137. i didnt buy it before i file shared, why would i buy it after file sharing had started. if it wasnt free i wouldnt be listening 138. On-line music allows for artists music to be known, and they can make more money from tv and live performances. 139. Because someone downloads a song or album..That doesn't mean they would put money down for it. In the case of pirated material being sold, I believe it is wrong. 140. These are NOT lost sales! They are lost POTENTIAL sales, and the two concepts are very different!! 141. I whouldn´t buy the things i download. 142. While filesharing is okay to me. Mass sharing and selling of copied material is undermining what the artists deserve, their due money. 143. Most people who download stuff without buying it were never going to buy it in the first place. Would you really pay for the new Hilary Duff or Paris Hilton? Maybe you'd be curious enough to give it a spin, but not at a blow to your wallet. 144. most of the music i try out on all of mp3 i would not buy the whole CD in any case. But it allows me to find new artists that i might be more inclined to buy the CD from the record store. 145. Each file shared is one person trying before he is buying, since the music industry is putting out shit, very few sane people buy their product, as thus, they should crank out better content to stay alive. 146. I believe that the price of 14-25-60-100 dollars a cd, set, or compilation is over priced, the industry has not given people any reason to continue to pay outrageous prices for a cd. They can not prove the details of the costs of making that cd, and when you print 1 billion cd's that means the costs are bound to go down greatly to produce that cd. That is a fact of business, order in buck and save money. 147. Through iTunes, for example, only the artist, recond label and iTunes makes money. There is no real need to charge 17.99 for a CD when the only person making the huge percent of that profit is the retailer itself. 148. That's rubbish, and probably the industry's greatest fallacy. Same with software piracy. Few people who download protected works would have bought them otherwise, many probably don't even have the money. On the other hand, there are people who download music merely just to try it out and end up buying some or other album afterwards - this could be considered music that would not have been sold otherwise. 149. -there is much music people would listen to but never buy the cd, there is a need for a large consumption model 150. I see some people who would never buy a song in the first place downloading them for free 151. the music companies are making too much margin, are not prepared to adapt their business practices, and are trying to legislate to maintain the status quo. 152. Bullshit. That long list of people doesn't see the money anyway. Plus, a properly run web model would be the income without the outlay. Lastly, DRM prevents people from buying their goods who otherwise would. 153. wouldnt buy 90% of what i download 154. People still buy the music they enjoy, there is just changing times now, and now that we have entered the digital revolution many more people download music, but people will still buy the music they like and support their bands. 155. See 11 above 156. So false I fell off my chair laughing. My guess is that less than 5% of pirated downloads could have been sales 157. The artist already gets a very low percentage..the record company is losing 158. For each file shared, some people go out and buy the album. It's impossible to determine the validity of their statement. 159. I actually think it is true, but didn't want to leave it at that. I think it is true, but I do not think it is a bad thing. The capitalist mantra of "Let the market decide" is the principle at work here and the market does not want to pay way too much for dumbed down product any longer. 160. Usual marketing gumph ... 161. They are correct to some extent, however if someone purchased vinyl and wants to replace with a download then why not. The dues for the music have been paid already. Surveys show that people are actually prepared to pay for music provided that the cost is not excessive as it's recognised that making money is necessary to making music. However the cost is too high and the industry is seen as greedy. The current situation is an inevitable balancing of things, prolonged by the actions of the RIAA. If costs were to be reduced and the RIAA did not on the attack then the situation may be different. 162. The Record companies keep more than 99% of profits and the rest gets divided by many people 163. If it's good I buy the real thing, if it's not good then I don't. 164. Does each play by a radio station represent a lost legitimate sale? 165. a) Just because someone is willing to download a file does not mean they are willing to pay $20 for a CD with it on. b) Most people download many times more music than they would be able to afford with their disposable income, even if they *wanted* to buy all the music they regularly listen to. c) Many people use file sharing to find new music and will buy records and attend concerts of those artists they have discovered they like. When this happens, sales and revenue are gained, not lost, through file sharing. d) Many downloaders will only listen to a recording once or twice and then discard it or simply forget about it since it has no physical form... making the download exactly the same as if they'd listened to the song on the radio. Does each radio play of a song represent a lost sale, then, RIAA? 166. True music fans still buy their music. It is my opinion that those who download music are the people that don't spend money on music for a gazillion of reasons. Most of those people would only listen to the radio anymore if they didn't have filesharing. 167. Heh, if I couldn't get the music for cheap, I wouldn't buy it at all. How's that for lost sales? 168. Cut out the fat bastards at the top end 169. i am gong to answer anyway, sharing a file one has bought is totally different than hacking into an online music store and taking it, once you buy the product, cd, song, it's yours and you can share it however you want No one is stealing, No one is saying that they made the music, put it together, sung it, etc.. Everyone is just making a copy and giving it to others, however I would Agree that in the end if someone DID steal the CD from the record shop or hacked into an online store, sure I agree they should be arrested, for more questions out of me, email palmonezire31fanatic@yahoo.com. 170. you can't sue someone for not buying , when you calculated that they should . otherwise you could say that 'home cooking is killing the restaurant industry' . RIAA seems to be excluding the existence of free will . 171. While I agree that artists should be paid for their work (the artists - not the RIAA), it is ridiculous to believe that everyone who downloads a title would otherwise have bought it. It's more a "I collect it because I can do so free of charge" thing. 172. So I guess every time I share a song with a friend in my car that represents lost revenue because he could have sat in his car and me and mine listening to the same song that we each bought. Anything can be lost revenue what about Freedom ! Low Sparks of High Heeled Boys. 173. Is one a materialist . . . or a spiritualist? Is one trying to take money from people, and basing one's subsistence on a parasitic attitude and culture? If so, if that is the objective, parasitism, then why should one complain if dog eats dog, or fish eats fish, as the case may be. This is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. If the objective is spiritual, then one truly has something to give. In giving, one finds comfort, because he knows that others will be happy in the receiving. If one is not giving, then one is trying to extract something from someone else. This is false advertising. If one truly has something of value, then one should give it, and the Universe will return. If one does not have something of true value, then one attempts to take from others what one does not have: satisfaction. Those without satisfaction feed on others who have nothing. This is purely parasitical, and a prime example of the Newton's Second Law, the Law of Entropy. One should seek to serve, not to take; to give, not be a cannibal. Materialism is cannibalism. As Lao Tzu said, "When one loses sight of love, then come laws." What became of true love? True Music is Love of the Heart, not the pocketbook. True Love is where one would do anything for one's Lover. 174. If i have no intention of buying music, they aren't loosing anything by downloading it 175. How can this be so? I may only be using the shared file as a taster of an artist I have never heard before 176. Each file shared represents an increased level of spending per file shared. Most file sharers will buy a good CD with more than a single spoon fed hit of the week. 177. although it may be true profits for multinational corporations are going to be reduced, fans will continue to support artists by buying their merchandise and the biggest revenue for any artist.. going to their shows 178. True the sale is lost. but I would only pay for the albums online now. so the production crew and the web publishing crew are the only people that are loosing out from me not buying. Music is WAY too over priced. 179. File sharing is having a mixed effect - reducing CD sales, but also increasing awareness of unusual music, and RIAA has failed to implement business model to take advantage of technology without garbage DRM. 180. If I never buy music. How could my downloading affect sales? 181. if you are selling, you are a pirate and should be jailed. If you are sharing, even with friends you've never met, you are entitled do so. If I buy a soda, is it my right to give a drink of it to anyone I choose. If someone gives me a drink, can I not give a drink to someone else in my turn. 182. most people only want the one song and wont go and buy just that one song reguardless 183. Much of the music I've seen shared isn't available for purchase at my local store or online shop. Also, for some of the garbage that is produced, if I didn't have access to it free first, I likely wouldn't buy it at all. The fact that I can get free music means I can try more music without getting ripped off. And if its good, I'll buy it. So the only potential sales lost are on music I wouldn't buy or would regret buying. So in the end, nothing lost at all. 184. A sale by a pirate is definitely a lost legitimate sale, you can't argue with that, but the real issue is obtaining music for free. 185. On the contrary, people listen to music and artists they would not normally know of or listen to. This helps to promote the music and the artist, bypassing the large record companies and loosening their control of the recorded music industry. This is what it is all about. It is not concern for the artist and their music but concern for their loss of control of the recorded music industry. This has been demonstrated several times before. An example of this is when magnetic recording tape (then CD's and DVD's) was developed and it was claimed this would bring doom to the recorded music industry. They said the same with TV, video recorders and the movie industry. In both cases it has been a boon to the industry with more music and artists and movies and actors coming to the publics' attention. 186. If I would not have bought the song to the pirate, I would have NOT bought the song AT ALL. 187. Who would buy the tune they just downloaded if they had to? Maybe 5%? They're grasping at straws. 188. If a song has a value then how can a theft at $0 be equated to a lost sale at $10-$15? Clearly there's a point at which a consumer no longer finds value in the product. The gap between 0 and 15 dollars leaves a lot of room for this to happen. No doubt some sales are lost but what is the actual relationship? 189. Certainly not a lost sale. Wouldnt buy music for such prices anyway 190. many people download hundreds of songs, albums and films. they would never have the money to buy such quantities. 191. I only usually download music that cannot be purchased in the shops, such as live concerts on internet archive. This has exposed me to artists I would not otherwise have known about, and if I like them I will buy their studio albums. 192. Each time I download something, it is with the intent to buy - if the product is quality and I enjoy it. I do not buy cars without test driving many models. I do not buy bulk food unless I have eaten it before. I do not buy music without determining if I like the songs. Very simple. 193. That is bullshit! Has the corporate world ever thought of volume, you would think they would be smart enough to know what that means. If they would just sell cheap enough they would have more people buy. They have gone out of reach and I believe people are smart enough to know that and that is where all the problems have started.. 194. Lots of downloads stimulates music lovers to purchase the real product. Where this doesn't happen it is often the case the person doesn't fancy the music. Downloading does not imply your are already a fan and have already decided on purchasing more from the artist. 195. File sharing may lead to some loss of revenue but its certainly not 1 for 1. 196. See my answer to 11. I am not concerned about Madonna loosing a few millions. 197. This is a common fallacy. If someone cannot afford to purchase a the legitimate copy, they will not purchase it. In the old days, kids would buy one copy of a tape/cd and then share it with each other. 198. In almost all cases, i would not have purchased the product otherwise. before file-sharing, my music purchases were limited to maybe 1 album every couple of months. 199. Should be free anyway. 200. I do agree that it is a lost sale, but usually the artist, songwriter, producer are the same person..a la Joe Satriani. And the list doesn't go on and on because that is all the people who get paid, the artist, the record company (which is the publisher), and the retailer. 201. Music coming out nowadays sucks- if I didn't use file sharing, I just wouldn't listen to ANY of it rather than waste my money trying to find one good CD. 202. Most artists are worth more than one song. It's not worth spending the money on an entire album when all you like is one song 203. Straight forward economics here, people only have a finite amount of money, how can a claim be made for goods if the person wouldn't have purchased it due to their budget in the first instance. 204. EVERY decent song I have downloaded has resulted in my purchase of not only the album the particular songs came from, but usually all of the albums from that artist. I'm talking full retail, Best Buy Compact Disc purchase. 205. If a person did not want to buy it then they're not gonna bother regardless. 206. mp3 downloads can operate as a preview of sorts, songs that people really enjoy would most likely still be bought. 207. again, RIAA are a bunch of cunts! 208. It's not lost money. They never had the money, and they money they never ahd was never taken from them. 209. Considering the amount of $ you give them vs. what you take yourself, I fail to see that big of a change in how much they earn anyway. 210. Fuck the RIAA 211. same as previous 212. Because I can find new music and then go an purchase an album if its good 213. Each 'pirated copy' is free advertising for the artist / label that the person wouldn't have bough anyway, which may lead them to buy that music or other in the future (or it may not, but then, they wouldn't have bought it anyway) 214. As I said earlier, the artist always profits from the contract. They are not affected. And if they want to earn some money, go give concerts, period. The rest of refered profitees are just unneeded in the music world, and depriving evolution. 215. Some albums (in fact, most) aren't available in this country. The so-called charts don't tell us anything, and the music I like is extremely hard to get hold of. Therefore, there's no way I'd buy it. I mean, I would if I could...honestly! 216. This is plain silly, you cannot claim that every gift or give-away means a lost sale. I have tons of stuff (not just MP3s) that I got for free, that I wouldn't have bought otherwise. Like the sweater I got from my mother-in-law. 217. If files are offered at a reasonable price people are happy to pay, if not they will steal/'share' since finding russian MP3 sites i no longer use filesharing software, they aren't necessary 218. The RIAA fail to see any sort of value of file sharing and are too quick to condemn it. Many consumers feel that downloading an album is simply a way of previewing (at high quality) the album that subsequently they may well purchase. 219. People who pirate via file-sharing simply copied CDs before file-sharing was available. If deprived of file-sharing, they would simply do so again. If CD copying was somehow made impossible, they would use tapes, or analog cables between stereos, or something else. Those who want to buy do so. Those who don't, won't. 220. Music fans have always sampled music to see if it was worth buying before doing so. Each sample listen never did = a lost sale. But there is a difference now. Why buy if the sample is good enough to keep? 221. When people download files this does not mean that they would actually really buy these files if they weren't available for download. So, the equation 1 download = 1 lost sale is simply wrong. 222. I prefer to sample the music before I buy it. 223. Gasp. RIAA takes 80% of the profits anyway. 224. See answer to 11. 225. In a business model losses are factored into costs 226. If CD's were 100% good I'd buy them. Can't buy a CD for just 1 or 2 songs. I'd rather go without the CD. 227. I download a lot of things I would never buy at current CD prices. If I can get an album by a band I've never heard of for free or for $~4, I'll pick it up, but I won't drop $20 on the same album. 228. Completely false, and they can't prove that every copy of a song is a lost sale. 229. I buy it if I like it....and file sharing is a great way to try before I buy 230. I buy any music I download if I like the music 231. It does not...that's saying that every single person that "pirated" a song would've bought the album. That's not the case. People are buying music in the manner they wish to. 232. Cos then they charge 100 bucks to see them live and get the t-shirt 233. in monetary values, i have spent as much on music through sites likes allofmp3 as i would have done on cds. the difference is that with allofmp3 etc, i have got so much more music for the same money. i can not afford to buy the amount of music that i do by means of cds - i am essentially putting as much money into the system, regardless of how much i get out of it. the difference being that with allofmp3.com, the money is distributed among more bands 234. only tracks that were intended to be purchased in the first place are lost sales and often these downloads then lead to other purchases anyway. 235. Many songs that are shared would never have been purchased, they're just downloaded because they're free 236. Not everyone that file shares would be willing to pay for the music. However, if they are not willing to pay for the song they shouldn't download it. 237. The sale of infringing articles and the non-commercial infringing via sharing are two entirely different things, and can't sensibly be put in the same sentence. 238. How much money GOES TO THE ARTIST.....only pennies!!!! While the most part goes to office dwellers....skyscrappers lawyers... 239. A huge amount of downloads are people trying out music. Most peopl I know, including myself, will purchase the albums they find to be good after downloading. 240. The loss of profits is minimal for all parties involved. And there would be no losses if their greed did not drive up consumer prices to the point where file sharing is a necessity. 241. A bootleg copy that costs $5 is not hurting them. If people like it, they'll buy a higher quality DVD... or rent it from blockbuster and RIP it. 242. Anyone who downloads shared files is a big fan of music. Nearly all downloaders spend a lot on music anyway, so they could not afford to buy all those CDs at full price. Many downloads are rarities, bootlegs and mash-ups that you can't buy anyway, or samples of an album that encourages you to buy it. 243. every duke box has a 1000+ songs, you only pay for those you play. 244. Each sale by a pirate is a chance for someone to hear the artist's music and to then legitimately purchase their music if they like the music they hear. 245. claim is invalid, people will legit buy what they like 246. It's true, money would be lost, but the word "depriving" disgusts me. These people have been ripping us off for years. Pardon me, but F#$K them and they're millions (our millions). Payback is a b#$ch. 247. Three's no way to quantify this...there's no way to determine whether or not a download would have represented a purchase if the 'free' download wasn't available 248. The failure of the RIAA to accept the new method of delivery and to lower the prices to a point where no one would bother "stealing" a copy is at fault. Most of the shared music lead s to sales. A pirate is a different entity, that is a company or group that manufactures and distributes stolen music for profit . . . I would agree that represents a lost sale but that has nothing to do with file sharing. 249. More money goes to the RIAA because of online sharing than has been lost due to piracy. 250. The cassette tape did not ruin the music industry. 251. File sharing of copyrighted files are legal within my household, my own files I can share with whoever I want. By the way have you guys never heard of GPL and GNU? 252. there is a alot of music that i would not buy, but if it was given for free i might listen to it. but i just don't like the group enough to pay for it. 253. It's not simply about the MP3. Concerts, appearances and all the stuff that's licensed by one such author gives cash. Some even go pay for the album after listening to the song(s). There is a risk that said person does not go out and buy anything. Same risk is taken through direct robbery. 254. copying has been around for yearts, why the problems now? 255. Would not buy these albums that I get by sharing normally -- still buy a lot of CDs 256. Making money out of selling other people's work is evil. 257. not everyone who downloads a song/cd illegally would have purchased the song/cd in a store. if something is free, most people would take advantage of it solely because it is there. 258. As i stated before. taping recording radio and sharing music wit friends has allways and will allways go on. 259. i've purchased thousands of dollars of music in my life, and the amount ACCELERATED after file-sharing became realilty. this rhetoric ignores the scores like me that bought simply because they heard the music first AND ACTUALLY LIKED IT. 260. Most Peopel I know that downlaod Music Go Out and Buy teh CD i fthe Like it so that they can get a Higher Quality of Audio. 261. Many times, I would never buy a song I'm downloading, I would do without it. 262. The RIAA is the first to damage business. They simply are going to disappear in time, since artists thmeselves will sale their music on the net, or in outlets that will burn a CD to your measure from the net. The only good thing they made in 50 years was to standardize the curve for the LPs, too little too far away. 263. economy of scale should make an mp3 1p 264. The industry is changing, like any other industry. What the people need to do is adapt and maximize their profit in today's economy, not yesterday's. The world is no longer flat, yet the music industry is still trying to tell us it is. 265. I would direct the spin departments of the RIAA to learn some economic principles. People will take a copy of things for free where they would not purchase a version for a sum of money. 266. I've only got so much money I can afford to spend each month on music, that doesn't change. For example this month I am going to spend my money on a Flaming Lips special edition DVD/CD with special pack and posters included. It does make artists vulnerable because people can now try before buy and they will find out if an album is crap before they buy it despite mega marketing campaigns 267. See above, nr 11. Furthermore, when cd's will be sold at a more democratic price, be sure file sharing and pirating will get weaker. Ask Polish people, for example, or Russians more obviously to buy a cd for 18 dollars when their monthl salary is around 180 dollars for Polish, maybe 10 dollars for Russians. As a matter of fact, to be sure we have satisfaction from our purchase, we tend to buy already known and established artists with cds so expensive, it's extremely difficult to discover new or more alternative ones. File sharing helps people's curiosity to develop. 268. Chances are, if someone is going to download a song, they have no intention on purchasing it anyway. Therefore, no losses have occurred, since even if they couldn't download the song, they still wouldn't buy the CD. 269. A missed opportunity to sell downloads. 270. Most shared files are downloaded to see if the song/band is even worth listening to. We had this battle in the day of cassettes and vcr tapes they claimed it was costing them money. If people like they buy the origional for the better quality of the repoduction. If they want to make more money maybe they should work on finding talent not entertainers to produce albums. I hate autotune sounds on albums 271. You can't avoid that truth. Somebody is reaping the profits of someone else's effort. 272. I wouldn't buy half the music I download. Lots of times I download without knowing if I'll like the music. 273. They're still making boatloads of money. 274. Many people would not spend the $15+/album or the $1/DRMed song, so they would not get the music at all if they couldn't download it for free. 275. Most CD's are way too watered down with crap music and cost too much for me to buy every cd with 1 song I like. Either I download the song or nothing. I don't buy cd's anymore. 