The RIAA - stupidity at it's finest -
 

This post is about how the RIAA bitches constantly, blaming filesharing for a 6% decrease in sales, while new releases are down 25% in the last three years. of course people will buy less music if there is less selection!!!! the biggest problem is the simple fact; you can't boycott the music industry, because they'll blame it on filesharing. but, think about it very carefully next time you buy a cd, because you're helping them pay for what could essentially be your trial.

a good article on this topic, and the source of my rant;
http://www.411mania.com/music/column..._id=689&&vo=32

RIAA :D

When he learn?

oh, well... back to my p2p :p

And you noticed now..
 

I don't know why the freakin RIAA cares so much. Those crappy cd's should be 50 cents. Those dang artists make so much money and they cry when we steal some.

Screw Them.

The RIAA - stupidity at it's finest
 

The RIAA sucks bigtime. The sales of music Cd's have dropped bigtime in the past several years & one reason why the sales of music cd's have dropped is because of DVD's. In fact, people are buying more DVD's than music Cd's (I am also one person who purchases more DVD's than music cd's). My last music cd purchase was last year. Music cd's are too expensive. The RIAA refuses to understand that the reason why people aren'r buying music cd's is that cd's are too expensive.

ryan05dp,

IMO, it is not really the music artists who are complaining about the downloading of music, IMO, it is the record companies who are complaining more often. IMO, The record companies are the ones who are making money off the sale of cd's.

Sales down 6% isn't great but then we look at what the world ecconomy has done in recent years... :rolleyes:

Hi. All this rubbish about stealing music is such stupid nonsense. Do the people that keep repeating this stuff have a brain?

Some facts and observations:

1. Intellectual property is a relatively new concept in the history of law. It is a THEORY that someone can OWN an idea. I have a different theory that someone cannot own an idea. The whole theory of copyright is suspect in it's logic. The logical progrossion is that I should pay every time I hear a song. Why can't someone copyright the word "fact" as Microsoft is trying to do with "Windows". Every time you use the word "fact" you should pay me a royalty. Or what about the musical scales. Or the alphabet? Its just silly.
2. What have I taken from you by making a copy of the music? Nothing. Just as I have taken nothing by using the word "Windows".
3. Please direct me to the musician that says that he/she makes music for the money. What are they complaining about. If they don't like the money they are making, they should try a real job.
4. The most impressive thing about the whole situation is how well most of us have been brainwashed into BELIEVING that it is theft when in fact, it is us that have had our right to read, write, and listen to whatever we want stolen!

Ciao,
Zaph.

You don't know what you're talking about
 

That's right, you haven't got the slightest clue what you're talking about. I never heard anybody talk so insulting about artists as you lot here. As a musician I KNOW from first hand that it's almost impossible to make a decent living from your music. UNLESS your name is PRINCE, or MADONNA, you get the point.

I'm also a bachelor ICT, and firm GNU/Linux open source promoter, so you could say I know a little these things.

Making music costs money, effort and time. And a lot of all of that. Recording studios are EXPENSIVE!! I know! Saying that CD's should be costing 50 cents is ridiculous.

Looking at it from a musician's point of view. And what do we do? We post our own music in MP3 format online. Because we know people will copy our CD's anyway. I'm not saying I don't download the occasional MP3 myself through Limewire or IRC, but ffs, if you like it, go buy the album!! It's the same with opensource software: if you like it, donate or buy the boxed version of your distro. It's give and take.

If people would stop being so selfish maybe they'd start thinking about what is behind making music.

On a final note: All the producers I know are filthy rich so the only point you may all have is that they're filling their pockets. But that is nothing compared to the gazillions that are wasted by millions of kids downloading music from their bedrooms instead of going to the record store and buying the album...

That's just my train of thoughts on the matter, feel free to reply.

Mike

i dont think anyone has ever said that artists dont get a raw deal on the whole.

its not the artists that come knocking on your door tho is it? its people working on behalf of the "industry". those people who are abusing the artists in many more ways than pirates ever could.

you say give and take? I'm just reminded of all those big artists being stripped of any ownership of their music the moment they sign the record deal.

