response 31 of 151:

Oct 11 05:36 UTC 2003

Some folks have been trying to get a boycott rolling; see 
http://www.boycott-riaa.com    .     They are getting no traction
so far, however, and in fact the last three weekly reports we have
on CD sales indicate a strong upward trend since the lawsuits were 
filed by the RIAA.
 
A new Harris poll reports that about 3/4ths of US teenagers believe 
file sharing should be legal, both uploading and downloading, 
and 80% of those surveyed have downloaded music within the last 
year.
 
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/031009/nyth137_1.html

response 33 of 151:

Oct 11 13:13 UTC 2003

Just out of curiousity, how much of their business
would have to tank before they'd take you seriously?
10% drop?  25% drop?

I'd bet even a small drop due to a boycott would 
get their attention and you'd see a change in attitude.

response 35 of 151:

Oct 11 13:37 UTC 2003

They're suing their own customers... this is not a business which seems to
understand reality anymore.  

response 37 of 151:

Oct 11 14:28 UTC 2003

A big part of the problem, Mary, is that the record companies are fighting
a losing battle against people who are violating their (the record companies')
property rights, and that, in the course of this battle, the record companies
are trashing the property rights of all the law-abiding, non-stealing music
fans who just want to listen to the music on their iPod or make a mix-cd for
driving or listen to music on their computer.  Imagine if somebody sold you
a book and tried to force you to only read it while sitting at a kitchen
table.  This is an utterly ludicrous idea, and there's no way to enforce it.
So what the book company does is dust the books with cocaine and then have
the government kick in the doors of the book-buyers--looking for the drugs--so
that the book company can check and see whether you're reading on the couch,
or on the edge of your child's bed, or whereever.

Sure, a boycott might work (much more likely, the record companies would
ignore the claims that a boycott was in effect and announce that the drop in
sales was due to piracy, and, see?  they were *right* to take all of these
dastardly measures!), but the point is that we shouldn't have to boycott. 
If I buy a book, it's my right to read it where I want to.  If I buy a
cucumber, it's my right to eat it how I want to.  If I buy a cd, it's my right
to listen to it how I want to.  Sure, some people will xerox their bookx,
fileshare their music, and club people to death with their cucumbers, but this
doesn't give the book/cucumber/record seller the right to violate your privacy
and property rights.  They should save the criminal treatement for the
criminals.

Unfortunately, I don't know how to make that change come about.

response 39 of 151:

Oct 11 16:06 UTC 2003

If a publisher sells you a book under contract that it only be only 
read in the kitchen then you're the stupid one for buying the book.  
Unless you only read in the kitchen, that is.

I understand that what they are trying to implement is bigger the 
disk you purchase, that it's a change to your own computer 
software.  What has me shaking my head is that despite this 
desperate and heavy handed behavior people are still supporting the 
industry financially.  That's a jones.

I suspect this will all shake-out in the courts.  What will help 
keep things open and free for the end user, help immensely, is if 
the users aren't making copies for friends and they are putting 
extreme pressure on the recording industry by means of not buying 
their products.  You have to cost them more money through a boycott  
than they are losing through piracy.  

(Mary senses lots of people thinking, "That's a lot of
 money.")  Yep.  I rest my case. ;-)

response 41 of 151:

Oct 11 20:24 UTC 2003

I can't help the boycott.  I haven't bought a new CD for myself in a
store for years.  And I don't download music either, other than
occasionally listening to Internet radio.

Yeah, it makes me furious that the RIAA wants to modify my computer
against my will, but I can't change their behavior by buying less
than zero of their stuff.

response 43 of 151:

Oct 11 23:37 UTC 2003

Nobody, on the other hand, has managed to show that the music industry is
losing any money from piracy whatsoever...If I had a choice between
downloading songs, buying cds, or going without, I'd spend the same amount
of money as if I didn't have the option of downloading songs.  Probably less.
Of the cds I have bought in the last year, a few of them were cds that I
already had all of the tracks on my computer--I bought the cds and keep them
lying around (and for playing in the car), but I wouldn't have bought them
if I hadn't already downloaded the music to know that I like it.  Many of my
friends act in a similar manner: download as test drive.  From op-ed pieces,
I get the feeling this is not limited to my social group.

