I remember that for a while I liked the old US tv series "Quincy", and the episode that made me stopped watching it. During a punk concert a young punk was stabbed to death with a screwdriver. Quincy goes forth to investigate and meets a Mrs. "I'm concerned" who tells him that the evil, agressive punk music was to blame, as it drives the kids insane and to violent acts. Quincy eagerly reiterated this credo.

Well, I haven't killed someone yet, despite my exposure to some *really* mean music. The obvious nonsense of Quincy's claim aside, that's what was propagandised for a long time.
The record industry's well funded and lobbied attacks on filesharing IMO aren't much more convincing. So filesharing is responsible for dropping record sales?

The deeper secret reason why *I* rarely buy records anymore is that there simply isn't good new music I like around atm.
For every new band making a successful debut in germany, and I think that's for the US as well, there are to some 6 more copycats to cash in on their success, sometimes at the trendsetter's own record company.
To expect something new and authentic or interesting is futile, it was never part of the plan. With a record industry producing crap in megatons, they wonder about sales dropping. Bleh.

New bands in Germany consequently refuse to work for the "we tell you how you ought to be" industry that is sacrificing creativity for streamlined commerciality, that has no interest in allowing a band to develop a style (what well might take a few years) - their interest is shareholder value, not music.
That is recognised by the newer bands in Germany who want to make money, but making it doing *their* thing. So they wander off, quit their contracts with the large record companies. There was the tale of an EMI manager calling a successful new band, getting "Satan begone!" as a reply before he could even make his offer. The new bands do make profit, but at smaller, more individual labels that grant them the freedom they seek. That's the trend in Germany.

Now the Harvard business school has made an analysis named "The effect of Filesharing on Record Sales - An empirical Analysis (http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/FileSharing_March2004.pdf)" on filesharing that came to the surprising result, that despite the public mourning of the record industry, p2p seems not to affect record sales, to the contrary actually. (A) study by the Harvard Business School and University of North Carolina is going against the popular beliefs surrounding filesharing. After tracking 1.75 million downloads over a 17-week period in 2002 and then comparing those observations to the sales of 680 popular albums, the study found that filesharing has no negative effect on CD sales.

In fact, for the most popular 25 percent of CDs, the study found that downloading boosts sales. For every 150 songs downloaded, sales of that album jumped one copy.

"Initially, we were surprised by our results, given the consistent claim that P2P hurts sales," says Koleman Strumpf, co-author with Felix Oberholzer-Gee. "But on deeper reflection, not so much. Filesharing can potentially boost sales through the user learning about new music, and this could offset the substitution for buying, as is often claimed."So, as it seems, the result of lobbying for harsher anti-filesharing laws primarily serves the lobbyists, not the public or the record business as a whole.
When the large record companies succumb to their own business practices, or shrink, so be it.
That's about how I think about it. The effect Darwin's law in economy isn't really news. When I see the record industry lobbying I always think about Dinosaurs trying to lobby the iceage away. "When you download a Mp3, are you thinking of it as a substitution – Ha Ha, now I have that CD and I don't have to buy it – or are you thinking of it as sampling music that you like?" says Eric Garland, CEO of BigChampagne, a market research firm focusing on online media. "That's the heart of this debate. In our experience, we've found that downloading both hurts and aids the sales of CDs, and it's pretty much a wash." More on that in this article here (http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=18698). Opinions anyone?

[ May 16, 2004, 18:05: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

The article is too big dude.
Still, I agree, harsh action on music dl'ders will just piss people off and you ain't gonna stop no-one.
A short reply, but it's hard argueing when you agree with the piont made

So, as it seems, the result of lobbying for harsher anti-filesharing laws primarily serves the lobbyists, not the public or the record business as a whole. Isn't that what government sanctions have always been? ;) You know; one demands better protection from cheaper imports, and everyone pays more. I think that this is, basically, the same thing: RIAA and others are just trying to keep the money in their pockets -at very harsh methods at times, and against persons.

No surprise to me. Next thing after stopping the nonsense crusade against P2P should be lowering the retail prices of products.

Laws of the market suggest that lowering prices results in more issues of product sold. However, as power corrupts and the closer to absolute the power is, the closer to absolute is corruption, music and software publishers disregard the laws of the market apart from one: the strongest dictate the terms. Consequently, they are not willing to play by the standard rules. They are not interested in adjusting the end price so as to improve the sales figures. They want to maintain the current price and increase the sales by creating a necessity for the use of product and obtaining convenient legal provisions de facto forcing the end buyers to purchase the product and purchase it for the given price.

Needless to say, that is a travesty of both economy and law. As such, the practice needs to meet an end, the sooner the better. Even if this means bringing harm to music or software companies' interests and shareholder value. Abusive practice merits no protection from public authority, especially taking in consideration that any such protection is ultimately financed by tax payers. There is no such thing as a basic right to exploit economic circumstances, therefore there is no generic legal obstacle to limiting and removing existing protective measures in their current shape. Even more so in countries of which constitutions adhere to concepts of social justice.

In addition to this, it is also reasonable that adhesion contracts (such as End User License Agreements) that cannot be negotiated by the offeree necessitate a broader scope of judicial control and legislative regulation, especially with regard to artificial non-physical limitations such as the ones of copyrights and End User License Agreements.