Artists need those production houses, just as much as producers need artists... even though they ARE getting ripped off. And the fact that stealing music is taking away a well earned income from the artist can't be denied. Because: the producer doesn't get enough money anymore. He'll be forced to stop working with the artist. Do you know how hard it is to find a producer in the music business these days? And you only hear them give one (in my eyes perfectly valid) reason: illegal copies. Personally I've known guys (back in the early days of copying) that made well over three thousand dollars each month by distributing copyrighted material. So I'd say that's a few persons income you're taking away then.

And I also know, when they're complaining and bitching about it, THEY SHOULD goddammit! They're trying to protect theirselves as well as the artists

Look at it like this: say somebody invented a machine that could duplicate everything through atom replication or whatever. You would buy a coke or a bread or a pair of shoes, and with a press on the button you'd have an exact copy of it. Wouldn't you find it normal then that the industry would react against it? Because you can't have people making perfect copies of ****'s in their houses can we? Maybe this example doesn't make sense, but I'm trying to make you see the whole picture here: selling an article, and not being able to sell it because everybody is copying it from a few sold articles (note they are NOT making it themselves, they are taking your work, and making an exact copy of it). Imagine you invented a new type of engine, and somebody would steal it from you, and take all the credit (and get rich). Would you like that?

I'll say it again: if you like what you hear: buy the damn album. You'll get nice inlays and lyrics and pics etc. And you may just have helped save somebody's income.

If such a machine ever existed there would undoubtably be less jobs but then again there would be little reason to ever buy anything so in the end noone suffers. You also make the assumption that people would spend their money on these records if they couldn't get the for free. I don't believe that is at all the case, the vast majority will do without and spend their money on something else. Also saying that the music industry is a mess and then having the audacity to blame it on coonsumers is plain irrational. If the artists aren't getting paid properly and the top cats are then don't run the the consumer and ask them to pay more for something that should be very cheap. Meida and production costs of CD's are minimal, anything above 70p and you're making a profit, so to charge 17GBP for a CD and complain that people are losing money is laughable.

I'm not putting the blame on anyone but those copying music for distribution, and those downloading whole CD's with the thought of not having to pay for it. Aside from the fact that CD's are too expensive. That's not the issue here. That is a totally different conversation...

You can not say that when when you do this (buy an illegal copy or make illegal copies) you are not stealing from artists and production houses.

Saying that is plain irrational. It's the same as making reproductions of paintings, wrist watches, shirts, etc... You're making money (money that you evade spending is also profit) off somebody else's hard work, without their explicit consent. Again, it's just my train of thoughts... I can be wrong but it's MY opinion about the matter.

Hi.

Irrational?

Its the same as using the word "Windows" without paying Microsoft!

Following your so called rational thought, we should be paying Italy for the alphabet and the Iranians for using numbers. Or should it be the Greeks for weening us off hieroglyphics. (Excuses to those historians that know more about the origin of these phenomena) What about the patent of the wheel!

This is rational?

"Stealing" the idea from someone else, A law should be passed that excludes those who want to make money from music from making music.

Ciao,
Zaph.

OK first: I don't use Windows and don't pay Microsoft.

second: what kind of a lame comparison is that: what do the italians and iranians have to do with anything? How can you possibly compare an illegal copy, resulting in a direct loss of income for certain persons, with the use of hieroglyphics?????? THINK ABOUT IT.

he's got a point, but i see yours too....

Anyway, p2p application can also have a positive effect, personally i've discovered serveral bands through p2p applications, and later bought the CD couse i thought the music was cool, i did that with The Streets for example, and some japanese bands.....

Also we have some weird examples in my country. of bands who suddenly have gotten popular in some weird country couse some DJ on a radio station downloaded the track and played it on the radio.

The number #1 hit in Russia right now, grew this way....

The internet is an amazing place for emerging bands to showcase their music, and bypassing the established very costly distribution networks of the record companies.

