Hundreds of people are facing fines of up to $150,000 (£100,000) for sharing music files without permission.
The US music industry has started legal action, with many observers accusing the recording industry of being heavy-handed.
Exactly 261 people received lawsuits on Monday on behalf of Universal Music Group, BMG, EMI, Sony Music and Warner Music, with more to follow.
Should people be fined for downloading music? Is the music industry being heavy-handed?
This debate is now closed. Read a selection of your comments below.
The following comments reflect the balance of views we have received:
The traditional way for record companies to promote their products is via the radio and latterly television, where playlists can be controlled, and focus on particular songs encourages customers to buy those songs over others.
There are no such playlists on the internet where, as many people have stated, they can hear unknown artists for free before purchasing CDs. By removing this element of control over customer's purchases, it becomes more difficult to focus the hype on to particular tracks. 5000 sales of one particular track are always going to add up to much more (including further promotion) than 500 sales each of ten tracks.
Fining their potential customers is not the answer. Instead, record companies must be prepared to embrace the new technology, find out how people are using it, and work out how to profit from it. They must ask themselves why customers are choosing to download files instead of legitimately purchasing the CD, and combat that instead.
Douglas,
Scotland
 |
Music is meant to be listened to and not sold
|
These fines are absurd. First of all music is meant to be listened to and not sold. But lots of "musicians" today are really just a fad to go with a sound (that someone else creates). This is the reason I believe music sales are down. Where are all the original acts? All that is we have now are Radiohead, Coldplay, Flaming Lips and the White Stripes. When I was in high school there were so many new and fresh bands coming out. I bought a CD at least every other week. Now five a year is a lot for me. The new stuff they are pushing, especially in the US, is trash and I won't pay for it or even waste my time to download it.
Dan, US
When I was a teenager we were told that taping albums onto audio cassette would kill the music industry. That was 25 years ago and guess what? The music industry is still with us. Most people who copy the odd track or album do so because they wouldn't ever contemplate buying it, but they might let someone hear it who does end up buying it. Seems a pretty cheap form of advertising to me!
Keith Wright, Scotland
The hunt for the 'thieves' has produced a ridiculous situation whereby I can't even distribute the demo of MY band because most reputable servers ban mp3 files, assuming they are pirated. Maybe the big record companies that so much care about the musician can distribute my music for me then? No they are busy auditioning people who can look pretty and dance, regardless of musical talent!
DJ KENE, Gibraltar
No, file sharers should not be fined. Is it possible to comprehend that maybe the problem is so large scale because people no longer want CD's or Tapes, not only for the cost implication. An MP3 CD can hold up to 10 archived albums; this can be played in most modern car or stand alone stereos. Maybe the problem is not that MP3's etc are easier to share, but easier to listen to!
Ian Meek,
UK
Once again, greed rears it's well known ugly head. There isn't a scintilla of evidence that supports any loss of monies to "musicians,", or "awtis" as these subhumans are referred to in the states. This is yet one more way to EXTRACT money from people who like music. Capitalist free market enterprise again.
Ralph Charles Bohne, III,
US
So are they going to prosecute every 13 year old girl who records the charts off the radio on a Sunday? It's ludicrous. What about those people who have a tape-to-tape stereo so they can copy audio tapes? Please, get a grip.
Nicki, UK
Stealing, if you will read the relevant parts of the law, relates to "depriving someone of their property". Whilst, with a lot of trash that's in the charts at the moment, I'd favour people removing them from the shelves of record stores, this simply isn't what happens. Copying is not stealing - so let's get the facts right before we debate the subject.
Andrew, UK
Whatever the rights and wrongs of file-sharing networks, the fact is that they are here to stay and will ultimately evolve to enable users to share files with total anonymity. Who will the RIAA sue then? Rather than fighting a losing battle, the record industry should be looking at ways of updating its failing business model. Record sales are not the only way musicians earn money. Gigs, advertising, endorsements etc are all lucrative sources of revenue. What the record industry can't accept is that, due to new technology, they are inevitable going to make less money than before. But if money becomes less important in music, surely that's a good thing?