276. My definition of "pirate" are organizations like the RIAA. 277. Artists are indentured servants to the labels. They do not see the profits of their works. 278. Pirates help advertise...the best quality for the long run is still to buy the CD when you decide it belongs in your music library. 279. Wrong. Somebody had to buy the Cd/Single/EP. 280. HAHAHAHAHA, that's rich. Many who download also buy music, and it's also been proven that the most popular downloads are the highest selling albums. Also, if the music isn't that great or if the album has one or two songs somebody wants, and they never would have bought the CD just for those one or two songs, then this argument flies out the window. 281. Sales of pirated music is not the same as file sharing. The question they never address is, if people weren't downloading illegally, would they still buy the music? Hell no--people download tons of stuff just because they can, and never listen to it. 282. Check how much iTunes passes onto the record companies for each 97 pence track they sell and you'll see its at the very most 15 pence. Go do the math!!! 283. Most of the music you come across file-sharing is material you would NEVER discover through mainstream media and record shops. I have gone to more concerts and supported many bands (not record companies) with more of my hard earned money because i got to hear them in advance, all thanks to filesharing. 284. I buy more music now than I did before because I relize how much I miss it by being able to buy inexpensive music. 285. Sounds that I have downloaded from file sharing have been song that are either out of print and no longer available to buy or songs that I would not have purchased in the first place but did because they were available 286. The record company takes a lot of the money. The artists that make the music should actually get their fair share. 287. I still go out and buy the stuff that is worth buying / available if I think the artist is worth supporting 288. Each shared file doesn't necessarily equal a lost sale because the user might be willing to download the file for free, but be unwilling to pay money for it. 289. Record companies have been getting rich for years and exploiting artists. 290. its year 2007...cds or old and digital music is the fututre....charge less and get rid drm 291. It has been proven that downloading from the net does not negatively affect sales. 292. this is bullshit. its already been found that most people who share files buy cds as well. 293. idk 294. they are fighting not to loose their total power - shopping systems where you can buy cheap mp3 are not wanted because they want to feed each other 295. see my anser in 11) 296. If they're after money, they sucks ass. An artist shouldn't make music for himself, he should make it for people and make people interest on his music, NOT to make the artist interesting people's money. C'mon people! Get a job and be a free-lancer in music business. 297. it helps exposure 298. I have downloaded over 350GB of music. There is no way in hell I would be buying all that music. There is no lost sale, because a sale would have never been made. And even if file sharing didn't exist, I am not the richest person in the world, so I would probably end up copying the CD from someone who has lots of money or is spoiled. 299. Like above. With the internet the artists should now be able to market their own songs and take out the record labels. That is what they are scared of and they are trying to maintain control the best way they know how. Sue. It is just pure greed. 300. each shared file is more like free advertising. 301. If you buy a car then sell it to someone else, do you hear the car companies complaining about that? Like I said in my last statement, if the artist sells 100,000 cds which is low, then 1.5 million dollars is being made. If the artist doesn't sell that many cds than the public obviously doesn't enjoy that music. There are way too many one hit wonder bands nowadays and not everyone can be a puff daddy or a tim mcgraw. 302. Wouldn't buy 90% of the music i have bought online, therefore the revenue is probably less if i only bought physical media, plus less artists would be supported by a fan base. 303. That is a dead business model. Most people are willing to pay a fair price for a fair product, and once that fair product is offered file sharing will lessen, and profits will increase. 304. statistics show record sales are better than ever according to web news 305. People who can afford to go out and purchase a CD/Movie Will. They wont get a second rate copy online for free. If they download something doesnt mean they can/would of bought it in the first place. 306. Each shared file increases the notoriety of the artist. It only hurts the middlemen. 307. It spreads word of songs that would otherwise never be heard 308. if they've lost a sale, it's because the "pirate" found out what kinda crap was on their album, and decided to avoid a purchase 309. If I really want music I pay for it. If its been downloaded then regardless it wouldn't have been brought anyway! 310. it encourages you to buy a cd if you like it, one that you would not have thought about before 311. A download is a way of checking out an album you might not be sure about rather than spend €16 on a turkey. It's a way of discoering and listening to acts that you might never have discovered otherwise. The labels are the only ones taking a hit as the artists still generat revenue from other areas such as live shows & merchandise that the labels can't get at. 312. See VHS circa early 80s ... 313. Just because some one down loads a "file" does not imply that he/she would spend money on it to buy it. 314. Spin 315. Just because a pirate downloaded pirated music DOES NOT mean that he/she would have gone out and bought a legitimate copy. 316. Just because you downloaded a file or music does not mean you were meaning to purchase it in the first place. If and only if the music is worth purchasing after downloading will the transaction go through, and hopefully through a source that does not give all its profits to the mafioso RIAA. 317. What if I would have never bought the file/album in the first place (which is almost always the case for me because I don't care enough)? The RIAA would have never made a penny off me either way, so I don't see it as revenue lost. 318. First let's distinguish among pirates: those who download songs without paying are NOT the same thing as those who make money selling pirated music. Second: a file shared is NOT a lost sale. I download music that I will never buy, for example, and on the other hands I buy music I really like even if I already have the downloaded songs. It's not that I buy ALL music that I have downloaded and like... only music that I really like. If I was put in front of the choice to either buy or let go of the music I only partially like, I would let go. Another point is that if music would cost less I'd buy more. For example: since music is so cheap on AllOfMP3 I actually re-bought I already had on vinyl, instead of taking on the hassle of converting it (which requires particular equipment and lot of work). 319. If I have a choice between paying and not paying or paying less, I'll be picking the latter. RIAA has inflated the prices of CDs for years. We know it costs less than a loaf of bread for the media it's distributed on, why should I be paying a premium just to support their lobbying efforts to keep prices inflated and their failing business model viable. I want LOW COST MUSIC. 320. It makes me want to go and buy the entire DVD or CD. 321. These companies are fat and lazy and unwilling to move forward with the rest of the World into the online age. If they sell a CD, even an online version, it's 1 box or download they can notch up on a spreadsheet, 10 bucks in the bank to show the shareholders. Anything that requires an ounce of thought beyond that is equally beyond *them*. Grass roots free dispersal of new acts on Web 2.0 systems? 'Piracy'. Sharing a beloved track/album with close friends to spread the word about the band you love? 'Piracy'. Downloading a copy of a new album from a bit torrent site, listen to it and think it's Great and go out and buy it? 'Piracy'. It makes you sick it really does. 322. Just because a collector downloads a free file does not mean they would buy it. Personally, I buy music or content even if I get it for free to sample. 323. I do not like to back the "most would not have bought it." group. Though there is a little merit in it. I would look at it as free advertising. I hear songs all the time that most likely were not "purchased". Which I in turn if I really like it will buy from iTunes. (Yes, I admit it.) Yes, there is revenue loss from piracy. Nobody denies this. 450 million dollars in lost profit is just spin. If you adapt and provide a decent solution people will buy. 324. For free filesharing, See above. For sale by pirates, they have a point. 325. They just can't deal with the fact that electronic music is more accessible than traditional media. 326. see 11. 327. It encourages me to look at artists I wouldn't normally listen to and I'm not willing to pay as much as they want me to on music 328. I see this as a loss for the riaa/mpaa, not the artist. The artist now has the ability to directly benefit from consumers if allowed. 329. 78p a song in the UK is the issue. 330. I wouldn't otherwise buy any of what I pirate. 331. Many scientific studies proved that it is false. P2P has prospered on music industry deficiencies but not against them. P2P exists because it offers what music industry does not offer. P2P exists because of the great lack of intelligence of music industry. P2P is the result, not the cause. 332. bc, with fs you dl things you'd never buy. Artists and the rest should be happy, that peeps try our their things and evtl buy em if they like em. 333. if i like it, i will buy the album in order to have the real package 334. Most file sharers would not buy what they share either because they don't have the money to begin with or don't like the product enough to pay for it. Others use file sharing to test out a product before buying it or discarding it. 335. see above 336. Not all downloads are equivalent to a valid purchase. I for example own over 400 DVD's, still I sometimes download a movie to see how it is before purchase. They are not loosing money on my file sharing, quite the contrary. Before I started with file sharing and DVD I had about 10 VHS movies. 337. No - There are literally hundreds of artists that I have downloaded that I would never buy (Linkin Park, 80s music, top 40) but there are also artists work that I have downloaded, and later gone on to buy several albums, if not their entire discographies (Morrissey, My Bloody Valentine, Test Icicles) and there are still some artists that I dowload that I cannot find any releases from them - mostly indie/electronic - but if I could, I would without hesitation purchase. 338. its a drop into the ocean 339. Most (almost all) of the music I download entertains me for maybe a week. I would never buy something that ages so poorly. I blame overplay on the radio, commercials, tv. et al. 340. I believe all those people are trying to beat each other out thier share. Best example is Johnny Winters. 341. Money to be made via the net, 342. I've been introduced to more amazing artists by being given one of their songs. I guess I'm just a compulsive person, because if I really like a song, I'll go out and purchase the CD... and probably several more based on being given that single song. 343. the artist gets pennies off each sale. File sharing might persuade someone to buy a CD or hear a new band they never would have if they didn't download a band in the first place. 344. Original pirates (if they can be called so) must buy music to pirate it in the first place, so not all profits are lost if that is the case. 345. Music shared does not mean someone would be willing to make that song as a purchase. And many times free low quality tracks are deleted shortly thereafter, or never listened to again. Music tracks and files should be used to promote concerts. give us something tangible, something quality. not a file. 346. Most time it makes a person want to buy the album 347. If I really like a movie, I will buy a full copy, ie I have 4 copies of Dune the movie. 348. All academic studies of "file sharing" point to the exact opposite effects as claimed by the RIAA: better sales because of sharing, practically zero losses from the same. 349. A true music lover will find the quality of most of the file sharing trash. File Sharing helps only in deciding what song is worth buying. But RIAA does not want this, they want to sell crap at sky high rates. In several countries piracy of movies and music has been curbed by bringing the price down. With all the technology why are the prices of Audio CDs so high, Greed is the only reason. 350. Most people would not buy all the music they download, because it is to expensive. Omly a hanful of downloads would actually be record sales. 351. Artists do not get anywhere near their fair share of record sales too. Listening to freely available music inspires people to buy music anyway. 352. Most people would not buy albums at full price. 353. while it may deprive them of money the amount is very little and its not like they cant afford it. 354. each sale by a pirate is a sale that probably would not have been legitimate because the buyer could not afford legitimate products. 355. I discovered a lot of artists on the net. To bad they don't know how to sell their music.. All they need is a shopping cart and tell the RIAA to go the way of the dinosaurs 356. Most people who bought records before keep doing so, those who download songs "for free" do so because they do not have the money to buy it anyway. Rise and decline in sales has more to do with the quality of music, more than "freeloaders". You can't lose a sale from someone who can't buy it. 357. I see it as follows, I buy a cd, I like the cd, I rip the cd to my hd, and allow people to have access to it, I'm not asking for any money, so they don't loose a sale, I'm just helping people discover new music, if they don't like what I share, they can delete it after they hear it. 358. Pirated boots maybe, but not downloads.. If you down load a song with only 128 mb...Many music lovers still buy the Cd to have that CD quality and flexability. 359. They must think people are made of money! Most people I know buy a CD every couple of months. If they download something for free, it's hardly guaranteed that they'd have paid full price for it if the free option wasn't available. It's far more likely they'd just not have acquired it at all. 360. I would never buy the song. I always will find a way to steal. 361. I will sample a song from an artist I have not heard. then I will hear more songs by said artist that aren't found on p2p and I purchase them. or I will go ahead and purchase some I found anyway just to get better quality copy. 362. Too extreme. Many people file-share in the same way that they borrow CDs from a mate, or a library. If they like it enough, they'll buy it, if not, they return/delete it. 363. Previewing music via methods such as P2P is the perfect way to discover the music, and see if it is worth a purchase. Several times I've downloaded tracks from an album, and liked at least half of what I checked out and felt it was worth buying the album. If anything, file sharing increases the chances of someone hearing the album, and liking it so much that they'll want to buy it! I will agree though that counterfeit physical goods sold on the street does cut in to sales, but digital file sharing for personal use certainly should not! 364. Maybe there is an effect on the aforementioned people. The biggest loser is the RIAA. If they cared so much about the others they would not want more of the money causing less to go to the artist and others. They are great at slinging FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) to confuse us and the policy makers. 365. I have downloaded songs that I would normally never listen to, but something got my attention online. Because of that instance, I then paid for several songs or the entire album from that artist and purchased others as well. But I would never have discovered the songs or that artist without that download. 366. If I download an album and like it, I'll go out and buy the CD. 367. Just because somebody downloads something for free doesn't mean they would have bought it otherwise. People often download music from file-sharing services that they already own (to save them ripping it), to try out new types of music that they would not normally risk money on (which could lead to increased legitimate purchases) or simply because there is no sufficiently convenient means to purchase it otherwise. The volume of music files downloaded from file-sharing networks is not directly proportional to loss in revenue for the artists, and certainly not the primary cause. 368. Screwed 369. The music industry generates such a tremendous amount of money not only from record sales, but from concert revenue, that the majority of people that do share files don't affect anything. 370. online files are not tangible property and should therefore be treated differently. If I steal a loaf of bread, it does not matter when calculating costs whether someone else would have bought it because the bread is gone. With online files, a copy of the original does not remove the original, so it should be taken into account whether the person who illegally acquired the file would have bought it if he/she had not had access to the illegal copy. 371. Proving this would be very, very hard. Non-sense. 372. When someone sends me an mp3 and I like it, I proceed to buy the album. Sometimes it isn't in my favor but usually it is. Due to file sharing I've increased my own purchasing of music by at least ten fold since 2000. Literally hundreds of dollars in music I wouldn't have either known about or cared to buy, every year. These straw man defenses cast by the RIAA are nothing but rhetoric. Besides artists don't make their money in albums, they do it in touring, royalties from film and TV and merchandising. Record companies and the RIAA eat almost every dime of the profit made by selling music. Someone should clue them in that some of us actually know something about economics in entertainment. 373. I would never buy 90% of the stuff I download ANYWAY - it's not that good. The other 10% i DO buy - but I make sure it's not RIAA-member produced. 374. Because I choose to watch a baseball game on network TV, should Major League Baseball sue me for lost revenue? If I went to the game, and it was telecast on ESPN, should THEY sue me for lost revenue? If I decide to watch a movie on video at my friend's house, does that count as a 'lost sale' because I didn't see the movie in a theater, or rent it myself? Absurd argument. 375. If the internet disappeared tomorrow, you would not see a corresponding rise in CD sales. That's because their "dirty little secret" is out: even when you factor the costs of production, packaging, distribution, etc., CDs probably cost less than $5 per unit. The public has realized this and no longer desires to pay a 3-400% markup. There's no reason, except greed, CDs should exceed $10. That's a 100% markup, which would provide ample profit. 376. Technological changes have forced a shift in how music is distributed. With the way technology is, people are not willing to buy a CD. They want the convience of DRM free music files. Personally, I refuse to purchase CDs as a protest to the way the RIAA has treated people in their lawsuits. CD sales are down significantly, and I believe that is a good thing. I will continue not to buy CDs. 377. That is very one sided, there is no evidence that its a pure 1:1 ratio, and that does not account viral marketing. Some people including myself buy 'the legit' copies afterwards. 378. Only record company loses. Artists etc don't get money from a bought CD. 379. If the CDs/downloads were cheap, then no-one would bother file sharing or copying 380. File sharing often helps to promote an artist, not hinder that artist. 381. I've downloaded tons of songs (which is legal where I live as long as I don't share them). Lots of those songs I would never ever purchase and a lot of songs will even get erased from my harddrive... on the other hand, if I really like a song I purchase it online. And after that I will look for more songs by the same artist and purchase those as well. I won't buy any CD's anymore though, I want MP3. 382. If someone were never going to buy that track or disc in the first place, then sharing so they can download it isn't making a big difference. More importantly many people, myself included, view downloading as a good way to discover new music we like. If I don't I don't have any local radio stations that play enough variety to cover my tastes, therefor by not downloading, I would in fact be buying fewer CDs. Because I can download I can try before I buy, and explore many times more bands than before. As a result, since I do like to own and support good artists, I can end up buying more records. 383. Just because I bought or shared one track doesn't mean that if I couldn't do it, that I'd buy the cd. As a matter of fact, I typically buy more cds when I can share music online because I'm exposed to more music. After the RIAA hit napster I just quit looking for music online and my purchases dropped. Same thing is happening with allofmp3.com. 384. I'm not going to go out and buy an album of 13 to 17 songs only to find out that they all SUCKED ASS, save for one or two tracks. If I truly LIKE an album - AFTER listening to some tracks obtained via download - I WILL and DO go out and buy the CD to support the artist - from them directly if possible. 385. Each file shared results in a new consumer for CD's and other merchandise who may not otherwise have heard of the artists whose track(s) are being shared. 386. File sharing for profit is where the RIAA needs to focus their enforcement. However, it is impossible to regulate the free sharing of files. The knee-jerk reaction of the RIAA to punish any file-sharing individual is the wrong approach. 387. If the host company is making a payment for royalties, where's the problem. 388. see #11 389. I have purchase more music since I started downloading (including CD's) becasue I now that the most of the songs I will like. Before downloading I would by a CD and more often than not end up giving it away because only one song was good. After a while I just gave up on buying them all together becasue it was a waste of money. 390. I would NOT buy music I can't hear first. Most stores do not have the music I prefer, only the artists that RIAA and Handleman 'feel' deserve publicity. I tend to purchase MOST of my CDs used or directly from the artists. 391. Not everyone will pay for the songs, IE: Cassette & VCR tapes. 392. People don't have infinite amounts of money. They can spend their money only once. For example a college student with low income who downloads lots of stuff wouldn't be paying for most of the stuff he consumes because he doesn't have the money. If said college student couldn't download anything, he would probably go to the library to get his media and wouldn't pay either. 393. Since access to new/non-commercial music is so extremely limited, file sharing is a good way to spread the word about albums that are flying under the radar commercially. I myself have bought many albums at retail after first getting to know the artist (long ago) by a tape made by a friend, and more recently, by a burned disc. 394. Not absolutly true. Some people use the argument that they wouldnt have bought the damn thing anyway, which is probably true in many cases. Also if the companies brought out a music selling system which gave consumers their rights as well as being as easy to use as P2P file sharing these sales might be regained. 395. Most high downloaders are still frequent purchasers of music. Many people still choose to purchase a good quality album they have previously downloaded. If Sales are being lost it is in no small part due to the draconian approach adopted by an industry afraid of change. 396. Most of the music I share I would never buy unless I had heard it first. Having heard it, I buy a lot of stuff I'd previously downloaded. 397. I believe it's silly to think that every file traded equates to a lost sale because much of what is downloaded is done so because people don't know if they'll really enjoy it. I believe that most people who download music know and understand that much of what is being produced by the major labels is poor quality, and wouldn't pay for it anyway - especially at the exorbitant prices the labels seem to think is fair. However, there are a lot of good artists out there who don't get a lot of exposure or promotion by the labels, and file sharing introduces obscure artists to a whole market that wouldn't know of them otherwise. And in those cases, I believe that people would gladly pay for the music that they enjoy - especially if the price was reasonable. 398. My personal experience, I've downloaded movie that I've watch and if I could not downloaded them, I would just wait to see them on one of the movie channel that I do pay for. I've downloaded music that I liked and them bought the CD anyway, but lots that I didn't buy was music I would not have bought in the first place anyway. 399. . 400. Why does the list go on with internet sales? 401. 'Depriving' is the term I have a problem with. I fail to see where the over-privileged can be 'deprived' of anything. 