In 2000, a federal court in San Francisco ordered Napster, the free file-sharing music service, to stop its users from swapping copyrighted songs. Soon after, Napster shut its virtual doors. Millions of its users moved on to other networks, such as Kazaa and Morpheus, where they continued to download copyrighted material.
Sunday, a federal court in Australia put Kazaa on life support with a similar order.
While the ruling has no legal weight in the United States, it sends an important message: There are fewer places to hide for those who assist others in stealing music, video and other copyright works. That was made clear here in June, when the U.S. Supreme Court found that Grokster and StreamCast Networks, the company behind Morpheus, could be held liable for inducing their users to steal music.
The successive court rulings are clear victories for the music industry in its campaign to stamp out online piracy. To capitalize on them and win the long-term battle against illegal downloads, the music industry must move quickly to satisfy its customers’ appetite for inexpensive and efficient download services. Fortunately, that’s beginning to happen.
As with the demise of Napster, millions of Kazaa users have already moved on to newer and more efficient file-sharing networks with names such as BitTorrent and eDonkey. But in the wake of the court rulings, several of these networks are looking to become legitimate businesses. BitTorrent, for instance, has signed deals with video-game publishers to legally distribute games, and it’s courting Hollywood, hoping to strike similar agreements.
Other file-sharing networks are coming up with business models that allow music to be traded legally. And legal downloading services, most notably Apple’s iTunes, have exploded in popularity, and are poised to get even bigger as phones become music players.
None of this will spell the end of illegal file-sharing. Indeed, millions of users continue to trade pirated content online. And there will always be a market for stolen digital files.
But the success of legal services shows that as long as fees are reasonable - and who can’t afford 99 cents for a song? - consumers will pay for convenience, ease of use and sound files that are guaranteed to be of high quality and free of computer bugs. Now imagine if these services got even better, say, by offering to send a recording of your favorite band’s latest concert directly to your phone or MP3 player. What devoted music fan wouldn’t shell out a few bucks for that?
I would like to point out that if it wasn’t for napster and other such programs like Kazaa you would still be paying 20-25 dollars a CD and singles still costing 5-15 dollars.
Pressure is important. I met an old friend from high school, Marc Jordan, who’s written a number of hit songs for himself and others, including Rod Stewart. He told me most of the piracy was caused by the Companies, who, despite constant artist/writer costs and lower production costs, Raised their prices.
Moving costs in the opposite direction to technological savings guarantees a market for piracy. It was kicking his ass big time!
I’m all for file sharing. I think it exposes people to new music they normally would never have heard.
The present system keeps alot of artists from finding an audience because it has too many artificial scarcities: limited radio promotion, limited bin space in stores and a limited number of spots on the record company roster.
What’s funny is that people who frequently downloaded illegal files spend four and a half times more on paid-for music downloads than average fans.
Down in New Zealand we don’t have the same selection of music so either have to pay three times as much to import or use Kaazaa. Near impossible to get any remix of good songs.
One interesting note is that on new CDs a Walmart style store here (The Warehouse) are able to parallel import new CDs and sell them for NZ$24 while other shops sell them for NZ$34. Now low and behold the record stores are able to start selling new for NZ$24-26.
Someone has been getting scammed.
Hamish Ferguson
I’m all for file sharing. I think it exposes people to new music they normally would never have heard.
good point but what if all businesses worked that way? Some balance is needed.
I am pro open source but as an artist I would hate to see my stuff stolen.
I paid 160 dollars for 2 tickes to see Metallica in Edmonton last year. I understood their position for going after Napster and I agree with them. I also ripped off their music and still do. I am not a hypocrite, I see both sides of the fence. The music industry works like a Monopoly or Ogliopoly. In a true Capitalist country the market determines what every item should be worth. Since this is not the case and the Music Industry was price gauging, then, they got their just deserts in my opinion! What should happen is that the Music industry or gov’t should be charging or better yet running the internet providers and peer to peer sharing programs. If they did this, then they would get exactly what the music deserves but you will never see that bc, like I said, “The USA is not a true Capitalist Country”. If the Music industry, internet providers, and anyone could sell music through a program like Kazaa/Napster then we would all be paying the “true market price”. Like Charlie said, the CD costs should have gotten lower through improved technology!