Arif Jamal,
UK
Research authorised by the RIAA themselves proved that file-sharing increases sales. So the answer is not to attack the file-swappers, who are really just unpaid sales reps, but instead to combat the MP3 format, or the file-sharing networks themselves.
Gaz, UK
|
Downloading songs and not paying for them is stealing
|
The Record Industry is not being heavy handed at all. I am not part of them, or part of the legal field. Downloading songs and not paying for them is stealing. You would be singing a different tune if it was your music, or your work that people were stealing and not paying you. How long would it take you to cry foul in that arena? No wonder why CDs are so high, they were coming down fast and now they are no longer dropping in price they are going up and it's because of file sharing, not as many people are buying them.
David, USA
The RIAA going after individual file-swappers is just plain ridiculous. They were on the right track w/ the Napster lawsuit, however I think the bout w/ Napster was too painstaking for them, so they now choose to go after those who can't defend themselves as a company could. To me, it's someone's own business whether they want to share files with the world. If you want to eliminate this, quit the scare tactics and get rid of the source.
Rich,
Richmond, VA, USA
The only reason people download music files is because of the stupidly high prices of CD's. A lot of CDs now cost £20 so if that price was reduced then people are a lot more likely to buy them. We are entering an age where people don't have the time to go out and buy CDs and most shops only have a limited amount of CDs in them anyway. Programs such as Kazaa offer nearly every song imaginable. Companies shouldn't be suing the customers, just charge them the amount the song would cost anyway. Its absolutely appalling that someone could be face with a £100,000 fine just for downloading something they heard on the radio!
Mike (15), UK
There is a saying that goes, if you can't beat them, join them. That's what I think the music industry should do. They should be trying to compete against Kazaa and other music swappers by offering all of their copyrighted music online for a fee. Think of how much money they could save in not having to distribute discs.
Renee Paulus,
USA
|
If the networks didn't exist, there wouldn't be people downloading them in the first place!
|
Music piracy is a big problem in the world, and should be dealt with by both governments and the record companies. But I believe the industry is being far too heavy handed by fining people hundreds of US dollars, some of which are only 10 year old children. It is extremely difficult to track down each individual that has downloaded music from sharing networks. It is the networks, not the people, who should be fined. If the networks didn't exist, there wouldn't be people downloading them in the first place!
James, UK
I saw a news reporter interviewing David Bowie, and he hit the nail on the head. If an industry starts suing its customers, there something seriously wrong with the industry!! Other means need to be sought to stop the file sharing, but in the same way, how much profit does the industry need??!!
Dave, UK
Theft is a crime. So how come I don't see any record company execs in jail for thieving the intellectual property of their rosters of artists with restrictive and unfair contracts? They've been at it for years. Ask Tony MacAulay, Elton John, Sting, George Michael, Prince...the list goes on and on. And those are the ones who sold millions of records and had some clout.
Steve B, Scotland
With today's technology it's possible for anyone around the world to make and distribute his or her own music, so why do we need these industry giants? All they do is regurgitate the same old benign pop and keep the wealth firmly tapped with only a few beneficiaries.
Simon Rerrie, Birmingham, UK
It may be a bitter pill for many to take, but the wild west days of the internet will soon be coming to a close.
There is simply too much money to be made (or lost) for big business to allow the sharing of music or anything else on the net for free.
Mark, USA
Copyright infringement is not theft. The law says it is infringement - theft is just a (incorrect) emotive term used by the music industry. The music industry has been found guilty and fined for price fixing. Estimating losses based on songs people were never going to pay for anyway does not amuse me. The music industry is doing a damn sight better than the stock market and other industries, and you can equate the fall off in sales directly with their deletion of several thousand back-catalogue albums.
Graham,
UK
|
Artists no longer need the huge publicity and distribution facilities record companies provide
|
Record companies and stores are fighting to survive, but it is a fight they can't possibly win if they don't accept modern technology. High speed internet has made them virtually redundant in their current form. Artists no longer need the huge publicity and distribution facilities record companies provide.
It's actually more inconvenient to go into town and buy a CD, than it is to download music and burn it on a disc at home. Why would I want to pay extra for that discomfort? Just to keep record companies and record stores in business? No, thanks! Artists nowadays can easily pay for the recording themselves. The internet is a perfect tool for getting your music known, and ultimately sold. I would gladly pay 5 euro to download a CD legally, when I know those 5 euro go entirely to the artist. In the end, it is in my benefit to support the artists I like, so they keep making the music I like, no?