402. A file shared is not a sale lost. People download a prodigious amount of music because it is free, and thus allows them to sample a wide variety of different artists. People download music which they would never normally pay for in the shops, regardless of whether or not the option to download the song was available to them. 403. "Each sale by a pirate [or file shared] represents a lost legitimate sale" is a non-sequitur. You might as well say that every free demo clip or every radio play is a lost legitimate sale. 404. Possibly true, but instead of crying over kids filesharing, maybe they should focus on keeping record labels honest. How about that? How many lawsuits have their been in the past 40 years? How about focusing on managers and regulating their contracts so that artists are protected? How about that? Oh, wait, none of this makes them any money. Nevermind. 405. As a loyal user of allofmp3 I cant without a doubt that the above mentioned web site has opened up a massive opertunity for someone like me to hear all kinds of new music, most of which i would have never discovored in a general music shop. And after experiancing rather unkown artists ive been compelled to purchase t-shirt, patches and various other merchandise which surely must be a financial benifit to the inviduals involved with the music. And besides, the level of money made amoungst the music ladder is nothing short of greed. 406. I have bought MORE CDs from shops than I EVER used to buy soince I started sharing and downloading . You simply find MORE groups to love !! 407. I wouldn't buy all the music I've downloaded, I would only buy about 10% of it. So it isn't a lost sale, in fact it's taught me about new artists I wouldn't have heard before and I've then gone on to see them live, something I never did before. 408. every ones getting their cut especially the exec's 409. most sales would never have occurred in the first place, however the increased exposure gained by an artist may well result in increased sales 410. I very rarely buy cds at least with sharing music online I get exposed to new artists. If there is someone I like I'll go to their shows and be more inclined to buy future albums, however I'm not going out and spending atrocious amounts on cds only to find out the band is rubbish. 411. Most of the files I download are files I wouldn't pay money for to begin with. I would not spend $20 on a cd because it has 11 songs on it, 1 of which doesn't suck. I still purchase cds, movies, gamse etc when I know I'm getting my moneys worth and not some pandering pointless drivel. 412. IT IS NOT TRUE THAT I WOULD BUY THOSE FILES I GET "ILLEGALLY" IF I DOWNLOAD THEM OR COPY THEM IS BECAUSE THEY ARE FREE, I WAS MUCH MORE SELECTIVE BEFORE FILE SHARING EXISTED AND WOULD THINK TWICE BEFORE BUYING. IT IS ONLY BECAUSE SHARED FILES ARE FREE THAT I HAVE GOT THEM. I STILL BUY GOOD MUSIC. AS ALWAYS DID. AND EVERYONE WHO SHARES AND GETS MUSIC STILL BUYS. WE ALSO GO TO CONCERTS AND BUY MERCHANDISING. WE LOVE MUSIC SO WE STILL SPEND MONEY IN MUSIC I ONE OR ANOTHER WAY. 413. I listen more from sites like allofmp3 than I ever would at the eu price. 414. Download to try out many songs that I'd have never spent money for. 415. Because of the cost of CDs in the UK - usually around twice that of the USA, buying as many CDs as I download is not an option, therefore, they are not lost sales. 416. Their argument is so laughable I don't even want to waste words refuting it. 417. Most music today is crap and if the market was truly allowed to function outside of a monopoly would be worth only pennies. There is no need for the middlemen in music nowadays, and the only person losing profits is the RIAA. The middlemen the RIAA describes see only a minimal portion of the dollars paid by consumers anyway. 418. They are assuming that when I download a file I actually would have bought it. 419. Most file sharers only sample music. They either delete the file immediately because they don't like it or they eventually support the artist by buying content or attending live events. 420. i'll download music i don't think is worth the cost of buying, and good music i've discovered by downloading has ended up with my buying dozens of albums. 421. The record industry would see things like that. Perhaps it would be true if they weren't so greedy in the money they want per album etc. 422. Only a small number of people share music files online. If everyone shared music files online then there would be a noticable drop in profits. The proof is on MTV Cribs. Don't think they're losing much, if anything at all. 423. No, because most of the music i've ever run across on any file sharing system is usually of low-bitrate and only really good for preview purposes. If i like the track, i try to find it at a legitamate 'digital store' at a high bitrate, without DRM. Many of my purchases of MP3s are of Dance music (pretty much on small labels) and can be found at high bitrates and no DRM. 424. Music distribution is changing. The RIAA needs to get with the times. 425. Correct answer to the question is "True" but the reason is inadequate for today business model of getting revenues. 426. most ppl wouldn't buy it anyway 427. It's obvious that most most people who obtain a free copy of a performance would not pay full price for it. 428. If one shares files, they're acting more as a marketing representative of that artist, encouraging others to either buy their own CDs or go and see the artist when they're on tour. 429. File sharing promotes sales by allowing people to test-drive a song or album before purchasing it. It also allows people to put off buying an album until the price is no longer over-inflated. The record companies are actually complaining about losing the ability to force people to buy an entire album-full of otherwise lousy music in order to get one or two good singles. 430. Just because a person downloads a song illegally or purchases the song via other means does not mean that the person would have bought the song if the "illegal" means were not available. For many people, if the "illegal" means were not available, they'd simply do without. 431. This is skewed statistics at its finest. First, simply because a person has heard a does not mean they were going to buy that song in the first place. Lost "phantom revenues", i.e. sales PROJECTIONS, should not count as long SALES. Second, a large majority of consumers of the so-called "pirated" content are generally law-abiding people, and will gladly pay 10 cents (or another REASONABLE price) for having "legal" access to the content they were able to preview for free. Most people are perfectly OK with compensating an artist *directly*, it's the layers of middlemen they have an issue with. Third, when the distribution system gets overhauled (see previous response), artists might actually make MORE money from direct sales. 432. They've been making an obsene amount of money for yeras. This just represents a small drop in their huge profits. They still make loads money though, just not quite as loads as before 433. I have found and heard music from many artists via file sharing that I otherwise would never have heard of, and have in turn bought their music. 434. A download does not mean a lost sale. I've downloaded hundreds of songs but I've bought ONLY the 20-30 that I actually appreciate. The rest were deleted. 435. many people download things they would normally not buy. if they want it they will buy it on cd. 436. The entire music industry is fulthy rich and I as a music lover is trying to say money on songs. 437. Just because someone downloads a 'free' song does not mean that the same person would actually buy it if they could not get it for free. Nonetheless, the above question is probably correct to an extent. 438. I get pirated music that I'd never normally buy. If I like it, THEN I may buy something else from that artist. 439. I won't buy many CDs at full price, but I will at a deep discount. And as there is no CD or packaging I shouldn't have to. 440. See my previous answer. The record companies still make millions because the majority of users still buy the hard copy. 441. A shared file isn't even remotely comparable in quality to the original pcm. They should consider shared files as a form of free promotion. the album format no longer works. Lower prices on individual songs would make in volume sales. 442. The only one losing money are the factory workers. 443. If an artist's music sucks, I'm not going to buy it. Plain and simple. 444. 90% of shared files would never have been purchased in the first place. It allows more people to experience music who would not have had the opportunity before. 445. If it costs me $1 a song or $15 for the CD when I only want 1-5 songs, I am simply not going to buy it. So I would rather use allofmp3.com. 446. Many people who download music "illegally" wouldn't buy the CD even if they couldn't download the music. Downloading music isn't the same as shoplifting. If you shoplift, you're taking a product that actually cost something to produce. Downloading music is simply transferring bits of data which cost nothing. 447. unless a "REAL" dollar is part of the transaction there is NO Piracy -- Flea market sales of clones/copys ARE piracy 448. Most people don't download albums. They download individual tracks because they are unlikely to buy an entire album anyways. If they wouldn't buy the whole album anyways, then the industry is not missing out on a sale. 449. A pirated sale would probably be a lost legitimate sale. But a file shared is not. I download cd's before I buy them so I know what it sounds like, if I don't like it, I don't buy it. I have also found alot of artists and albums I liked through file sharing. My cd purchasing habits has actually gone up since I've had broadband. 450. People share files for a variety of reasons. Top on the list? 1. $.99 a song? No way.. to expensive... 2. Low Quality! 128kbps aac? No... 3. DRM! I don't want to be restricted to a certain brand of player. 451. Record companies are simply greedy and the amounts they pay major artists are ridiculous. 452. I downloaded a Timbaland song to see if he really plagiarized, which he did. I would never have bought the song. Many times I download music by an artist because of how bad they are. I would *never* buy music that is as bad as some I download. 453. downloads only occured because they were free and a sale wouldn't have otherwise coccured. 454. THe more music you hear of an artist, the more likely you are to buy their album. 455. I stopped buying CD's long before I could download music. Even if I couldn't grab a song here or there I still wouldn't buy CD's 456. Sharing exposes musicians to new audiences. People who really like the music end up buying it. 457. There are many songs I have collected that I wouldn't have bothered with if I had to pay for an album to get. 458. most music is crap. if a CD has 10 quality songs, then it is worth buying. stop manufacting bands like cars and record real artist 459. Just because someone downloads material, it doesn't neccessarily mean that that person would have purchased it legitimately. If that person never intended to buy a CD in the first place, how can the RIAA count it as a loss if they download the CD instead? 460. each file shared represents someone trying before they buy - they didnt like it? they wont buy it, they probably wouldntve bought it anyway (probably being around 80%) If they did like it they might buy it, or they might buy the next one (seriously depends on the price though) file sharing is the right price for everybody - people cannot afford an album/game/film then they can get it on the net for free. 461. Most people who download music for free either would not have the money to buy it anyway or (like me) want to listen to things at a decent quality before I buy them. I always buy CDs of the things I actually like. 462. It isn't file sharing, but the low over all quality of albums and the bad image the recording companies are giving themselves that is contributing to lower sales 463. The artist gets shit from the sale of recordings, unless they control their catalogs and lease said catalogs to the record companies. 464. If I want it, I'll buy it. There's music that's worth a listen or two, but for sure not worth the money. If I could hear the song a few times or return cd's (not happening), then we have a different story. 465. Most of the people I know have that have downloaded music have also purchased the albums shortly afterward. (or rather, recieved the cd or other physical that was already purchased) From the people I know,about 4/5 actually purchase the albums 466. The music industry can in no way out do the ability of consumers to share and advertise music to other consumers. I believe many people only purchase music that others have shown them or given samples to them. 467. Maybe the sales will lose profit, but many people still purchase CDs after downloading the music to listen to on their iPod. Saying that every file shared represents lost profit is ridiculous... 468. I'll download music I have no intention of buying because I want to hear it. If I like it then I'll see the band in concert or buy their stuff or tell people about them. 469. the problem here is that the music industry is hurt by shared music, but the artist are not. they see increase in concerts revenue with is mostly their profit. 470. The RIAA is the middleman. Everyone else will continue to make money. 471. if i like a song, download it, like it i will buy the album 472. File sharing provides exposure to artists that otherwise might not be heard by individuals. This allows for consumers/fans to sample music and find new artists which leads to an increase in the purchase of music, tickets, and related merchandise. 473. most of new music is crap i wouldnt pay for 474. but who cares should be better priced 475. labels are loosing the money 476. I wouldn't pay 12 bucks for a cd, so the fact that i download a potential good album doesn't lose a sale that wouldn't have occurred anyway 477. I see each file shared as indication to the industry that it will have to change and provide the customer with a good product that provides value for money. 478. This expands the market for music. It creates more music users. 479. Nil 480. the person just wouldn't buy it 481. See 11 above, plus the fact that channels like MTV (as it used to be) promoted the artists, and made people buy more music, including me. See it as promotion. There just have to be a legal, cheap, non-DRM-ladden store to purchase from and most people would buy as oppposed to download for free. AllofMP3 is an excellent example of such a store. I have purchased lots from them in the past when they accepted Visa/Mastercard. The price they charge I am willing to pay to get a high quality product that was easy to find. The prices the record industry charges for "last-century" CDs are ridiculous, and the DRM-ladden songs from iTunes or any other store is not worth the money. 482. i wouldn't buy most of the shit that's being produced these days. 483. It's not stealing. It's duplicating. I wouldn't buy 99% of the music I download and share. 484. Most CDs are crap, som why should we pay for crap 485. Popularity is everything. If it wasn't for sharing music i would not have half the bought albums in my collection as I would never have heard of the artist. Music is way overpriced so spreading it around evens out the value a bit. 486. new avenue of distribution, user can still purchase if they liked what they heard 487. is there even a publisher for online stuff? 488. A a "pirate track" sold / downloaded = a chance to try music otherwise not tried, B Big artists / bands make more on promo / consert / sales of shirts etc and that is NOT impacted negitivaly by "piracy" (new band / artist discovered = more chance of going to a concert etc) 489. People have a limited amount of money to spend on entertainment. If I can't afford to buy music, I'm not going to buy it. 490. i download music not available on a cd 491. who says i would buy the stuff 492. when i download and like the songs i'm more out to go buy the complete cd 493. I would not always buy if I could not sample the product first. Sometimes I have to hear something a few times before I really like it. When I do like it I go buy it to support the artist. However if they are on a major label I will try to find an alternative way to help the artist as I think the labels are too much of a mob. It's time we the people were in charge and not large corporations. 494. Each file shared makes a customer sure of what, and if, he/she wants to buy. It helps customers. I have learnt many bands through filesharing, and bought some of their CDs. 495. No one is guilty that they have all those unnecesary leeches (producer, publisher, retailer...) and they will not just STREAMLINED their business model 496. Well I personally know people who would still not buy much music even regardless of whether file sharing existed or not. Their music and movie collections are far greater than they would be if file sharing never existed, but there was never really a "lost legitimate sale". Different people don't buy music for different reasons, though. 497. I download music to see if I like it. 99% of the time I don't and I delete it. Yes, sometimes I cost the RIAA a sale, but you can't say that each download that I make represents a lost sale. 498. Tjey proboly wouldnt buy it. 499. I think the majority still buy cds and use itunes or zune marketplace. 500. every one gets payed some how. some get payed under the table while some don't it depends on who's ass you kiss the most. 501. if i like it i buy it 502. The record company takes nearly all of the profit. 503. They gain money because they are advertised that way and people go to there concerts. 504. It would be interesting to see $1bln a day of real money ($1\per file\a day). We don't have that much, I think actual lost is no more than 5%. 505. They are rich 506. Most artists make their money by going on tour 507. That's like saying each person who received a grocery store flyer (as in No.11) for free caused the grocery store to lose money. WRONG. The ones who got the flyers may have gone to the store and bought groceries. 508. Note previous. I also define piracy as someone selling multiple illegal copies of a work for profit, not an individual sharing a file/song. The first is a crime and should be prevented and punished. The latter is marketing and should be encouraged. 509. I am happy to support independent labels, and acquire independent music (or major label music) at a fair price in a format that suits me (thanks, emusic!). I don't feel guilty about "sampling" music that I wouldn't otherwise buy by means of filesharing. If I like it, I'll be at the artists' show, buy a t-shirt, buy the album. 510. Artist have never made millions from records, They make thier money from concert and venue ticket sales.. Make good music get a good following and make people want to pay to see you in concert. 511. What's causing the loss of sales is the bare-bones stripping of record stores due to mass market retailers as well as focus-grouped pop product flooding the stores. 512. Alot of times i will download something to check it out, if it wasnt availible for download i would have just skipped it entirely. 513. download = likely to see concert download = likely to continue to download - why not offer advertising to this person in exchange for free music 514. There needs to be a new way of making profits from music. When a 40 GB iPod can hold 10,000 songs (assuming an average of 4 MB/song), how can anyone reasonably assume that the iPod owner is going to spend $10,000 to fill it. With Terabyte drives coming out, the problem is only going to get bigger. It is already easy enough to build a music collection big enough to fill an iPod -- it is not that much harder to fill a Terabyte hard drive -- yet my income has not increased by that magnitude. The music industry is going to have to face the fact that technology has changed and a song is not worth what it once was. 515. File sharing leads to sales. 516. The decision to share/download files is an economic one of supply and demand. The majority of filesharers do not exlusively download illegally to obtain their music. Rather, some albums are worth the $15 cd purchase to the listener, whereas other material is not, and will be downloaded. But that downloaded material still has economic worth- whatever monetary value that listener attaches to avoiding the risk of an RIAA lawsuit. Were the music industry structured to realized this potential profit "lost" to file sharing, a great opportunity would arise. Granted, this would likely be a fraction of a retail cd's price, but multiplied over the millions of internet users, a truly new market for music would be created in an environment where the only cost to the record industry would be hosting files. 517. I in China. No CD to buy in store. Intert place only download to get. 518. "piracy" has always been present, some artists gain recognition by word of "piracy", some even improve their sales by it, but it's only as long as the product is good, if it poor or mediocre, then the word of mouth generated by "piracy" will instead sink it's sales. In essence it's a right effect but based on false theory. Before you bought an album to get a song, after you did, you noticed most of the album was not so good , but having only 2 or 3 good tunes, problem was you had already payed full price for the whole thing, with the digital era you can select exact tunes to buy and pay only for them, this obviously isn't as profitable for the industry, but that's not our problem, and since they already overprice CDs by almost 800% i don't think ppl should feel the elast guilty 519. Almost all of the music I download is underground anyway. Even if I didn't download the music, I would probably never buy the CD, not only because of the expense, but also because in most cases I probably have never heard of the band until I have downloaded their music. It helps build the fan bases of the less popular artists and bands. I don't know what to say about the mainstream artists, because I can't stand them. 520. If suddenly there would be no more trackers, no p2p at all, I would consider paying for video content, but I don not agree that every share is a lost of a legit sale. 521. each will still get paid, just the decline of sales limits the extreme ammount a record exec gets paid 522. I would never have bought the songs anyway. If anything p2p has let me explore more styles of music that I would never have even heard of before. 523. Technically, this is true, but, again, artists never received due compensation to begin with. File-sharing mainly just hurts fat-cat record companies. 524. the large record companies may be loosing profits but this is money that never gets near the artists, etc. i see selling pirated copies to be very different than file sharing in the copying a cassette for a friend way. 525. Take off everything after "profits." RIAA screws everyone else. 526. A pirate sale and a shared media file are far from the same thing. The only people who stand to profit from the latter are artists, who benefit from the increased exposure they receive, which increases their potential to generate revenue from touring, licensing, publishing and merchandise. 527. Bull ****!! They feel threatened. The average geek can cut a disk as good as theirs now. Still nice to have the cover and a real cd. Recording Industry Association of America 2003 46,386,219 27,665,291 Cary Sherman, president 1,005,000 Mitch Bainwol, CEO 844,231 n/a n/a Membership dues from record labels 528. First of all: noone would go out and pay for the music he or she downloads (if I did, I'd be broke ten times over). Second: downloading an album doesn't mean there's one less album for someone to pay for. Third: The people who actually deserves to be paid, the artists, can make their money from playing shows, selling merchandise et cetera. This will have the added benefit of weeding out people who are only it for the money. 529. I agree that the artist loses money when i don't buy a CD I otherwise might have - but i have issues with contributing some $7-8 towards the labels' coffers just to get some 10 cents across to the artists. unfair, i agree...but there needs to be a better solution . 530. Normally if people were going ot buy the CD in the first place they would have done so, so there is no lost sale for what didn't exist originally 531. Here in Mexico, the sale of pirate discs is widespread. At about $2 USD per CD, people can afford to buy music. At full retail, about 95% of the people wouldn't buy music at all, if the pirates disappeared tomorrow. 532. A file shared might never have been purchased. Also, a previewed dowloaded file may result in a sale that would not have existed. 533. I would buy less music if it wasn't for the try before you buy, that filesharing makes possible 534. i wouldn't have bought ANY of the files i downloaded 535. Just imagine if the bottled water industry used the same argument; due to people using free tap water, they'd be "losing" an amount of money greatly exceeding the total sum of all world currencies. 536. If I really like the cd I will buy it If I like only one song I will only download it. 537. screw the record companies 538. The RIAA... too talentless to be artists, too dumb to be businessmen, too greedy to be criminals... Really Idiotic Association of Arses ...afterall remember this is the organization that REJECTED the mere mp3 format outright/initially... 539. I wouldn't have bought the album any way. And I am more likely to buy an album if I get a good preview. 540. They'll always recieve money for their music other ways, the record companies are just bitching cause they are losing money 541. I use file sharing to explore new music. If I like something, I buy it. Mp3 does not offer the sound quality of a CD, although most CDs sound like shit anyway - because the music business doesn't care enought o put out a quality product anymore. Maybe that's why "sales are plummeting?" 542. as per answer 11 543. It poses a loss only to the record companies because the artist will still demand the same pay, and the record companies will keep paying them, and if they don't it helps the economy by preventing the rich from monopolizing the money. File-Sharing helps the economy by letting poorer people keep their money. 