Slashdot Mirror
Ad-Supported Free Music Downloads Doomed to Failure?
madonna writes "CNET extensively explains why the new We7.com download service — which offers ad-embedded free music downloads without DRM — is doomed to failure. 'This service absolutely, categorically will not succeed. You can quote us on that. It's true the best way to combat piracy is to provide a realistic and affordable alternative, and free is certainly affordable. But music downloaders are not going to switch to using a service that costs the same as using BitTorrent or Limewire, but comes with abominable disclaimers or advertisements.'"
This could be a nice way of distributing movies. Personally I wouldn't mind paying $3-4 for a movie with a little ad at the beginning (can always fast forward). But for a song it would suck to be in the middle and hear "Buy x-product today".
People don't like listening to ads before listening to music? Shock and awe.
I think there's noth**Call Geico 1-800-861-8380 - So easy a cave man could do it**ing wrong with this business model
I mean seriously- infringing on recent material makes a lot of folks feel guilty (and it SHOULD).
If they have a way to get the stuff morally, they will because a lot of people are as moral as they can afford to be.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
But music downloaders are not going to switch to using a service that costs the same as using BitTorrent or Limewire, but comes with abominable disclaimers or advertisements.
I don't know about the FP author, but I consider "legal" a pretty big point to factor into "cost"!
And I say that as someone who loathes ads.
But music downloaders are not going to switch to using a service that costs more than BitTorrent or Limewire, and comes with abominable DRM ...
It's legal, free, and easy to use. There's three good reasons to switch.
Because there will always be those who wish to stay one the "right side of the law" (for whatever reason). However, considering it would be incredibly easy to remove ads from either the start or the end of a song, or if embedded in an album to separate the tracks, it will just provide another way for people to get music.
I don't think they can make any money of the service, so OK I guess it is doomed to failure.
Personally, I've been listening to ad free (varied full tracks, including big name bands) music legally for a few weeks from Last.fm and I'm quite happy.
I wank in the shower.
Music downloading types are like electrons. They always take the path of least resistance. You can charge for music downloads, and if it's super easy to do, people will pay it. But if you make the process even slightly more complicated, no one will touch it, even if it's free.
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
Not everyone though. Many people think that stealing from thieves is a kind of moral justice.
I'll probably be modded down for this...
If I wrote a program to cut off the first ten seconds (or whatever) of these songs, removing the ads, would that be legal or not?
Le français vous intéresse?
yea. im not gonna switch to a service that is FREE, just because there are some ads around. yea you got that right. definitely. instead im gonna pay for the same thing like a moron.
You can quote me on this , CNEt, you are going to eat your words.
Read radical news here
Hmmm....interesting concept....you listen to tunes which have commercial messages attached. They might even put the ads over the first or last few seconds to avoid ruining the entire track, but still have the ads embedded.
In my day we called that "commercial radio".
Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
"But music downloaders are not going to switch to using a service that costs the same as using BitTorrent or Limewire, but comes with abominable disclaimers or advertisements."
While I agree that the concept of ad-supported download services would be a failure, the presence of ads won't be the reason.
I'm sure plenty of people would just as soon use the ad-infested service just for the sake of legitimacy. Hell, I would, just to say I was downloading music legally. Limewire is notorious enough as an effective malware injector. BitTorrent is a tad more daunting to the average user who just wants to get a song or two. And both methods teeter on questionable legality.
/* No Comment */
Wouldn't it be relatively easy to slice the first 10 seconds of ads out, prepend the magic bits / id3 tags, and stuff? That'd be legal too, seeing as we7.com is paying the copyright trolls.
I remember this from amp3.com, a defunct and unlamented mp3.com clone.
I've still got a couple of tracks somewhere with the amp3.com ad header on them; however, it turned out that they had stuck the header on by directly fiddling with the mp3 stream, and simply by running the file through a mp3 sanitiser, the header would magically vanish.
I wish we7 lots of luck, but if I were to start using them I'd damn well write an ad removal program.
This negative review - of course - has nothing, nothing whatsoever to do with CNET owning mp3.com does it?
I mean why would it? Must be a coincidence, surely...
> That'd be legal too, seeing as we7.com is paying the copyright trolls.
It's not legal, because you are making an unauthorized derived work.