Cedric,
Belgium
I can't believe so many people on this forum seem to think it is ok to steal from others and come up with excuses like the CDs are overpriced. I am an artist myself (not a big one) and although I don't mind people listening to the odd track or someone giving one to a mate the fact is that the illegal piracy trade is worth MILLIONS and they stole their trade from me .. plain and simple.
Matt, UK
The record companies are basing their numbers on inflated figures. The percentage of revenue lost is being directly correlated with the theory that the number of down loaded files equals CDs that would have normally been purchased by the consumer. First, they incorrectly assume the people downloading the files, some of them very obscure titles, would ordinarily seek to buy them. Secondly, they disregard the fact that old titles actually increase their sales simply because of awareness, while decreasing their shelf life (cost). They wrongly present their case based solely on new CD sales.
John, US
As a musician who is directly affected by the slide in CD sales I am concerned about file sharing (as I have to keep a few jobs to support my art). I do think, however that the RIAA is being heavy handed. The "lets round up some of music's most prolific collectors and sue them" approach is not going to work. I just hope that the RIAA is now indirectly throwing business in the direction of independent artists like myself.
Sean , USA
|
I am not getting paid for something I have worked hard to produce
|
No doubt about it, the record industry is shooting itself in the foot. However, file sharing for free, in my mind as a musician, is wrong. I am not getting paid for something I have worked hard to produce. That does not mean to say I don't think we should embrace the technology advances over the years, just that it should be better managed by the record companies. The root of the problem seems to me that the record industry is guilty of sitting back, pumping money into one-hit wonders or so-called "superstars" without developing new artists and methods of distribution. Don't forget though that the record company will typically sell their product (the CD) to distributors for about £8. The distributor does the deal with the retailer. It is the retailers who jack up the prices massively. Think about the differences you see in price within the different record stores.
Mike,
UK
File swapping is killing music just as surely as home taping did in the eighties. The big problem with file swapping is that it is the first thing that has truly given "the kids" control over the music that they hear. It renders the millions that the big record companies spend on marketing worthless, because people have the opportunity to actually hear the individual tracks on the album (not just the good ones that are released as singles and get radio play) before they part with their cash.
If record companies really wish to combat record piracy they should provide free and unlimited streaming of all their artist's tracks from their own websites. This enables users to listen to the tracks but not to record them, so they can try but to keep the track they would have to buy.
Tony, UK
|
Why are the record companies not embracing the technology?
|
I have just read David Munn's article.
He states "There's a lot that goes into the retail price - VAT, retailer's cut, distribution costs, advertising and other marketing costs, producers' fees and studio time, not to mention the artists and songwriters who need to be paid. "
The Internet cuts some of these costs out - distribution and retailer's cut. So why are the record companies not embracing the technology?
David,
Worcs, UK
We have been sharing music for decades. In days gone by you recorded records onto tape, reel to reel first, then 8 track, on finally cassette's, and shared them, then it was CD's onto tape, now I can record directly onto CD's or DVD's and share. We even used to record off the air and edit the tapes to share. I see no difference with what is going on now and would suggest the industry look for a different way to manage an issue that has always existed.
Larry,
USA
Music file-sharing has helped me build a wonderful gypsy music collection from back home - Romania. By file-sharing I have discovered some very wonderful artists. Therefore whenever I travel back to the old country I do know what to purchase. One more thing -- here in the USA, I do borrow music CDs from public libraries which carry great music selections. I take them home and copy them, adding them to my music library.
One Romanian from Minneapolis, USA
|
This is the act of desperate businessmen who are looking for a scapegoat
|
This is the act of desperate businessmen who are looking for a scapegoat for their failures rather than the best interests of either their companies or the music industry as a whole. Rather than embrace the new technology, and exploit it as best they can, they are frightened by it and are fighting against it.
To resort to this level of legal action is a pathetic response.