544. EMI skimmed millions from the Beatles. Sam Moore found himself without a pension. The Bay City Rollers received one check for about $225,000. They sold 70 million albums. Even if you bought a "legitimate" copy, the band didn't get paid. So what's the difference? 545. I see file sharing as a kind of "Try before you buy" thing. I don't like buying albums with 11 crap songs & 1 good one. Music is expensive here in Australia (most CDs cost around $25-30AU), so I need to spend wisely. Sharing lets me determine if the artist is actually good enough to deserve my hard earned cash. There are also the out-of-print & hard to find pieces that may be available by sharing. What artist really wants their music to die? Sharing keeps alive music that would otherwise be lost to the ages. Also -- if I like something I've downloaded enough, then I do go out & buy the item. I also see sharing as no different to after-market sales on auction sites or garage sales. 546. I don't buy pirate things, I do them my self! :P But really, alot of the stuff I do/would buy I am extremely unlikely to actually go and buy at stores anyway. 547. most files are shared, not sold, and why buy anything you've never heard or heard of? 548. They would never make a sale from me! Rent, food, utilities, car payment, insurance, gas, and taxes VS. entertainment. Guess who wins. After that, no money left for big media. Not that it stops me. I've been a pirate since my Apple II days... 549. I have yet to see any devestating effects 550. 1st: pirating is completely different from sharing. 2nd: 9 out of 10 pirated or shared records would never be 'bought' if not by those alternatives. 3rd: who defines what is a 'legitimate sale' of a non-scarce cultural good? 551. False, as I will review a movie or music file and if I like it I will support the artist by making a direct purchase from them. Labels are sucking the life out of music anyway. 552. more exploring of music to buy 553. I don't buy CDs now unless I have already heard a majority of the songs, which I get from file-sharing... Iused to buy all the time, but quit when I was unhappy with the CDs, After 5 years I started checking out P2P, and started buying again... 554. if one can't download, doesn't mean one will buy. 555. If it is for non-commercial use, and the copies are from CD's or itunes files already bought, then there is no moral reasons to equate it with stealing. 556. A lot of people like to try stuff before they buy it so they are sure that they will get their money's worth. 557. I would'nt buy a lot of the songs I download 558. Sale? most files sharers or "pirates" don't resell the files they download and share, so it's only a sale potential they are losing out on, and bad marketing on their part. music-tours/movies-highqualitytheater/etc. they are not losing a single buck of the file sharer, but on their own low quality marketing or bought experience they offer. 559. Many people will collect things if they are free. They may never read/listen to/use it but they will collect it. I can't bear to throw away a good strong box or a plastic container ... surely I'll find a use for it. 560. Most stuff I wouldn't buy becuase it's horrible and gets deleted in short order. The wonder of digital data and 561. try before you buy 562. RIAA is evil, and therefore liars. 563. Each file shared by a "pirate" represents an introduction to a new consumer. The same consumer that probably wouldn't have even known of the band's existence without file sharing. 564. Absolute stuff and nonsense. What really strikes me is the hypocrisy of the record companies--like they really give a damn about the artists, let alone the others. 565. 10,000 shares = 1 sale 566. they make more money than me. 567. alot of shared stuff wouldn't be bought in the first place 568. The RIAA has no god given right to make money. They must adapt or hopefully die 569. P2P is free advertising for the labels. Highest shared files also have highest sales. 570. Just because someone downloaded a file doesn't mean that that indivisual would have purchased the music track had he/she not downloaded the track. 571. File sharing allows one to preview albums before (a potentially bad) purchases. It allows one to listen to music outside of one's country. If I like an album and it is available in my area FOR A DECENT PRICE I will buy it. I cant afford to spend $30 to buy a CD from the UK on the fact that I know I like one song. 572. Shared files represent potential sales. Either due to sampling or aversion to insane prices. 573. The artist hardly sees a molecule from the sales of their work. Want your eyes opened, read: http://www.aandronline.com/reading-room/courtney1.html 574. If the artist and everybody else lost so much money because of file sharing then why haven't they gone belly up so far? Where are they getting their money? File sharing has been around for how many years now? They say they are losing money but do I see that as having any affect on them? I watch MTV Cribs and the houses are still huge and the five cars outside still look great. I don't buy they're propaganda, so I don't buy their CD's. 575. The data they present does not take into account 3 things: 1. Downloads from people who wouldn't have bought. (no loss) 2. Downloads from people who then buy the album/song. (gain) 3. Downoads from people who would've bought the legitimate copy if it was made available. (gain) 576. I download things to try them because I am not willing to spend the money on something that sucks. I'd say less than 10% of things I download are things I would actually pay for if it was available by no other means. 577. a file downloaded is not always a sale lost but the buying and selling of pirated goods should be stopped. only the creators of the content should be allowed to profit from the sale of the product. funnily enough I get the feeling that the people who created and work on the product rarely see all that profit. I think the publishers probably see most of it. 578. Each shared file shows how sick some consumer is of handing his money over so that some record executive or wall street suit can get rich, while most artists still stay poor. 579. Downloads are more promotional. 580. I will often download a song or album from a band that I have not heard. I would not walk into a store and spend $12-15 on a CD that I know nothing about. Every new band or artist I discover on P2P leads to new profits that would not have been had otherwise. For example, I was introduced to one of my now-favorite bands, Minus The Bear, when a friend burned a copy of one of their albums for me. Since then, I have bought their entire discography on legal, retail CD format, bought tickets to see them live three times, and bought a shirt at one of their shows. In addition, I found out about Horse The Band from another user on a P2P site who recommended them to me based on the fact that I like Minus The Bear. Now I have purchased a Horse The Band CD, seen them live, and bought one of their shirts. When I saw Horse The Band, they played with So Many Dynamos and I ended up buying their CD too. Now, by searching So Many Dynamos MySpace page, I have discovered two more new bands whose music I have downloaded and am listening to. More than likely, this will lead to future sales for both of those bands, and so on. So that original act of piracy has now lead to purchases of seven legitimate CDs, four concert tickets, and two shirts purchased at those concerts. Without that original burned CD, I most likely would have never made any of these purchases. 581. A file shared is not a sale lost. Copyrighted material should NEVER be sold by people who are not the copyright holder, as this diverts a legitimate sale from the legitimate copyright holder. However, sharing DOES NOT equate to a lost purchase, as there is absolutely no guarantee that in the absence of a free file, someone will spend money buying a legitimate file. 582. this is not much different than copying tapes in days gone by. it also allows the smaller artists to get their music out there and listened to and boosts the possibility of sales of a full album for them 583. Artists see little profits except from merch sales and gate receipts. 584. the price of copies is virtually nil. nobody needs to pay for copies. 585. Most downloaded music is done because it's free and easy, not because they would have bought it in a store. 586. I wouldn't buy more than half the shit i have downloaded. In fact the few albums i do buy i wouldn't of bought unless i had heard them first. Student = Poor. 587. I use filesharing to effectively "try on" new music. If I like more than a few songs on an artist or group's CD, I'll go buy it to support the band. But if there are only two songs worth listening to, I won't buy the album because it's not worth it. They inflate the figures of losses to piracy to the point those estimates are laughable. A file shared does not equal a traditional sale lost, it equals a lost opportunity for the industry because they don't really offer DRM free downloads. 588. more exposure = more sales 589. Accepting a free file-share does not conclusively prove willingness to buy said media. 590. a file shared does not equal a lost legitimate sale. only a fraction of files shared may actually equal a lost legitimate sale 591. I WOULD NEVER EVER BUY EVERYTHING I DOWNLOAD! 592. Different. 593. I'm in no position to buy most of the stuff I d\l. 594. A means to filter through all the junk 595. most of the music i download i wouldn't have bought in the first place. I used to dub tapes off the radio for the one song i wanted. cds are to expensive and usually i only like a song or two. 596. I try and see it as sharing allows me to find new artists, improving my chances of finding and thus buying a new artist. 597. Many times people download songs they would never buy otherwise, therefore, a legitimate sale is not lost. 598. Well, maybe it's true to a certain extent, but from what I see in record shops, I believe that there's a more or less standard number of people who buy legitimate CDs anyway. Those who can afford them, will buy them. Those who can't, would most probably never buy them in the first place, so essentially there's only a small percentage of "lost" customers, if at all. 599. Sometimes I may download a song to try it, and then not like it. It is the same to me as listening to the radio. I only listen to indie music anyway. If I like it, I have no problems buying it from a non-evil source. 600. I would never buy the item and if not available on p2p would not have it. 601. I download maybe 20 files a week, and buy or go to see in the movies what i LIKE. Ive bought MORE media since P2P and broadband,not less 602. People will take anything for free. Nothing says these songs would have been purchased 603. The growing use of the internet, including, but not specifically filesharing, has meant that consumers are beginning to purchase better suited products and services instead of what is presented to them, due to its less controlled, international nature. This means smaller companies gain, due to their unique selling point whilst larger companies loose, because they had previously relied on advertising and snowball methods. 604. There are albums that I wouldn't buy for any cost. 605. more people are being exposed to more genre of music - hence they buy more legitimate tracks .. and artistes are now more inclined towards live performance 606. The CD's I've bought in the last 10 years (I'm 49) were 'used' from record shops. My son has bought about 10 CD's (with my money). I've taught him this, "If he downloads some music, and if in his mind it's good music, then he should go out and buy it." But he too has a problem, he says most of the music is crap, badly produced, filled with sampled mp3 crap (even on the original). 607. I've checked music out of the library to have a listen before I buy. If I like it, I buy; if I don't like it, I don't buy. File sharing actually induces people to buy because once you hear a song you like, you want to hear more by the artist. 608. Each file shared could indicate someone who is interested in the artist but cautious about buying. Or someone who would never have listened to the artist normally, but is now. And again, most of the artists never see the money made on sales, just royalties. 609. Most of it probably is a lost legitimate sale. However, most of the music I download is to see if an album is even worth my purchase. If I like a band enough I support them as much as possible; I own entire discographies and am proud of it. 610. That's not true, i can download the last mp3 of britney spears (she sucks) and listen to it, but i wouldn't never buy it anyway, so they aren't losing a legitimate sale. RIAA STFU 611. The Music Industry, or the enormous corporations controlling the record labels, are the ones hurting the artists (and shooting themselves int he foot). Perhaps if they stopped shelling out 100+ million bonuses for their ceos, they would have some extra cash for their "artists." When you make music, and not profit, the goal of the industry you will see results. 612. NO WAY! Just because I choose to download something for free doesn't mean I would have ever bought the CD!! 613. it's all about the money. 614. I have actually purchased an album do to hearing a pirated song from an artist. I call that damn good marketing!! 615. if one had to pay for all the freely available downloads one would not spend or even have the money in the first place. It's like saying every 13-yr old who downloads and uses Photoshop would have spent $700 on a license in the first place. Hardly. 616. An awful lot of files downloaded are done in the hope that there's something good there; mostly, it's very poor quality. If it is good, then I buy it as a CD or DVD. Otherwise, ut joins the Great Bitbucket in The Sky 617. The assumption is that a downloader would have bought the CD with that song anyway - this is blatantly untrue. Many people download the song, find out they don't like it, and would have never bought a CD in any case. I find that we buy more CDs now than ever - BECAUSE of better exposure to new and old music. Radio sucks, so does music TV... where else do we find out about new or old music? 618. each file shared potentially results in the loss of a potential sale 619. Sharing is exposure. Even before I started boycotting I was only buying a handful of CD's per year. I have downloaded SO MUCH that I would NEVER have purchased - simply bc it is free and Dl'ing is addictive :) 620. Sample music to see what a band sounds like. Used to by music but stoped after Napster was taken down the first time. Spend as little as poosible on RIAA music now. Go to concerts a lot more now then I used to. 621. Hahaha. lol This is the most ridiculous thing ive ever heard. A downloaded song was never a song that would have been purchased. They are full of it. They lose nothing on a download. In fact, they have gotten more money out of me because of the downloads. I have purchased over 1000 CDs in the last years. But I'll tell you something serious... I wouldn't have known half of these groups, or at least I wouldn't have developed an affinity for them enough to buy the CD or see them in concert, if i hadn't sampled a lot of their works over many weeks and months. That how it works. Easy to find, easy to keep, easy to listen, and before you know it, a fan develops, and fans go to concerts and buy memorabilia, CDs and DVDs because they want the full quality original work to support a GOOD artist! (I wouldn't have bought half these CDs if i didnt already know that i would like at least half the songs on them.) So without downloads, their money would be less... and if their money is less today, than yesterday, its because they failed to put out new quality music... so dont blame downloads on their failures. 622. i download to listen, most product is crap if i like it I will buy it 623. For each CD I buy that's crap hurts record companies profits. 624. See my answer above 625. Back in the days of Morpheus and Napster, I was spending TONS of money on CD's after discovering tons of new artists on the file sharing sites. Now that P2P has become such a legal risk and since the radio stations only play a sliver of the music available, I simply gave up on trying to find new music. 626. Artists can still make money by other sales (concerts, t-shirts, etc.). 627. Most fileshares are done by people trying new music or would not purchase the music in the first place. 628. Look, people who download a particular song may or may not have gone out and paid money for it. Sometimes they're just curious. Sometimes they think the song sucks and delete it. Sometimes they like the song, but they still wouldn't gone out and plunked down $20 for the CD it's on, along with a bunch of other crap they don't care about. It is a fanciful assumption to assume a 1-to-1 ratio with regard to sharing vs. sales. 629. To back that statement up, you would need a mind-reading device and a time machine, or possibly both. I say prove it. Each time I download music, I am MORE likely to go out and buy it if I like it than I would be with no way to try it out first. And these stupid DRM'd and short clips don't qualify as try-before-you-buy. I need to listen to it in my car, and hear the whole album before I decide if it's worth $15. 630. Same as my answer to #11 above... 631. If it wasnt free i wouldnt buy it (O_o). 632. There has to be some kind of outlet for people who can not afford to buy music. Copying from the radio or off a cassette tape has always been done. Thats how I use to do it. Personally I would do away with the RIAA and have each artist build their own website to sale their stuff. But I still Cant Afford to buy every single song I like. I could go on but i dont Want to type forever....... 633. People who are going to pirate the stuff are going to do it anyway, no matter what the RIAA (or the MPAA, for that matter) do. 634. I simply wouldn't pay for most of the music I now have collected. Even if that means I could not listen to it at all. 635. We all simply have MORE music now than we used to. People who bought lot's of records before still buy. People who bought little music before (my case) still buy a little music and download "a historical catalogue" of music that is not on the "Top 40" today, but might have been 30 or 50 years ago. 636. Each file shared by a "pirate" is a potential sale of product for the record company, artist, producer, songwriter, publisher, retailer... etc etc. 637. their rich 638. Same as the above; they are not loosing any money at all! Although I agree withe the: "Each SALE by a PIRATE, ... lost legitimate sale". I believe that is true - the 'hard' piracy, that is. 639. Sure, pirated works that are sold en lieu of the actual articles hurt sales. However, in the case of file sharing, there are usually 2 cases: 1, a file sharer downloads an item, and later purchases it, having decided it's worth their money for the better quality or collectible factor. Or 2, the file sharer never has been or would have been a customer, so sales are basically unaffected. 640. The old "try before you buy" reasoning. As stated in the previous textbox, lots of releases just suck. People who love the music will support the artists they like. Filesharing is purifying the quality of music. 641. There are more profits now then ever before for the record industry. 642. Downloading a file doesn't mean you would have paid for it otherwise. People are much more discerning about what music they get if they have to pay cash for it. 643. It's only a lost sale if the receiver intended to buy a cd and replaced it instead with the download. 644. The Same. 645. I'm into more obscure music and have since made many more cd purchases then I ever would before hand. 646. A lot of people download tracks not meant as singles as well as the singles. This then persuades them to buy the album and indeed they are even more likely to buy the next album without downloading anything 647. The selling of software, music, etc.., is wrong. Sharing is not. they never said shit when we recorded shows with VCR's and dubbed cassette tapes, but all of sudden its wrong. BS! 648. Many of the files shared would never be purchased. As such they can not be claimed as 'lost sales'... as they would never have been purchased. If anything, it's a method to expand their potential market with new listeners. 649. How can these guys ever believe that just because I downloaded a track, I would have bought it if it wasn't for P2P? If I were to buy every track I downloaded, I would have to commit a series of bank robberies by now... 650. I wouldn't be buying the album in the first place, so its not a lost sale. 651. Some people actually buy the media but want to try it out first. Even if that were so, some people just flat out wouldn't buy the media anyway even if they didn't obtain an illegal copy because of the outrageous price. 652. If someone download a file it doesnt mean at all he would have gone buy it. It is even free advertissement. I think most artist see it that way ( see survey ..somewhere) 653. Everybody will take things for free, he would never buy. The cost of opportunity is so low with filesharing or pirated stuff, that anybody can afford it. 654. -do- 655. It's more like shareware. If I like it, after testing, I buy it. 656. Partially true, while each most by a pirate [or file shared] represents a lost legitimate sale many of shared files would never be bought or even discovered if it weren't for sharing, and smaller yet unknown band may build fan base that way and sell their music afterwards, that way every download is also a possibility for new profit. 657. most of the stuff i have is a side effect of a piece of music that i would actually buy, considering that most CD's are stuffed with filler music 658. see answer above. 659. The things I've downloaded I would've never bought, as proven by the fact that even before there was the interent I've never bought any media.. (except a few truly awesome games at discount prices) 660. That didn't used to be true at all. It's a little more true now, because of DRM 661. The percentage the artist receives is negligible compared to the percentage the leeches get. They wouldn't be complaining if the percentages were reversed. 662. sales wont rise if i cant download anymore, i got NO money to spend for music. (and by that i mean i got problems to pay really important things like heating) 663. people try things they would never pay for 664. If I want to support the artist, I'll go to their concert. Buying the CD gives more money to the label than the artist 665. the very fact that they put there name before the artist on this statement shows how much care they have for the artist, also note that if the music is good most people will buy the cd or pay for what they want, if it sucks, then no worries because the downloaded file will go to waste. 666. I wouldn't have bought it anyway 667. lol, 1 downloaded song |= 1 lost sale, duuuuuuh 668. if you download it and like it, chances are you'll shell out the bucks and in turn buy it 669. What if instead of a lost sale that were no sale at all? that better? 670. How is filesharing "selling"? I fail to see how someone pirating an MP3 is profiting or making a "sale" by uploading a copy to anyone else, be it his family/friends or a total stranger online. I am strongly opposed to piracy for profit, and have no reservations supporting companies that sue bootleggers etc who charge for illegal copies...but to suggest filesharing is somehow "sale" related again shows the utter cluelessness or blatant lying (again, take your pick) that the RIAA et all are engaging in. Since using filesharing/P2P, i have bought over 80 CD's, by being able to download and preview albums to find what i like/dont like - before i had access to P2P, i owned none...simply because i wouldnt pay the extortionate prices set by the RIAA for something that MIGHT have 1 or 2 good songs and a load of garbage filler. If i couldnt download it, i wouldnt buy it anyway...simple as that. 671. If music wasn't so overpriced, maybe people would buy CDs to listen to new music. File sharing is an ideal way to find new music - if you like it, you support the artist. If it's not buying the CD, it's going to a show or buying a Tshirt - that's all. That way you can actually hand the artist what's rightfully their's. 672. See number 11 673. BS 674. Blackmarket fraud with imposter product has always been successfully battled in one way; quality. Make your product better. No one that buys a knock off high end watch would buy the real one. Now selling a fraud as if it was real....well thats like selling bad weed. The lost revenue is crap too. It assumes someone would have paid for the product under the same circumstances. 675. People will pay a reasonable price for unrestricted media. I think most of the pirated material is bought by people who can't or would not pay the high prices asked for a DVD. Myself included. I will often refer a movie to friends who will and can make the purchase though. 676. If their music is good enough to buy on CD then people will buy it 677. People download music to see if it's worth buying. If it's not, then they wouldn't have bought it in actuality either. 678. Many people do not have the money to buy all the songs they download and would not listen to the music if they could not get it for free. Above that their are many people that will download a song more then once simply because they did not store the original. Furthermore many people that do download a song still go out and buy the album or track online so the above reasoning by the RIAA is ridiculous. 679. they may lose a little, but they make it up in volume 680. If I where to download 1000 songs, that doesn't mean I have $1000 to spend (assuming iTunes cost of $1/song). Unemployed students don't have that kind of money. If file sharing didn't exist, there wouldn't have been a sale at all. 681. Downloading does not equate to a lost purchase as it hardly guarantees the downloader would have bought the music in the first place. 682. Honour an artist, share their music! The RIAA wants to destroy the artist. 