I'll probably be modded down for this...
At some point, ads get too intrusive. Some notable failures:
Besides, music already has ads. 50 Cent mentioned 20 brands in his songs in 2005, according to American Brandstand. "Mercedes emerged as the top brand of the year, and 50 Cent outbranded the rest to become the top brand-dropping artist... Meanwhile, weapon brands surged..."
By the article author's calculations, all paid music services are doomed to failure, not just free ad-supported ones.
From TFA:
"don't waste your time in thinking this is going to do anything positive to the industry"
I've heard that so many times about services which have actually revolutionised industries, many of those services are no longer in business but that didn't stop them being positive influences on the industry.
Case in point: A few years ago in the U.K., Altavista advertised an flat-rate, £10 a year internet service at a time when virtually all domestic ISPs only offered per-minute deals. Several other ISPs then started offering competing flat-rate offers.
The Altavista service never even ended up launching, but it had already caused other ISPs to offer cheap flat-rate deals. As a result, Altavista are often credited with helping to give the U.K. some of the cheapest internet deals in the world.
Maybe this service won't be a massive hit, but to instantly dismiss an innovative idea is extremely stupid!
Quote: Even EMI -- the first of the Big Four to release music without any DRM -- basically said, "If you don't want DRM, pay more for you music."
Pay more to remove something that shouldn't be there anyway - something THEY added to stop you having fair use of the music.
Seems like an extortion racket to me.
"But music downloaders are not going to switch to using a service that costs the same as using BitTorrent or Limewire, but comes with abominable disclaimers or advertisements."
Broadcast radio has followed this model since the beginning and it didn't hurt them until "commercial-free" paid services came on the scenes. What would have probably been better for the record industry is the inclusion of ads in songs and albums from the early days of records. That way they could have now charged a premium for ad-free music and made a killing. Ahhhh, but hindsight is 20x20.
-m
The catch to UK-based We7.com's music download service is that every single DRM-free track comes embedded with an audible pre-roll advertisement. That's right: every track. At the moment all the ads are default We7 ads, which are painfully akin to the very worst local FM radio station's ident jingle. With added "Don't steal!" messages.
We7 claims that after listening to ads four or five times, they'll disappear from your music. That's interesting, considering the files are in MP3 format and as such are incapable of supporting such a method. - well, either the reporter is wrong and this is not MP3 format, or this is MP3 format and the We7 are going to provide their own player that will skip the ad.
In any case this is retarded, the prefixed ad can be easily stripped from the file without even listening to it. I personally don't give a shit, I don't listen to music, only to CFRB1010 station on my AM radio, however I am certain there will be another service added on top of the first one, where you'd download the music from We7 through that other service, that'll strip the ad from the file.
You can't handle the truth.
OK, let's stop calling this by the name Digital Rights Management. That's the name that the industry puts on it to cover their true purpose.
It's actually DENIAL of FAIR USE. DFU. Call it DFU. When you're explaining why it's DFU instead of the industry's pet name, just say "Disney Fucks U."
DFU. That's the framing which will help to change people's minds. Don't say DRM any longer. It's not about their rights, it's about OUR fair use rights as citizens.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
I just downloaded a song and am listening to it as I type (Coolio's Gangsta walk it was one of the first songs on the list).
- There's a 10 second ad clip in the beginning for We7. After that, the music starts.
- Half the song later, no second ad, just music.
- The music inexplicably stops 10 seconds before the song's done, but there's still no second ad.
I don't know how they make money off of advertising their own service in the beginning of the song. Does anyone have an answer for this? And couldn't anyone just download a song, then import it in an audio editor like Audacity, delete the 10 second ad in the beginning and export it back? A quick scan of the terms doesn't seem to prohibit that.
Ruckus is free and legal to anyone with an .edu address. No ads, real songs, decent library. (Unfortunately in WMV format with DRM that says you must use WMP or the Ruckus player to play it, but it's free, so meh.)
So, I just signed up (using a fake name and address etc. of course, for you it is tonysmtih@mailinator.com and fuckshitup) and downloaded my first songs.
The sign up process is crap with a bunch of information that they don't really need and will probably sell (year of birth and gender (but only male and female...) for example).