Also as philly mentioned, the assumption that if someone downloads a tune from the internet, someone looses money, is wrong. Peronally i have dl' serveral tunes, that i would never ever pay for, mostly mainstream pop, just because it's great to have that kind of music at parties.

quote: "Anyway, p2p application can also have a positive effect, personally i've discovered serveral bands through p2p applications, and later bought the CD"

I've had this experience many times over. Also, some albums are no longer in circulation, and are sold on ebay for a fortune, or possibly as a special order from the company for another fortune.

To the guy who said that unspent income is equal to profit, WTF? profit is the difference between production, marketting costs, etc and the final retail or selling price of whatever, which is certainly not equivalent to a person's personal savings. I was wondering how he would eventually rationalise his claim that people were making money from distributed copies of commercially produced music files (and, as he argues, consequently reducing profit for corporations who are masters of the copyrights), and this result is pretty amazing.

Actual profit (not the pretend kind) made directly from illegally distributing copyrighted material is an infinitesimal component of the losses experienced by owners of the copyrights. Most of the (minimal) loss is because of poor quality crap artists that are being promoted with much vigour with brain-washing lyrics and cookie-cutter beats, and the heavy hands of the industry's leading producers themselves, as most people dl'ing files at no cost would not purchase the material otherwise.

Maybe I don't express myself too well. My point is that when John Doe downloads a CD of Britney Spears, he saves the money he would have otherwise spent on that CD, thus profiting from downloading. The money he saves would have gone to the music industry: divided over producer, marketing, artist etc...

So this is a loss for the music industry. I don't know where you don't understand this.

I don't quite understand what you mean that I have to rationalize my claim that people were making money from distributed copies... I said in my previous post:

<quote>
Personally I've known guys (back in the early days of copying) that made well over three thousand dollars each month by distributing copyrighted material. So I'd say that's a few persons income you're taking away then.
</quote>

What's so irrational about that? It's exactly what I meant to say. Person A downloads a CD and sells it to person B for a small price. Person A gains a clandestine income out of this practice.
Also not too hard to grasp is it? I admitted this was a couple of years ago, I doubt one would be able to achieve this nowadays.

I use free software all the time and am very grateful that somebody put a lot of time in creating a beautiful piece of software that I may use and sell etc. Because this person gave his explicit blessing to do so (in what is called a LICENSE). But anybody who creates something has the right to put a RESTRICTION on that creation. And if other people don't respect this they are violating the other person's right to protect what is his.

I didn't mean to start a flame here, just typing what I think right now. And I do think a lot of people underestimate the impact of illegal music distribution on the sales of music. It's not the price of the CD's, it being able to download it from the net that keeps people away from the record shops. It's just as simple as that. And to be honest, you don't think that some kids copying and redistributing thousands and thousands of copyrighted material should be punished? Come on. What do you EXPECT then?

It was the rediculous price of CD's
that drove people to the net in the first place.
Why would anyone want to pay $20 for a CD that has
one or two good songs on it, and the rest is just crap to fill it up.
Sure you get the fancy pictures and liner notes,
but is that worth all the money, if the music isn't there?
If the recording industry realized that quality means more than quantity,
(which they used to know)
then maybe they'd give musicians more time to spend on their music,
instead of pushing them every few months into the studio,
to get out another ill concieved CD.
Sure, they might get one CD a year, but it would be worth $20,
and people would buy it.

No, artists make fuck all compared to the record companies.
CDs cost a fraction what they charge. In the UK cds are often now £16, this is more than the cost of unlimited dial-up access for one month. Not surprising that people download instead.

The quality of an MP3 will never match that of Vinyl or even Cd so at the end of the day people will still buy Cds. If I could buy 4 CDs for £16 I would but I'm not prepared to pay £16 for just one CD, lining the record company's pocket.

Their loss in sales is due to their greedy not people's naughtiness. I mean people have been copying records, cds to tapes for years. Have they not considered this a problem?

Another problem is that there still aren't enough samples for new albums. Apart from certain artists I'd never buy something I haven't heard.