683. There is always more music 684. the pirate may actually buy the music if they like it 685. Fans are going to buy the records or better go to concerts. People who just want to get an impression are downloading and trashing the music. 686. Through economic classes we have learned that there is a certain price at which more people are likely to buy than others. The lower the price, the more likely you are to get buyers. So it seems quite obvious that because of the difference in price its more appealing. However, since the RIAA doesn't lower their music prices it doesn't increase their potential sales. 687. Most songs I download, I hear on the radio often anyway. The number of actual sales hasn't decreased, the number of artists has increased, and therefor, so has the number of unsold units. Piracy has always been an increasing trend throughout the years. As far as I know, the record labels have always had that percentage worked into their business model. The companies the RIAA stem from only want to ensure maximum profits for themselves. They are doing far more than maximum harm for the artists and the music. 688. Most shares are "extras". They're things people can do without; most people simply would not buy. So maybe the companies are losing 1% of their profits. Big deal. 689. I'm cheap. I wouldn't by the album because of all the crap songs on it anyways. 690. Real pirates don't sell. 691. Wow. The artist lost 1 dollar. I bet they'll feel that when they're buying their 50000th car, 10th island, etc. 692. Technically, yes. If you download it, odds are you didn't go buy the CD as well. But again, companies capitalize on merchandise and tickets. 693. Files sharing is a way to test products before you buy them..... Furthermore what really stops me from buying cd's is the RIAA's campaign against the consumer who supports them. 694. If I didn't fileshare, I still don't see myself buying CDs. I have bought more because I got music online first. If I can't listen to it before I buy, then I won't buy it. And I only buy CDs that are at most $10CDN. I would never pay more because I never like all the songs on a CD. 695. i think it would be an incentive to the artist to make the song public to make it known by listeners, when someone likes the songs, usually the person buys the cd. 696. Selling pirated material is a NO NO. Those who just share copyrighted material usually wouldn't/couldn't buy them in the first place. Let's face it, there's not really a lot of material out there that's actually worth the money they're charging. 697. a file shared doesn't represent a lost sale, but (before their sue em all campaign) a future sale... i like to sample the menu, if it's something i like then i'd buy it. 698. they are still in the dark ages of 1 hit and 13 shit songs = $23 699. a download does not equal a lost sale. Most people would not buy as much music as they are willing to download. It would cost too much. 700. People are more likely to buy a CD once they know the content is great. The artists that are "suffering" are the ones that release crap and hope people won't find out until they own the CD. Online music sharing saves people from losing money and puts the fake artists in their place. 701. Most of what I got, isn't available on cd. It's never been rereleased. I quit buying cds about 15 years ago cause I can't afford them. 702. When i first started filesharing I used it as a means to find new music that i then went out and bought. I bought more albums than ever before. Soon as the RIAA started suing people, and as long as they continue, i will never give them of my money. 703. some people still choose to buy, and 1 download does not equal one buy 704. The RIAA is ignoring a lot of facts,like the fair use doctrine. 705. They assume I would have bought it, Wrong. I can wait 120-minutes to listen to it on the radio, or wait 5-minutes to down-load it and listen to it... same thing. Where was the RIAA when i was 12 recording radio music on my "ghetto box"? Same thing. 706. The RIAA isn't taking into account the sales of iTunes and other legit mp3 services. While granted, sales of CDs have dropped 17%, they haven't taken into account those sales. 707. i don't buy music/movies never have anyway, so if i download one they didn't lose money because I wouldn't have bought it anyhow. 708. They started this by treating songs as a commodity. I might have purchased a song I might not have but it's not guranteed either way. I have lots of shared music that really wasn't worth $$ in my opinion. 709. I spent an average of $150 a month when I could share...I was open more artist and music was fun and not a crime 710. wouldn't but it anyway 711. I don't have the money to buy it... So you can't lose something you would never have in the first place..!!! 712. A Pirate Being A Pirate Would Not Have Gone To the Store And Bought The Album To Get The Song He Liked, EVEN IF It Werent Available Online (He Would Just Get It From Other Sources, Like A friend). From What I Seen, Most People Who Download Songs Dont have The Money To Go Buy The Whole Album, Are Angry With The Music Industry And Download As A Way To Retaliate, Or Download Old And Rare Songs. 713. Many people "try before they buy", thus stimulating sales. 714. See Eric Flint's "Prime Palaver" essays at Baen Publishing's free library: http://www.baen.com/library/ A sample quote: "...I've sold four or five times as many books of my own because of the exposure which the Free Library and Webscriptions have given me than I've lost through putting the books up online for free." 715. i havnt bought an orginal bit of music or computer software since 1998 and i never will again, i dont see why i have a need for it. I dont want the music they are selling anyway as the music thats not on the 4 big labels is generally better. 716. if i couldnt get it free i just wouldn't get it 717. Well considering the company is pretty much the only link in the chain that have anything to lose if you take into account that say when a record company "creates" a Britney Spears, they don't say: "We will give you money for every song you create and you will get the licensing right so that the royalties go to you." It would go more like this: "Listen we will make you a super hit and almost all the money from the concerts and the sponsorships and the commmercials and everything else you do you'll get to keep, sounds good to you?" so no people still get to eat even the artists who make the music. anyone who says the industri is dying or will die needs to learn some easy math or open their eyes. 718. I have never bought a CD without hearing the music first. 719. Many people who buy/download pirated copies of movies/music/software would probably never have bought them otherwise--thus they cannot represent a lost legitimate sale. 720. You can't claim a loss on intangible items that are nothing more than 1's(one) and 0's(zero). 721. Just because someone downloads a song doesn't mean that they will purchase it. In many cases downloading one song causes someone to hear something new and in turn purchases the full album. I purchased 15-20 albums when I had the original napster, I purchase 10 albums per year now. 722. I've download hundreds of albums that I wouldn't have else wise paid for. If I like what I hear I'll buy the album. Music of the music I've since bought would have never been played on radio or tv music stations. 723. The money shared between all those is so marginally small, it can't be called a loss. Nobody would notice that. 724. Wrong. I'd rather listen to music on, say, Internet radio than pay the industry for its crap-on-disc. 725. I probably would not have bought it in the first place. I often end up purchasing the CD that the song is on if I like the music. As well as see them on tour, etc. 726. Not true 727. None of my downloading has resulted in a lost sale if the music was worth having. I still buy CDs but I'm a lot more selective nowadays. 728. A lot of the things people download they may not have bought. While there are some who would have otherwise purchased the music, there are plenty who wouldn't have even listened to it if they couldn't have it free. Do musicians even play for the music and the fans anymore? Or is it just about the paycheck? 729. This statement is preposterous. It ignores Economics 101 on supply and demand. If you have a CD that costs $15,000, you will sell less units than the same CD cost $20, but you will still sell some. By the same basic economic theory, there will be fewer transactions for a $20 CD than there will be for a $0 CD (supply which can meet every demand). Therefore, to assume that every file shared (at a unit price of $0) would equal a transaction at a unit price of $20 is ignorant of the most basic economic principles. 730. People download music to see what its like first, if they like it they will go and buy the album. 731. I hardly bought any music or movies before i started to fileshare. I still buy dvd boxes sometimes and albums from artists i like. I also buy many games every year, but now when i can try the actual game before i buy i never have to support crappy products and i never get disappointed. 732. only a small part of the library is available from the record companies, everything is findable online. 733. What, the people that have a different opinion than yours don't get to explain? 734. Most shared files aren't desired enough to be bought, but, rather, simply shared. 735. A lost legimate sale: True. I'm much more dubious about the chain-reaction economics, though. Really, it's only the record company that loses. They've already paid the musicians. 736. They need to restructure their agreements. 737. I download songs when I'm not certain if I want to buy a full album. If the band is worth it, I invest in the full CD. Without the ability to download multiple, full songs from the same album, I wouldn't bother to buy the album at all. 738. File sharing has led to legitimate sales to myself that would never have happened previously. I like to try before I buy. If I can't afford to buy it, I have it anyway. That's what they really don't like. they would rather i maxed out my CC, deprived my kids and made them more money. 739. I always buy things worth my money. Even after I... sample them. 740. people will still buy, just they know what they are buying now, and won't keep buying crap without hearing it 741. It is not necessarily the case that when someone downloads a song free off P2P networks, they would have bought it had it not been available for free. 742. people recorded songs on to cassette and films from the tv long before they started sharing things on the net, cassettes and vhs didn't kill the artists then just as file sharing won't kill them now. 743. I didn't buy CDs much before, and if I couldn't get a song for free, I wouldn't have bought it anyway. 744. just means that the record companies might have gained a little more cash if there was no internet because there would be not a decent competitor to the record companies business model 745. I don't have the money to buy some things, so if it was not available via p2p, I would not watch or listen to the content in question. I have a greater chance to buy something having viewed it/ listened to it then making an educatied decision on what to buy. 746. I say rubbish...How many unknown millions of songs and TV shows have been(and still are)recorded on analog tape? Those items certainly didn't represent a "lost sale" and neither does DLing a song file. 747. if i donwload a song and like it i go buy the album to SUPPORT a good band, if the song turns out to be crap i dont buy it and they havent lost a sale at all!!!! because i wouldnt have bought it in the first place as i didnt like it 748. Pirated copies of DVDs and CDs, like the kind that you can get in Chinatown on the corner of the street deprive them of sales because people will have a physical copy of something and that's the end of it. Sharing files does not as many people see file sharing as a way to try out new things and see if it is worth buying. 749. cuz most people like me download just to know that my money is well spent. 750. not every download is a lost sale 751. I'll still buy the songs if I like them. 752. They do not have god given right to my money. 753. Hardcore 'warez' people keep on sharing, no matter what. On the other hand, those who find new music online are more likely to support artists that they like. Actual pirate sales (counterfeit disks) are a problem, but that has nothing to do with filesharing. 754. most people who download weren't going to pay for their music anyway 755. this is a yes-no kind of answer some-one that sales poorly made CDR bootlegs are cheating the artist cause there making a profit without giving anything back. People that share music: 90% of them that like what they hear usually will buy a actual CD (when they are on sale.) just like the late 70's the 80's and 90's when they would snag a song from the radio or a friends music collection and make a "Tape Copy" the mentality of music sharing has not changed in the last 30+ years just the formats have. 756. they should leave the pirate alone, if thats what they want to call it or list it. i call it a shareer 757. Shared files are a way of discovering new music, which creates a larger base of fans for bands that otherwise would not have had a high level of exposure. This increases revenue from concerts and merchandising sales. 758. Most ppl simply cant afford their extrotionate prices. 759. One downloaded song does not equal the whole album. In fact, a couple of songs I have downloaded in the past have convinced me to the whole album 760. There is no where to hear new music. Can't go to the radio for it, payolla has gotten in the way. All I hear are the same songs, every hour repeated. Now it used to be I went to the radio and always heard new stuff. Times again have changed. If you want to hear new music without being gouged for stuff you don't want, p2p is the only place to do that. The one hit singles artist is all that makes it to the Top 10 and I don't really think they are much as an artist, they're more an entertainer. That doesn't carry well for staying power on the charts. 5 years from now, the has been isn't heard anymore. When you listen to the radio it seems like those with staying power are the 30-40 year old bands still being played on the air even though most no longer exist as a group. 761. Stuff I download I would never buy. I just want to hear them sometimes. 762. I buy if I like what I hear 763. We will pay for worthy products 764. The recording company is the major receiver of record sale profits (although the retailer does also stand to gain a small amount of profit). The artists and songwriters only see real investment in concerts, where a much larger share of profit can be made. Recording companies and retailers do not require the need of raw talent (or at least the appearance thereof) for their occupations, and thus to not need to work as hard as the artists and songwriters and therefore do not deserve the majority of profits. 765. They still make money because mp3's are pretty low quality if you are an audiophile. They allow you to sample a song and if you really like it you can go buy the CD. 766. Each download is followed by a potential sale. The probability of a sale depends on many factors, one of them being the quality of "product" that can be rated as "maybe worth downloading but not worth buying" 767. people lisen to cd in shops before they buy why cant people lissen to a high quality file online before they do. solution have online shops (itunes) stream whole song not 30seconds. 768. Pirated recording cost less than legal ones. Therefore you can buy more. Simply, with the same amount of money, you could not have bought the same number of titles legally. Thus, the RIAA can not claim every one of those pirated copies as a lost sale. 769. If someone cannot find a file to download it illegally, it is incorrect to assume that he will buy it. 770. NOPE, i alot of the time download things from cd's that i own, just because it is usualy quicker to dload the song than rip it and name it ``Night_raid 771. Many people who download shared music would never have bought that music in the shops, manbe the only way they would of heard them would be a friend 'lending' a CD. The knolwedge of this music then turns into more people buying concert tickets etc. increasing the revenue to the 'industry'. 772. If I download an album that I like, then I am more likely to buy it. The problem with most albums, there is only one or two good songs on it, and the labels want way too much, thereby reducing my intent to buy. 773. Bill Gates might have the money to buy everything, which is downloaded. I am not Bill Gates, i buy games and DVDs and music, if i have some money LEFT! We are talking about luxury items, NOT food or clothing or housing. 774. For what it's worth, in all honesty I would never, ever spend a penny to purchase the songs - especially now. 775. Sharing helps artists to get known, and increases their sales. 776. each file shared is no different than listening to the song on the radio 777. Sharing is based on the honor system. If you like it, then buy it. If you don't, then they are correct. 778. I would not buy everything I download 779. just because people download songs does not mean they were going to buy it in the first place. 780. File sharing/piracy represents no loss of profit, as I still support the artist by going to live performances. 781. Not everyone who shares a copy would have bought one. Piracy is attacking ships. It has nothing to do with reproducing information. 782. It should read each sale by a pirate or file shared represents a lost sale to a sucker who had the presence of mind to download and actually see if he liked it first before making a mistake of paying 20 dollars for an entire album where all the other songs are garbage, and I'm not saying the one he wants it for isnt garbage either. 783. If I really like the album, I would search everywhere for a more expensive deluxe edition with bonus material (if exists) 784. If someone couldn't download a song, it wouldn't mean he/she would have the money to buy it. 785. A lot of those developed into CD sales 786. Pirated copies are nothing different than previews offered on an artists site. 787. sometimes you download things you already own. also, if anything downloading makes you want to buy an album to get the rest of the songs, or older albums that aren't available on file sharing. p2p also reaches people that can't be reached by the distribution channels of the RIAA, e.g. south american countries are in the loop of music thanks to p2p 788. i see it as people get to explore more music and other media, and when they find something they really like they will likely go buy the cd/dvd 789. the RIAA is jsut so stubborn it refuses to change its business model so that people can buy legit music online until that becomes reality ( i mean without that DRM crap) people are going to download illegally. 790. File sharing aint hurting music sales at all they just want to complain and blame someone for something and they see this as the perfect opportunity. 791. I have thousands of songs I played only once. I would never have paid for the experience. 792. Sharing music is how I find music to go buy 793. just not true i have not bought any of there modern crap in years 794. Ridiculous statement, unfounded in reality 795. File sharers and pirated copies buyers are market segments they have decided to allienate and not to serve. So those market segments have found alternative providers. The fact that I am willing to pay 3 bucks for a pirated copy of a cd does not mean I would pay 25 for the original. I would not, so they have lost no sale and no profit with me. I am not prepared to foot their payola bills or their private jet's fuel. Filesharing for similar reasons and to find music you can no longer find in their market. Again, no sales or rvenue lost for them, since they do not provide the product I seek or do it at an extorsionate price I would never pay. 796. free ads for the artist, if the song is good, it will sell. If not, the charts wont be able to sell it. 797. If it wasnt free ii wouldnt have downloaded it 798. That's nonsense. Most people who share are downloading things that they want to hear but would never buy at the outrageous prices charged for CD's. 799. When I find something which I don't like I don't but. But then at least it's gotten me to listen. If I didn't have a way to try for free then I would just stick to buying tried and tested artists. File sharing is a form of advertising not theft. 800. wouldn't have bought anyway 801. I would not purchase most of the music I obtain from the Internet. Artists I really like I do purchase, but only at reasonable prices, either on Amazon as "used" or when CDs are on sale. Record companies need to understand that consumers want singles at reasonable prices, not albums for $20+. I'm really happy that I can get such great deals through Amazon -- I buy most of my stuff used there. 802. I listen to lots of music. I'm not rich so I can't aford to pay the high prices the RIAA companies charge for their product. I use the library, used cd shops and other means ; p to listen to new music. If it's worth my dollar then I'll purchase it, if not then I don't. If there was no file sharing or other means (besides the RIAA exploited radio stations) to here new music, then I guess I'd have to take my chances, but the amount of money I actually spent would not increase/decrease. The RIAA doesn't make much money off me either way. 803. The argument that a sale made by a pirate is a lost legit sale, but while that scenario is more likely, it's definitely not even close to 1:1. I think the vast majority of people download because they've been burned too many times buying a CD after they heard that hot single on the radio only to find that the 1 song they heard was the only good song on the CD. It seems consumers have become more risk averse in that regard, and would rather test the waters before diving in. 804. I've downloaded songs or ripped songs off of a CD at the library that I would never, EVER buy an entire CD for. The artist/record company/whoever never lost a sale because of tat. Plus I only ever buy a CD if I absolutely LOVE the band that recorded it, or if it is full of lots of songs I like. 805. Again, increased exposure. I often purchase albums or tickets to live performances of bands I have encountered online. Or, when their music hits the state, I make my purchase. I have also made purchases through online music stores such as allofmp3.com after encountering artists on P2P networks. Too bad the RIAA is too stubborn to recognize allofmp3.com as legitimate. 806. they think too much of themselves. I started to download stuff cause it was a novelty and it beat taping stuff off the radio. I continue because music is too expensive and most of it sucks. i do buy albums from artists but usually its only after having downloaded meny if not all the tracks from said album. 807. Online music promotes artists and generates hype. Furthermore, many would not have bought the music anyway. I won't enrich any company that is affiliated with suing the disabled, elderly and children to make a point by giving them my business. 808. Approx one sale lost for every ten files shared. 809. If it was true, a lot of companies that are running would be broke. 810. Potential buyers of CDs are not interested in subpar 128kh recordings as anything but a demo or sampling. Personally, I have bought several dozen CDs the last year or so that I never would have if it weren't for internet filesharing. These are CDs by artists that have never been played by my local radio stations and several that have not even been released in the United States. 811. Again, advertising. Its like free samples in a supermarket. 812. See 11 ^ 813. If your buying you get what you want.If it`s free you down load any thing 814. Most artist and worker are getting porer. But the high bosses and biggest stars is getting most the money 815. The big four pay almost nothing to artists. 816. People pirate the album to see if its any good or not, then some decide on a purchase. Not all pirates are bad, many still support their favourite artists. 817. It is sampling of offers and should not be used as an argument... 818. The lost sale doctrine is a complete falsehood. There is, nor ever will there be, ANY evidence that the downloader would have purchased, had the file not been freely available. There IS evidence, however, that if a downloader likes what they download, that they will purchase, to support the artist. sharing boosts sales. 819. Based on known current industry practice, as indicated in the response above, only the industry itself could possibly be losing because of piracy. However, their documented shady accounting practices make this impossible for anyone but them to know. Furthermore, it is well-believed that their losses are due to their antiquated business practices with respect to physical, mechanical recordings, which have become obsolete. They only have themselves to blame for their losses. 820. I've heard more artists with than without, and go to their shows. Wouldn't have without 821. File sharing is promotional tool. Modern day radio? 822. i wouldn't buy these tracks regular 823. The record companies add NOTHING to the music that is worthy of the monetary penalty they heap on consumers. I believe, and the facts DO appear to bear this out, that artists themselves would be MUCH BETTER served financially by marketing directly to consumers over the web. The Record Companies are simply middle-men who act to PREVENT the free and easy exchange of artistic product. The RIAA is a dinosaur who apparently didn't receive his own copy of the memo -- the dinosaurs died out 65 Million years ago when an asteroid or comet struck what is now part of the Gulf of Mexico. WAKE UP -- YOU'RE DEAD ALREADY! 824. Each pirate sale does represent a lost legitimate sale but file sharing, like radio, is a source of advertising that often can lead to increased sales. 825. Even the purchase of an automobile allows the user to try before they buy. If the product is "good", the consumer will but it.