The actual ad at the start isn't that bad, but after a while I would definitely get sick of it... So, as has been mentioned, a program to skip the ads... But the music is so crap that even if the ads weren't there...
Anyway, it might survive, you decide.
I wank in the shower.
Aren't you using Kazaa to "preview the albums to see if they are worth buying"? If so, this service should be perfect for you! Legal, allows you to preview every song, doesn't stop you from buying an ad-free CD or download later. Where is the catch?
"Not everyone though. Many people think that stealing from thieves is a kind of moral justice."
Well since we're using stereotypes to justify our actions. You shouldn't have a problem with geeks being labeled smelly, no social skills, and virgins?
I couldn't find any mention of the file bitrates anywhere on the site, has anyone downloaded any of these files? What's the bitrate? If it is some crappy 128k mp3 I'll pass.
Sure ads are annoying but music is good and free music is better. If not just pay for it. You can you know. cnet might have learnt that if they even tried looking at the bloody frontpage http://www.we7.com/ At We7, we know that ads are not always desirable, so as with everything in life it's a balance and We7 will give you a choice.
* If you want a track now with no ad, then we will give you a way to buy the track at normal price.
* If you want a track that is free, legal, safe and the artist gets rewarded then we add the ad. However, you don't have to have the ad forever, as with We7 technology, after a period of time (4 weeks) you will have the choice to have the track 'ad free'. So, enjoy We7 and the new digital music download model. Oh right and as has already been pointed out if its DRM free I can simply strip out the first ten seconds or whatever.
Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.
It's not extortion because you don't have to buy music at all. They provide something and set a price. If consumers think the product is ok at the price, it'll sell. If not, it won't.
And...yuck. I think I just defended those guys. Think I'll go take a bath.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
After you log in, the interface is a fairly simple with a clear html/non flash/non plugin website that gives plain anchored hypertext links to the files to download.
The files themselves are 128kbps 44khz mp3 files with about a 8 or 9 second ad followed by 1 or 2 seconds of silence, then the song.
The few songs I listened to seem to be encoded well enough for the given format.
there isn't much selection, a few mainstream artists with a few tracks and a few that are less mainstream with entire albums.
I'm certainly going to keep an eye on this site to see what develops.
http://www.mptrim.com/ There's a few other programs out there that can chop up mp3s without losing any quality. I downloaded a couple of mp3s from we7 and they only slap an ad on the beginning of the song, so it's easy to chop off if you don't want it.
It's not THAT bad of an idea but wouldn't you just edit out the commercial/advertisement and save it as a new file?
[%] Cingular Ringtones
It's true the best way to combat piracy is to provide a realistic and affordable alternative, and 99 cents is certainly affordable. But music downloaders are not going to switch to using a service that costs more as using BitTorrent or Limewire, but comes with abominable DRM or advertisements.
Oh wait... some of them are... hmm.
It's clearly extortion. We all know the terrible consequences of ignoring iTMS and EMI, and not buying music from either of them. Oh, the horrors of not owning a particular specific piece of non-essential entertainment!
Information wants to be free.
Entertainment wants to be paid.
You just want to be cheap.
Define the battle on our terms, not theirs.
They already got one past the media with "Piracy". It's NOT PIRACY. It's copyright violation. If it was piracy, we already had laws on the books against that. By tying the two together the public thinks they must somehow be similar. And they are not. People are very rarely fired upon with cannon shot when their software is infringed upon.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
In my day we called that "commercial radio".
I remember when commercial radio was like this... where you could passivly listen to music, 2-4 songs and then an equal amount of time was dedicated to commercials and dj jabber. Odds were you could hop stations if the commercial breaks really bothered you.
Now... I have a hard time crusing the FM dial without finding some radio station that hasn't been infiltrated by the "talk radio craze", which is some solo jackass with a string monologs lasting for 8 hours, not related to the music, but usually a cry of moral outrage over scented toilet paper followed by fart jokes.
I for one welcome our music serving commercial overlords... at least there is MUSIC.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
Yeah ad supported free music is sure to fail...
I believe you are mistaken - because they are abusing their position to restrict fair use.
;)
Extortion is:
2. the crime of obtaining money or some other thing of value by the abuse of one's office or authority.