Lee, UK
The times they are a changing! Despite the desperation of the record companies to stop file sharing by extremely heavy handed litigation we have gone too far and cannot ever return to the pre-Napster era. Record companies are built around the principal that the widescale distribution of music is expensive and impractical: instead of feeling bad for the record companies (now facing starvation...) we should welcome this advance in technology. It's time to take music back to the streets and the people, with bands from small towns or large cities all around the world able to distribute music free of charge to anyone patient enough to download it, giving a world stage to any new, original, experimental or more traditional styles which has not been possible with the "mass market" music culture within which we live.
Fred , UK
I recently had my car stolen, in it were a number of the cassette tapes I had collected and recorded over the years some of which contained songs that are never likely to be published again. Music has a sentimental value to a lot of people as it punctuates some of the major events in our lives - births, marriages, deaths, divorce, along with the many other happy / sad events that life throws our way. I don't agree with piracy but why should I spend more money looking for music that was lost through no fault of my own when I know that Kazaa and the like will help me piece together some of those memories? The world has changed since the days of vinyl, why can't the industry keep up with itself? I still buy albums, and usually because I've HEARD a couple of the singles on the radio or just because I happened to be curious about an artist. Give music lovers the chance to sample what they want legitimately or they will find alternatives.
Hazera Bibi, England
|
Gone are the days when you can listen to a CD at a record store
|
I have a nice sized CD collection and have also downloaded music. Is it stealing? Technically, yes. Can I still sleep at night? Yes! Gone are the days when you can listen to a CD at a record store (or whatever you call them now). Sure there are a few "listening stations" but only for CDs that record companies are promoting, which are frankly, mostly homogenized garbage (I think this is why sales are down 31%, not downloading). I generally download music that I am interesting in checking out and if I like it, I'll buy. If I don't, I won't. Simple as that. Nothing ticks me off more than spending $17 on a CD and with only 1 or 2 good songs on it and the rest fluff.
Grace Warren, Houston, Texas, USA
The music industry is not a big faceless entity with deep pockets and endless greed. When you steal songs you are hurting an artist and ultimately limiting the availability of music. Case in point: There are many small time local artists in my community that have in the past produced their own CDs. But I now know of two that ended up losing money because of bootlegging and file sharing. Some of their very best work as it turned out. Now both of these same artists don't want to make any more CDs because they don't have money to throw away. One has even decided to quit pursuing a music career because money is now so tight. Big time artists have the same economics. It will just take them longer to get hurt bad enough to do (or not do) something.
Brian Gonsalves,
Canada
Ever heard of a band called Godspeed you black Emperor? No, neither had I. But I had heard that they were very good. So I downloaded several tracks, found that I liked them, and went out and purchased their album. I now own 5 of their CDs. Quite how exactly, has this file sharing experience damaged the music industry? With every radio station using pre-approved playlists, the only way that people can discover new obscure music/bands is by sharing files with like minded people. Piracy is wrong. Bootlegged CD's at car boot sales is wrong. But discovering new music and then buying the CD can only be for the good of the industry.
John West, UK
|
The law is on the side of the record companies
|
Whether you like it or not, the law is on the side of the record companies. If you download or share music illegally, don't be surprised if the copyright holder gets annoyed.
That said, my preferred way to protest at the extortionate prices for mainstream CDs is simply to wait a while. Eventually, they nearly all end up in the bargain bin for £5.00 each, or less. I haven't bought a CD at full price for years.
Steve W,
UK
I can't believe this is happening !
On the one hand SONY are selling MP3 players and on the other they are filing lawsuits against the same people who bought that mp3 player for downloading music.
It's just wrong !
You can't have your cake AND eat it !
Kulminder Nagra,
UK
My feelings seem to tally with most of the others here. Music CDs are far too expensive. I believe that the message is getting through though as I am sure I read that Universal is cutting the cost of them to around £5 - £6 in the US. If the prices were similar over here then I, and I'm sure many others, would find it more convenient to buy the product than borrow it.
Ken Champion, England
Personally I've found that downloading tracks has increased my spending on music albums due to it's 'try before you buy' nature. Free access to such a vast array of music has enabled me to discover artists I would otherwise have been totally unaware I liked. And as a result I go out and buy their albums to reward them and help encourage them to continue producing material I enjoy.