Like most other money-greedy industries the RIAA is not reacting to give people what they want - making it easy to hear and cheap to buy new music.

Sorry bit of a rant, Leon.

Can you hear the difference between a 196kbps encoded MP3 and a CD? I doubt you can. And yes you're right £16 is a lot of money but so is everything else. Everything is expensive nowadays. People are trying to make a living just as the next guy.

LOL...any musician who whines about not making money is in the wrong business. But the RIAA is just another money-hungry corporate entity looking for a scapegoat for its shortcomings. Even if it isn't technically a corporation, it is a direct representative of them. Whine and cry, pigs--my copy of Kazaa isn't going anywhere...Commercializing an art form was their first mistake...trying to control it may have been their last...

I agree. Wholeheartedly. the RIAA can tear my mp3 filled CD's from my cold dead hand. It's not like I'm selling them as bootlegs, like half the artists around started out (Metallica claims their entire empire was built on bootlegs). I keep them for my own enjoyment. And If I like a couple songs, I BUY THE FUCKING ALBUM. RIAA SHUT THE FUCK UP.


*whew*
pant, pant.

I doubt the RIAA is as stupid as you say they are, think about it:

If File Sharing is good for CD sales, why are the RIAA opposed to it?

Are their experts stupid? Are they afraid of change? Or are they actually CORRECT?

I personally have no idea what the truth is behind MP3s and market sales of CDs.


Rwnvr, you make excellent points BECAUSE you are a musician, and people are generally ignoring your points. People are making circular arguments, saying things like:

"MP3s dont hurt CD sales, Cd sales have dropped because of a poor economy. However i don't buy CDs because they are too expensive and go to corporate fat cats."

It's the same arguments I've heard a million times and these arguments end up shooting each other down. However I don't feel P2P is down right stealing. Not at all. As people mention no one really loses anything. In traditional stealing, someone gains and someone loses, therefore it is wrong. With P2P, there is no precise loser, not even the artist. Just because someone burns a CD, doesn't mean they would have bought it anyway.

Philly baby, Fickle, gull_fish, ertman, and I are thinking on the exact same level. If I like 80% of the songs on a CD, I buy it. if the single is good and the CD is trash, I keep the single. Unfortunately most people don't think like this, and in the end I think P2P would kill the music industry. However, The music industry would die, music would thrive to which I consider a perfect climate for artistic enrichment not based on money.

Ryan,papadoc, and Eugene, music CDs are expensive because making music is expensive, not blank CDs.

zapthedude, good points on intellectual property, I agree with just about everything.

rnwvr, great points as well. However music is NOT something ANYONE should make money from. It is not a profession, it is ART. people who make music for money, by default, make BAD music. Take money out of the equation and you're left with people making music because they love music. Granted they'll still have to pay for studios and instruments, granted these are expensive, they are not entirely unaffordable for average Joes. And like many open source projects, people can donate to your cause.

Anyways, check out the post i made in general discussion.

I think you all fail to realize the bottom line.
It's not the money...its POWER.

For years and years, the RIAA had all the power over everyone,
and everything, that is, until the internet came along.
As more and more people jumped on the p2p networks,
the RIAA saw their precious power over everyone,
and everything, slipping away.
They cannot stand that loss of power.
So they're doing everything they can to keep it.
They're using every tactic imaginable to keep it.
Some things they've done are apparently working.
But allot of their tactics are just plain stupid
and not well thought out,
certainly not indicitive of a major company.
Which says allot about the RIAA in itself.

To prove this point, just look at the battle over internet stations.
The RIAA says its all about copyright fees.
Bullshit...it's about their loss of power over the airwaves.
The RIAA always controlled FM Radio, what they played,
when they played it, and how much they could play.
Internet Radio comes along and they have no control over it.
So what do they do?
They use every tactic they can think of,
including pushing their great power around in the Congress,
to get that power back over internet radio.
And don't kid yourself about this.
They are slowly succeeding, based on where the whole issue started.
Don't believe this?

