Mobile/PDA About Us Advertise here


		User name	Password

		Not registered yet? Register here. Lost your password? Click here.

Browse by topic

News

Artists rally support behind P2P

1 March 2005 10:12 by James "Dela" Delahunty | 10 comments

Several artists have told the United States Supreme Court that they believe P2P file-sharing networks should not be blamed for illegal file sharing. They want P2P networks to be kept alive to ensure that artists have an outlet separate from major record labels to distribute their music. The group has said that not all artists believe file-sharing is bad. "To the contrary, many musicians find peer-to-peer technology...allows them easily to reach a worldwide online audience. And to many musicians, the benefits of this..strongly outweigh the risks of copyright infringement," they wrote.

The group includes contemporary artists like Jason Mraz, as well several popular artists from years past such as Steve Winwood and Heart. Mraz claims that the "illegal filesharing" has given him more exposure. Apparently half of his concertgoers have found him through P2P networks. The group claims that closure of P2P would rob artists of a technology that can potentially increase exposure and income.

"Distribution of recordings to retailers was controlled largely by a few large national record companies and by several 'independent' labels before P2P", the group argued. They say that while they think copyright infringement is wrong, artists who may no longer be commercially viable still have a way to keep their music out in the open. This comes days before the Supreme Court is to hear arguments between MGM and Grokster.

Source:
BetaNews

Permalink to this article

Supreme Court rules in favour of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer in P2P case (27 June 2005)

MGM admits CD ripping is legal and OK (5 April 2005)

P2P case hits Supreme Court (30 March 2005)

Billionaire backs P2P firms (28 March 2005)

Intel wants high-court to protect file sharing (3 March 2005)

Hollywood claims P2P case is not about technology (25 January 2005)

P2P networks are here to stay (23 January 2005)

Supreme Court to hear P2P case (22 January 2005)

« Previous news article
MovieProfiler.com adds an emotional twist to movie searching

Next news article »
Negativland iPod auction challenging Apple

Post your comment

Discuss this article!
Pop_Smith (Senior Member) 1 March 2005 12:03
Holy SH** its a amazing! As some people have been trying to say: Quote: Mraz claims that the "illegal filesharing" has given him more exposure. Peace, Pop Smith [ + quote]
Letukka (Member) 1 March 2005 12:44
Fantastic. Finally some people are starting to take notice on the benefits of "illegal filsharing" It�s just good marketing. :) [ + quote]
c4iscool (Member) 1 March 2005 13:50
thank god not all artist are not dumb as hell! [ + quote]
SkyDomain (Newbie) 1 March 2005 15:28
Most artist have this mentality, it's mostly the labels that whine. [ + quote]
strcruzer (Junior Member) 2 March 2005 7:58
I have been saying this all along. The RIAA members do not want the Artists to have choice in how their work is distributed and the exposure they can get for free(do not have to pay the label/RIAA for it) they want to dictate what can be obtained and what they can promote. If P2P dies the RIAA wins and we all lose (consumer and artist alike). The P2P networks can help the artists get their works out and get exposure without having to give up their rights to their content to the RIAA pigs! It is all greed, corporate greed plain and simple, that is permiating our society today. They need to learn to adapt to the world as it evolves. I am thinking the idiots in the glass towers need to have a reality check, what do you think? [ + quote]
cmmnsense (Inactive) 2 March 2005 15:58
It's kinda obvious the kind of exposure artist get through P2P. I wouldn't have bought near as many albums without first hearing the music, and not all artist get radio time, just mainstream come and go hits. [ + quote]
Clearmoon (Newbie) 3 March 2005 13:58
This rocks... or so to speak. Mainstream radio sucks too, because the huge companies (Clear Channel, Infinity, etc.) that own a majority of the stations, have the same RIAA mentality!! It's all just money to them - nobody cares about the music except the artists making it and us out listening to it. [ + quote]
Musky179 (Newbie) 17 March 2005 13:14
Finally someone agrees with my point of view.I am from Canada and I buy a lot of cds from the UK and the Netherlands.If it wasn't for the P2P sites,I would never even have known about those artists or even bought their cds.To mention just one,there is a young man named Ricky Aron in England and I think he's great.A contact on a P2P site made me aware of his music. muskie [ + quote]
vudoo (Member) 17 March 2005 16:08
Wow finally. Can't believe this. I think it is actually comming from the record labels themselves because they know deep inside that they are in a no win situation. First off p2p could have paid the artists through the ads. While Downloading, local concert info could be at the bottom of the app along with pricing info. While Movies are Downloaded show times and ticket info could be posted as well as ads for Pepsi, Coke, Laundry soap and more. All of this could have kept file sharing FREE and Legit. It is just a power play that has been developed by the rich suits to make sure that their Donald Trump type houses are paid for. Its time for a change in the law and time for the rich to pay up. Think Greatful Dead and other artists that allow taping of their concerts and made billions because of the exposure. [ + quote]
venomX05 (Senior Member) 21 March 2005 10:54
Been wanting to put this up for a few days, but kept forgetting.... http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A35297-2005Mar14?language=printer "WE ARE....VENOM!" [ + quote]