Journalists dont seem to have the technical knowledge to ask the right questions when these Music Industry representitives are on. To me, I dont particularily have a problem with people who upload music get prosecuted. Musicians and Record labels do have a right to make money from their products and if someone is going out of their way to make their product available to a mass of people without charging royalties, then its wrong in my view. When it comes down to people downloading the music it would be hypocritical of me to say that that is then ok, in reality it isnt. Some people percieve that downloading music is a fight against the establishment or the corporate world, not thinking of the musicians as being employees (in a sense ) of these labels. Most people I think would prefer to own a legal copy of a product. ( I think anyway ). Most people, correctly in my view, percieve that the music industrys products are way over priced. That record labels bring alot of this on themselves. They lose millions promoting a new boyband who flop after 5 weeks and then come cribbing to the media saying that profits are down, and that its all down to illegal copying of their product. I do believe that to solve the problem of illegal copying the problem needs to be tackled on two fronts. 1) Prosecute people making the music available free and use heavy deterants 2) Encourage people not to download the music, by selling their products at a reasonable price, whether that be a CD, DVD, Tape or indeed an MP3 all of which are way over priced. Thats my 0.02$ anyway

For me, it depends how people use it. Bands, rather than Labels seem to embrace it. mp3s can be a useful tool to get bigger & better things. Funny, just as I was reading this thread I got a mail from the band 'Me In The Park', thanking people for the over 800 downloads of their free debut single. If a fraction of these free download were in the future, turned into proper album sales or admissions to gigs, they'd be doing pretty well, & all because they gave away a track. The alternative, is to spent money on releasing the single in shops across the country with an expensive push only to scrape into the top30 for week, then disappear again. Its the power of the email address, Marillion (I think it was) used the same idea a few months ago to go top20 in the uk for the time in nearly 20yrs. Kloot, you're a sucker for the aul label samplers. A cheap cd, with 20 bands on it, if you buy 4 albums or go to a gig because of it, the cd has done its job. Heck, they may even make a lifelong fan out you. Its the same thing. & yes, cds are very overpriced. You only have to look at the iTunes UK, being more expensive than iTunes Ger (for example) for what is the exact same file. iTunes say they were priced relative to the market. So, If I can buy legal mp3 from Russia 'priced relative to the market', I will. Its called shopping around.

I think that bands providing samples of their music free/dirt cheap on theirs and other sites is definitely the way to go. It defintely leads to more sales down the line. Cant argue with that. In the case of the sampler, the label has chosen to release the compilation at a cheap price, therefore forgoing potential earnings. But the key word is Chosen ( is that spelt right ? ). Its in no way the same as someone making the decision themselves to make an album available online without the record labels consent. As for shopping around. Were in a age of global commerce. If a russian site is selling songs for 10c each and its legal, then f**k it. Fire away. Nothing wrong with that. Personally i dont believe that people should be paying more then 30 - 50 cents a track. Part of the price of CDs was the reclaiming of years worth of investment by the manufacturing industries in CD technology that cost billions. In the case of mp3 they havent had to spend a penny, and therefore there are not historical investment funds to reclaim. Also, I think that if I buy a cd, then i am paying for the music and the medium, i.e. the physical cd and the music contained on said cd. Therefore i should be free to move the music on to whatever medium that suits me without being labelled as a criminal by a Music industry rep.

First of all you have to wonder why anyone would share out 3000 songs on a P2P client? The file-sharer isn't making any profit from it, it's costing them valuable bandwidth and makes them an easy target for prosecution. Maybe what they are doing is illegal (and pretty dumb), but you have to ask what the individuals actual degree of criminal intent is when they obviously stand to make no gain other than recognition. Comparing these individuals to drug dealers and pirates who actually make money from counterfeit products is sensationalism and is way out of line. You can accuse file sharers who disregard copyright law as being foolish, but definitely not evil masterminds threatening the fabric of modern society or even the music business. The simple fact of the matter is that IRMA/RIAA, etc. are pigopolies only interested in protecting their vested interests and maintaining the status quo rather than getting up off their lazy asses, responding to new technology and customers needs. Individuals should be prosecuted for piracy, but it seems that in many cases these organisations have used their influence to weild the law with excessive force merely to protect commercial interests. They have even gone to the extent of trying remove existing rights already enjoyed by customers. This is not in the interests of a balanced justice system or in maintaining the rights of ordinary citizens. Certainly in the recent IRMA cases, one ISP has seen sense and not responded to pressure, stating that revealing the names of file sharers would go against Data Protection law. I'm no legal expert, but I think the ISP may have a point. You can't just take away peoples rights at the drop of a hat to protect commercial interests. So lets say the File sharers all get prosecuted successfully, has IRMA won? Nope, all it will have done is two things. First, everyone will hate IRMA, and secondly it will simply drive file sharing underground and off the internet. The next big thing in file sharing is wireless networks. In about 2 years, absolutely everyones laptop, mobile phone, PDA, or MP3 player will have some form of wireless connectivity, possibly bluetooth, wi-fi or similar. All you have to do is turn your connection on and you can share files with any other devices in close proximity that also have theirs turned on. You could share files with your neighbours, or all the commuters on the Luas and when you're finished, and turn off your connection or are out of range, the small temporary network that you used to share files literally vanishes into the ether. How the hell would IRMA keep track of hundreds of small temporary networks rather than one big internetwork?

