What If Peer To Peer 'wins'?

[sharedholder]

What if Peer to Peer 'Wins'?

October 24, 2003
Thomas Mennecke





Special Thanks to W. Friedman, AKA Dumwaldo, who wrote this article.

Lets take an honest look at things for a moment here. What is the worst thing that could happen if peer to peer were to eventually overtake the recording industry and bankrupt them all, as the RIAA claims will eventually happen if the current path is not deterred.


So what would happen? Well, music would probably get better as a result. In fact, music would probably improve so much it would eventually be looked back at as a tremendously favorable improvement. If the big business record companies were all eliminated there would be no more music motivated by greed and fortune seeking. The only motivation left to create music would be, well, a love of music.

Most of the music made available by the large recording interests is not art and the creators and performers are not “art”ists. They are part of an industry fueled by a desire for money. From the author and performer of the music all the way down to the guy that empties the garbage pails in the studio and back up to the president of the record company, every single one of those people is doing a job in search of a good paycheck. None of them, performers included, are doing it because of an inner passion that drives them to create. It is not art; it is music that is mass-produced for profit.

The loss of current music continually fed at rapid pace would become overshadowed by the sheer quality of the musical works. Do you really need a new song every week if the 'old' song is not played out in 3 days? Quality music has a lasting quality that keeps it from getting old quickly.

The problem with creating music with longevity is it equals lower sales. Lower sales of course equal lower profits. Recording labels are not in business to bring you art, they are in it for the money and nothing else. Plain and simple, this is capitalism at its finest.

Capitalism and art mix as well as oil and water. I would like to think that years from now music itself will evolve and grow far greater than it is today as a result of the growing free trade of music among a global community. The music industry might eventually fall, but it surely will not stop the music.

If anything, the advent of online file sharing guarantees that we will forever have a supply of fresh music. At no time in history has it ever been as easy as it is now to get music out to masses. No longer does an ARTist have to cow tow to the demanding 'recording industry mafia'. The free trade of music through peer-to-peer services is a godsend to any true artist, but it is a detriment to the purveyors of 'made for profit' recordings that have nothing to do with art. These are the guys getting 'cheated' and not any creator of art. Don’t let the propaganda fool you

So what do you think would happen if peer-to-peer file sharing 'wins'?

SOURCE

[Gre1]

News News News Keep it up.

[jfm]

Originally posted by sharedholder@25 October 2003 - 07:45
What if Peer to Peer 'Wins'?

October 24, 2003
Thomas Mennecke





Special Thanks to W. Friedman, AKA Dumwaldo, who wrote this article.

Lets take an honest look at things for a moment here. What is the worst thing that could happen if peer to peer were to eventually overtake the recording industry and bankrupt them all, as the RIAA claims will eventually happen if the current path is not deterred.


So what would happen? Well, music would probably get better as a result. In fact, music would probably improve so much it would eventually be looked back at as a tremendously favorable improvement. If the big business record companies were all eliminated there would be no more music motivated by greed and fortune seeking. The only motivation left to create music would be, well, a love of music.

Most of the music made available by the large recording interests is not art and the creators and performers are not “art”ists. They are part of an industry fueled by a desire for money. From the author and performer of the music all the way down to the guy that empties the garbage pails in the studio and back up to the president of the record company, every single one of those people is doing a job in search of a good paycheck. None of them, performers included, are doing it because of an inner passion that drives them to create. It is not art; it is music that is mass-produced for profit.

The loss of current music continually fed at rapid pace would become overshadowed by the sheer quality of the musical works. Do you really need a new song every week if the 'old' song is not played out in 3 days? Quality music has a lasting quality that keeps it from getting old quickly.

The problem with creating music with longevity is it equals lower sales. Lower sales of course equal lower profits. Recording labels are not in business to bring you art, they are in it for the money and nothing else. Plain and simple, this is capitalism at its finest.

Capitalism and art mix as well as oil and water. I would like to think that years from now music itself will evolve and grow far greater than it is today as a result of the growing free trade of music among a global community. The music industry might eventually fall, but it surely will not stop the music.

If anything, the advent of online file sharing guarantees that we will forever have a supply of fresh music. At no time in history has it ever been as easy as it is now to get music out to masses. No longer does an ARTist have to cow tow to the demanding 'recording industry mafia'. The free trade of music through peer-to-peer services is a godsend to any true artist, but it is a detriment to the purveyors of 'made for profit' recordings that have nothing to do with art. These are the guys getting 'cheated' and not any creator of art. Don’t let the propaganda fool you

So what do you think would happen if peer-to-peer file sharing 'wins'?

SOURCE

Just quoting ppl who's ill argued point agrees with yours does not make a valid argument.

regards, (sharing 81987).

jfm

[MagicNakor]

With regards to the article, art and Communism don't seem to mix well either.

[Sparkle1984]

I think it's a good article, I have to agree with it.

[DasScoot]

I think that article's an insult to every musician out there.

[Wizzandabe]

Originally posted by Sparkle1984@25 October 2003 - 16:49
I think it's a good article, I have to agree with it.

Yeah, I did agree. B)

[Kevin Phoenix]

Ya know, I would gladly live with a new donation based system for us music lovers. I mean we can actually donate money to the music artists whose music we really like. And the way I see it, if any particular music artist isn't getting many donations, then that would be an incentive to either come up with better material or try another profession. But if you think about it, people are willing to donate more money than what they would use to buy a CD. Instead of the money focusing on any given album of any given artist, that money can focus on the artist and all their music overall. In the long run, they would be making even more money than from the old ways. Change is always hard for most. But the sad truth is that this is one change the people are ready and willing to embrace, but the greedy companies behind the music and their artists would rather go out of business than let US get what we want. Shame shame.