Says the RIAA: To artists, "copyright" means the chance to hone their craft, experiment, create, and thrive. It is a vital right, and over the centuries artists, such as John Milton, William Hogarth, Mark Twain, and Charles Dickens, have fought to preserve that right.

Total Responses: 1,046 True   35.7%  (373) False   64.3%  (673)

If you've answered False to the question above, how do you see things?

Total Responses: 579 1. the copyright those artists defended has nothing to do with RIAAs Right of Exploitation. Most music artists are better off with people actually getting to know them. 2. A noble thought, if only record companies weren't so abusive. 3. Bull%#@! Artists, true artists.. they don't give a crap about getting rich and famous. They do it for the art and they do it for their own betterment. If I made an etching or a sketch that I absolutely loved.. would I care if some one copied it and shared it with 30,000 others.. no. 4. The latter part is true, I'm guessing. But copyright is a means to protect intellectual property from unlawful sale on a commercial scale. Copyright in no way affects a person's ability to hone their craft or whatnot, that's called artistry. 5. It only allows you to create and thrive if you are making wholly original work. Derivative parody, and "mash-up" works get squashed. 6. Why is copyright then extended until a number of years (75 I think) after the artists death? Do the artists continue to produce new works from the grave? 7. copyright is a way to stop others earning money from your work, not to ensure that no-one can gain free information for research purposes 8. That may be the way it has been, now the real progress is in open-source, online collaborations etc. The RIAA are trying to stop technology and legistlate a business-model, how can that encourage empreiments? 9. Why is it ok for an artist to sample up to 4 seconds of another artists work then? 10. Did copyright save these artists when they were upcoming to the music scene? no. 11. true in its essence, bur false in today's reality of wildly extended copyright duration and DMCA subversion of "fair use" 12. They've manipulated the meaning of copyrights. 13. Copyright is just a way to say, "Hey bitch, give me money and I'll let you take a peak at this. But if you do anything close to draw a picture of it I'll hunt you down and gut you like a fish." Kind of like the school yard bully. 14. Copyrights were meant to protect people from claiming others work as their own. I don't believe it was meant as a means to stifle innovation or preserve a dinosaur business model. No one wants little plastic discs anymore and I don't want an album full of crappy songs. Give me a download and the ability to get the song I want and I'll happily pay a fair price to the artist. 15. No one is taking their music away from them. They still have their music, and it seems to me that the biggest obstacle of creativity is the record company. 16. False 17. Copyright is simply your right over your own IP to prevent others from acruing PROFITS or causing detriment by using your IP. 18. yes copyright as in right out plagerism of their material, these people wanted their material read and shared amongst people. 19. That would be true if the artist actually owned the copyright to his works. This is not the case...The recording industry owns the copyright. I think this is WRONG. 20. Copyrights should exist simply to allow atribution of the origin of a work. Not who has an exclusive right to perform, modify, recreate, or sell that work. 21. Copyright should fairly compensate artists for their time efforts and costs in producing an artwork. 22. If it was the writings of dickens etc wouldnt be public domain now would they. 23. Twain is pulic domain. 24. It's ridiculous to say that laws are what drive the creative process. Law and creativity are two completely separate things and the vast majority of artists have not signed any kind of copyright contract. In fact, most music bound by such laws lacks creativity and originality. 25. It doesn't matter who fought for copyright. Since its beginning copyright has been out there to give people a monopoly over the market they sell in. 26. John Milton, William Hogarth, Mark Twain, and Charles Dicken: those were the days of 20 years copyrights. 27. A nice little pipe dream, but utter bullshit. First of all, "the primary purpose of copyright law is not so much to protect the interests of the authors/creators, but rather to promote the progress of science and the useful arts—that is—knowledge. To accomplish this purpose, copyright ownership encourages authors/creators in their efforts by granting them a temporary monopoly, or ownership of exclusive rights for a specified length of time. However, this monopoly is somewhat limited when it conflicts with an overriding public interest, such as encouraging new creative and intellectual works, or the necessity for some members of the public to make a single copy of a work for non profit, educational purposes." Secondly, it doesn't provide shit to the artists because the record labels own the copyrights on all the music. 28. Yes, but the entertainment industry has raised the copyright limits, thus impairing creativity. 29. Copyright = control 30. I think they mean Metallica...... 31. IF an artist signs a contract today it is the worst thing they could do.... They can self publish there stuff and get it out there.... And make more money with out the companies.... Also it allows them to be creative without having to answer to anyone but themselves and the fans.... 32. RIAA is miss something here: Those people were fighting for copy 'rights', not pushing broken business models on new evolutions. This is like sueing auto manufacturers in 1910, because it put horse breeders out of business. Get a clue! 33. Making music should be the primary focus of artists. They're making plenty to support themselves comfortably. (Comfortably being a gross understatement.) If an artist is unhappy because he can't afford to get his Olympic sized swimming pool at his $7 million dollar mansion gold plated, screw him. 34. They did, but artists rarely retain thier copyright. 35. Copyright is not a right but a restriction, and made specifically for the sole purpose of inhibiting the ability of using someone else's idea for FINANCIAL gain. 36. Copyright is a business decision, not an artistic one. Artists have been honing their craft for centuries without the aid of copyrights. It only appears that today's artist requires the aid of multiple mansions, dozens of cars and a Gulfstream jet to hone their craft. 37. they want the money 38. Now there are organizations that take that right of the artists for themselves. 39. Copyright is designed to protect creativity and innovation, neither of which is threatened by file-sharing. The artists' creativity is not funded by record companies (see previous response). 40. Copyright laws were created to protect an artist from others reselling their work for less. It was NEVER intended to give copyright holders control over how that work is used. Fair use laws were designed as a "means the chance to hone [artists'] craft, experiment, create, and thrive." 41. Sorry,thats just a load of crap. 42. perpetual (90+ years) copyright was never supported by John Milton, William Hogarth, Mark Twain, and Charles Dickens. 43. prove it. 44. Then why are the most creative and experimental releasing their material from any publisher that isn't affiliated with the RIAA. Music from the big four hasn't advanced in years decades. 45. "Copyright is a chance for emerging artists to share their craft with the world and a means for them to show off their brainchild." 46. Copyright laws have changed drasticly in the time since mark twain, charles dickens, etc thanks to corporations such as disney, the RIAA and such. To bring them up shows just how much they are reaching to try to create an argument to back their position. 47. i agree, but lawsuits dont stop it, and dont scare us, and we still support the bands. 48. 'Copyright' is a service to the artist to make sure they are the only ones profiting from their creation. It has little to nothing to do with piracy, when a user downloads a CD or song, they aren't making financial gains. A copyright is to make sure that if a band comes up with an amazing piece of music, other bands can't copy it and profit off of another bands' creation. 49. When artists waste money on gold bathrooms and diamond "grills" I think they've gone too far. 50. How they wish to hold and pursue copyright is a personal choice of the artist and is not inherently a bad thing. However, the RIAA is abusing copyright laws to terrorise innocent people and spreading Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt trying to hold onto a decaying business model without innovation; the artists are not making the choice to enforce these copyrights. Instead, usurpers of the artists' legitimate rights and freedoms are doing so, and thereby hurting the industry. 51. 'over the centuries' may only apply to centuries ago. 52. Erm, no. 53. Copyright applies to the original author so no one can take the same story, song and recreate it to make it their own. 54. If copyrights were so important to John Milton, he would not have sold the copyrights to Paradise Lost (arguably one of the greatest works in literature, and his masterpiece) for a measly 10 Pounds. The works of Milton, Hogarth, Twain, and Dickens are works of genius and not comparable to the latest flavor of the month from a one hit wonder. 55. If they truly love their art then they should feel free to share it. If I design a program that will help everyone in the world... I'll give it away... or at least ask for donations... people are always willing to pay for something that is worth it if they don't have to pay to try it in the first place. I am not going to spend 20 on a CD with one song I want 56. They're dead, the RIAA should go join them. To the RIAA Copyright means "we need to protect our ability to make money for solid gold humvees" 57. What? Are they insane? P2P is a very effective way of publishing -- creating public interest. Please, guys, the gramophone record is DEAD. 58. many artists write their best work when working without copyright, ie new artists that haven't even made any material for selling. 59. To the RIAA, "copyright" is a commodity that can be bought and sold; nothing more than a way to legally collect money from musical work that they themselves did not create. 60. I feel copyright is fair enough idea, but it should expire sooner, and have greater provisions for fair use, not less. 61. The RIAA is a bunch of spindoctoring morons. 62. copyright should be limited, 5 years for music, 10 fir books and 0 for record companies, record companies should not have copyrights anyway, they belong to the artist 63. Copyright doesn't mean crap. Copyright maintains their right to make money forever. If I print a paper product with the letter b on it, I copyright it as a novel, and someone else prints a piece of paper with the letter B on it, does that mean it is plajarism. People cover bands songs all the time, that does not mean they take it as their own. 64. RIAA = Whores 65. lies 66. It may mean that to the artists but to the record companies it only means$$$$ 67. sure, block i so no one else can use it. Not to hinder the transmission of your product. 68. Copyright should give them the right to control mass sales and provide compensation. 69. I answered true, however I believe that less onerous, more free copyright laws are a boon to creativity and artistist diversity. 70. I do not necessarily disagree with this statement... only the way the RIAA uses it. The problem is, music copyrights are essentially owned not by the *artists*, but by the *record companies*. Most music is created as a "work-for-hire", not as a pure stroke of inspiration. Artists are signed into contracts and put under pressure to produce entire albums' worth of material according to a strict timetable, regardless of whether they are feeling particularly inspired or not. So they end up having to rehash the same old themes that worked for whatever early hits they may have had, and all their work winds up sounding repetitive and tired. True "copyright" control needs to be stripped from the record companies and put in the hands of the actual artists. And the release schedule of albums needs to be changed from "I agree to give the label 14 new songs within eight months of my last album" to something more like "I'll give you new material when I'm damn good and ready!" THEN, and only then, will copyright be a legitimate tool to improve quality and foster innovation... 71. Q11 72. Copyright to an artist is probably not an issue. And I think that most prior artists were only interested in the temporary monopoly granted by copyright to further their creative output. I.E. to make money to allow them to continue to create. 73. Unfortunately, the pursuit of money has done more to destroy the music industry over the past twenty-five years, not file sharing. I want musicians to do it for the love of the art. 74. I believe that copyright serves a purpose, but that has been totally lost in recent years and cannot be respected. Consequently we find a state of copyright anarchy, since the laws are bad. 75. they have their right to it, but it should be teh right of the ARTIST, not some crappy label 76. I believe there is no correlation between copyrights and being able to create. The "pirates" aren't stopping anyone from making music or anything else, they are just sharing it. 77. The right to copyright should apply only to the written word, not to music. Imagine if someone tried to copyright a 12-bar Blues progression, or a Blues solo! Onlyl Song lyrics should be copyright protected, not recordings of performances whether live or studio. It would be legitimate to give song lyrics copyright protection when they are used in print, but not when they are performed. Nevertheless, it might be legitimate to require that artists give credit and acknowledgement to songwriters when they perform their songs . 78. If you've purchased a CD or MP3 you should be able to give it to whomever you want. 79. Copyright means that they own the right to that music. If they dont want it to be fileshared then don't put it out! 80. witch hunting and greed 81. How many dirt poor creative masters of their craft have existed in history? Only 2 or 3 right? Fools. I would say the inverse is true. Too much wealth and creativity is likely to dwindle. 82. Mark Twain would have been all for P2P. They should read his stuff instead of box him into a false statement. 83. Society is showing by its actions that copyright do not allow creators to charge whatever they want for their intellectual property. By tilting the law against society in the favor of the creators, the government has forced society to disregard the law. 84. From what I got, a judge ruled that you do not have any rights, except to listen to that music/book, when you buy them. Therefor, I do not pay $18.00 or what ever, for something that I do not own. 85. Mark Twain and Charles Dickens have long been dead. Why and how would they fight for there right to create and thrive? RIAA is not creating anything from someone that has passed away but thriving on something that they themselves did not create. 86. Copyright is not a way for people to go on lawsuit rampages... 87. Once a work of art is in the public domain, the public owns it. 88. There are plenty of artists that release their music on small labels with very limited releases, or even free releases... Are you saying that these artists can't do all of these things? Of course not. 89. Not sure. 90. There exists a plethora of artists who are disgusted by the RIAA and their anti-capitalistic practices. Copyright is supposed to aid the artists, but the RIAA is using it to aid themselves and "the big guy", not the artists. How can an artist "hone their craft, experiment, create, and thrive" if rabid RIAA lawsuits are driving away their very sales that enable them to do so? 91. It means a chance to earn more money on a product. 92. Even those artists were inspired by other people. Dickens used ideas of his time and of people in the past to create his works. That is how creativity works. No one is truly unique. 93. So they think they're the almighty protector of the artist's rights? If so, they'd probably be giving more rights to the artists...and more money. They're full of shit. 94. I can go to the library and read works by all of these authors. Their estates make no money when I do this much like file sharing on the internet. The copyright simply prevents anyone else from taking credit for the work. 95. but that does not give the RIAA the right to sure countless ppl and pocket the proceeds 96. When they can afford to buy drugs, and fast cars etc., they are being paid too much. 97. Copyright law has been repeatedly bought by industry (Disney) and has lost its original goal of protecting the profit of the original creator for a while before that work goes into the public domain, to become the collective wealth of the people. Nothing has passed into the public domain in something like 70 years. 98. Copyright offers the creators a chance to profit off of their work already created (as they should) so the thrive part is probably right, but it does not allow for innovation, nor does it follow that copyright allows artists to hone their craft or experiment. 99. I will not respect copyright if the cost of a cd is too high 100. They are right, that it gives them a chance to "hone their craft, experiment, create and thrive." However, no one is taking their material and claiming it as their own. They aren't making any money off of it. So, how am I hampering creation, craft, thrive or experiment given that pretense. I'm not. 101. To artists, "copyright" means being able to prove that they created the work and preventing other artists from plagiarizing it. It doesn't mean preventing the audience from enjoying the work without first paying outrageous fees to people who have nothing to do with the artist. 102. artists create with or without copyright, why because they want to. same reason i creat art, not becuase i want money, because i choose to. 103. By restricting how a culture work can be used by others you are hampering creativity and in the long run growth of all culture expression. The original should be protected but copies should be used freely. 104. musicians will still experiment and create... i just dont want to have to pay big bucks for something i might not like. and in any case file sharing sites can showcase genuine talent much faster than the advertisers 105. HAHAHA, more like copyright means the chance to make a buck off of your/other people's hard work, and preventing people from making a better product. 106. copyright did not exist when the classical composers were around did it?? and we still listen to bach, Mozart, Beethove, etc etc, and their dead, so who gets those royalties for people long since dead and gone, and which corporation that has been created since then to represent them... thats the sham right there.. 107. Along with copyright, intellectual property has become an issue already turned into a perversion of what it originally was intended to be. After all, it's not the artists' interest that is protected, since the rights to the copyrighted works belong to the record company, not the individual artist. For the few self-marketed artists the abovementioned statement may be true. For most, it simply isn't. 108. copyright goes on too long - other people dont have the right to rely on a single act of good work to last for years 109. Without copyrights, creating music for financial gain is pointless. With piracy...or without copyrights...there is no financial incentive to create music. So far fewer people will create music. In fact, all the music pirates like was created by a system with copyrights. Those criminals will find that after they've destroyed the viability of music and copyrights, noone will be creating music they like. 110. See Cory Doctorow's excellent history and explanation of copyright for details. 111. Artists were successful LONG before the RIAA 112. Horse feathers 113. What people can hear and see and be aware of should not be limited by their income. Our culture is stagnating because people are so protective of their creations, I can understand wanting to have credit where credit is due, but this is really all about making money. 114. You copyright to make money. If you love your craft, you want it shared. 115. I agree with it in theory, but in reality, artists are encouraged to sell their rights to corporations (note the latest tax laws re:publishing). Also, limits (or lack of them) for expiration have gotten out of hand. 116. Most artists are happy when many people see or hear their work. File sharing means more people are exposed to their work and more people will become fans and followers of their work. They would not support a restrictive copyright structure which prevents their work from being widely distributed as it would plainly mean less support and revenue from tours, performances etc. 117. Hone their craft? A copyright (for the most part) is just an excuse for the artist/record company to sue people for no reason. Greedy, greedy, greedy... 118. Copyright protects another artist ripping off songs etc. 119. copyright is different than sharing or file sharing, again no one is saying that they put it together in the end, this is just all lies to control and make people into their slaves, if they all agree with themselves then america should SUE THEM, because then when they ask you to BUY their music, it is a lie and it really means to license and not share or let anyone hear it but you. 120. while i do agree that people should be payed for their effort , creating one song and then making money on millions of copies just doesn't seem right . the copying of information should be free . 121. Copyright as it stands now is way for rich to oppress poor those with power to oppress those without. Copyright needs a complete rethinking in multicultural global society. 122. Copyright is a means of controlling one's "product" whether it be a record, film or drawing 123. Copyright has an altogether more legal meaning. 124. This is not true - patents/copyright has been modified and extended so many times that it is a caricature of what it originally meant to do - ensure reward for innovation. 125. copyright, in theory is fine... but the world of music is changing so RIAA needs to change with it. 126. None of those people lived in an area of copyright law. They fought plagirism, but freedom of thought and freedom of information was more important to them than copyrights. 127. The author or creator of the work has to be acknowledged, this is indisputable. 128. True talent cannot be compromised. It's a straw man argument. 129. i totally agree with copyright laws and realize that when i illegally download i infringe on copyright laws, but once again? release quality music on cd's, charge a reasonable price for cd's and give artists a reasonable royalty rate then maybe i'd considering spending money on retail cd's again 130. Copyright is only a way to increase profits whilst doing nothing (in its current sense) 131. copyright is about someone stealing your ideas/creations and making money off them as if they are their own. 132. I do not believe modern copyright law existed in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. The internet certainly did not. 133. If that was the only use for copyright in these times, then it might not be an issue. Copyright now can be distorted for other means - to silence anti-government speech, for example. Would Twain have agreed with that? 134. The music industry should try hard to make people purchase products legally. Instead they overprice, bring out reissues with a single additional track and refuse to release rare tracks from singles or pre-cd eras. This forces people into other channels. Dickens didn't price his novels at a fortune! Nor did he release reprints with a single additional chapter. 135. If people don't have a chance to actually experience their music, and if people are turning away from the industry who do stuff legally because its just too tough and expensive, then meh, those artists will never get the money to do all those things. What you just said were lies, idiotic stupid lies. Lay off allofpm3.com while you are at it. The site is legal, stop being bitter sods, you have no right to hassle them like it, screw you. 136. Thousands of talents waiting for their hour who will never break the establishment barrier - they are not concerned about free music. They want to be heard. 137. Although the statement is true. Today the record company's contracts are not in the best interest of the artist. I implore all artists to NOT sign over rights to a record label. 