Look at Hurricane Katrina and the gas prices that rose around those cities. Its called price gauging and OPEC does this like every Long weekend (and everyday to a lower extent)! If OPEC was broken up bc it is an illegal Ogliopoly which it is then we would all be paying the true price of gasoline, but as of right now the smaller companies have to follow the big companies and so they cannot deviate from the prices set by OPEC. If someone finds a way to make my car run on water or someother gas and its illegal for me to use that gas do you think I will waste 1 sec on deciding what the right moral thing to do is? Gimme a break. The record companies reported that they lost 10-20% in revenue each year bc of programs like Napster. Hmmmm, so perhaps that is gross amount they are overcharging on their CD’s? The CD prices have now come down and are reflecting the true market value. So, although artists like Metallica are not blame and I know Metallica is not the record company (which sets the prices on their CD’s) I still don’t feel 1 ounce of guilt on “stealing, I mean help regulate the music industry from price gauging” their music.
OPEC is a poor example! The “pull price” for oil in Libya is 15 cents- not for a gallon, for a barrell! Look elsewhere!
A true capitalist society still has laws.
As I listen to the commentaries on entitlement I read on the site, I wonder how much time I should devote to new products.
Everyone complains: “When is the SPP DVD comming out?”
Well, it’ll come out when I’m confident that my efforts (hours) will be rewarded with sales equal to or higher than the hourly rate I can get privately.
We’ve already had to put a stop to the sale of stolen material on another site.
It in the interest of all of you who want products from me to go after the shitheels who are making that less possible.
You havn’t done much to encourage me. By for now. I’m off to get paid by a private client.
Charlies DVDs are worth every single cent of their price!
I think a study has to be done on file sharing trends.
The music industry makes it sound like people are downloading songs entire albums at a time all day long instead of going out and buying them.
But a copied file most certainly does not equal a lost sale. Many P2P users download all kinds of obscure and improbable things that they’re not at all sure they’d like, they look at or listen to it once, and delete most of them shortly afterwards. This does not suggest they’d be willing to pay for that stuff on CD or DVD if the download wasn’t available.
There are lots of kids with downloaded music collections that according to the RIAA are “worth” many thousands of dollars. But if the downloads weren’t available, they wouldn’t have bought all that music in the first place. So where is the loss of sales?
If anything, those kids are going to be turned on to something they’ve dowloaded that they never would have bought in the first place, and go out and buy a ticket for that band the next time their in town, buy a t-shirt or even scrape up the dough to buy a CD or two by them.
As a side note, in Canada there’s a levy on blank audio recording media (including CD-Rs), which goes to - guess who? Not artists, but music companies! So they make money either way.
Does anyone remember the band from the 90’s called Harvey Danger? They has a huge hit with the song “Flagpole Sitta”. Anyways, they’ve just released a new album. Yes, you never heard that, they’re on an indie label now with limited distribution (northwest USA). So what they’re doing is offering the CD for sale on their site - a special limited edition disc with a second disc of b-sides, and in addition to that, two weeks after that, they’re going to give a BitTorrent of the album away for free from their website. So if you pay for the CD you get rewarded with the bonus disc, but if you’re just a casual listener, you can take the album for free, listen to it and give it to your friend and their friends (share it). If you like the album, you may go back and buy the special edition version. It’s viral marketing at it’s best. If the music/product is good enough, people will buy it.
They get their product out there, and when they tour (where bands really make their money), they’re hoping more ticket buying fans who got the free download will show up.
P2P has simply resulted in better marketing. The gouging and mass market big labels have to start getting creative and stop assuming that music fans will pay ridiculous prices. This isn’t the 60’s and 70’s where you either bought the album or waited until your favorite song came on the radio. There are alternatives to paying inflated prices for consumers now.
I’m sure you’ve seen this logo from the 80’s - but “file sharing” is not a new “problem”.
In Charlie’s case though, P2P sharing does equate to a lost sale. He has such a niche market that he’s unlikely to attract enough new ‘fans’ through the viral aspect of P2P sharing to cover the cost of creating the DVD and the loss of sales through piracy.
I agree. People that want CF’s products will pay every cent for them bc they are worth it, I know I have and will continue to do so. I always thought that people would be smart enough not to rip off any of Charlie’s stuff bc they would get banned from this site and they would lose direct contact with him. Not to mention never being able to get a consultation with him.
If people are pirating stuff on a different site you can always threaten to have their site shut down, just a thought. Alternatively, that site should not have allowed that to happen bc then nothing prevents their stuff from being passed around here. Finally, the DVD material can use the same technology as they now use in Video Stores and by DVD companies to encode the DVD so that they cannot be ripped off (I know this will have a cost but again it is just a thought).
My main beef was with the music industry, not individuals trying to make a living.