Alex, UK
|
You may think that music is overpriced, but that doesn't justify stealing
|
You may think that music is overpriced, but that doesn't justify stealing - and piracy IS theft. I think the new Aston Martin DB9 is way too expensive, is it OK if I nick one? If you think music is overpriced, the way to deal with it is not to copy it, the old-fashioned way or over the net, the way is to refuse to buy it. That will force the companies to lower prices. Piracy, on the other hand, gives them more excuses to raise the prices.
Phil Evans, Keele, UK
I have my entire CD collection backed up on my PC so I can listen to it on there or transfer it to my mp3 player. I also have Kazaa filesharing programme installed for legitimate use (photos and copyright free files). If I didn't know how to use Kazaa properly then it would allow others to get my music and I would be classed as a thief even though I didn't know what I was doing. Luckily, I do.
Maff, England
The record industry is being extremely heavy-handed. The damages they seek are disproportionate to the cost of purchase of one song. The people sharing these files are frequently students, who can ill afford such damaging fines. They are hardly going to win any supporters from within the consumer community by these actions. Bankrupting people who are actually interested in your product seems to me to be a suicidal way of conducting business for an industry which claims to be losing money.
Martin, UK
|
When large companies target individuals they always end up with zero public support
|
Why are the RIAA trying to sort the Pirate problem out from the bottom up?
Wander off to any car boot sale and you'll find tables groaning under the weight of copied CDs, all of which come in jewel cases, with fair impressions of the original cover art included too.
Meanwhile, the likes of the RIAA targets individuals who download through file sharing, rather than the larger targets who may actually be costing them money.
When large companies target individuals they always end up with zero public support, making their task that much harder in the long run.
Aleks Bismarck, UK
The industry is being idiotic. They could kill file sharing off by combining the iTunes system - a reasonably-priced quality download site - together with special offers like a free album cover/insert/lyrics sheet for every 10 downloads. File-sharing sites couldn't match this and everyone would gain.
Aron,
UK
The use of the internet has changed the way that people want to consume music and it is up to the music industry to keep pace with the changes in consumer tastes as it is in any other industry. Supply and demand means that a gap left in the market by the music publishers will inevitably lead to a 3rd party filling it. If the music companies do not quickly find a way to keep up with consumer demands they deserve to lose their slice of the market and alternative methods of music publishing will develop.
Ross, UK
Who needs a recording company these days? Maybe artists should be doing away with recording companies altogether, since the technology is now there for bands to distribute the music themselves and be their own recording companies. They hire the recording studio, set up or hire an e-commerce site, distribute a few poor quality mp3s of their music with their name/url in the id tag. They may not make any charts, but they will take home 100% revenue and if they manage their costs, they will even make a profit.
Fokey Joe, UK
|
File sharing is a last option, but it is a necessary one
|
I like it when I discover an artist that I haven't heard before, and like their music. I find they have produced maybe thirty or forty albums or in their career. I'd like to collect them. How about the music shops? They stock just the most recent album. Online? By shopping around I can get an additional three or four albums. eBay? Yes, I get another two or three second-hand on there.
So, I've done okay. I have a quarter of what I could have - but even a large chunk of what I've just bought is deemed to be of too low a profit margin to make it worth selling. I'm stuck with my small collection. Or am I?
I load up a file sharing application, and search for the artist. Over a couple of months, I can piece together almost the entire works of the artist, including bootleg live recordings, obscure B-sides, and limited or export editions. Am I acting illegally? Yes. Is there any other way to get hold of these recordings? No.
The only thing that really motivates the industry is profit. If they were 'into' the artists, they would ensure that all material is available by some means to those who want to listen. It might not be profitable to print large numbers of CDs of old material, but if it could be loaded onto a server somewhere, and I could download it officially for a small fee at high quality, I would. Then they get a few quid for it at least. File sharing is a last option, but in the absence of true commitment to artists and fans by the industry, it is a necessary one.
Brian, N. Ireland
Back in the 80's the same heavy handed approach was used when VHS became more popular than predicted. The market eventually settled and companies started thriving from the new sector. This is just a rehash of the same thing, and something we'll continue to see for a while. Companies are scared of losing profits, and slow with embracing new ideas; rifts that appear stupid and ostensibly intrusive are a reflection of how conservative large companies are, and perhaps how powerful they can be. The people aren't the pirates, if the companies used the amount of force they're using to defend themselves on embracing the new technology, things would probably be very different.