3. oppressive or illegal exaction, as of excessive price or interest: the extortions of usurers.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/extortion
We should start calling it for what it is Digital RESTRICTION Management
Garry ~ skilful.com
...to entice you to go see the artist in concert. Seriously, that's why they get radio play--to get you to pay for a ticket when they come to town. This whole idea that the song is a tangible piece of property or that it's something you lease just isn't working. Songs over the internet should be treated like songs over the air. It's an ad already.
The alternative would be product placement IN the song, like we see in movies. It's already happening in rap.
No one will ever want one of those horseless carriages, they are doomed to fail! No one will ever want have a computer in their home, they are doomed to fail! No one will ever want...you get the point.
I stopped listening to commercial music over a decade ago when it started to deliver crap instead of actual music. And I'm not the only one.
If you have a problem with DRM or with copyrights or with the RIAA or with the cost of music, it's your choice: you choose to listen to crap, and crap with strings attached is what you get.
There is 100 times as much music out there as is delivered by the mainstream western labels. Go find it, and enjoy. And when you choose to pay for something that you think is really terrific, you will be rewarding musicians, not shareholders.
It's your choice. You know how to Google.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
Jesus, we all watch tv, and listen to the radio, and we all understand about getting the content for free...I downloaded all of the songs, and I really couldn't give 2 shits if they put a small commercial at the front! They should do this for Battlestar Galactica...they'd make a fortune off of the advertisers!!!
Yes, I can easily take out the commercials by just converting it, and cutting it out, but really I don't want to waste my time. After all, I get to listen to artists that I want to, and then later on if I like them enough I'll go out, and buy their albums.
This is incredible exposure for artists that can't get any air play at any radio station, so I applaud anyone who has the foresight to actually use this new technology to their advantage, and actually give the people access to their favourite artists, or even new ones! I'm really liking this song "Touch" by "Public Symphony!" Now, I would have never heard of them except for this service, and I don't have to worry about the fucking RIAA after me!
I think those fucking suits at the movie/television/music industries, are probably the most fucking ignorant, stunned, blind, fucktards that can't see a fucking goldmine if they were actually thrown into one!!! This is the future of content delivery to the users!!!! Fucking recognize that it doesn't matter what they hell that you give out to the people as it is the commercials that will allow you to fucking rake, and I mean fucking rake in the dough$$$!!!! Advertisers have captive audiences, and for the general populace, they won't even know how to edit out the commercials, so it will actually get to your target audiences!!! This will be balloon so that there will be more of a need for people to produce, and make the commercials, and it just goes from there!
This is a win-win for everybody...I do not agree that this will fail whatsoever! You'll always have people who will skirt DRM, or even editing out commercials, but as I stated before, for the general masses they'll accept this wholeheartedly, and won't even try to edit them!
Those fucking suits must subscribe to "DUH" magazine!!! Idiots!!!
But then what's the point of September 19th?
We don't mind paying for music that we can play on any device. Why does everything have to be "ad-supported"? Seriously. I don't care about a bunch of useless crap that I don't want. Simple enough, right? Apparently the entire industry doesn't get it.
I'm not going to download one to find out, but how the heck do you pronounce "we7"?
... Bueller?
Is that "wee-seven"? Or do they try to amalgamate the words into "weven" or something?
Who here thinks that having a short URL was a key part of their plan to get venture capital...? (Raises hand) Who thinks this will save them...? Anybody?
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Several stations in the NY area have changed to an all-music all-the-time format. Sure, they still have ads, but ZERO talk. Woohoo!
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
"Breaking the law" is not the same thing as "being immoral."
A person who breaks a law by doing something which he feels is morally correct has no reason to feel guilty (in a moral sense) though he has a good reason to be aware that he is breaking a law.
Ever heard the phrase, "an unjust law is no law at all?" In some cases, breaking the law is actually the morally correct thing to do, though opinions about when such cases occur will vary.
If I download the music (legally) through we7, then chop off the beginning ad, then I have a song no different than one downloaded through BitTorrent?
Wouldn't a better model involve a tie into a service which updates ads every time you plug the music player in? I could see starting to hate a song if it has some annoying car ad before it. It would be nice for the downloader's and the advertisers to change things up every few days.
Hey, hey, hey! I don't smell.
Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
Why is that modded Interesting?
Funny? Yes.
