Collected on this page you will find a variety of little soapbox type rants about this and that and generally everything I think people ought to wrap their heads around. Some of it may be politically incorrect... The 'reviews' link allows you to read all the reviews I wrote for Metal-E-Zine (now defunct).

I was cycling home this afternoon when I had, I think, a epiphany.

I am quite an avid p2p user. Me and some friends share a lot of music and, as a result of this, we have been buying more CDs than ever before. I have also read various reports on the Internet that file sharing is merely causing more music to be sold in the end. The big question I used to have was, "Why does the RIAA mind?" I have never been listening to more music than I have since I started to use p2p (first Kazaa, now SoulSeek). I have never felt so much of an urge to check out new bands and as a result to buy more CDs. Kids who just download music and not buy anything would otherwise have copied the albums anyway - they have done this for decades, and I'm pretty sure they may be copying more now but they're not buying less than they would otherwise have done. When they grow older (and get jobs) they will very likely buy their favourite downloaded stuff on CD anyway.

Then why does the RIAA mind?

I think I have the answer. Well, two even.

1) Because they CAN.
Home taping or CD copying can't be traced. p2p file sharing can. They aren't thinking whether they should, they just think they ought to.

2) (And most importantly) Because the record companies are afraid. VERY afraid.
The record companies make most of their money off big selling, popular, trendy acts. These are fad acts that appeal to a younger audience, usually. The acts often consist of 'pretty boys' and/or 'pretty girls'. It's more about image, about the packaging, about MTV video clips, than about the actual music. It is relatively easy for record companies to launch new acts, and to cause new trends. It's even easier to cause their latest signings to jump on an existing trend bandwagon. These new acts cost next to nothing, and the record companies stand to gain a lot. However, it's all about image and good looks. It's not at all about music or talent.

With p2p, content is virtually the only thing that counts. You won't listen twice to an MP3 by a band that's crap. You don't see the pretty faces or the cute synchronised dancing. It is next to impossible for record companies to exert any influence on what you are going to download. In the world of p2p, it's word-of-mouth and genuine musical talent that counts. This is something that, understandably, scares the music industry shitless. It means that the record companies will have to work their arses off in the future. No longer will they be able to pull a cute-faced, big-titted blonde off the street and sell music on account of her physical appeal. No longer can they simply lure sets of five handsome boys out of gyms, teach them to dance, slap their faces on a few minutes worth of MTV, and have a runaway boyband success as a result.

I think THAT is why the RIAA doesn't want us to share. The RIAA represents the big corporate record labels, and they see their easy profits vanishing if p2p continues to be around.

The shitty thing is that I have no idea what to do about it, other than to keep on using p2p, making available as many mp3s as I can, and simply continuing to download stuff and then buy the music that I discover.

I think the RIAA will continue to fight p2p. But the real reason isn't intellectual copyright or whatever. The real reason is that they want to continue earning wagonloads of easy money. I am not sure you can blame them, but I am pretty sure I don't feel any guilt whatsoever when I use p2p applications.

Internet is the Great Equalizer. Mediocre bands and talentless MTV garbage will find it a hell of a lot more difficult to survive.

Posted 30 July 2003 to the SoulSeek Message Board

I don't know what things are like in your country, but in the Netherlands some artists are strong advocates of altogether abandoning the CD format. Most vocal at this point is Dutch artist Marco Borsato, arguably one of the most popular and best liked singers we have.

Some time ago he issued a much-publicised press release in which he announced that his next album will only be available on the DVD format. To give people extra value for money, he would feature video clips for each song, made by Dutch directors well-known from their work in feature length films or earlier video clips.

The rise of the DVD is undeniable. I don't know the percentages by heart, but I seem to recall that DVD sales have risen at least by 100%. The DVD format is powerful, and it is here to stay. VHS video tape sales suffer great losses.

Nonetheless I most firmly disagree with Mr. Borsato's choice. I love listening to music, but I don't feel it's necessary to have to actually see the artist every time. Besides, DVD is a lot more expensive than CD, and the sound quality increase is nigh indiscernible if you do not have a dog in your ancestral line somewhere. For that reason, I don't own any audio DVDs, either.

For me, the DVD merely replaces concert (or other music compilation) videos and, obviously, feature length films. In other words, it replaces products that were previously available on VHS. It most certainly does not replace any pure sound carriers such as LP and CD. The DVD format replacing the CD to me seems as logical as summer replacing the light bulb. This whole development just limits my potential future choices in the matter, and makes it more expensive to get what you used to be able to get cheaper.

On http://proactionmedia.com/dvd_media_production.htm I read the following:

Videotapes...run about $2.40 for replication. CDs cost...$0.50 to replicate. Laserdiscs cost about...$8 to replicate. As of 2003, DVDs cost about...$0.70 to replicate. Double-sided or dual-layer discs cost about $0.30 more to replicate, since all that's required is stamping data on the second substrate (and using transparent glue for dual layers).

If you add that fact that DVDs are at least 50% more expensive to buy when compared to VHS or LP, this sounds to me like a lot more easy profit for the record/film company in particular. I'd prefer that profit not to be made over my back (I am not sure if that's a proper way of saying it in English, however I am sure you know what I mean).