Filesharing Part One...

This is a post that I posted on a filesharing forum back in June of 2005, I've just re-found it and thought I'd drop it in here, it is/was supposed to be the first of a series of articles I was going to post on filesharing. I may still continue the articles...

If I recall correctly (and who knows with my sieve-like memory, there were another round of lawsuits against filesharers at the time I posted originally... The only thing I've changed is I've removed the name of the forum...

So...we've had the big decision and it seems that everyone is jumping on the doom and gloom bandwagon again, nothing new there, but how will it affect us? Will it even affect filesharing as it is at the moment?

Most of what I see on News sites concerns programs like Kazaa, and Grokster...not much about the 'community' that we have here*1. Ok, so we break the law occassionally, what is the difference between me downloading an album and some corporation employing an accountant to find tax loopholes? None, both are morally wrong yet they accuse us of stealing without looking at themselves.

The *AA's continually harp on about our actions 'stifling creativity' but I've been introduced to so many new bands that I would never have had the opportunity to hear if I listened to the mainstream crap that is pumped out on every radio station. Let's look at the RIAA...who do they represent? The artist? Of course not. They represent the Record Companies, you know, the ones who write the contracts for the artists.

There are enough articles out there that show how the record companies treat their artistes, of course it's easy for Sheryl Crow and Don Henley *2 to say what they do because they are at the top of the tree, not at the bottom.

It is my opinion thart it is not, and never has been, about copyright infringement, it's about money. Everything boils down to the bottom line for these people. Once it may have been about the music, but now...

Should artistes be paid for their creativity? Of course they should, it's the hangers-on that shouldn't be...why does a CD have to cost so much? Because of 'overheads' they say. Well, I say, cut the 'overheads'. If something is not cost-effective, get rid. Isn't that a basic economic proposition?

Lets look at a breakdown of a CD cost *3

($15.99 CD)
$0.17 Musicians’ unions
$0.80 Packaging/manufacturing
$0.82 Publishing royalties
$0.80 Retail profit
$0.90 Distribution
$1.60 Artists’ royalties
$1.70 Label profit
$2.40 Marketing/promotion
$2.91 Label overhead
$3.89 Retail overhead


We can see that there are a lot of overheads at both the label and retailer end, and there is a profit already added on for both the label and retailer ($1.70 and $0.80 respectivley). Something needs to be done about it. Gone are the days of the customer (I refuse to use the word consumer (I consume nothing) as I am a customer) just paying blindly for his goods.

And why can't I make a copy to give to my friends? Hell, I've bought the product, it now belongs to me and surely I have the right to do with my own property what I want? Apparently not...

Why? Because someone thinks that I am causing a loss to someone else. They can't 'prove' that I am, but they keep on spouting it and everyone in the media just keeps on regurgitating the crap that these organisations spurt out...what was it Goebbels said? Oh yeah, that was it - "A lie told often enough becomes the truth".


*1 I mean of course the whole BitTorrent comunity not just this forum :D
*2 http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=887177
*3 http://www.almightyretail.com/