Recently, a new settlement between the RIAA and non-commercial,
and college radio stations that webcast, was reached.
Now on the surface it looks good, something that these
types of stations can live with...I guess.
But there is a catch.

The RIAA retains POWER to dictate these things:

1. Noncommercial webcasters are limited by the number of songs
from one artist they can play during a certain period of time.

2. DJs also cannot play two songs from the same artist back-to-back,
and they cannot play more than three songs from a particular album
in any three-hour period.
Playing more than four songs from one artist during a three-hour window
is prohibited.

3. As Internet radio becomes more popular, the fees go up.
The RIAA's rates are based on an average of 200 simultaneous listeners
per month.
Once a station surpasses this, they must pay .251 cents per listener, per hour,
making it financially difficult for webcasters to greatly expand their audience.

Story

As you can see, they are gaining power over the internet airwaves.
They're using the smokescreen of copyright fees to do it.
And if they have their way, they will once again have all the power
over your choices, of how you get your music.
It has nothing to do with the money.
It's all about power.
That's just my opinion.

I don't buy it. They're just losing money with what they were doing. This is about business, not world domination. And right now, it's bad business to spend money destroying something that is beneficial. If money = power, then they're losing both.

Oh is it? Microsoft is trying to rule your life already, i think the RIAA wants a share


I thought after two years copyrighted works moved into the public possesion... Is this still true?

And I would much rather go out and buy Equilibrium on DVD for $19 then the new Linkin Park CD for $16 (which sucks if you haven't figured it out yet). Face it, Cd's should cost $3-$5 american dollars if movies cost $20 (oh yeah, did i mention Equilibrium was fvckin awesome?) for there to even be competition.

Don't even get me started on the RIAA's tactics. They are forgeting they are dealing with hormonal-unstable-raging-mostly-alcoholic-teenagers-that-frankly-just-don't-give-a-flying-rats-ass-about-laws-or-rules. All these kids know that is if you are breaking the fun, you are one of the bad guys... Their whole approach should have been a "positive alternative" instead of "d13 fvggin p2p DIE!".

I agree, the RIAA are trying to rule the music industry, but it makes no sense for them to destroy P2P if it helps them sell CDs, unless of course it does not. Do you agree with that?

Copyrighted works lose their copyright after 75 years after the death of its creator, or something to that effect. I'll dig up a link if you want.

I agree, much of the CD 'loss' was from DVDs.
I bought a CD from an independent artist and he charged me roughly $6 for it. The reason? He didn't spend a dime on promotion, bidding for radio airplay, music videos, or any of that. It's this needless promotion (which P2P accomplishes for free) that inflates CD.

I don't know what you are saying, but I see p2p as another distrubition medium not very much unlike the "compact disc" we know today. Of course right now p2p is all free, that's the problem. And the quality of the recorded music on p2p sucks, but you cna't beat free, right? The RIAA needs to embrace and give a huge marketting push for p2p (not free, of course) instead of being little ignorant little children about embracing new technology. But what do they do? They put a single link, burried within their website... Now that my friends, is promotion. /sarcasm

Oh, that sucks... p2p needs a hit man, and a time machine.

If you still don't think the RIAA are using every loophole
they can to gain power & take control over everything:

From today's Atlanta Journal Opinion Page

The RIAA doesn't want to destroy all p2p networks.
They want to contol them.
You don't see them going after any of the ones that
charge a fee to download music do you?
Nope, because they can control them.
Apple's ITunes and Real's Rhapsody are an experiment that
the RIAA are closely watching.
ITune's is already proving that music downloads for a fee are profitable.
Which makes the RIAA very happy.
But what will NEVER happen is the shutdown of
decentralized p2p networks like WinMx,
especially if that p2p network is based
outside of America, like WinMx is based out of Toronto.
(Although I'm sure they're scheming a way to do that too)
So they're trying to gain control over as much as they can,
by using lawsuits as their weapon.
This sends a clear message to others,that they are in control,
and they plan on staying in contol.
And if you don't go by their old and out of date rules
and join them, they'll come after you with their lawyers.
Money may fund the RIAA, but it's the greedy quest for
almighty power that drives them.
Without that power they've been so accustomed to having
for so long, their money is no good.