138. copyright is nothing more than a title of ownership and has little to do with creativity. 139. Copyright just means protected from copying. 140. I think they have the meaning of copyright skewed. It means that no one can take it and use it as their own, in other words it is digital plagiarism. 141. I was under the impression that copyright laws were only broken if someone *charged* for distribution when they didn't have the rights. Just giving it away for no profit seems fine. 142. The big labels and the RIAA are dinosaurs, music is changing in how its produced and distributed, artists are going to have work hard, tour, sell merchandise that supplements their music. Essentially the music is like an advertisement for the live shows and a chance to sell additional products. 143. Artists create to create. 144. Modern artists make music to entertain and inspire.. as EMINEM says, let them [the fans] share! 145. to name drop dead authors that have absolutely nothing to do with music is totally anachronistic and meaningless 146. If everyone could write music, then everyone WOULD write music. It's SO very easy to copy someone's style, after all. Wait...whatever happened to covers? 147. Fuck the RIAA 148. Copyright is important on many levels, but the copyright law today is very different from the law called by the same name in say Mark Twain's time. It was shorter and had a much narrower scope. Today it gives an overbroad monopoly by robbing the public commons; filesharing is our way of trying to push back. 149. Copyright, before a lot of changes to adapt to the industry interests, based on avoiding plagiarism. For example, if John Milton originally wrote and played a song, William Hogarth couldn't just claim the song as his own. John Milton wouldn't be very happy to not receive credit. Now, if William Hogarth played his song because he liked it a lot, and credited John, it would be a different matter. Finally, John should be happy if people listen to what he plays, because music is not a way of making money, it is a way of expressing feelings. So if someone downloaded something I created, and used it/listened to it, I would be like "Cool bro!". 150. This has some merit. But it is also true that the more something is quoted or copied, the more famous it gets. This should render higher status for the creator, and thus more success and work. The whole rap/hip-hop industry is an example of how this can work in a creative an innovative way, and I see little similarities between Dickens rights to his work and the way CDs are being distributed. 151. Copyright is simply a way of protecting rights to an artists work 152. Copyright protects blatant theft of the fruits of your idea. Copyright prevents someone else from MAKING MONEY on your art. Copyright theoretically protects the artist from the predatory company In practice, however, the artist is still a slave to the corporate record labels, and copyright only protects their massive profits and ability to become rich on someone else's labor and talent. 153. A 5, 10, 15 year copyright is a temporary monopoly to encourage the publisher (not the artist) to release works. It's the 70-90-120 year monopoly that is absurd. 154. The one who gets the least share of record sales is the artist. There's other ways of making money for artists. Records are a means of promotion for them, though. 155. I don't even like those artists. I wish more bands were like Machinae Supremacy, who actually encourage people to share their music, saying that 'they care more about their music getting heard than it getting bought'. Everything but their latest album is legally put up for download by themselves on their own website and Last.fm respectively. That makes me want to buy an album. Shitty copyright protection makes me want to crack it and put it online so everyone else doesn't have to deal with that. 156. they did not care about "cp" 157. Copyright means that music companies get rich. Artists get virtually nothing. 158. That used to be true, but no longer. "Copyright" is now the means for megalithic corporations to extract as many payments from customers as they can. 159. IDK 160. "Copyright" is for one person to prevent others from reading, listening, or watching something created. It should never stifle creativity, but it currently does. 161. It's also stilted creativity 162. copyright is a) the artist trying to preserve their work as being their own, and b) the various organisations' respective efforts in the production process to preserve income 163. copyright was relevant in previous centuries but now is an impediment to creativity and artistic experimentation. it no longer servers the purpose it was intended for and should be changed to meet the new needs of the digital age. 164. Artist should find better distribution channels and models using available technologies.... 165. Copyright is abused to earn income on works the RIAA has no right to own, and this abuse encourages users to download music without paying the RIAA. 166. No one is copying the work of any artists. Artists are free to create what they want and are still being recognized for their work. While protecting intellectual and artistic property is important, it has little to do with file sharing. File sharing is simply a reaction to the oprressively high price of records. 167. I'm a pirate. arg! 168. riaa chance to control prices 169. The RIAA is abusing copyright laws and returning no value to the artists. 170. However the RIAA does not represent the artists, but a select few monopolies that are attempting to use copyright law to stifle the innovation the industry needs to grow. 171. copyright doesn't have anything to do with creativity, it is all about control. 172. dont understand question 173. That is brazen misrepresentation of the truth. Copyright is about depriving rights and about 'owning' . Large reord companies have allways ripped off musicians and are olnly usually interested in the lowest common denominator. 174. we all stand on the shoulders of giants. were it not for others, we'd be utterly useless organisms that could muster no more organization than a pod of killer whales hunting. to claim that everyone's work is truly unique and theirs alone is a horrific narcissistic lie. 175. You can still hone one's craft without Copyright. The modern Copyright laws stiffle innovation and creativity. Copyright is a balance between privaye commercial interests and the public's interests. Today it is slanted too much in favour of the Record companies. It will get worse if the Record companies are successful in their lobbying efforts to eliminate "Fair Use" rights. 176. The real money stays in the hand of the industry; again if they disappear the artist will reap benefits and that in turn will allow to buy music at lover rates.After all if you don't need print and distribution, but just keeping your music on a server, what expenses you have, apart buying instruments and keep a good living? 177. I believe in copyrighting, but it is simply no longer possible in the music industry. Eventually books will all be on-line and traded in the same manner. Instead of fighting the marketplace they should happily jump on board because they could still foster a first-mover advantage. 178. The Open Source movement in software is a fine demonstration that innovation, experimentation, creation, and even becoming filthy rich, are more than feasible in a copyright-free environment. 179. This is the heart of the problem, RIAA and music companies should be looking to the future not their outdated buisness models of the past 180. Umm, what? 181. They (if not already, they will) say that, but no. I've never heared of any artist working in any similar job to me (except this ONE time, with some hasbeen who partied a bit too much). When I see stuff like that, then I'll start paying up. 182. copyright means the right to charge for your creation, not make record companies rich. 183. Copyright law has been modified many times since to encompass new technologies such as music recording, to extend the duration of protection, and to make other changes. U.S. courts have interpreted this clause of the Constitution to say that the ultimate purpose of copyrights is to encourage the production of creative works for the public benefit, and that therefore the interests of the public are primary over the interests of the author when the two conflict. These rulings have since been formalized into fair use laws and decisions. Certain attempts by copyright owners to restrict uses beyond the rights provided for by copyright law may also subject them to the copyright misuse doctrine, preventing enforcement against infringers 184. Of questionable structure & relevance. 185. They're full of shit. 186. Copyright is important to the big execs making millions doing nothing. True artists want as many people as possible to experience and enjoy their work. 187. copyright means to claim the work as belonging to you.So why then are the labels taking most of the profits,which belong to the artist. 188. I would agree if the RIAA were truly concerned with the artist. 189. Musicians don't own their music....the music companies do! 190. ? 191. It should be that way, but has become more a system for the corporate overlords to have sole possession of the creations of those they control. This does not encourage people to innovate as much as they otherwise would. 192. Copyright means somebody can't take that artistic work and and pass it off as their own ework. Duh. 193. They would have found a way to sue even those writers as how, if not would only done cover versions of their books anyway and claimed "new".. 194. Copyright has been twisted just like the Patent laws. They serve only the holder, not everyone else. Information and culture thrives when it is let loose. The only beneficiary of todays draconic copyright\patent laws is multi billion dollar corporations. 195. copyright preserves the intelectual rights of the creater but stiffles creativity because copyright now lasts life of the artists plus 75 years or something obscene. 196. not everyone is Charles DICKENS 197. I think those artist would probably share files as well. 198. Copyright is fair as long as the writers live. When they have died their work should be public domain. 199. They could have rights to their works but that should fade out after a few years. What is the point of making money with old things you are not doing anything for that anymore 200. means a chance to charge people over and over for something that's already been done. 201. To artists such as Mark Twain and Charles Dickens, perhaps they did fight to preserve that right. But they can actually be considered artists. They also had the freedom of artists and not the leviathan known as the RIAA demanding they change the way they write. Musicians today, do not have freedom. Copyright does not exist for the musician, because when they sign with a label, they loose all rights to their own music. They also loose any creativity they might have had, as they must now write music that the label wants, not music the band wants. 202. That is the RIAA's definition. Not the majority. 203. copyright is designed to protect the individual from larger organizations who have the means to implement their ideas. 204. Copyright means someone can't take your music and say its there's. If they want to take your music and share it with people, it's spreading your name, making you more popular. You'll see those numbers at the concerts. 205. Grow with the times 206. Then the RIAA should stop ripping off the aritists (CCR anyone?) 207. But paying thre same artist 3 or 4 times (78 rpms, 45 rpms eps, LPS, cassettes and now CDs, like I have done is VERY far outside of that kind of argument) 208. "Copyright" should mean the right to not have work reproduced for profit by another party. Patents should cover the rest from a technology point of view. 209. Copyright is the right to restrict others from claiming the work as their own. While this has been variously interpreted over the years, this is the foundation of the law. Original judicial intent was not to allow a company to file civil action against those who share the product without personal financial gain. 210. Artists that are in in for the money don't generally produce worthwhile songs anyway 211. copyright laws have changed over the years - they're not the same, and laws don't give creativity a chance to prosper, only to keep the creativity to a precious few 212. they are dead 213. I answered true, as I feel that atists do have a right to be recognised as the creator of a work. However how is an artists rights protected when the label will take possesion of the rights to their recordings (that the act has paid for) for 75 years after they die? 214. Once they've put it on some form of media, it's been done .. period. They can still improve it. Besides, if it wasn't about the money, why do you insist on charging everyone a fee for using that one cool chord you came up with? 215. "Copyright" is the way companies make money on someone elses work or ideas in return for "helping" market the item. 216. Spin 217. If anything, sharing music online can make an artist more well-known. To the RIAA, "copyright" means the chance to milk people for their money. 218. While copyright is an important idea of the twentieth century, it is also outdated and abused by all industries. To the RIAA, copyright is merely an easily abusable procedure to sue and complain about their inability to adapt to ever evolving technology. 219. Music lovers feel loyal towards the artists, NOT towards the recording industry. IP is a means for recording industry to keep their income IN SPITE of the artists. I'd prefer to give my money directly to the artists I like. When I hear an artist who defends the point of view of the recording industry, I think he/she is required to do it from his/her "employers". I don't like it at all. 220. Get with the times, RIAA wants to profit off dinosaur authors. 221. Copyright has been abused by the RIAA, it was never meant to curb fair use. Consumers put the RIAA in power and are contining to do so. In the end just as DRM fell so will the RIAA lawsuits which is known in the art as "external DRM". 222. if you change just 0.2% of an object, it's a new object and so is not covered by said copyright 223. Copyright is a tool for the renumeration of artists, not the alpha and the omega of their renumeration. Copyright can only exists when it is expensive to copy a product, and that was the case for centuries. With digital low costs copies, this tool is perhaps outfashioned and other solutions must be envisaged. 224. I got free text and audio books by John Milton, Mark Twain, and Charles Dickens from Project Gutenberg. 225. As above but there is a great differance between books and records I do not know of a single artist who ever recieves a cheke from RIAA and i know a few. 226. Copyright have existed for about 100 years, and now everyone is suing everyone, and holding each other back. Before copyright the civilization have thrived for thousands of years. How can anyone say copyright is anything more then a historical mistake that has to go for the inventions to kick in again on broad front. "If I have seen further it is by standing on ye shoulders of giants" said Isaac Newton, today he would have been sued. 227. I see copyright as valuable, just not 200 years of copyright.. A sensible amount of time is 15-20 years. 228. Copyright exists as a protection for artists to keep free market from reselling their creations as their own. As an artist, I understand this. It in no way is intended to protect digital copies, backups, etc. from distribution. 229. Does that mean I can't read Huck Finn to my kids? Do they have to pay a royalty to listen? 230. it's just bullshit 231. An artist's craft won't make him any money unless it gets into the hands of the public. 232. Copyright is a stick it to everyone that did not come up with the idea first. 233. Copyright is a government-granted monopoly, provided explicitly as an incentive for a creator to continue creating works, which can potentially benefit the community. Copyright is important for advancement of "the arts" but perversion of this into some sort of eternal right goes against the purpose of granting a time-limited monopoly on the works in the first place, because a practically eternal copyright term prevents works from returning to possession by the public domain where it can be used to the benefit of all, rather than those who will pay the holder or the estate thereof. Why the hell do "estates" own copyrights, anyway?! 234. All the Authors they quote have no copyright whatsoever, their works and books can be printed by anyone with no purchase being required. 235. Though copyright protects intellectual property, and rightly so, it certainly does not have anything to do with honing one's craft. 236. Too much focus on copyright will kill creativity. It should prevent others from outright stealing stuff, not have artists work with their hands tied. 237. art is a product like anything else, why is it awarded so much more than everything else? 238. The artist mentioned above lived in another century.The world is very different now. Evolve or die. 239. Copyright is actually a right for your stuff not to be pirated into another work and be claimed as someone else authorship, thus profiting upon something that isn't his. 240. As a musician, copyright means a chance for the record label to make a big profit and pay me a pittance. 241. RIAA is theavery and extortionshit 242. then do away with sampling. there is no craft in that. it's basically copying another artist in one way or another 243. Artists should be able to proffit off their work, but not forever and ever and ever. Artists themselves should, if they choose, be able to distribute their own works online without the RIAA telling them they can't. My god it is their work after all is it not? I know I'd be pretty mad if I wanted to distribute my own works online and my trade organization forced me not to. 244. I thought a copyright was to prevent copying and distributing a product for a certain time frame allowing the artist and the others in the middle to recoup their expenses and make a profit? 245. Copyright is ownership pure and simple. I agree that the artist owns the copyright to their work and should get paid for it. But to call it "a chance to hone their craft..." No. Its an ownership thing, thats all. 246. To newer artists it means give me money so I can live a rich lifestyle. 247. It's not reasonable to induce that copyright is the main factor in this. Ultimately it comes down to making sales and receiving money for those sales. Where copyright is used in a way that harms the general economics of an artist selling his/her work then it has the opposite effect. References to the views of well-known artists from years gone by are not relevant to the matter - the world changes! Thus the assertion that copyright is a "vital right" in that sentence is made completely without any supporting rationale - it's just meaningless spin and marketing and I don't know who they think they're fooling! 248. Screwed 249. Sharing files is not the same as a patent. 250. Copyright was not meant to be forever, and none of those gentlemen would have agreed to forever. They put explicit timelines around copyright for good reason, and the greed of corporations trumped the greater good by making it permanent (Thanks Sonny Bono!) 251. As a musician and media professional, it's my duty as an artist to make my art regardless of copyright laws. No one can be me or sing my songs. If my craft isn't already 'honed' then I have no business stepping on a stage or in a studio. To say otherwise is just a flat out lie. 252. Copyright is only about money - when it should be about recognition. 253. Copyright IS vital. But it is being perverted and extended beyond reason by money-grubbing corporations - NOT individuals - who are more concerned with profiting off of work they have bought from an artist. THEY are not creating, experimenting, etc. - but they definitely are thriving. And their endless extension of copyright laws are part and parcel of their scheme to disallow ANY property from falling into the public domain. 254. Nowhere in the definition of copyright does it say anything about thriving. Plenty of copyright owners have and do toil in obscurity. If the RIAA is so worried about their artists, how come an act like TLC can release a CD that sells millions of copies, make millions of dollars for the label, yet they themselves are broke? 255. Mark Twain himself sought to evade copyright law on his autobiography and saw it as a thing that did NOT serve public interest. And, I quote, "Only one thing is impossible for God: To find any sense in any copyright law on the planet. " 256. The "copyright" protects the companies as they own the right of the music not the artist how created it. So without record companies, the artist would actually make more money 257. To the RIAA copyright=excuse to charge extortionate prices. 258. Copyright helps to protect artists from having songs stolen and whatnot. But it does little in the way of promoting creativity. 259. Many artists have honed theirr craft without copyright or restrictions. Ever heard of GPLed music or artists like Trent Reznor releasing his tracks to fans to remix and remaster them? HE IS STILL MAKING excellent music, even after doing so. 260. Copyright used to mean the things that the RIAA states but now together with the DMRA it is just an excuse for the RIAA to harass and/or victimize participants in a victimless "crime". 261. Copyright is the ownership of the results of their craft. These rights should belong 100% to the artists... as do the rights to receive fair royalties for public usage. File sharing should not fall under the umbrella of "public usage." 262. I've said false as it should be noted that copyright runs out in different countries at different times. 263. They can "hone their craft, experiment, create, and thrive" without ironclad copyright monopoly. 264. Yes and no, It also allows for fair use. If the RIAA had it's way you couldn't even listne to the music without paying them something. 265. Copyright is protection from bootlegs and commercially available copies -- not from fans sharring and mixing, which ultimatly grows artits' publicity and overall cash revenue. 266. Why are these people any different from anyone else? It costs everyone else to thrive. 267. An artist creates something, because it's his vocation. It's nice to make money with your creativity but granting even heirs who have done nothing at all the rights to leech off of the creativity of one of their ancestors is ridiculous. If you can live your whole life from the sales of the one successful book you have written, you don't have any monetary incentive to write another. From an economical perspective this would seem rather hurtful to creativity. 268. I was inclined to answer yes to this, but decided not to only because the record companies could not conceivably care less about artistic craft and creativity - they're only interested in what sells the most. For them to hide behind this shield is the most cowardly dishonest bullshit imaginable. 269. It is true in a sense but the copyright management systems being used by the companies are too restrictive for consumers. They have to work with consumers not against them. 270. Then how come the labels "own" most of the "artists" work? How come artists with million selling albums are still in debt with their labels? How come creativity and experimentation are sidelined by a huge body of mainstream manufactured pop fronted by people picked for their sex appeal, who in no way deserve to be called artists. 271. Copyright is what the American founding fathers said it is. It's an incentive for people to create art by giving them exclusive rights to their works for a short period of time. After which, their works go into the public domain, which will inspire other people to create art. It will also inspire the original artist to continue working, creating art. What the RIAA thinks copyright is for does not promote creativity - it stifles it. 272. Artists just don't think that way. To real artists money is not the primary concern. The one that really worry about money are the one that are not very talented in the first place. 273. . 274. This is the recording industry. An industry that has not been around for 'that long'. To bring up 'precedence' in the form of Dickens and Twain (authors - NOT musicians) illustrates their ignorance all the more clearly. 275. The statement is true, but please don't accept this as a vindication of what the record labels and the RIAA (and indirectly, companies like VISA and MasterCard are doing). Milton, Twain and Dickens would never have turned 'copyrighting' into the industry it has become today. 