David, UK
I am no expert in the copyrights and wrongs but I thought that copyright was only breached if the copied music was being sold on and in the case of music being shared (as it always has been by other means such as borrowing and re-recording) that the fact that it was shared wasn't a problem. Also what people are overlooking is that it is not albums that are downloaded but singles and if the singles chart wasn't filled up with utter rubbish then perhaps things would change, but the record companies insist on releasing synthetic pop rather than the proper music we all want to hear
MC, UK
|
The real enemy of the music industry is still piracy
|
The real enemy of the music industry is still piracy, particularly rampant in Asian countries like Thailand, China, Taiwan, Vietnam, not the puny college kids who download songs off the internet. The RIAA, instead of cracking down the piracy network in Asia (which is also responsible for much organised crime) and hunting for the real alligator, is fishing for little shrimps that can be easily targeted.
Loy,
UK
People shouldn't be sued for downloading music. They should be sued for downloading bad music. Phil Collins, Celine Dion, Europop and plenty of others. Also the record industry should modernize and make it less attractive to download songs by embracing new multimedia technologies like DVD and increasing the multimedia aspects of record releases.
John Everitt, UK
The music industry creams off up to 80% of the artists profits- yet the technology required to produce the CDs has plummeted in costs over the past twenty years. CDs were expensive when they came out because the companies were 'recovering' their 'development costs.' Now the prices have been maintained and most of the money is sheer profit! Music sharers are part of the free market- if prices were more realistic, most people would want to own a pristine new disk rather than an imperfect MP3. The Music industry, as usual, has missed the boat because they have been content to sit back and rake in the money. The industry is stale and its products increasingly poor- eventually it will collapse if it doesn't get into the 21st century soon!
Nick Gunning,
UK
|
What record companies may be most scared of is losing control of the distribution of music
|
The real damage caused by file swapping is highly debatable. Many swappers are also likely to go on and buy further CD's and other products from Artists they have been introduced to.
What record companies may be most scared of is losing control of the distribution of music. Who needs a record company if your can make your name by swapping?
Barry b, UK
It's a complete waste of time. There are too many infringers of this law, and for every one they manage to successfully prosecute, another 1000 will appear. Furthermore, they only have jurisdiction within countries inclined to obey US law, so the files will just become available from servers where the US has no jurisdiction.
Finally, there are already dozens methods in existence of preventing authorities from tracing your downloads, or existence.
James Upton,
United Kingdom
If anyone reading this page went to work and spent a lot of time and effort producing something, I doubt very much if they would be willing to let people take their product for free, so why should they think it their right to effectively steal from record companies ?
Trev, UK
|
Artists don't make much money from the sale of CDs
|
The real deal is that artists don't make much money from the sale of CDs. They make their money from tours and live concerts etc. The CD money goes to the huge record companies and distributors for promotion and advertising and greedy pockets. The record companies treat artists like rubbish. As in any situation... follow the money and you will find the real problem.
Irving, USA
I feel that new music should be protected for maybe a couple years, however, music that is older than a couple years should be public domain. Who cares if I download some old Bob Dylan or Grateful Dead? The music industry and the artists have long since reaped more profit than they deserve from this old music. To arrest someone for that is, in my opinion, totalitarian-type tactics. How long is big industry going to be allowed to use scare tactics and strong-arming against the public? Fascist practices to say the least.
BT, Florida, USA
Downloading music can be compared to listening to music on the radio with the exception that you can choose what you listen to and when you listen to it. I'm sure even radio was considered a threat to the music industry at one point. As long as people still buy albums of their favourite artists then I think it is completely legitimate.
The record industry will lose out I'm sure - live with it and learn how to make the most of it! It is going to continue to happen. It is a reflection of an informed and advancing society that has got more choice.
Anonymous, UK
Can somebody please tell me if it is illegal to make copies (for my own use) of a CD which I have purchased legally.
Over the years I have bought the same CD on numerous occasions to replace copies which have been damaged or lost. I originally bought the legit copy where the manufacturer and artist got their slice. Why should I pay them again for the same thing?
