(no subject)
RIAA wins first "filesharing" court case
Well, there goes the first death knell of the music industry in the US. How much of that $220,000 do you think will go to any actual musicians? Exactly: not a cent. Because that's not what this is about.
Okay all you RIAA folks, here's the rub: a large portion of my music collection consists of artists that I heard first online. In fact, the last thirteen albums that I've purchased, not including individual songs bought online? All of them artists that would not have seen a penny of my commerce if not for my having heard their music first on the internet. It is not at all unusual for me to hear an artist online, then go track down and purchase their entire catalogue of music.
So who again is hurt by filesharing? I have a theory.
First and foremost, it's the RIAA. Those litigious, pocket-lining thugs hiding behind an antiquated music industry that in turn hides behind flesh-and-blood musicians. Congratulations on finding a way to turn US copyright law into a dot-com booming business, by the way. Wish I'd thought of that, but oh... I have a bit of personal integrity.
Record companies? They're next in line. Yes, I see where this whole affair hurts them. Because it puts every product they turn out under scrutiny. File sharing makes every song suddenly available for perusal; not just the shill tunes and select gems they ship off to the radio stations. Which is why album sales are down, but online sales of individual songs/videos have increased significantly. The main reasons that they are hurting is because they are still spending money like it's the 1970's, and because they now have to actually have a quality product in order to sell it.
Lastly, there's the musicians (of which I'm one). They... hrm. They miss out on 8-11¢ (before taxes) every time you download a song illegally? Or about $1 per CD album (before production costs are taken out)? Well... shit, that's not much of an argument there, is it? If I downloaded an album illegally and bought the band lunch at Taco Bell, they'd be making a killing. That's the main problem with the RIAA and filesharing. It's not about music, or musicians. It's about making arseloads of cash for the RIAA and their lawyers.
So feel free to run over to my music page, to download and share both of the albums there. Then buy yourself a burrito or something.
Well, there goes the first death knell of the music industry in the US. How much of that $220,000 do you think will go to any actual musicians? Exactly: not a cent. Because that's not what this is about.
Okay all you RIAA folks, here's the rub: a large portion of my music collection consists of artists that I heard first online. In fact, the last thirteen albums that I've purchased, not including individual songs bought online? All of them artists that would not have seen a penny of my commerce if not for my having heard their music first on the internet. It is not at all unusual for me to hear an artist online, then go track down and purchase their entire catalogue of music.
So who again is hurt by filesharing? I have a theory.
First and foremost, it's the RIAA. Those litigious, pocket-lining thugs hiding behind an antiquated music industry that in turn hides behind flesh-and-blood musicians. Congratulations on finding a way to turn US copyright law into a dot-com booming business, by the way. Wish I'd thought of that, but oh... I have a bit of personal integrity.
Record companies? They're next in line. Yes, I see where this whole affair hurts them. Because it puts every product they turn out under scrutiny. File sharing makes every song suddenly available for perusal; not just the shill tunes and select gems they ship off to the radio stations. Which is why album sales are down, but online sales of individual songs/videos have increased significantly. The main reasons that they are hurting is because they are still spending money like it's the 1970's, and because they now have to actually have a quality product in order to sell it.
Lastly, there's the musicians (of which I'm one). They... hrm. They miss out on 8-11¢ (before taxes) every time you download a song illegally? Or about $1 per CD album (before production costs are taken out)? Well... shit, that's not much of an argument there, is it? If I downloaded an album illegally and bought the band lunch at Taco Bell, they'd be making a killing. That's the main problem with the RIAA and filesharing. It's not about music, or musicians. It's about making arseloads of cash for the RIAA and their lawyers.
So feel free to run over to my music page, to download and share both of the albums there. Then buy yourself a burrito or something.