I agree with papadoc

Papadoc that was brilliant.

So you think free-P2P networks (Kazaa, Guntella, whatever) should be illegal, or just "songs of quality X" should be illegal?
Because I will tell you now, with the way that P2P is going the quality WILL improve (loss-less coding etc.) to CD quality. It's a matter of time. If free P2P networks have the same quality of songs as pay-networks, the pay-networks will die. It's just a matter of time.


Papdoc, you may have something here with the control argument. Assuming P2P helps CD sales, what are the RIAAs motives for shutting down P2P? Your answer: so they can monopolize online downloads.
That makes sense. Free P2P makes them money, but pay-P2P makes them more money... or does it? The whole point of P2P is songs for free. That's why I use it. I'm not willing to pay even the $1 that iTunes charges. I just want to be able to try music, see if I like it, then buy a CD. If I had to pay for downloads, I would not pay the online fee for downloads, and I wouldn't pay the $18 for a CD. The RIAA has just lost $18 free P2P would have given them.
Not to mention defeating P2P is a long, hard road of lawsuits upon lawsuits. In the end it's self defeating, the money involved is huge. The money involved is huge, and quite possibly, a bottomless pit. They will be fighting these lawsuits, will they eventually pay for themselves? Debatable.

Nevertheless this seems like a good explanation: The RIAA fight P2P not because it is destroying CD sales, but because monopolizing P2P has the potential to make them more money.

"Without power, money is no good", sorry this doesn't make any sense. Money and power have, and always will be, equal. The are inextricably connected. Everyone who is powerful is rich, and everyone who is rich is powerful, whether their power is obvious (the president) or not (figurehead monarchs).

All I have to say is this :
The RIAA is just trying to leech as much money as they can out of musicians. A lot of the music and CD's I buy are from indie and non-RIAA affiliated musicians. Why is it that a new CD from a mainstream artist with all the shiny recording studios and big-budget funding costs damn near 20$ USD, and a CD from a band flying under the radar with a smaller fan base and less utilities to access, of the SAME QUALITY MUSIC, costs only 10$? I went to a show last friday, and spent 25$. 10$ for my ticket, 10$ for The Briggs- Numbers, and 5$ for Angel City Outcasts - 2,000 pints and going strong! That's 2 CD's and a show for LESS than you could buy 2 CD's from a mainstream group. If the RIAA was really about protecting musician's profits, they wouldn't leech out so much money from the musicians, and find better ways to get cheap CD's to fans.

WHOA! Where are you getting this info! I listen to death metal, and I've forked over $40 CDN for a CD, whilst cringing at the $9.99 Best Buy deals on top 40 albums. I'm sure most people will attest to this. (online is a different matter, but I've never bought an album under $10 unless from ebay)
That said, I've also spent $6 for an unsigned bands album. Tough to say where the money is going.

I'm 15, and I can't afford to buy all the music I listen to. It's as simple as that. If CDs weren't so damned expensive, I would probably have paid for them, but until I get a job, I just have to download it. Same goes for software and games. They just cost too much. RIAA sucks... :mad:

You have all made good points, and I respect individual opinions. To those who said that the driving force behind the RIAA's futile rampages was power, and not money, you were half-right. Money IS power.

Someone said something to the effect that those of us who are not "artists" have less important opinions on this issue. Well, I happen to know some people who are members of some underground bands and they LOVE Kazaa. It lets them spread their music without any high and mighty corporation telling them what to do with THEIR songs. Money isn't even a concern for them--they make music because they love it.

I will concede that money and power can go hand in hand.
The RIAA have both, and yes, I will agree they are using
both to get what they want.
But what they also have is a huge propaganda campaign,
to mislead everyone in their motives.
And it's been working, until people like the ones in this thread,
start questioning those motives.
Every time an artist's CD sales don't do well,
what do you hear from the RIAA?
You don't hear that the CD was bad.
You don't hear that the fans of that artist aren't supporting them anymore,
because their CD's aren't worth the money anymore.
You don't hear that the RIAA didn't promote the artist
or the CD correctly.
Nope you never hear anything like that do you?