Anthony,
UK
|
I have discovered a lot of new music via the internet
|
I download music all the time and it has never stopped me from buying a CD I want. In fact I have discovered a lot of new music via the internet that I would never have known about otherwise and I have bought CDs of that music - but generally bought it from websites as I find that they are not available in regular music stores here.
I mostly downloads songs maybe from the 80s or 90s which are not available as singles in shops anymore - I don't want to have to buy a full CD for the sake of one song! If it came to it - I wouldn't mind paying a small fee a month for unlimited downloading - I would not pay per song. I do admit that I tend to buy less CDs these days- but that is because I think the quality of music has vastly sunk and there isn't actually anything on the shelves that I want to buy.
Jay, UK
The industry should take a look at Apple and its amazingly successful iTunes shop - over 10 million tracks downloaded at just 99 cents each. The problem is though that it is only available in the USA; the European music industry can't get its act together and agree licences. It seems to me that what they really want to do is continue overcharging here.
Carl, UK
The public are not responsible for the profits and losses of record companies. Record labels are not forced to offer their star's multi million dollar contracts for five albums thus ensuring that they have to make a certain amount of money per CD to recover this.
Mark,
Dubai, UAE
|
Pirates will kill the very music that they love
|
Pirates will kill the very music that they love. Certainly music is overpriced and too much money goes to the middlemen - that's been true for 50 years and in that time music, particularly popular music, has been one of the greatest cultural phenomena ever seen.
File sharers are breaking the law and they should be punished.
Mark, US
What people like Mike (below) are missing when they talk about the cost of manufacture is the investment made by the artist and record company in the recording process. Michael Jackson's latest album is rumoured to have cost over £50 million to record. I agree that music is generally over-priced, but if you take away the mega stars income you have no mega stars about which to gossip!
James, UK
Change is inevitable, and the music industry is going through a change and will only survive if it adapts to these changes. There are some excellent comments so far. I have file shared for years, but regularly buy CDs once I've heard them. At any one time there are about 10 million people sharing files, all over the world. It may be best to embrace the gift of global file sharing and improve music for all.
Edd G, UK
|
The music industry has been taking us all for a very expensive ride
|
CDs are too expensive. Look at film production - vastly more expensive than any album and yet DVD's cost almost the same as a CD. In fact several times I have seen the CD soundtrack of a film selling for more than the DVD of the actual movie - does not figure. Basically the music industry has been taking us all for a very expensive ride and its about time CDs reflected the true cost of production and recording which I suspect given current recording technology are a lot less than we are led to believe. The music industry is way too heavy handed and if they think this will stop copying then I think they really have their heads in the sand. Reduce the price of CDs and embrace technology that allows people to try before they buy - eventually this will pay dividends.
Steve, UK
Perhaps the best of both worlds could be achieved. With the technology around today, record companies should be able to pro-actively market downloadable files, which then expire after so many days, and cannot be used again. This would allow people to "Try before they buy". It won't solve all piracy issues, but would please most of the people most of the time!
Jay, England
What will be next, charging people to breathe air? The answer has to be a worldwide consumer boycott of buying CD's until the recording industry sees sense. How come I can buy a blank CD for 60p yet a music CD albeit with a better cover, some printing on the disc and marketing costs retails at £15. What the record companies are experiencing is the basic economics of demand and supply. Supply a quality product at a reasonable/fair price and people will buy it. Suing people is not the answer, I do hope however some ethical artists speak out as do they really want to see their fans heavily fined sharing a few files.
I wonder will people be sued depending on the artist/recording copied. Will you get a bigger fine for copying Coldplay or Britney ?
Patrick,
UK
The simple fact is that the music is someone's property and copying it is illegal, the record companies are therefore quite justified to pursue people through the courts. What I find astonishing though is that people place their financial security and reputation at risk by copying the utter junk that seams to constitute most of the music industry today.
If all of this effort in illegal duplication, protestation and the pursuit of manufactured stylish bands were directed into supporting and developing independent, legal and sometimes free mechanisms of distribution and the legions of talented musicians shut out of the corporate poisoned music industry today, people would get their better music legally and at a lower cost.