Informative? For all who needed to get a copy of that HD-DVD key, yes.
But Insightful? Come on...
Man, that was one rare and little noticed reference to Venus' explanation of the atom!!
You sir are neither adel minded nor obtuse.
Ninjas don't carry tic tacs
...but then who do I pay to tell me what to like?
paintball
Advertising, fundamentally, is an economic parasite. Advertisers produce nothing of value, and add no value to the products they advertise; any economic model that relies on excessive advertising (more than "I have this product for sale if you are interested", which *does* provide value) is essentially wasteful.
This leaves open the question of how Slashdot et al. will get compensated for their bandwidth, but having to find a way for Slashdot to get paid is a better outcome than having an entire section of the economy doing nothing productive.
mp3splt's silence detection works great on all the We7 files I tested!*
mp3splt -s downloaded.mp3
* Grand total: one. But still. It appears the "Web 2.0 based, 'pat.pending' MediaGraft engine" is just prepending a ten-second mp3 with a polite period of silence before the music begins.
perl -e 'foreach(values %SIG){$_="IGNORE";}while(){}'
Seriously, what's the complaint here? Even if you're too lazy to do it yourself, they'll let you get an ad-free version after a couple of weeks. Some of you guys are way too picky.
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
Ahhhh, but hindsight is 20x20.
So, what you're saying is that hindsight is 400?
Google is right about ads. Least annoying = Most clicked in the long run. Text ads are better than images, image than video, video than audio. If they could put text ads inside it would be better for them.
My guess is that people will use, but advertisement will cause listeners to AVOID advertised services and products. They will not have enough advertisers in the long run.
BitTorrent depends the popularity of the torrent. If these guys are offering free, DRM-free downloads of (depending on your perspective, maybe *ridiculously*) obscure stuff, they're in business.
Godless heathen.
I think CNet is correct although they do not know WHY they are correct.
In terms of cost, a legal alternative to BitTorrent would instantly become the most popular method of acquiring music, since this ad-supported service would be free. I see that as being a factor, but not the deciding factor, in the eventual success or failure of the service.
The business model of ad-supported, free products or services seems ideal, but has been, for the most part, unrealistic in the past. We all know Google has enjoyed great success with its ad-supported services, but Google does not have to rely on third-party licensed sources for its services and products. In fact, most copyright holders are thrilled to have their information on Google because it benefits them. Google's search engine provides a free service for both surfers and copyright holders (web site owners), but Google receives the greatest benefits because it sticks ads on the pages and gives advertisers the opportunity to create prioritized ad campaigns _for a price_. Because of the type of business that Google runs, this is relatively easy by comparison. However, attempting to create a service which essentially distributes copyright holders' _products_ with no benefit to them is not seen as a good business decision by those copyright holders, and as a result the selection of music available through this ad-supported music downloading service will be highly limited. This is one reason why the service may eventually be "doomed to failure," but it is not the only reason.
If we consider the beneficiaries of this business model, we see that the distributor (We7) will receive little income due to lack of business, providing little incentive for the company to take larger risks in achieving its goal (which is to distribute free, DRM-less music to listeners). Copyright holders receive little benefit because they are not advertising companies -- they want to be paid for their products, and even when they are paid for their products they are unwilling to relinquish copyrights on those products -- and therefore receive no income from the advertisements directly. Moreover, the customers will be at best somewhat dissatisfied or alienated because of the advertisement method implemented. If the advertisements are available only on the site (and not included as part of the music the consumers are downloading), then the distributor will likely receive less income from the advertisements; and if the advertisements are included as part of the music, then consumers will be alienated, disgusted, and ultimately dissatisfied. As a result, consumers will direct their business elsewhere. In contrast to Google, where advertisers see opportunity, copyright holders are willing, and surfers are abundant, neither We7's target audience nor its sponsors receive enough benefits to make such business ventures and risks worthwhile.
These are the reasons for which We7 will fail where Google has prevailed. It has nothing to do with cost, but it has everything to do with feasibility and the prospects of business.
