Posted by FatKat on 12/26/06 16:47

John Hunter top-posted (again!):
> I don't think it likely that you will ever agree with anyone that disagrees
> because that would mean you might have to moderate or change your views but
> I'll give you my take of another two issues that are core to the situation
> in my view.

You do that, John. How happy it must be to be a guy who's always
right. How sad for the rest of us who disagree with you. Obviously,
we're not moderate enough for you - I must be from Afghanistan or some
other place where you must either be a moderate who supports paid
piracy, or you're some wicked militant who obviously can't accept your
brand of reason.

> In summary I think the current unfairness is an acceptable temporary situation that will
> have a better outcome for all but the industry.

In summary, you've yet to explain how a company that engages in piracy
will do anything to alleviate this horribly unfair condition.
>
> Firstly an unacceptable cycle has to be broken otherwise it will remain.

Firstly it is a cycle of empty hyperbole under which a company
operating outside of the USA can legitimize its profiting off of the
downloading controversy. You may want to check above - I never took a
side for or against piracy. I'm sure there's a debate on that, but
that's not the issue when it comes to sites like AllOfMP3. The issue
is that such companies accept revenue from people who can get what they
do for free, providing no legitimate advantage over peer-share systems.

> It is the cycle whereby the industry exploits both the artist and the customer.

It is the cycle that AllOfMP3 has gleefully joined and will remain a
part of until they start directing their revenue to some of those
artists. This must be part of that moderation problem you mentioned
before - I can't find a moderate way to accept that companies like
AllOfMP3 are being any less exploitative of these poor artists when
they basically dump their product on the market and remit nothing to
those artists.

> The situation has to be forced whereby artists receive a better share by
> comparison by the industry.

And AllOfMP3 has done nothing to increase that share.

> Use of companies like allofmp3 may in the short term deprive both artist and company of
> revenue. However because of the imbalance it is the company that suffers most, but they > argue there case as though they are fighting not for themselves but for the artist that they
> have never in the past cared much for.

It sounds pretty much like the argument you're making for AllOfMP3 -
it's okay to deprive those artists of their revenues because it's short
term. It's unsurprising that as far as you're concerned AllOfMP3 is
trying to legitimize itself using pretty much the same argument that
the recording industry has - we are dealing with a company that
traffics in the work of others, and if AllOfMP3 has "stolen" the work
of industry artists, there's no reason why they shouldn't do the same
with industry rhetoric. Basically there's no need to determine which
of the industry or AllOfMP3 is better than the other since they are
equally exploitative of artists and consumers given their respective
positions.

> The use of allofmp3 therefore might force two things that otherwise would never happen.
> The first is that canny artists build their own route to market that avoids the traditional
> industry. This will benefit both customer and artists and harm the industry
> that basically adds no value.

Ummm, these are the same arguments made for file-sharing and other
forms of downloading - neither of which charge you above your ISP fees.

> The second is that the industry, currently taking most of the revenue will have to be less
> greedy than it has been.

Yes, and greed is bad, and since the industry is greedy, it must be bad
as well.

> It is my view that none of these issues would have been forced without the emergence of
> the net and companies like allofmp3 who are helping to force issues that will in the longer
> term benefit both artist and customer but curtail the industry.

Yes, but since your view is woefully uninformed, it can be easily
dismissed. Again, nothing you've said about AllOfMP3 is any more
applicable to that business than more traditional (and ostensibly
unlawful) forms downloading music. The only difference between those
older forms of piracy and AllOfMP3 is that AllOfMP3 claims a measure of
legitimacy and (thanks to you) false piety: by choosing to pay (at a
steep discount) for your pirated music, you're not just getting music
for much less than you would than by going to iTunes or (shudder) going
into some...store - no, you're actually helping exploited artists, and
it's more legal than just using some wacky P2P system like WinMX or
eMule. Forgetting that AllOfMP3 has no long-term strategy to benefit
those starving exploited artists, or that AllOfMP3 really isn't any
more legal or better than using WinMX or eMule, or that the emergence
of the net itself is enough to allow those artists to get their music
to the public without the "benefit" of companies like AllOfMP3, then
it's a clear cut case for those companies. AllOfMP3 is basically a
great company if you've got amnesia.
>
> The second issue is that since my supply of free music every week (I use to
> get boxes of virtually every '45 and LP that was released by all the major
> companies during the late 60's and early 70's) I have spend virtually no
> money. Perhaps my CD budget was £50 per year. With the emergence of
> companies like allofmp3 I now download everything I might like and spend
> probably around £500 each year.

Yes, you don't like to spend money. I figured that out quickly -
self-interest is inherently the easiest motive. Ofcourse, if you went
the P2P route, your expenses would probably go no further than the cost
of your ISP or your player (or blank media, assuming you use that),
which are probably costs you're incurring anyway with AllOfMP3. So
again, what advantage to AllOfMP3?

> The cost to the artists of origination is the same irrespective of how much they sell. I
> think the new methods of distribution at a lower customer cost will increase customer
> spending and budgets.

I'm sure that that's exactly what the iTunes people must have said. Oh
wait, I forgot, it's okay to steal from those companies because their
desire for profit means that they're just greedy, whereas your desire
to deprive them of it is entirely justified.

> With the issues I outline in the previous paragraph resolved I
> believe that the artist will take a small hit now during the transition but
> then earn substantially more both per unit and in volume once they improve
> their personal route to market as previously suggested.

No, the situation will remain the same with AllOfMP3 - artists will get
their work dumped, and AllOfMP3 will be just another cog in the machine
that dumps their product on the market without support, and keeps all
of its profits.

> This will also mean that true talent will have better routes to potential markets as
> customer methods of finding them improve.

irrelevant to the merits of AllOfMP3. You've yet to explain just what
dynamics will change the situation to the benefit of artists, or when ,
or what AllOfMP3 would have to do to bring that about, even indirectly.
All you've done is basically insult the recording industry - and why
not, it's easy to do that - thay're just fat & lazy & greedy & they
exploit artists and consumers. It must be easy to do that - if you
don't like what somebody's doing, but can't find a coherent way to
denounce what they do, just fall back and hurl conclusory hyperbole at
them.

[Back to original message]