Frank Dodd, UK
|
It is the public and the artists that should be suing the RIAA and its members for anti-competitive monopolistic practices
|
Laws have evolved in society to protect the rights of individuals. The artist has a right to get paid a reasonable amount for their creative work. The public have a right to listen to an artist's music for a reasonable price, related to the cost of technology for distribution at that time.
The RIAA and its members have been infringing the rights of both these parties for years. It is them who should be defined as breaking the law. It is the public and the artists that should be suing the RIAA and its members for anti-competitive monopolistic price fixing practices.
Martin, UK It's just the big companies trying scare tactics to get the less informed amongst us to stop. I download music all the time but I also buy the CD's that I really want, it just stops me wasting my hard earned cash on rubbish music because I can listen to tracks before I buy.
Duncan, UK
Downloading music is illegal, but then so is copying a CD to a tape or recording the Top 40. Most people do it and it's another aspect of life. It's against copyright protection, and suing people isn't the answer, that's like blaming McDonalds for making you fat!
Dom McAndrew, UK
To Dom McAndrew, recording the Top 40 or taping a CD for your own use in not illegal - it is defined as "fair use". Even if such a concept didn't exist, surely you can see that there's a world of difference between mass copying and selling of pirated CDs, and taping one of your own CDs so you can listen to it in the car.
Tim, UK
To Tim, UK. I believe that in the UK there is no such thing as "fair use" in copyright law, as there is in other coutries, so technically it is illegal. But didn't CD album sales actually increase last year? Shop around, mainly online and you can get pretty much any album for £8-9 which is less than 5 years ago. MP3 players are great, as is getting to listen to more music, but it should be try before you buy.
Steve, UK
The music industry has been living high off the hog for years, price fixing and trivialising the music industry into it's current sorry state in which the artists and the music are a secondary concern.
Paul Beech, UK
The current mark-up on CDs is way too high. If CD prices were more realistic it would seriously reduce the number of people sharing/downloading music over the net. The profits to an individual getting music of the net are very good and making it a very interesting and cost-effective way for getting the latest tunes.
Koen van Geene, The Netherlands
|
Instead of downloading, I'll just do it the old fashioned way, and borrow an album from a friend
|
I find that 50% of my download habits are just laziness/convenience. Instead of downloading, I'll just do it the old fashioned way, and borrow an album from a friend.
But if the industry does manage to 'kill' file sharing, the one thing I'll miss most is the ease of finding rare songs that were 1) never released or 2) never released in the UK.
Simon G, UK
People should absolutely NOT be charged for sharing music.
Only this morning, a colleague was complaining that he spent around £15 on an album that only had just over 30 minutes of music on it. If music was cheaper the music industry would have nothing to complain about, would it?
Cat Bell,
England
I download music, and due to my taste I listen to many more bands than is possible through the radio or TV. This results in me buying the CD if I like the music or deleting it if I don't. Therefore downloading music encourages me to buy many more CDs than I otherwise would. Only poor bands should be scared as people will hear their music before buying and not waste their money.
Russ, UK
I agree with copyright laws and believe that they should be imposed; however, I also believe that music is way overpriced. CD's cost approximately 10p to manufacture and I think that if the music industry started charging about £5 per CD, they would sell more CD's (I would certainly buy) and make the same net profit. They cannot stop the music piracy, but they are tackling the problem the wrong way.
Mike, England
It seems to me that it is a mixture of the recording industry and retailers who are the pirates here - say I wanted a song off a 10-year-old album, then chances are that album would be £15.99 in the record shops. This is one of the problems that has people downloading songs.
The reason single sales are falling is because there is so much tat in the charts and kids today spend their money on phones (as shown by the growth in the ring tone market)
Kiran Kamtekar, UK
The record industry is being extremely heavy-handed. The damages they seek are disproportionate to the cost of purchase of one song. The people sharing these files are frequently students, who can ill afford such damaging fines. They are hardly going to win any supporters from within the consumer community by these actions. Bankrupting people who are actually interested in your product seems to me to be a suicidal way of conducting business for an industry which claims to be losing money.
Martin,
UK
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~14~RS~)
One-Minute World News
News services
E-mail this to a friend
Printable version