>>the small temporary network that you used to share files literally >>vanishes into the ether. ...or into the ether(net)! Seriously, alot of file sharers on soulseek won't share unless you share your files with them so that's one reason.

i think file sharing can only be a good thing. if it helps spread music around the globe without the aid of marketing and promotion, well then its cool in my book. people will still buy albums they really want to have, but with file sharing you can test the product first. i've discovered so many artists from downloading their albums then gone on to watch them live or bought their material. the people who are really afraid of this are those who earn alot of money from music and mostly those who produce the crappiest tripe imaginable. if these dudes go bankrupt, great

record companies should've lowered the prices of CDs years ago. They've been artificially high all that time, it serves them f**king right.

binokular's point about wireless networks is very important - the technology for sharing files is devolping all the time, and it would be impossible to prosecute anyone without the breadcrumb trail that the internet provides. having said that, if 'illegal' file-sharing is taken to the extreme, the music industry will collapse, so something has to give. surely prosecting a handful of offenders is a waste of time, especially if file-sharing becomes harder/impossible to police. the industry has to recognise the need to change with these new developments in technology or it will suffer. maybe provide an incentive for using itunes and the like? free downloads, competitions, exclusive tracks?

cd sales and illegal downloading have no legitimate link. good music and good exposure to music however does. its a load of bull and IRMA are only doing it to show that they can to the larger record companies.

since i downloaded soulseek i reckon i've bought more cds than i used to, download one or two tracks from a band to see if i like them and go buy their cd then. i'd say i'm not the only one who does this way.

Musicians are artists, an album is a work of art. Fair nuff if you listen to a couple o songs and buy said album. I hate the idea of someone downloading two songs and not give another thought to the album as a work of art. It's like seeing a nice painting and cutting out part of it cos you like the way the artist painted the sun, say. And leavin the rest behind cos you don't like it. Get up off yer arse away from the computer and head to the shop and listen to the album in there. I know this all might sound romantic and old fashioned but I love buying a new vinyl or cd and takin it home, listenin to it from start to finish, checkin out the art work on the cover....etc. The world is becoming a horribly sanitised world of convenience. Fight It!

oh my god. are you for real?

To be honest, anyone hanging a couple of thousand mp3s onto the internet for others to share is either dumb or asking for a lawsuit. 12 to 18 months ago you could have pleaded ignorance, not now. Back in the days of Napster, I used to download a lot of stuff to listen to and then buy. Nowadays, most artists (other than those you hear on radio) have extensive download sections of their websites with tracks, live stuff and demos so that line of justification doesn't really cut it anymore. Don't get me wrong, I hate the idea of IRMA going after people (which I believe is an exercise in bullying and media hype to put others off - I'd expect that a warning whould have most of these file sharers off the web in an act) but we should hardly be surprised that the industry is protecting its interests.

Yes Una, I am. What's your point? Has the computer numbed your brain?

I'd agree with nesta there to a certain extent. I think albums as an art form are in danger of being lost. If people are just buying a few tracks from an album (say on the iTunes music store) then it may not be profitable to record albums. Or there may be even more incentive to make an album a collection of singles, as opposed to an overall thang. That said, people have been buying singles for a fair while now and albums are still going strong. Also, in terms of mp3 i think that overall its a good thing. The more people that hear your music the better, no problem with giving away a few tracks for free.

Sorry, I'm obviously too cynical for this thread. It sounds like an interview with Damien Rice.