You hear the RIAA blameing p2p networks.
It's nothing but propaganda from the RIAA.
They will never admit that THEY are part of the problem,
that THEY are one of the main reasons for falling CD sales.

The RIAA reminds me of my cousin. He's a golfer.
When he hits a ball in the lake, he blames the club.
"It was the stupid clubs fault the ball went in the lake."

CD's will sell, and they know it.
They'll never admit that either.
But the facts are there to contradict everything the RIAA says.
Look at Eminem's last two CD's for example.
They were released on the internet before they were released in stores.
And they still sold millions, in spite of all the free downloads.
Why? Because they were good from start to finish to his fans,
they were worth the money to his fans,
Eminem and his CD's were promoted correctly,
his fans stuck with him because he continued to be who he is,
and they bought 'em up like crazy.
You don't hear the RIAA or Eminem criticizing the p2p networks
about HIS record sales, do you?

Another thing to think about.
Who do you always hear hating p2p networks besides the RIAA.
Groups and artists like Metallica.
Groups or artists who's careers were sinking anyway.
Their CD sales would sink even if there wasn't a computer in sight.
I've got news for Lars Ulrich,(and artists like him)
It's not p2p networks that have killed your CD sales,
it's you and your band, because you've been putting out crap
for music and your fans aren't buying it anymore.
And they're probably not downloading it either,
if you really took an honest look.
So you run to the RIAA and throw a temper tandrum,
and piss and moan and cry:

"Our CD sales have gone in the lake because of p2p's.
It's all those stupid p2p's fault our CD sales are in the lake!"

You've missed the point. Why WOULDN'T they admit to it? If they KNOW FOR A FACT CDs are selling well why are they fighting p2p? It makes no sense.

I also disagree that music is somehow worse now then it was before. My scene (metal) is stronger then ever.

Me?
I said why they won't admit it.
Because it contradicts their argument that p2p networks
are killing CD sales.
Simple as that.
And yes it makes no sense what the RIAA is doing,
unless you understand how far back this goes,
and the totality of their reasons.
My friend, this quest for the acquisition of power
and the subsequent quest to keep contol of this power,
started back many years ago, before PC's.
You're putting words in my post that arent there.
I never said all music is worse.
It's just that the public isn't buying it anymore.
What the RIAA looks at is overall sales of all types of music.
They lump them all together into one neatly stitched fastball,
and throw it at you.
This is one of the ways they're misleading you.
Lumped in that package is Country Music.
Country Music sales have been going down for years.
The only time their sales went up was when the movie
"Oh Brother Where Out Thou" came out.
But that didn't last long.
And the recent patriotic movement helped a little
but that won't last either.
It's a well known fact that Country Music is and has been in trouble.
And it has nothing to do with p2p networks.
It has to do with Country Music itself.
No one, to my knowledge, are blaming the p2p networks for their bad sales.
Except the RIAA.

If you think I'm not getting the point,
read this article.
Maybe it'll help you understand better
than what I've tried to do:

http://www.slyck.com/news.php?story=172

There are two perspectives here. My dad is an amateur musician and he made a CD in his recording studio in our house. It cost quite a bit. CDs are expensive in terms of money, effort and time and it is right that we should reward the artist, and also the record company.

However, the prices of CDs are ludicrous. Also, very little of that goes to the artist. It pisses me off to see the RIAA so bloody agressive. Instead of bitching, they need to recognise they need to change their practice. Times change.

One thing especially pissed me off. CDwow is probably going to be shut down. it was an importer, importing legal CDs from asia where they're cheaper to the UK. The RIAA or equivalent is suing so no more CDs for £9.99, which IMHO is a more reasonable price.

BTW, the "whole point of P2P" is not free songs. It's used for other stuff like SETI@home.