Of course, with the exception of a very few artists, everything I buy is from
labels too small to be suing anybody...

response 45 of 151:

Oct 12 02:37 UTC 2003

So it's probably a good idea I'm not asking for that, eh?

Just like I'm not asking for people who don't buy CDs to
stock up just so they can become part of a boycott and
make a difference.

What I am saying is do what you can to send a message to
the recording industry that their heavy handed tactics
aren't going to get them what they want - record sales.

response 47 of 151:

Oct 12 17:52 UTC 2003

I'm not somebody who feels "entitled" to free music.  What I'm pissed about
is that the industry seems to be intent on destroying itself.

response 49 of 151:

Oct 12 19:46 UTC 2003

NYTimes has a good, lengthy article on the authorize online 
music services groping for price points; the various pressures 
involved, and the fears of Big Music that authorized online 
sales will put still more downard pressure on CD sales.

At the end, there's a statement that Big Music is still pinning
its hopes on a magic bullet to end CD copying.   Denial, denial,
denial still seems to be the order of the day with Big Music.

Only a little mention at the end is given to consumer resistance 
to the DRM issues:

Quote:

>> "But for the time being, record executives are still seeking to 
  protect the more reliable, more lucrative CD business, which 
  currently accounts for almost all of its revenue. After all, 
  some say, antipiracy, anticopying technology may be available 
  within the year.

  "If that happens, the industry is likely to back away from the 
  kind of pricing innovations with which it is now experimenting. 
  Already, a strain is evident between record labels that want to 
  restrict what consumers can do with the music they buy and the 
  new on-line retailers, which argue that people won't use their 
  services if they can't use it freely.

  "This isn't going to work if people don't feel like they own 
  the music," said a senior executive at one of the new services, 
  who declined to be identified because of continuing negotiations 
  with the labels. "Doesn't someone over there realize that? 
  Why should people pay for it if it's not more convenient -- 
  when they can just get it for free?"  

>> endquote <<

"What Price Music?"
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/12/arts/music/12HARM.html

response 51 of 151:

Oct 13 01:02 UTC 2003

I do download some music.  I downloaded "Big Bad John" because I was 
trying to find out who sang it.  I saw it when I downloaded Johnny 
Cash's "One Piece At A Time", which my son heard.  I hadn't heard that 
one since I was a kid and I figured I could get it without much 
trouble.

I was not going to hop in the car and go to the local record store to 
see if I could find either of these songs.  I don't feel "entitled" to 
copy these songs over the Internet, but I cannot for the life of me 
see how it's going to hurt any musicians that I downloaded them.  I 
don't see how it's going to hurt anyone. 

Let's see.  Two weeks earlier I downloaded "Mother's Little Helper".  
In September I became curious to see if I liked Jethro Tull any more 
than I did when I was younger.  (I don't.)  That one might have cost 
someone some money some day.  I might have gone out and bought a 
Jethro Tull tape or CD if I saw one at a rummage sale, and now I won't.

In August I downloaded "Hello Muddah, Hello Faddah", the night before 
my kid was going to camp.

But okay.  It was a crime each time I downloaded these songs.  I'll 
feel bad if I get arrested.

response 53 of 151:

Oct 13 05:31 UTC 2003

Am I the only one who think John Ellis Perry's name is archetypical of an 80s
rocker?

response 55 of 151:

Oct 13 16:22 UTC 2003

 Will there be much Grex footage in the "John Ellis Perry -- Behind the Music"
 special?  (And if so, will it be part of your downfall or redemption?)