I don't think that you have taken into account the cost of a legal battle with the RIAA even if they did win. You've got rich corporate lawyers with political connections on the one side, working with a guy who probably couldn't afford one of the briefcases those guys are carrying.
If you look at the cost of their settlement, $17,000 with a couple of hours with the lawyer, versus the hundreds of thousands of dollars that civil disputes can cost, I think that they chose their best option. Plus, if your a student I don't think you can afford the time and energy to take off of school just to go to your trial.
I think we should definately support these guys. This is our opportunity to speak out against the RIAA by making donations to these kids and flipping the RIAA thousands of middle fingers. Who do I transfer the money to?
People are definately correct, the recording and music industry is way behind the times when it comes to P2P networks and the internet. Instead of fighting something that is here to stay, I think everybody involved with the industry needs to think of ways to embrace this cultural shift.
I don't think it would be a bad idea to give people choices between pay-services that allow people to download music at their leisure. In the age of broadband internet and the ability for people to get music and video inside their home instantly is far more preferable than going out to a Best Buy or shopping center to pay for a CD when you only want to hear several songs off of it. Thats like McDonalds only selling a 'Hamburger' option where you are forced to buy every different burger they sell when you obviously only want one or two of them.
Putting 10 - 15 songs on a CD and selling it on a physical medium is wasteful, when you have a medium that requires a much smaller overhead and upkeep, and when consumers are only interested in a fraction of what is offered on a CD. Imagine how cheap it would be for labels / artists to distribute their music via the internet. I don't think a lot of people would object to paying a small fee per song, and because the overhead cost is greatly reduced, you could charge pennies per song and still be making a profit.
As for artists relying on the RIAA to promote them, look at most of the popular internet trends. I don't remember seeing any advertisements for Napster or Kazaa, but certainly anyone with a computer and an internet connection is familiar with those services. Because of the connectivity and interaction between people the internet allows, the phrase "word of mouth" takes on a much larger meaning than it used to. And if artists and labels embrace the internet rather than attack it, they could take advantage of this wonderful medium and still make a profit.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think that you have taken into account the cost of a legal battle with the RIAA even if they did win. You've got rich corporate lawyers with political connections on the one side, working with a guy who probably couldn't afford one of the briefcases those guys are carrying.
If you look at the cost of their settlement, $17,000 with a couple of hours with the lawyer, versus the hundreds of thousands of dollars that civil disputes can cost, I think that they chose their best option. Plus, if your a student I don't think you can afford the time and energy to take off of school just to go to your trial.
I think we should definately support these guys. This is our opportunity to speak out against the RIAA by making donations to these kids and flipping the RIAA thousands of middle fingers. Who do I transfer the money to?
People are definately correct, the recording and music industry is way behind the times when it comes to P2P networks and the internet. Instead of fighting something that is here to stay, I think everybody involved with the industry needs to think of ways to embrace this cultural shift.
I don't think it would be a bad idea to give people choices between pay-services that allow people to download music at their leisure. In the age of broadband internet and the ability for people to get music and video inside their home instantly is far more preferable than going out to a Best Buy or shopping center to pay for a CD when you only want to hear several songs off of it. Thats like McDonalds only selling a 'Hamburger' option where you are forced to buy every different burger they sell when you obviously only want one or two of them.
Putting 10 - 15 songs on a CD and selling it on a physical medium is wasteful, when you have a medium that requires a much smaller overhead and upkeep, and when consumers are only interested in a fraction of what is offered on a CD. Imagine how cheap it would be for labels / artists to distribute their music via the internet. I don't think a lot of people would object to paying a small fee per song, and because the overhead cost is greatly reduced, you could charge pennies per song and still be making a profit.
As for artists relying on the RIAA to promote them, look at most of the popular internet trends. I don't remember seeing any advertisements for Napster or Kazaa, but certainly anyone with a computer and an internet connection is familiar with those services. Because of the connectivity and interaction between people the internet allows, the phrase "word of mouth" takes on a much larger meaning than it used to. And if artists and labels embrace the internet rather than attack it, they could take advantage of this wonderful medium and still make a profit.