I agree that this service will fail, but only because it's devaluing the music too much for it to be worth it for artists. There is no way you could attract enough advertising revenue to the vast number of independent artists with relatively low audiences. This can only work for top 40 type music, with large target audiences already in place. They will never be able to offer more niche music unless they subsidize it with more popular tracks, which is no way to determine the value of music. We end up with something that's equivalent to FM radio run by Clearchannel, which is completely unappealing when compared with decent streaming MP3 radio stations (which can be captured and stored in MP3 format if desired) and paid downloads in higher quality without ads. The artist and record label should determine the value of the music, not the amount of listeners.
"I like systems, their application excepted", George Sand (French)
As a user I personally wouldnt mind supporting the artists (mind you the artists, not RIAA), but service has to be on par with what p2p provides - e.g.
,which RIAA cant wait to kill (killed already?) .
1)huge catalog
2)ease and convenince of use
3)DRM free format.
So far all the services fail in all three . For the exception of allofmp3.com
I quit listening to broadcast radio because of too many ads.
Marketers are WAY too aggressive invading our eyespace. I got so fed up with ads and telemarketers that I pulled the plug on the radio/TV, got an unpublished phone #, and signed up for the federal do not call list.
I'm in no hurry to sign up for we7, thank you very much.
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
Embedded ads work well in some things and not in others. Applications like ABC's online video player work well. ABC embeds 30 second ads into the TV show you're watching every 10 minutes or so. Consumers are already used to watching ads in the middle of their TV shows so it's not a big inconvenience.
In contrast, We7 embeds short ads at the beginning of every song. This isn't something consumers are used to, and seems a bit annoying. I wouldn't advise any of the clients our agency works with to use a format that was likely to annoy their customers. If there were a way that We7 could replicate the radio station listening experience that many consumers accept - embedding ads every 4 or 6 songs - I could imagine this gaining some traction. But, since that would require a propriety player and format, I don't see it happening any time soon.
Plus, if the ads play for a set amount of time at the beginning of every DRM-free mp3, wouldn't it be ridiculously easy to strip them out?
IAAAG (I Am An Advertising Guy), but that doesn't mean my opinion on this matter holds any particular validity.
Mod my comments down. It'll be fun.
Quite the opposite. P2P is notorious for crappy quality, fake files, and damaged files.
An ad on every song is excessive, but a couple second run through mp3splt (or mp3trim on Win32) and you're done.
Better/easier than P2P. I fail to see how this is bad.
What's more, everyone will probably listen to the ad a couple times before they remove it, so it should still make money for advertisers, and keep the site in business.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
I don't know if we7.com is doomed to failure or not. I guess the market will ultimately determine that. But seriously, is cybersquatting these days really so bad that the best name for the site that they could come up with is WE7.COM?!?! Seriously?!?! WTF does that mean?!?!
I could see this being a hit on college campuses where the RIAA has started using big bad scare tactics, especially where it's resulted in restrictions on filesharing programs, etc. Free to the students, free to the school, legal, everyone's happy. And someone posted above that a few weeks after you download the song, you can get rid of the ads, too.
Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
Right on brother! Now one other question. How do you get pink paint off a frog?
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
I completely disagree with the article.
"...music downloaders are not going to switch to using a service that costs the same as using BitTorrent or Limewire, but comes with abominable disclaimers or advertisements..."
They will if they know that they will eventually be sued for it. I am currently a student at a prominant midwestern university, and not too long ago the RIAA sent hundereds of emails to the university (which were promptly forwarded to students using the network) telling the students to pay $3000 to settle or they will be sued (and eventually forced to settle for even more money). I haven't done any serious downloading since I was a freshman and using the network, but I was sitting by my inbox praying that I didn't recieve one of those emails.
This first hand experience changed the way that I listen to music. Since I don't like most of the popular music in the US today, I listen to music online. Downloading music does hurt the RIAA because it makes their product less valuable, but that's THEIR fault for switching to a medium that is so easy to copy. Downloading royalty free music (which is VERY EASY TO FIND, if you look for it) ALSO hurts the RIAA, but they can't sue us for it. That's because it still forces them to try to change their business model, and that is our goal, people.
Fighting the system is a waste of energy. Simply use a better one.
Hang on, there's a back-to-front joke in there somewhere.
http://www.google.com/search?q=find+me+some+non-ma instream+music+I'll+like&sourceid=mozilla-search&s tart=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a& rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official
IANAL but write like a drunk one.