276. Is this what it means? I thought it just meant they owned the tune and got paid when tv or movies used their music. 277. Its about money. 278. I have bought MORE CDs from shops than I EVER used to buy soince I started sharing and downloading . 279. In that case if you create one song that uses 1 note in theory that note can never be used again without the persons say so. 280. don't play your music on the airways for free then complain about no one buying it 281. copyright is the chance for large conglommerates to fleece both artists and public 282. i don't think thats what copyright means at all 283. The record companies keep more of the monies made from copyrighted songs then what the artists get, isn't that theft too? 284. SORRY, THE STATEMENT IS TRUE BUT IT DOES NOT MEAN THEY CAN CHARGE WHATEVER THEY WANT FOR BOOKS OR MUSIC. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT CULTURE, FOR GOD SHAKE, THIS IS NOT ABOUT DIAMONDS OR RACE CARS. 285. Protectionism/milking 286. This right was designed to support the artist for an adequate time, 40 years originally. After that the works were to be public domain. copyright has been corrupted big time by lobbyists. 287. In some ways this is true, but one thing that most people know is that a band's first album is often their best and most creative. Therefore this argument must be false. 288. Since artists have historically benefited little from copyright, they have not historically fought hard for that right. The concept of making filthy lucre from a copyright of music is a relatively recent invention and has no historical basis, especially for the artists quoted. 289. Given that the artists get around 1% of the sale of their albums I would say copyright has degraded into music companies screwing us and the artists. 290. Its simply about money 291. How does copyright allow artists to be more creative? You're either talented or not. The RIAA say that to make it sound like they're actually doing a good job. 292. Not anymore. Today "copyright" means restriction of creativity and lost of revenues because of limiting of public exposure of their works. 293. Copyrighting means that the artist should be paid by their respective record company and publisher, not screwed out of royalties like most record companies do to their artists. 294. Since 1974, copyright has been used to aggregate control over the distribution and sales of music into the hands of a few corporations. The artist is paid a proportionately small amount for their work, while the 295. When has big business ever given the slightest thought to an individual. What about Filo T Farnsworth who had his cathode tube idea stolen by EMI. Where was there "copyright" principal then 296. The statement is true as far as it goes but stops short of the whole truth. Copyright means a chance to hone.experiment.etc. but for a limited time. Anything over 7 years is excessive. That excess in turn renders all copyright meaningless and the entire world now takes advantage of that excess. 297. Thats fine but not at my expense. My company does not pay me for honing my skills. So with that said I don't care. 298. They still have the chance to thrive. But by trying to monopolize music and charge extraordinary prices, RIAA is not allowing the artists to thrive. 299. The publishers of the works made money like the authors. In music the publisher ie: CD maker is cut out and won't make money but the artist still could. 300. Copyright does not equal DRM 301. Copyright means that the artist is stuck with a greedy record company that puts profits ahead of the artist's freedom to thrive. 302. Books and records are different, and hello you can go to a library and read a book, why can't you download a song that you want to hear for a small fee. 303. Copyright doesn't help the creators become better at their talents. Instead it helps protect their works from being manipulated for the personal gain of others. And it's not a right, it's a privlage. 304. Copyright exists to help provide incentive for innovation. If an innovation becomes obsolete or does not make any money, I believe that it should go into public domain. 305. If you have talent than continue to prove it and you will be rewarded. 306. if "hone their craft, experiment, create, and thrive' means getting rich, aren't they doing that anyway? 307. Only for a SHORT time 308. Labels are trying to make the definition of "copyright" so broad that impinges on consumers' FAIR USE of tracks they have purchased. Also, the RIAA is not defending the artists (the majority of whom make their money thru merchandise & ticket sales), it's using that as a smokescreen to defend the practices of the music industry. 309. Artists can hone their craft, experiment, create, and thrive without copyrights in many ways. Such as live performances. 310. Copyright is good. Copyright in perpituity is not. 311. The right relates to not having other people steal your idea. Using ideas and coming up with new combinations or angles is how music or an art progresses. If a blatant copy of another artists' music is released by a label then that label will be sued to hell... so this right is still preserved. 312. Copyright is a vital right in some cases. That doesn't mean it should last for all of eternity. That doesn't mean sampling should be illegal. 313. Copyright is not used as it was intended when created. Today copyright is a fascist tool in the hands of a mafia cartel. 314. Just another excuse to justify their financial position. 315. pay artist one flat fee for recording. then it becomes public domain 316. to the RIAA, copyright means an income copyright theft means an additional income 317. The works of the authors mentioned above are in the Public Domain. Global copyrights expire in 50 years, except in the U.S., where they can be renewed ad infinitum. Fuck U.S. copyrights! Glenn Miller and Bing Crosby ain't never gonna be in the P.D. in the U.S.A., because the industry has lobbied Congress in its favor. Fuckin' Republicans! 318. Copyright just means you must be acknowledge for your work, others cannot use what you have done to profit for themselves with either proper acknowledgement or agreements to such use. 319. It sounds as if they are trying to evoke an emotional rather than logical response in the RIAA's definition of copyright. A copyright is something that gives the artist money for something he or she makes. 320. Actually, to artists copyright means: "Hey look what I did, isn't it neat, copy me and I'll make money by suing you!" 321. Copyright is there to make sure that the original creator has the opportunity to profit from their work during their lifetime. 322. labels hold copyright 323. Copyright may well have meant this to those people but to the RIAA members it is just another way to increase their revenue stream, and to hell with the artists 324. If Mark Twain were publishing now, he would be delirous over the possibility of his writing reaching the volume of end users that file sharing provides. 325. The fashion industry does not have IP or copyrights, and they have a plethora of new products come out constantly. It forces them to be innovative as opposed to artists that gets paid for what seems forever for the same songs. do you still get paid for the job you did 5 or 10 years ago? Then why should the artists? 326. there are countless occasions in wich musicians could not release sideprojects because the partisipants were signed to different labels. then there are those articficial pop-musicicians, who have their debut going platinum without one single live performance. i pay 15 bucks for an album and $40 - $60 plus travel cost for a concert. go figure. record = promotion, live performance = work, wich earns the money. 327. It's an /idea/, a sound. I think I'll go patent the sound of the wind blowing in the leaves, and have people pay me a penny every time they hear it. 328. There is a difference between copyright and enforcement of copyright. Any song written by an artist is AUTOMATICALLY copyright even if the RIAA did not exist. The truth is that most artists have to sign over the rights to their music to the record companies so I don't see how copyright enforcement protects the artists. The other issue is that there is a huge difference between the practicalities of copyright on a written work and a performed work. Even the RIAA recognize this, when someone does a cover of a song the owner of the copyright on the lyrics receives "mechanical" royalties. 329. gold rush 330. copyright as it was then maybe. now... 331. The artists rarely keep there copyrights so it is only a tool to allow the record Co. to control the market for there own gain ie market control / expiring albums from stores as thay se fit NOT where the band WOULD gain 332. Copyright laws are designed to protect the creator of a work. Sony is not the creator. Copyright laws need certain limits, or the public is denied access to these works. 333. dead relics didnt know about digital copyrights 334. The artist has the right to earn a living by plying their craft, but the major labels are trying to bludgeon us into buying. If I like it I will buy it, but I will find a way to support the artist without giving as much to a major label if possible. 335. For centuries those same people fought with the RIAA likes to preserve those rights too, so look who's talking? 336. I'd say look up copyright in the dictionary and tell me where it says anything about honing their craft. I do believe that it should be a right for an artist to have some sort of control over their works for a certain amount of time so they can make a living. However a copyright has never been a requirement for an artist to "hone their craft, experiment, create, and thrive." In fact there are far more starving artists than wealthy ones. 337. Van Gogh sold one painting in his whole life, yet somehow he honed his craft. It's all about money for the RIAA. Money has nothing to do with improving your art. 338. Within reason,. 339. copyright is just to keep things theirs. 340. Copyrights are most often a title to allow control. 341. artists have nothing, no rights - if RIAA does not want to print a CD - artist has nothing to say. I think the system is crazy - the last person to make money is the artist. And I'm not willing to pay to ppl, who are trying to sue me using my money. 342. They need a live 343. Copyright never has had anything to do with creative freedom. Never will. 344. I think artists should get paid for their work, but I think the way intellectual property law is being used by the labels is in no one's interest but the labels' own. I also believe that musicians - and all artists - do what they love because it's what they love. If people enjoy it, and want to see them continue, those people should support the artists. But, anyone who's making art for a reason other than a desire to make art is in the wrong business. It's nice to get paid for your work, it's nice to be appreciated. But no one is owed a living for their art. 345. You can hone your craft, experiment, and create in practice. That is all done before the CD goes on sale. No one is plagiarizing their work by sharing it. There is no better publicity then word of mouth. I would be happy to have the most downloaded song of all time. Hell it is a huge compliment. 346. Copyrights are meant to protect artist work so others cannot misrepresent them or steal artist work for their own use. 347. Yes the definition is true. But again, RIAA/America is using "copyright" solely for the insidious purpose of creating revenue - not for encouraging creativity or art/Art per se. What is not commercially viable is not created. 348. keep the law away from this transaction 349. It would be true if the Record Companies would not take the copyright for the Artist's work away from them. When I buy a book, the copyright still belongs to the author. The publisher may have distribution rights, but the author still owns his book. The recording industry takes the copyright away from the recording artist as part of the "deal." The industry even went as far as to try to make the artist an "employee" (actually more like an indentured servant -- at least an employee can quit) with the label owning the copyright outright. The recording industry needs add value to the music making process instead of being a burden if the industry wants to survive. 350. Copyright, as it exists, stifles culture. It turns ideas into real estate, and creates a new feudal system of 'intellectual property.' 351. Artists will create. The goal of copyright law is to incentivize the creative arts by giving artists a monopoly of limited time over there exploitation, such that they can eventually enter the public domain for all to appreciate. However, the current pricing structure of the record industry incentivizes p2p. CD prices have long been inflated. Buying an album online at .99 cents per song is essentially the same price, yet the consumer gets no tangible product, and the digital product is limited in its usefulness. These facts make p2p an attractive option- lower price for more use. While copyright serves an important purpose that should not be ignored, the record industry's stance on the issue is likewise harmful to copyright owners. There is a price at which consumers will pay for digital music rather than download it illegally, but the industry has not let the market figure strike such a balance. 352. copyright should have limit 353. I do definitely see what you guys are getting at with freely copying music and distributing it, etc, but I believe there is a fine line between living off of your music career and robbing the public of their money and gaining millions of dollars for a shitty song. It's bad enough that our society is so vulnerable to being controlled by music and what they "should" listen to, but its even worse that the music industry takes advantage of that and loves it. 354. copyright these days, just gives the right to sue over stolen content, it has nothing to due with increasing creativity, which was its initial purpose 355. Folk music survived hundreds of years without any type of copyright laws. Infact it needed people to copy each other to be able to progress. Same with sampling and loops, just now its the modern era and people are obsessed with putting a price on everything 356. "Copyright" has two purposes. One is certainly to ensure that an artist can earn his/her due compensation from his/her artistic work. The other is to ensure that creativity as a whole is allowed to grow and thrive through "fair use." 357. copyright is being badly used in this argument for capital gain. 358. Does copyright bestow chances? No. Does not having a copyright remove chances? No. 359. That statement is ironic coming from the RIAA. They do not represent artists; they represent record labels. It is a conflict of interest for a lawyer to represent both an artist and their label. At the very least, it is disingenuous for the RIAA to claim that they do what they do on the behalf of artists. 360. How much $ does the "artist" really get after administrative fees are implemented. 361. Well, sure, everyone should have the right to the stuff they create. Seeing as the only thing the RIAA have "made" is a lot of trouble for people who enjoy music, well, to hell with them. 362. Because of the RIAA, "copyright" means to the artist, a chance to produce the same garbage that fills the top 40: formulaic pablum. The companies that make up RIAA systematically destroy the opportunity to create and experiment through the economics of oligarchy. Which should be illegal under U.S. law! 363. Copyright was granted by us the public and was supposed to be limited. It is not to be controlled by the companies and distorted into their cash cows. 364. Copyright only partly helps the already well established artists. I know of several lesser known artists that actively use filesharing to get noticed. Copyright like the RIAA sees it helps noone but the RIAA. I would much rather buy an album that doesn't have one cent of the profits going to the RIAA. 365. copyright means 'owning' someone's creation and basically big trusts have to be dismanteled into smaller labels closer to the public 366. Music artists generally do not own the copyright to their own work; the record companies do. 367. They fight cause no one listens to them anymore and they need every penny they can get. 368. drac0nian copyright law does not apply to the digital age. Once you sign with publisher/label/etc. you lose ALL RIGHTS & royalties essentially >URGENT READING> http://blog.wired.com/music/2007/04/dick_dale_warns.html 369. tickly my funny bone again... never heard of mark twain suing dead grandma's, 11 year kids or harassing single mom's with threats to sue her kids. The only merit #14 uplifts is not creativity but to see how long the publisher can make $ off the artist even if they've been dead for decades. 370. Copyright is to ensure artist get credit for their work and other's should be allowed to help them hone and experiment, not just the original artist especially when the record company buys them out. 371. They seem to confuse "artists" with "authors". 372. Copyright means that the artist retains the right to reproduction, etc. But -- as an artist myself, I would be pretty chuffed if someone felt it was good enough to share with the world. Sharing also means more exposure for the artist 373. :P 374. Absolute hypocritical bullshit. Read some literary history and learn how even those authors were screwed over by the media companies of their day! 375. WTF? 376. One thing is to give the right credits to the creator of something. Another thing is to artificially restrict the use and copying of a non-scarce good. 377. It merely means that the original work belongs to the artist that created it. It is not an automatic atm machine because it is copyrighted. 378. more money 379. copyright allows them to get richer 380. Idea's will always be copied, even if you have a copyright, E.G. Microsoft vs. apple. they do every year. but they each have different sales tactics and continue to make money because of them. if you were to get rid of copyrights everyone would be copying each other for the good of the public, and the best product would win in the end. It's quite simple really. but big companies wouldn't go for it because they would lose market hold on their product because other people are doing the same thing but better and cheaper. 381. "Copyright" has nothing to do with honing a craft, etc. It has all to do with right of ownership. 382. Not enough information for me to answer #14 383. wrong context 384. Stop making me type in this box. For your stupidity for making these litlle text boxes, I am now forced to c&p this response in all the boxes. Bad poll making guy, BAD! 385. copyright, means don't copy this song or I can sue you. If artists wanted to "Craft, experiment, create, and thrive" they would release their music as Creative Commons... 386. Copyright is important--it was originally granted as a Royal perogrative so that artists could profit from their labours. The problem with copyright today is that it has been extended and transformed beyond all recognition of what it was originally. For example, when Walt Disney created Mickey Mouse, copyright at the time was for a term of 28 years, renewable once, for a total of 56 years. It has been repeatedly extended, and is now to the point that things are not in the public domain unless they are so very old that they were current when my mother was a toddler in the 1920s. 387. It may have been that way at one time. Now it means the record corporations get most of the $. The artists get little. 388. Artists don't need to make money from their art to hone it - if anything it lessens the true value of their gift. If money is so important to 'the artist' he shouldn't be a artist. 389. yeah right 390. Copyright is a system that allows the owner of the copyright to profit for a prescribed period of time. Very often this is not the artist. 391. Copyright terms are too long. Non-commercial private sharing should be decriminalized. 392. copyright (to the **AA) means reaping all profit for every instance a performance is heard or viewed, while compensating the creator as little as is legally possible, and maintaining this monopoly on the copyrighted work in all perpetuity until the end of recorded time. 393. I didn't answer false, but a copyright shows ownership. I do not dispute ownership but overpricing will lead the public to find what they want elsewhere. Its the market. 394. Copyrights were a privilege granted to the artist for the above stated reasons. Copyrights have become a "right" for the large recording industry at the expense of the consumer and, some would say, the artist. 395. John Milton, William Hogarth, Mark Twain, and Charles Dickens would be shiting in their coffins if they knew how the RIAA distorted the real purpose of copyright. 396. copyright should allow an artist to profit and live off their work in their lifetime. 397. While that may have been what copyright used to be, IP laws are now just a structure by which large corporations can aggregate wealth. 398. I believe copyright is necessary, but the current model is no longer relevant. The law needs to be amended or re-written to allow for fair use by individual consumers while still protecting the work from being misused and profited from by corporate entities. 399. the copyright is a fairly modern creation. i do not believe that in the past, writers such as milton and dickens and possibly twain even thought about something like that 400. Jazz did not thrive by copyright. Instead, it strangles innovation. For years, we couldn't even legally buy the Real Book. 401. copyright has stifled innovation and bred a vast population of lawyers who harass us and eat out our substance. 402. It's a way to protect an artist's creation while in use. Now it's being used as a way to lock usage from the public from fair use. 403. Copyright surely then should also stop some no talent rap star from ruining another artist work without asking them permission. But their record company writes in the contract that that is their decision and never turn down a chance to see a classic song ruined. 404. I would say true, but consider the industry's attempts to keep orphaned works out of the public domain, or the fact they have gotten copyright terms to what, life plus 95 years? A dead artist cannot be influenced by success to create new original art. The opposition to orphaned works smacks of admitting that free alternatives from the past might be better than what they're producing now... 405. See: http://www.baen.com/library/palaver11.htm 406. Copyright within reason is a great idea, but copyright that extends for many decades beyond the life of the creator of the art, or worse, which is not directly owned by the creator at any point, is pretty much about as far from the intent of the concept as we can go. 407. Copyright is a vital right? NOT! 408. Books in the XIX century certainly ain´t music on the XXI. 409. Artists and their families have fought to extend copyrights to an absurd length. I think we need copyrights, but not to the length that they exist now. 410. Art should not be restricted. 411. I think the RIAA is actually twisting in the worst manner what Milton, Hogarth, Twain and Dickens have fought for. 412. the above are in the public domain- copyright in this sense is a corporate invention to scam a percentage FROM the artists not give money to them 413. first part false. 414. Copyrights are designed to protect those that would loose the chance to experiment and thrive. This applies to rival companies or artists blatantly copying creations, not individuals sharing. 415. every book by all of the above authors has been freely available from PUBLIC LIBRARIES 416. I think someone should be able to copyright their property, so that the corporations can't rape them, but I'm still going to copy what I think should be free. Sorry. 417. Copyright was originally intended to give artists a limited monopoly on their work in order to do just those things. Unfortunately, the balance has gotten out of whack due to big players such as the RIAA and Disney, et. al. and now people are practically being forced to beg copyright holders in order to simply be inspired by their work. That's not the original intent of copyright. Also, copyright has been extended to a ridiculous length, also for the benefit of corporate holders, such that works don't enter the public domain in a timely fashion. 418. To an extent, they are right. Can't speak for the famous names, though. 419. Artists can make money in many other ways other than stealing 20 fucking dollars per CD in which there are 2 or 3 song over 10-15 that are worth of buy. 420. Ma